Talk:Responsibility to protect

message: Hi, I'm just pointing out that under the section "Double standards in the implementation" the author of the paragraph is in discussion with the referred author. Encyclopedic text should refrain from such direct critique of the referred author. A suitable alternative would be to refer another author whose ideas oppose the first author. But I believe that Wikipedia articles should be clear of opinions of its authors.
84.50.138.20 (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section "Instances" seems to be biased against the U.S., has no citations, no justifications and may simply be "original research" by the writer.
I will edit it to remove the items I think are unjustifiable, and add some tags to the section. (no, I am not an American)
Sailfish2 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's biased against the US but it is certainly an anachronistic and unnecessary section. I think its purpose it to boost the case for R2P in places like Syria, and by extension any civil war anywhere. Wikipedia can't be poltical like that so I've been bold and removed it. Akafd76 07:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instances Biased, uncited, unjustified and Original Research 

message: I have added 'human security proponents' as supporters of R2P. R2P very much follows the human security approach not only in terms of the goal of protecting people from violence and insecurity,  but also in the desire to provide a workable solution within the current international framework. For this reason, I felt it was worthwhile to identify human security proponents as strong supporters of r2p and briefly explain why. Timschocker (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters - human security proponents 

message: In what sense is this doctrine Novel, it's exactly the same stuff spouted by Blair and Clinton to justify bombing Yugoslavia.Domminico (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I would not characterize the thwarting of a genocide / ethnic cleansing event "spouting" justifications, it is correct that the intervention in Yugoslavia is an application of this doctrine.  Some earlier examples include the aborted mission in Somalia.  It is a novel development, in a historical context, that foreign countries would as a group intervene to protect the citizenry of a government that is unable or unwilling to protect its own people from violence, or that is causing that violence.   Those interventions predated the formulation of R2P as a doctrine, but they can be seen as antecedents.  The proponents hope that by establishing it as an international norm it could be discussed and applied sooner so as to prevent situations like the genocides in Rwanda or Darfur, although their model was Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia.  A widely criticized application is the US intervention in Iraq which was justified to some degree as protective of the Iraqi people.  If you are more cynical about such things, what is novel is that intervention is justified this way or at least that these justifications are given credence.  Perhaps an antecedent counterexample would be the old communist bloc rhetoric that justified invasions as "liberation" of the people.  The NPR source I added describes what is novel about it.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel?

message: The section reads like an essay. It contains no references and makes bold collective statements. For example take the first two sentences "One of the main concerns surround RtoP is that it infringes upon national sovereignty." who are those who have voiced concerns who is it that says it is the main concern? "This concern is generally considered as being misplaced" who considers it misplaced? The construction uses weasel words and without citations to support it may be in breach of the  original research policy. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I have removed the following paragraphs from the introduction, as they are biased and are not sourced:
:In order to implement RtoP, States and regional organizations need to have the necessary resources to prevent and halt mass atrocities, i.e. early warning mechanisms, stand-by forces in problem areas, mediation mechanisms, etc.  These resources and the necessary capacity building must come from the international community, which has a historic pattern of remaining uninvolved. 
:Full implementation of RtoP is also hindered by the perception that it is being used by western countries to serve their interests when justifying of violations of sovereignty of other countries in developing world, using international institutions west controls.
--164.107.242.254 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in introduction 

message: There should be a separate Wikipedia article on Failure to Protect. The consequences of Failure to Protect can be severe. For example, in Japan, voters are calling for the a new Prime Minister after he failed to protect them from radiation. There will be no tolerance for the Failure to Protect civilians from harm perpetrated by officials.
Failure to Protect is a major subject of its own and should have its own Wikipedia article to enforce the clarity of the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.159.114 (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to Protect 

message: The purpose of this section is to develop an acquaintance of the secondary sources which address the questions of intervention. drs (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanitarian Intervention 

message: In this section, let's examine the ideas of R2P's thought leaders and the critics. drs (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought Leaders for R2P 

message: * p. 307
The essay by Steven Haines explans in quite readable text the story of R2P. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 

message: The penalty for an Indonesian official failing to protect a European civilian from harm is death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.15.78 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penalties 

message: >> Africans closer to forming intervention force(Lihaas (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Responsibility to protect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514200247/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F1994%2F674 to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2F1994%2F674
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812211918/http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FRES%2F1970%282011%29 to http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FRES%2F1970%282011%29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A number of items were removed from the External links section . The reason was "study". What does that mean? Burrobert (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's best to ask the editor who did it . It is a rather cryptic edit summary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I added a study, and removed a bunch of low-quality content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right-ho. I haven’t read the items so am am limited in what I can say. Items from Otago University, Oxford University Press and Hans Köchler were removed. Burrobert (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "study" mean? 

message: The addition of a section with the title "Cisheteronormative Blindfold" of 20 November 2023 seems to violate WP:NPOV as it is using ideological language. It is focusing on one kind of discrimination while ignoring several other more relevant kinds of discrimination. It may be off topic. This section should either be removed or be subsumed under general discrimination. The title should definitely be changed. Agnerf (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cisheteronormative Blindfold