Talk:Project for the New American Century

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "PNACClinton" :
  • [[Elliott Abrams]], et al., [http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to President Bill Clinton], [[January 16]], [[1998]], ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed [[May 28]], [[2007]].
  • [http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm "Open Letter to President Bill Clinton"], [[January 16]], [[1998]], accessed [[May 28]], [[2007]].
• "PNACSOP" :
  • [[Elliott Abrams]], et al., [http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm "Statement of Principles"], [[June 3]], [[1997]], ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed [[May 28]], [[2007]].
  • [http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm "Statement of Principles,"] ''The Project for the New American Century'', Accessed May 15, 2007.
• "RAD2000" :
  • ''[http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century]'', 2000, ''Project for the New American Century'', accessed [[May 30]], [[2007]].
  • <ref name="Clinton_kosovo">[http://www.newamericancentury.org/kosovomilosevicsep98.htm Letter to President Clinton on Kosovo and Milosevic], ''The Project for the New American Century'', September 1998, accessed [[May 30]], [[2007]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Web site down

So what's happened to www.newamericancentury.org ? Did they not pay their rent? Har har.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Site's back up

Down again. ....well, it's up, but it redirects to a page that says "account suspended". 1/2/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.95.65 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Site's back up

Check date 4th July 2009. So why is 2006 mentioned at the start of the article for the org 'ending'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.77.172 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen J. Kantany

I removed the name "Stephen J. Kantany" from the list of "Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports" - the only citation for it was a blog post, and I haven't been able to find any other evidence of it online, or even of the existence of this person - the only web hits seem to be mirrors of this article. But if anyone knows anything about this person, please add it here. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section, what makes a critic notable enough to mention here?

A number of sentences in the controversy section seem to be based on the works of not really notable critics. What is (or should be) the criteria for including a critic or criticism in this article? Bonewah (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Any check on their CV will show that - outside the USA - they are well known within their field of understanding. Just because someone is not well known in the USA, is that enough reason to bar them?

92.17.180.137 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S: What is really notable is that this section gives more space to the PNAC co-founder than to critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.137 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disingenuous Use of "Conservative"

PNAC is associated with the neoconservative school of thought. Yet, PNAC's views are repeatedly described as "conservative," even though this disregards the substantial ideological differences between neoconservatives and other conservatives, such as paleoconservatives and libertarians. Wikidave2009 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "imprecise" is a better word than "disingenuous" - please assume good faith. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

calls to invade Iraq PRE 9/11

I believe that to be correct, this article should mention all of the essays that deal why and how to remove Saddam before 9/11, not just after. It seems that this was their first goal in stabalizing the middle east PRE 9/11, not just after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.245.57 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army, ISIS and other terror gangs, human right abuses, brutal murders, whole countries undermined - is that want the neo-cons call a successful policy? 2.96.124.218 (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for PNAC?

Disambiguation page for PNAC needed?

See IEEE 802.1X: "IEEE 802.1X is an IEEE Standard for port-based Network Access Control (PNAC)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.184.193 (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years

Something missing here: "For instance, in 1996 Perle formed a that composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East."

Formed a what? Committee? Group? Dawright12 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Brattleboro Reformer ref

I've just reinstated a ref cited to this newspaper, which is well-known for its coverage of PNAC, and which unquestionably passes WP:RS standards. I see no legitimate rationale for its having been deleted in the first place. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, not suitable for statements of fact. Eat memory (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment of obvious sock stricken by Ohiostandard at 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

PNAC and biological weapons

I appreciate that the anonymous user has modified the text of this addition to better conform to Wikipedia's policies, but the modified text is still very problematic.

This quote has created controversy in the mainstream media, social networks and scientific papers, as it shows the perspective of PNAC on issues like crimes against humanity, diversity, human rights, mass murder, the Nuremberg Principles and racism.

