Talk:September 2016 Urum al-Kubra aid convoy attack

[Untitled]

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."

• Importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
• "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

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."

• Importantly: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
  • The second part was important enough that it was repeated: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."
• Importantly: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
• "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
• "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it"
• "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view."
• "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

• WP:LABEL - "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
• WP:CLAIM - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate."
  • "Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable."

• 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.

• Importantly: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

• Sourcing News Organizations:
  • "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."
  • "Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy."
    • Importantly: "The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it."
  • "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"
  • "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy