The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
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.
Saying 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. AnonMoos03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