There are a number of problems here:

1. Does the quotation actually show PNAC's perspective on crimes against humanity, diversity, human rights, mass murder, the Nuremberg Principles and racism? I would argue that it does not. The statement that you are quoting comes at the end of a paragraph describing what future wars might look like. It does not advocate that these weapons or tactics be adopted by American forces, it says that some forces might find them useful. For instance, the preceding sentence says: "Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces." If the preceding sentence is referencing what PNAC believes America's enemies might do, there is no reason to believe that the sentence you are quoting isn't doing the same thing - describing what warfare might be like in the future.
2. By suggesting that this quote "shows the perspective of PNAC on issues like..." you are analyzing a quote and drawing a conclusion that the quote does not directly support. That's not Wikipedia's role. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
3. You CAN cite a reliable source that makes this analysis. For instance you can say: "According to so-and-so, this quote demonstrates PNAC's perspective on...". However, the sources that you are using don't appear to do this. Several of them, for instance the Guardian and Daily Kos sources, simply repeat the quote without doing anything with it. As such they are unnecessary.

Please consider these issues carefully before re-adding this section. GabrielF (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected everything according to these above mentioned points and cited the original speech by Dr. Helen Caldicott.

You have not addressed these concerns. The source that you cited does not say that this quote shows PNAC's perspective on anything. All the source says is: "The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare...". GabrielF (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The direct source of the quote, Helen Caldicott´s speech, which I've cited twice(original download site and Al Jazeerah mentioning it in the article, which also contains the transcripted quote, if you had actually read the whole article before you began to delete corrected versions. I´ve even separated these citations from the other ones concerning the controversy, so you would have seen it better, if you had looked at it at all), compared it to Hitler´s Mein Kampf, as their new Pearl Harbor is the new Reichstagsbrand in her view(listen to her whole speech, she also mentions biological weapons, not only nuclear, before you make unfounded claims again) and the use of words for genocide as "politically useful tool" alone would be sufficient to determinate it as obviously racist, even when they weren't speaking of their own use of this weapons(that's what you obviously don't understand, that this use of words alone for genocide, instead of war crime is already racism), as any political or social scientist(or anybody with a bit of understanding of logic, public relations and semantics) can tell you, but I've deleted all the issues like crimes against humanity before and included the quote of Helen Caldicott, as demanded by you before as a direct proof of the controversy it created. All your last deletes had nothing to do with the current version, but the old version which I've corrected according to your points on the talk page. Please start to read before you delete, the word "perspective" isn't even in the text anymore! Furthermore, you had not to delete the original PNAC's R.A.D. quote (as it is definitely in the document and created controversy), only the explanation about the controversy, but as you obviously didn't even care to read the corrected version, this is no big surprise to me.

Nobody has answered to my corrections, but still there are deletion attacks on the citations that prove the controversy which this quote has created. The pure personal opinion that The Guardian and The Sunday Herald are not "mainstream media", was the last attempt by 64.134.70.84 to delete all of my corrections that were demanded by GabrielF who didn't answer on the talk page, after I've corrected all he said that had to be corrected.

There are still significant issues here. You are citing a ton of stuff, but your citations are garbage. Here are your first seven citations. None of them are (1) acceptable per WP:RS or (2) support your position. GabrielF (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The guardian citation - it repeats the quote, but all it says is that: "It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons..." This doesn't indicate that the quote is controversial

The Hearld Scotland citation does the same thing - it just repeats the quote, it doesn't discuss it.

The Indymedia citation is just the Herald Scotland article posted on another website!

The 4thmedia citation repeats the quote but doesn't discuss it.

The first democraticunderground citation is just a mailing list post. Not acceptable per WP:RS

The second democraticunderground citation is just a forum post. Not acceptable per WP:RS

The tribe.net citation is a blog post. Not acceptable per WP:RS

The repetion of the quote alone is also discussion, letting the perversion which is inherent in this quote speak for itself, as it is mentioned there and anybody with a functioning brain and a knowledge of the Nazi`s Eugenics and of Operation Overcast or Unethical human experimentation in the United States can see the clear controversy this quote creates by itself. The developement of biological weapons by the US or any other country is controversial and this is so clear that it doesn't has to be especially expressed, at least in the view of The Guardian and The Herald Scotland, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.224.126 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I took out the "garbage" for you, as you rather just delete content, instead of bringing it to an acceptable form(for your opinion) and resolved all the other issues, plus added PNAC's reaction to a book review that compares it to the Nazi's Eugenics in the Austin-American Statesman.

