Lokkhen
Welcome!
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, Lokkhen! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rubbish computer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Misrepresenting sources
editWith regard to this edit, there is no discussion of human rights policy—let alone the invocation of it as a "pretext"
—on the cited pages of The Grand Chessboard. While you may have a point about the U.S. selectively raising human rights concerns to advance its own interests, even during the "idealistic" Carter years, misrepresenting sources is never acceptable on Wikipedia. Please be more careful in the future. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- The end of the sentence has a source, too, which is pro-Brzezinski, but admits that by all his alleged “enthusiasm for human rights” he liked to use it as a “cudgel” against the Soviets. That’s what your source says. I kept the source with the cudgel at the end of the sentence, and I added his book were he writes of concerns about losing US influence to Europe — since Europe submits to human rights laws (the USA doesn’t), he says the main motive is “American primacy on the Eurasian continent”. His words. Therefore, human rights are pretext.
- Further, check the passage. It is about “Major foreign policy events” and then follows a badly readable list, where some events have to do with him, and some not (apparently), yet the word “championing” is hinged on him. The sentence in full claims “the United States' encouragement of dissidents in Eastern Europe and championing of human rights[6] in order to undermine the influence of the Soviet Union[7]”. Brzezinski specific take on “championing human rights” and “undermine the influence” was specifically funding Mujahideen, i.e. Taliban. See e.g. here for more. Wikipedia is saying right now that funding fundamentalist terrorists is “championing human rights”. They come up in the next sentence, but in the distanced form of foreign policy events “happening” at his time. It just so happens that in reality he funded them first. It doesn‘t matter though, it‘s not the first or last comically bad article. I don’t care enough, but wanted to defend myself against this accusation. Have the Taliban sponsor as a “champion of human rights”. Lokkhen (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Notices
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.