Talk:Negroponte doctrine
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Kencf0618 in topic Impact on current resolutions
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Untitled
editSaying stuff is biased from US POV is a little strong on the words. It sounds a little anti-US. Its like putting "and so the bible is biased from the religious POV on the Christianity article. Its true, but the words are a little strong --13:31, 20 November 2006 User:Boromir Captain of Gondor
- I don't particularly understand your objection -- outside of the Wikipedia context, "point of view" is not a dirty word at all, and there's no reason on earth why we can't give a summary of the U.S. Government's officially-stated reasons for adopting a government policy on the Wikipedia article page which is devoted to that U.S. Government policy. Furthermore, it's not the U.S. government policy which is said to be biased, but rather one-sided U.N. resolutions (in the opinion of the U.S. Government), and I don't see how this can reasonably be misunderstood. AnonMoos 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Impact on current resolutions
editIs the Negroponte doctrine still active? Foia req (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know whether current U.S. diplomats would explicitly refer to it by name (would tend to doubt it), but the basic U.S. approach of opposing what it sees as one-sided anti-Israel resolutions (except sometimes in limited modified form soon after Israel has incurred negative world opinion by some action) shows some substantial continuity from the days of Negroponte. AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Like Surrealism, it's dead but it won't lay down. I haven't seen any explicit reference to it in the reportage on the 2023 Israel-Hamas War ceasefire draft resolution of 8 December 2023. Shall dig further. kencf0618 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"terrorist groups"
editAre the terrorist groups as defined by the US or is there general UN consensus on them? This article has effectively no sources of the US policy surrounding the doctrine. I believe clarifying this would remove some of the US POV bias that appears to be in the article. Flhcl (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- This article is about a speech delivered by a U.S. representative to the U.N. during a closed session, so naturally the summary of what the U.S. representative said expresses a U.S. view, and also it's not surprising that it wasn't publicly explained and justified in the same way that remarks in an open session probably would have been. We don't even know that the U.S. representative said the word "terrorist" in the speech, but nevertheless the U.S. government did consider them to be terrorists... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)