I still think that including this quote is ridiculous since the idea that it promotes biological warfare is an obvious misreading and misinterpretation of the report. Nonetheless, if we are going to include it, WP:NPOV demands that we consider both the criticism and the response to that criticism from the organization. We also need sources that were actually published somewhere, not just things that you found in a google search - these "scientific papers" as you describe them are random PDF files with no publication information and no information on their credibility or appropriateness. Sources also need to actually comment on the quote. Just repeating it is not acceptable. I have rewritten the section in a way that, I think, addresses these issues. GabrielF (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think that it is absolutely obvious, that PNAC wouldn't use the words "politically useful tool" instead of "war crime"(or at least "military threat"), if they had a real conceptional problem(not just an inconvenient public relations issue) with genocide by the use of biological weapons and given these persons disrespect for basic civil and human rights(disrespect for national sovereignty, Gitmo, KUBARK, openly lying to the congress and manipulation of the UN and the world´s public, sexual torture and rape, Waterboarding, etc.). But thank you for bringing the passage to a form that is acceptable for Wikipedia´s standards. Why did you delete the very appropiate comparisson of "R.A.D." by Dr. Helen Caldicott with Mein Kampf(which was the original source and another which cited the original source)? It was very fitting from a neutral perspective, given their obvious demand for "a new Pearl Harbor"(PNAC´s Reichstagsbrand), their constant deception and lying and their disgusting views on biological genocide(it doesn't matter if they actually plan to use these weapons, it´s a "crime against humanity" and/or a "war crime", but it's never just another "politically useful tool", even when only their enemies use it, every political and social scientist that doesn't come directly from AIPAC, CPAC or PNAC or a similiar think-tank can tell you that for sure) and their aim of world domination("CREATING TOMORROW´S DOMINANT FORCE"). Furthermore, why would they detail the process of taking such weapons from the "hands of terrorists", so that they become a "politically useful tool"? Usually they try to portray their future enemies(invasion victims) as terrorists, so "taking these weapons from their hands" to make them a "politically useful tool" precisely sounds like they´re planning to use them on their own, not just some "rogue state"(who they think they are to decide that, anyway?) who will make it a "politically useful tool"(they would use a far more aggressive word, if it really was only about their enemies). Plus, they describe to stay in competition in that same chapter (V) with all the mentioned future developments, so that they don´t fall behind in war technology and they don´t make their opposition to such possible biological genocides clear in R.A.D.

Can you point me to the time in the video when Caldecott specifically addresses this quote about biological weapons? A general quote about the organization doesn't belong in a section of an encyclopedia article that addresses a specific quote from the organization's report. GabrielF (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PNAC & Foreign Policy Initiative

 Noticing no mention of the morphing of PNAC into the
Foreign Policy Initiative in neither the PNAC articles nor the Foreign Policy Initiative article.

It is proper to ask , is this not deceptive to allow such a controversial group associated with such sad and destructive events to merely change their name and continue on with the same activities without being identified?

Chaaa Li (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source detailing what you claim, we can add it in. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghosts of US’s unilateralist past rise

“…The blandly-named Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) - the brainchild of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, neo-conservative foreign policy guru Robert Kagan, and former Bush administration official Dan Senor - has thus far kept a low profile; its only activity to this point has been to sponsor a conference pushing for a US "surge" in Afghanistan. But some see FPI as a likely successor to Kristol and Kagan's previous organization, the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which they launched in 1997…” Asia Times online, Mar 28, 2009

2.96.124.218 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added a description, with three references.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH

Bush and the Bush administration are already mentioned more than ten times in the article -- adding a SYNTH table asserting indirectly that either Bush deliberately appointed those who agreed with PNAC or (perniciously) that PNAC managed to get Bush to appoint such is SYNTH. To make claims requires sources making such claims - not using a table to say that the two attributes connect the claims. That is pretty much the definition of SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The charge seems a bit strained, considering the plethora of readily available sources.

