Talk:Vilnius letter

Attempted tidying up

In comparison I find the recent edit[1] by User:Rollo that in the edit summary was described as lots of tendentious anti-war polemicising tidied up to result in a less relevant article. There may well be reasons to improve this article, from my own earlier edit summary it's obvious that I had attempted to do so myself, but preferably by means of increased correctness and balance instead of deletion of facts and/or views that contradict any particular political agenda. /Tuomas 09:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

This article is clearly biased. I modified it but its original author seems determined not to allow changes.

Points of contention:

• "The Vilnius letter was a declaration of support for the United States' ambition of a régime change in Iraq by means of an invasion under the pretext of the Iraq disarmament crisis"
  • "ambition of régime change" - This is the author's opinion, not established fact.
  • "pretext" - Highly polemic word, again merely the author's opinion.

• "The letter expressed confidence in the evidence presented by Powell and agreed that Iraq had clearly violated UN resolutions, and that the countries from the Vilnius group were supporters of a US military intervention in Iraq."
  • Where is the text of the letter? As far as I am aware, it does not state any "support" for "US military intervention in Iraq". It states that the signatory countries are in favour of the US's Iraq policy. From a NPOV the two things are not the same.

• "Revelations in the respective national newspapers..."
  • "Revelations" implies truth. These were assertions.

• "Now he convinced the foreign ministers of the Vilnius ten that if they wanted to be accepted in NATO they better sign the letter."
  • "they better" (correctly "they had better") - polemic language more suited to a tabloid editiorial than an encyclopedia.

The entire section on Bruce Jackson is unsubstantiated, which is why I reduced its length and NPOVed it.

There are also a quite a few grammar and vocab mistakes which presumably are now uncorrectable due to the author's determination to revert. "Respective national newspapers"; "Bruce Jackson has been an adviser" (should be "had been") etc.

Can other people give opinions? Rollo 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I might be the author[2] most responsible for the aspects of the text you see as unidiomatic.

• Your main mistake, if you don't mind my choise of word, might have been to make rather drastic reductions to the article's length, and in particular to make the shortening rather selectively on issues central for the (European) debate on the issue.
• With regard to "polemical language" and idiomatic mistakes and so on, I think that's something which any ESL wikipedian will praise you for if you improve!
• Google finds for instance almost 300 articlels with the word pretext at en.wikipedia.org[3]. For non-native writers it's hard to judge when to search for synonyms.
• Régime change and similar constructs, which you object against, were common in quotes from US/UK representatives during that Winter, and hence also in the respective domestic debates, often as a direct loan from the English language — pronounced in English. It's certainly one of the best remembered terms.

--Johan Magnus 20:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The text of the letter can for instance be found at http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=19022 It's a diplomatic document; it has to be interpreted with the historical context in mind, as well as the codes of diplomatic language. The critical points are as always 1/ whos language a declaration agrees with, and 2/ what's omitted. It's no question at all that this was a declaration with the message that the Vilnius group countries at that time supported the US/UK line against the majority of the UNSC. It was no "indirect" indication of future support for a military action. It was support then and there, which also was what the US needed at that time. /Tuomas 21:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I take both of your points. We are all educated people. The problem is the following. I knew nothing about the authors of this article, but on reading the article I could see instantly that they were against the war in the Iraq. This would not be the case if the article were truly neutral.

I don't have the time to get into a debate on this. I would just ask that you consider the points I listed above before removing the NPOV tag. /Rollo 14:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:-) Here comes the interesting point: At the run up to the war, I was stunned by the incompetence I perceived from US representatives (diplomats and higher governmental officers), but I belonged to those who thought of a removal of Sadam Hussein with means of a foreign military intervention as an unquestionably good thing. I have, by the way, not changed meaning since then, at least not much. However, I was also totally convinced that a unilateral (or unlawful in the sence "not mandated by the UNSC") occupation was bound to be problematic. In fact, I thought International Law could gain from an evolution that regulates the forms and requirements for international interventions in case of genocides and similar humanitarian reasons.

What you perceive as "clearly biased" might possibly reflect the general differences of the public debates, as reported for instance by the PEW institute[4], and I wonder if maybe many readers with for instance Baltic and Slavic mother tongues would perceive Wikipedia's Cold War related articles as similarly biased.

