Talk:United Nations Alliance of Civilizations

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Article Should Be Expanded

Considering the depth of the Danish cartoons Controversy article, this stub should be of interest to Wikipedians and considered worthy of expansion. Some better dates, details, listing of participants, etc. would be nice. Mind you, as a current event, the AoC has garnered only limited media attention. Nevertheless, it seems to be an important development. Spir 06:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Initiatives

The other "alliances of civilizations" (lowercase) are not exactly related to the main topic of this article... (mind you, most people would probably hope that the U.N.-sponsored "Alliance" doesn't overlap too much with this other "alliance" ) ...that said, it's an interesting topic, and if it's going to be mentioned anywhere, I suppose this is the place to mention it. Or else it could be included in the Holocaust denial article, as a recent development and meeting of the fringe West with the mainstream Middle East. Spir 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is only about the some UN proposal, the this article should be merged into "Dialogue Among Civilizations". The fact is that many neonazis and white supremacists (most of them actually) do want an alliance with Islam against their hated enemy (the Jews). This has not something to do with Holocaust denial as you suggested, because there are other things that connects extremists in the muslim world and the west more than just Holocaust denial.

Cyrruss 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is indeed only about a UN proposal. But as for merging it, that might be hard... the other article, "Dialogue Among Civilizations" is about a theory of international relations that did not originate in the UN, but which at least one committee within the UN has embraced by creating the "Alliance of Civilization" (uppercase "A") initiative. Now, as for the alliances (lowercase "a") that may or may not exist between civilizations, past or present, it looks like it's a separate topic altogether. (Whether white supremacists now constitute a form of civilization is not a question I'm prepared to address...) Perhaps we should build out the Dialogue Among Civilizations article(it's pretty skimpy anyway) so that it includes some info about this UN initiative (also a skimpy article), and then redirect Alliance of Civilizations to that article?

Spir 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I think about it some more, I realize that the "Other Initiatives" section is wholely inappropriate for this article. I'll come back and do my suggested edit to merge with the Dialogue article as described above, unless I hear some better ideas? Spir 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN Initiative

How can the AoC be both a UN initiative and Spanish PM Zapatero's initiative (as co-sponsored by Turkish PM Erdogan)? I'd consider rephrasing it to the AoC being "Spanish PM Zapatero's initiative under the auspices of the UN", being this standard wording as per International Public Law (specifically Treaty Law and International Organisations' Law). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.27.137.165 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The intro is currently inaccurate. I am changing it to include your suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.99.100 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comment

I have nothing against discussing the so-called "Armenian Genocide", but I don't think an article about the Alliance of Civilizations is the appropriate venue for this subject. Besides, what is the relation between fighting extremism and recognizing the genocide? Where's the duplicity? --186.140.199.65 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a second reading, this insert is clearly a piece of political propaganda, inconsistent with the rest of the article. 186.140.194.166 (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page name change

Thought I'd better post here before I go ahead and change the name. The UNAOC website refers to the organisation as the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations[1] and as the UN Alliance of Civilizations or UNAOC[2]. Bromley86 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy - Promoting Social Constructionist Theories of Behaviour

The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations is a United Nations initiative that aims to improve understanding and co-operative relations among nations and peoples across cultures and religions and, in the process, to help counter forces that fuel polarisation and extremism, including ‘clash of civilisations’ theories that the world is made up of mutually exclusive cultures, religions, or civilisations, historically distinct and destined for confrontation.

=United Nations Alliance of Civilisations Report (Clark, 2008b). The link is dead but the point still stands and that is that the UN is propmoting social constructionist theories of behaviour?Yonk (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tagging the article for npov. This organisation / "initiative" is set up by a select group of countries to promote a particular pov that is advantageous to those countries or to politicians or governments or ideologies within those countries - yet almost all the content in the article is either unsourced or comes from the organisation's own publications and press releases. This leads to grave suspicions that it is not being reported about from a neutral pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the POV tag. 'Grave suspicions' is not a good reason to tag this article as NPOV. It sounds like Tiptoethrutheminefield, who is now banned, simply disagreed with the mission of this initiative. JECE (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]