1. Sourcewatch
2. history commons
3. AmIraqa and the New American Century(states "In all, more than 32 PNAC members are currently woriking under the Bush administration...")
4. |! | !| etc.
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. is pretty clear. Collect (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC) "Lulu.com" is a vanity press, by the way. Its books are considered "self-published" and are not RS as a rule. "History Commons" is a Wiki - thus also not RS by Wikipedia policy. As is "Sourcewatch." Sorry -- the rule is "reliable sources" not "wikis and self-published sources." Collect (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see that sourcewatch is only good as an EL, and neither the book nor history commons looks reliable, but it seems hard to believe that there isn't a reliably published list along these lines.
Note, however, that the above listed sources, while not passing RS, all contain lists, they are not references limited to single individuals.
No need to include a bolded block of policy text.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So you understand that no reliable source has yet been given making the explicit links presented in the table. Wikis,by the way, are not usable as ELs either. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll defer to others regarding presenting sourced info in tabular form, and won't argue the point.

This RS/N thread appears to conclude that sourcewatch is usable as EL.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it states that sourcewatch should not be used for any BLPs. This article is under WP:BLP. Revert all but the BLP articles is quite clear. Note that any articles with claims about living persons falls under WP:BLP. See also [11] from 2010, [12] from 2010, and [13] shows pretty solid evidence that a Wikipedia editor (proven to be a sock) edited Sourcewatch while working on the Wikipedia article for which he was using it as a source. Sorry -- it was, and remains a Wiki. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP/N thread, sources

Please see this BLP/N thread:

• SYNTH is not ubiquitous
• Compiling information is not OR
  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Meacher as a source for any facts ...

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#multiple_biographies He appears to not be a really good source for claims of fact:

Experienced professionals know that this was a state sponsored inside job by the US regime; 2 NATO ministers from Germany (Minister for Technoloy Andreas von Bulow) and UK minister Michael Meacher and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga) all confirmed publicly that the 9/11 event was an inside job perpetrated by the US regime.

And 9/11_conspiracy_theories. If we add him - we add the 9/11 stuff as well, I would suggest. Collect (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The operative fact for this article is "Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 ", which he presents vis-a-vis his "Pax Americana" statement, attributed as opinion in the article.

How does the 9/11 "context" relate to this article?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher Guardian article

The article is about his 9/11 truther position -- and the PNAC conspiracy theory is part of his "theory" about 9/11. Removing anything which shows the actual nature of the article to get a cheap quote about PNAC is improper -- once we use a cite, we use the full cite, not a quote out of context. The context is that 9/11 was a conspiracy to find a reason to invade Iraq, as the full article shows clearly. Meacher has been a guest a few times now on Alex Jones' radio show, and I suggest his writings on Infowars [14] [15] makes his status clear. When we quote conspiracy theorists, we should not hide that fact. Collect (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (for more fun see [16] starting at 9:50) Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No the article is not "about his 9/11 truther position".

The article subtitled, "The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination", and global domination of the US is the subtheme of the bogusness of the global war on terror.

The material you've added is obviously UNDUE under the section "US global spremacy"[17]. It seems that you are trying to besmirtch his character in order to discredit his opinion. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it undue when you use a cherry-picked quote with "Bush" in it and the really big news was in the rest of the article where he goes flaming about the 9/11 "truth"? Meachers is a pure Alex Jones type. Collect (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Discredit his opinion" about the 9/11 attacks? Already discredited, I believe. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why use material from conspiracy theorists at all? Why does this need to be included? There are plenty of reliable sources on this organization. Is this really an improvement? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why use Meacher at All?

