Talk:September 2016 Urum al-Kubra aid convoy attack

[Untitled]

edit

Since this article is about an event that (1) has been reported on extensively by most media outlets, (2) elicits strong emotions in many people, and (3) is (like most of English Wikipedia) likely being read and edited mainly by people who are getting/have gotten most of their information from Western news outlets (which are largely sympathetic to the U.S. coalition's goals in Syria), the opposing views of the other major actors (i.e. Russia and Syria) and their media outlets are likely to be omitted, ignored, and/or play a less prominent role in the resulting article. So I'd like to remind editors of this article of some of Wikipedia's policies, in particular of WP:NPOV policy:

WP:NPOV - " neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."


WP:WEIGHT - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."



  • WP:PROVEIT - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
  • WP:BURDEN - "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
    • It also notes that: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."
  • WP:ONUS - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
    • "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article."
    • "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."


WP:SOURCES - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.