Talk:Ribal al-Assad

Is this article really NPOV? It seems almost like supportive propaganda, cause i didn´t notice any negative info. I read some of his opinions at press and kinda liked them, but it seems for me strange, that he didn´t have any controversies or something. Could someone capable review the article? --94.112.30.129 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?
Someone translated this article into Chinese and the filter automatically marked it as "Suspected promotional content added by new user".--Tiger (Talk) 13:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am about to remove "leading Syrian global" from the article, and I'll discuss here how it might be added back.
 * First, "Syrian global campaigner" is awkward and unclear English. Either say "Syrian campaigner" or "global campaigner", or rephrase it to say "campaigner for democracy, freedom and human rights in Syria and globally", or say he "is a Syrian, and a campaigner for democracy, freedom and human rights globally", or whatever else you were trying to say there.
 * Second, I see there is a dispute about using the word "leading". You have each been given a three revert rule warning. Disputes belong on the talk page. If you are reverting a revert, you know that someone disagrees with your edit. That is generally a clear signal that it's time to start talking instead of editing.
 * I know nothing about Ribal al-Assad and I have not investigated the sources. I'll give general advice, and hopefully you can resolve this together. The main issue is that it was written in Wikipedia's voice -- Wikipedia itself was asserting that point of view as a fact. There are two ways the information can be re-added.
 * The simplest solution is for Wikipedia to state something that is an objective fact. It could potentially be re-added with something like this: According to (name of source), he is a leading campaigner for democracy... . If a source said it, no one can dispute Wikipedia's statement that the source said it.
 * It can be re-added as it was before, in Wikipedia's voice, if editors agree that it is a major and virtually undisputed point of view. There would need to be several reliable sources all calling him a leading campaigner for democracy, and there would have to be agreed confidence that virtually zero reliable sources would consider him a "regular" campaigner for democracy. You're really better off considering the first option, we generally avoid asserting those sorts of judgements in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Alsee (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)