Hello Ubkikwit and Collect. I'm Posting in the hopes that a third opinion might help you two resolve this dispute - my question is, why is Meacher being cited/quoted on this report at all? There are much better sources out there who could be cited about the report, which would allow us to skip over the issue of whether or not Meacher is a proper/reliable source:

• this book, for example, notes that while the report "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional. It calls for increased defence spending, proposes reform of the armed forces, and argues emphatically tat military power is the key to continued US hegemony... This is, in fact, exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001" Source here is an academic, book is published by Routledge, so no question of reliability there.

• This book addresses the very same controversy that you two are hashing out here, even quoting Meachar at length. It, too, questions Meachar's claims, noting that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain," and noting that "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy." Again, an academic book from a reputable press, no question of reliability here.

Personally I think all that needs to be said in the article here is that Meacher has claimed that the document provided a blueprint for "US global hegemony" (or however you want to word/quote it), but that more reliable sources have questioned that claim. There is no need to quote him at length, regardless of whether or not any info on his alleged 9-11 trutherism is included in the article (Personally I don't think it needs to be, since his claim can be counterbalanced with other sources anyway.) Since these sources quote Meacher at length, you could rewrite using just the sources I linked above, even, and skip the debate over whether or not his article in the guardian is a RS.

Hope this helps. I'd encourage you both to take a look at the article with fresh eyes - it's a bit of a mess with all of the blockquotes and could use a substantial trimming in my opinion.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thanks. Those look like good sources, and your suggestions should be taken on board.

One aspect of Meacher that I found particularly notable is that he is British, and a Labor member of Parliament who was criticizing his government for supporting a "Pax Americana", which resonates with the British Empire's Pax Britannia.

I arrived here via BLP about neocons, and have spent quite a bit of time on the topic than intended...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher is a 9/11 truther who regularly writes for Alex Jones "Infowars", and on his radio program. His assertion that the US was warned by 11 countries before 9/11 is about as reliable as a $3 bill AFAICT. Giving him credence here without allowing readers to know how far out he is would be absurd. Collect (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're that concerned about Meacher being quoted/referred to, then add text to the article which notes his views on 9-11, and cite a source or two. If it's a reliable source and the information you add is verifiable, there's no reason why you can't add that caveat. But the quote you keep re-adding is out of place in that section - it doesn't relate to PNAC, or to the issue being discussed in this section. I'm going to remove it a second time, but I want to be clear that I'd have no problem with you adding a concise, well-cited explanation of why readers might want to be wary of his statements.

This entire article is a huge mess because wikipedians (I don't mean you: I haven't checked who the main contributors are) have been lazy and relied way too much on quotations to communicate information, rather than paraphrasing, summarizing, and explaining in a concise, clear, and straightforward manner - as an encyclopedia should. I'm not removing the quote to try to hide any of Meacher's (alleged) faults, I'm removing it because it's out of place - especially when the same info could be communicated by adding a few words along the lines of "and alleged 9-11 conspiracy theorist" and some citations, instead of going off on a big tangent with an over-long quote.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is the exact same source -- written by Meacher. Not a different source -- the same article - a little further down the page. If we can seem to bless Meacher by forgetting his 9/11 conspiracy theories by not noting that they are in the same place as his Bush bit, we must recall his Bush accusation is part and parcel of the same conspiracy views about the exact same people. It is not a separate article by Meacher. Collect (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's beside the point. You're including it because you expect wiki readers to read the quote and draw a particular conclusion about Meacher - but by that logic we should just reprint the whole article and have people evaluate it for themselves. That's not what encyclopedia's/wikipedia is for. If you think his opinion should be dismissed, make an argument for dismissing it - don't rely on quotes that aren't pertinent to the subject of this article, and which are clearly tangential and out of place in that section, to do that for you.Fyddlestix (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Read Meacher's entire article -- it is entirely about his conspiracy theories. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we not discuss this simultaneously in two conversation threads? You gave the same response below (under the RFC), I've replied there.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC

[18] removes a second quote from a source still being used for the statement: British MP Michael Meacher, made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration

The material removed further cites Meacher specifically for

it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

Was the second quote properly removed as UNDUE or should it remain per NPOV? 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC I am offering an alternative statement here since I do not believe the above is an accurate reflection of the question being debated. Alternative statement would be:

