Talk:Charter of the United Nations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Quoting notable sources allegations of US violating the UN Charter is not anti-American, it's pro- rule of law.[edit]
- This page is appropriate for notable source's comments where the UN Charter is a significant part of the topic under consideration. When notable sources make allegations of violations of the UN Charter the allegations are against what may or may not be a corrupt element of that nation or group of nations, but not the entire nation.
- If a country had organized criminal/citizens who were committing crimes, allegations against the criminals would not be anti -(the criminal's resident nations), but they would be pro/for the -rule of law.
- If certain allegations made by notable & verifiable sources cause some citizens emotional distress, it is not civil to attempt to remedy the situation by simply deleting the allegations. Deleting such quotes would not reflect a NPOV. It would be much more civil to search for existing notable source's denials or rebuttals of the posted allegations and if any can be found, to post them this page.
- It does seem that editors should let the facts as stated by notable sources, say whatever needs to be said and of course strive to present a NPOV. If one country or group of countries tends to routinely have allegations made against it for violating the Charter of the United nations, then it is not the fault of editors, nor is it something that should be swept under the rug.
- Quote from Wikipedia Neutral Point of View: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a 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. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
- Posted with all due respect for those who see it differently. None of us are intentionally trying to give the wrong answer or to support tyranny. Thoughts?