Talk:National Endowment for Democracy
|
|
This needs some work for a neutral POV. Also, it claims it was connected to some Latin American campaigns in the 1970's, then in the next sentence says that it wasn't founded until 1983. I'd do it if i had the time. xyzzyva
| Contents |
npov
i'm labelling this article as npov, due to the heavy amount of evidence on only the side critical of the NED. its liberal propaganda, and while i love liberal propaganda, it definately ain't neutral. Thepedestrian 20:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup instead of NPOV
All right kids, this article many not read very smoothly, but at least there's no longer any mention of the 1970s, and all the left-wing criticism has been flagged as left-wing criticism. I suggest we drop the NPOV in favour of a {{Cleanup}} notice. Edit it if it still bothers you. QuartierLatin1968 08:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) (PS: Liberal ain't left. The NED is a liberal institution par excellence.)
alleged links to authoritarian regimes
I restored the sentence:
Its alleged links with authoritarian regimes in Latin America during the 1980s lead some critics to claim that rather than supporting democracy, it in fact opposes democracy.
Contrary to Trey Stone's comment, this should not be taken as criticism of Ronald Reagan alone. The NED continued to operate during the Clinton Administration. The AFL-CIO has been a source of funding as well.
This is the major criticism of the NED and it seems appropriate to introduce the topic in the introductory paragraph. I did not restore some obvious POV language: its "evil". DJ Silverfish 17:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- what "authoritarian" regimes would it be supporting during the Clinton administration? J. Parker Stone 04:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bogged down
This article is merely a litany of charges levelled against the NED by hard-left groups... I hope we can provide some balance relatively soon. J. Parker Stone 19:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)