Is the lengthy quote necessary, or was it rightly removed as part of a broader effort to reduce the number of block quotes in the article? Is it necessary for Meacher's views on September 11 to be quoted at length in this section, or should his views be summarized/paraphrased (with appropriate citations) instead? Fyddlestix (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm fine with removal of the quotes, and do not agree with Collect's assertion that the 9-11 material belongs in the article. As described below, the academic sources do not mention it in this context, and as far as I can tell, that is because it is not relevant to the topic.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you use Meacher's quotes about Bush benefitting from a conspiracy, and elide the fac that it is about Meacher's well-known 9/1 1 conspiracy theories, then the cite is being abused. If we use Meacher, we must use Meacher and not just a fragment about Bush wrenched from his 9/11 conspiracy screed. Maybe we should include his claim that Mossad was involved as well as PNAC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Now you are crossing the line into simply misrepresenting the source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at the heading for the source: This war on terrorism is bogus Michael Meacher The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination Right at the very top of the source you seem to think is not about 9/11! If the source were not about 9/11 why is that heading there in big letters? Or if you feel that big heading about 9/11 does not mean the article was about 9/11 perhaps the first paragraphs will give a hint:

Massive attention has now been given – and rightly so – to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

Which screams "conspiracy theory!" At least I rather think it does, YMMV? Collect (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The quote provides a basis by which a reader may decide to give greater or lesser credence to the accusation that Bush was benefitting from a conspiracy (as seen by Meacher). Without such balance showing Meacher's actual claims in the full article, the bit about "key members" of the Bush administration benefitting from a conspiracy might be tenable. Once the rest of the quote gets in, it is clear that Meacher (whom Wikipedia places in the "9/11 conspiracy theorists" category) might not be absolutely accurate in his depiction of events. So how much strength should we give a conspiracy theorist who has appeared a few times with Alex Jones (radio host) and written for Infowars.com? Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't quite think we'd reached the point of needing an RFC here (I only entered this debate a few hours ago) but OK. Please note my alternative statement above - I asked Collect to change the initial statement but he appears unwilling to do so. My argument for removing Meacher's comments about September 11 is simple: this section of the article isn't about September 11. The quote seems to have been included as a way to signal readers that they should dismiss his opinions/comments, but to me it seems out of place and off-topic in this section of the article. I contend that if Meacher's opinion on the subject of this article is to be dismissed, Collect (or another editor) should be able to indicate that by stating what he wants to say in wikipedia's voice, and citing a reliable source or two, rather than relying on a lengthy quote to do that, and contributing to this article's major problem with over-quoting and over-long block quotes (I've already trimmed some of these - it was even worse earlier). Alternatively, he could make an argument for altogether omitting Meacher's arguments from the article - but given the fact that his piece was printed in the Guardian, and that several other academic sources (which i linked above) have sought to refute Meacher's opinion, rather than dismissed it out of hand, I think that would be a hard argument to make. Also please note that Ubikwit has his own (I think slightly different?) reasons for wanting to see the quote removed, if he doesn't post his reasons here I'd encourage others to read some of the above posts by him as well and take those arguments into account. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually if you read the article, the entire article is, indeed, related to 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq actions. Meacher, in fact, makes it exceedingly clear that the US knew ahead of time about 9/11 and used it to benefit the Bush administration. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I did read the entire article, and yes, I disagree with his contentions/theories about 9-11. But just because I disagree with what he says later in his article doesn't mean that I can dismiss what he said earlier in his article, in the only part of the article that bears quoting on this page. I'm referring to his assertion (to quote the current, live version of the article) that "Rebuilding America's Defences was 'a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana,' which had been 'drawn up for' key members of the Bush administration."

Look at how the academics I quoted and linked above address this exact same claim - they note it, they refute/take issue with it, and they move on - all without feeling the need to even mention Meacher's views on September 11, much less quote his views on that subject at length. That's what this article should do. It seems to me like you're trying to argue that nothing Meacher says is valid because he holds questionable views about September 11, but this is obviously not the case - it's perfectly possible for him to be wrong about 9-11 but right about Rebuilding America's Defenses. Since the latter is what's relevant to this article, that's what should be addressed here.