--Johan Magnus 17:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you say is interesting - and perhaps even true! And I was interested to read about your position over the intervention (more or less my own). However, the important thing is that these positions should not be visible in the article. Perhaps that is not possible because people will always see through their own prejudices and cultural conditioning, as you point out. But we can do a better job than what is there now.

"Pretext" means "excuse" - it is a loaded word. Whatever one may believe about US motivations in Iraq, the official strategic aim - and the one supported in the Vilnius letter - was not "régime change". It was the "full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441". Most people can agree that régime change - for whatever reason - was the underlying motivation, but I don't think we can just state this as fact. It must be attributed. And the same goes for much of the rest of the article. --Rollo 10:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please consider the latest revisions on a one-by-one basis. I believe that this is a substantial improvement in terms of NPOV. Please consider that there is still clearly more criticism of the letter than defense of it. I am still not happy with the first paragraph. Rollo 16:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If people are okay with the new opening paragraph then we can remove the NPOV tag. Rollo 02:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've absolutely no problems, though I didn't ever think the banner was really necessary in the first place. I agree that a critical point of the Vilnius letter dominates in the text, which may seem contradicting Wikipedia's NPOV-policies, but there are some events for which the positive aspects and outcome really can't be given equally much place as the negative. The Abyssinia Crisis easily comes to mind.

That said, I think your work on this article is worth praise. There are quite a few details I may feel an urge to adjust, in this article like in many others, but my lacking confidence in handling the petita of the English language is an inhibiting force. Correcting facts is one thing, but adjusting nuances and synonyms is quite another. --Johan Magnus 08:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. (...on all points, not the least the last one.) /Tuomas 10:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the banner was necessary, for the reason I have already mentioned. The opinions of the author were clear from the first line of the article, and that should not be the case. I don't believe that the Abyssinian crisis is a valid parallel (except, I might suggest, to highlight the dangers of appeasing authoritarian régimes - but don't bother replying to that).

In any case the article is somewhat more balanced now, and I have removed the NPOV tag.

Tuomas, I have replied to your post on my talk page. Rollo 23:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Can we get some additional cleanup on this article? It's loaded up with supposition and assertions, but only a single cite to an off point article in a news weekly that has a reputation one step above The_National_Enquirer. (Numerous journalistic scandals, including the false Koran Toilet flushing story that got over 400 people killed, etc.)

1. Where is the actual TEXT and/or readable photo of the letter?

2. Surely there should be some actual sources for the claims about Bruce Jackson's alleged role, for example? Or the numerous unsourced claims by French diplomats (who were deeply opposed to the Bush Administration, the Iraq War, and the Eastern European countries status as equals in the EU)? There should be a source for every major claim in this article.

3. Language like "In retrospect", "it has been questioned", "Such criticism may hint at" has no business in an Encyclopedia article unless it is a direct quote or has three or four ironclad cites immediately following it.

4. A couple of minor quibbles from an American perspective:

a. We have "Defense Secretaries", not "Defence Ministers".  (I corrected this).
b. I have a problem with the characterization: "...traditional European and American values as free trade and democracy"

How is democracy and free trade a traditional "European" value? America has pursued democratic rule and relatively free trade policies for it's entire 200+ year existence. The only other 'European' power with a strong democratic tradition is the UK, which has traditionally considered itself separate from Europe until very recently. The other major European powers (Spain, Germany, France and Italy) have a very long history which is of a decidedly different tradition.

The closest call is France, until you take into account that their Revolution devolved into a bloodthirsty reign of terror, followed by Napoleon's dictatorship, followed by a brief restoration of a weak Monarchy, followed by Napoleon III, followed by a brief occupation by Prussia, then a number of very weak republics, an occupation by NAZI Germany, and that France has only established a strong democratic tradition (that's flirted with military dictatorship during the Algerian crisis) for the past 60 years or so, which gives France about as good of a claim as Post Occupation Germany. (i.e., hardly the keepers of the eternal flame of individual liberty).

As much as it might stick in some people's craw, I'd suggest the language be adjusted to "...traditional Anglo-American values as free trade and democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.17.34 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)