Note, though, that as I already said in my first post on this page, I'm not in favor of quoting any of Meacher's opinions at length - a quick mention/paraphrase, followed by a quick counterpoint using the academic sources I linked above is all that's required here. Meacher and his opinions are notable: he's a former minister/MP, his piece was published in the guardian, and has been addressed by multiple reliable sources. I think it bears mentioning in the article - just not quoting at length. And as I also already stated, I'd support you adding a sentence or two about him having controversial views about Sept 11 - I just don't think he's views about 9-11 need to be quoted in so much length.Fyddlestix (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more things: One, what do you mean by saying (in your last edit summary) that you "feel like Alex Jones is here?" Are you comparing me to (or calling me) a conspiracy theorist? I'm saying that we should give Meacher the same treatment that the perfectly respectable university professors and academic publishers I cited above gave him. Are they conspiracy theorists too, for failing to just dismiss everything Meacher says? They obviously found his ideas (about the subject of this article, not about Sept 11) worth mention/refuting, and since they are without question reliable sources, I submit that the wiki article should handle the issue in much the same way. Second thing: isn't the point of a RFC to seek someone else's input? I don't really see the point in us re-hashing the same argument we've already had up-thread repeatedly.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher is a friend of Alex Jones (radio host), appears on his radio shows and writes for his web-site. I commend you to read about him and the pushing of conspiracy theories. In his article cited, Meacher specifically promotes conspiracy theories. Ought we promote such here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And if we use the article, and only use what we want where he says Bush benefitted from a conspiracy without noticing the entire article is about Meacher's 9/11 conspiracy theory then we are truly deluding the reader. Collect (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

For what feels like the 10th time, I am not trying to "promote" Meacher. I don't see anyone who is. But his views were/are nonetheless pertinent to the subject of this article - they were addressed and discussed in multiple reliable sources. My only argument/point here is that the article should rely on those sources to summarize and discuss Meacher's views, instead of relying on lengthy block quotes from Meacher himself. Full stop.Fyddlestix (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that "the entire article is about Meacher's 9/11 conspiracy theory" is your fanciful interpretation, nothing more, but you refuse to listen.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you think Meacher's entire article is about? It is entirely about his 9/11 conspiracy theories. You wish to use the part where he says it was for the Bush administration -- pulling out one tiny piece of the full article. Read the whole article - it is about the Bush administration deliberately wanting 9/11, that Israel ( Mossad as Meacher states) knew about the entire plot, and 11 other countries told us about the entire plot and we deliberately did nothing, as planned by secret meetings. The guy is an Alex Jones (radio host) talk show denizen, and you fail to notice it? Collect (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can figure this out amicably.

• Meacher's comments on PNAC are notable. (Incidentally, a lot of people have appeared on The Alex Jones Show, according to the list given on Wikipedia. Although they fall on the left of the narrow American political spectrum, people like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky are usually not considered unacceptable to cite or quote on Wikipedia.)
• Collect seems to feel strongly that we should include a longer quotation—because anything shorter would be taken too far out of context from his actual views. I can respect that.
• Fyddlestix thinks the blockquotes are already too long. I can respect that also, though I tend to err on the side of including more information when possible.

• (P.S.: Ubikwit thinks the extra material shouldn't be included for the different reason that it's not germane. It seems germane enough to me, but regardless, maybe the footnote solution will also be pleasing to U, in de-emphasizing the secondary material.)

• Perhaps a shorter quotation in the article, combined with a footnote, would be a good compromise solution.

salaam, groupuscule (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Groupuscule: I wouldn't have a problem with a footnote. There is too much information about his examination of why the war on terror is bogus to be inserted into the body of this article, which is only about PNAC, and in the section "Global supremacy". It would probably need to be a paraphrased version of his views per:

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

Note, again, that the academic books addressing his statements on PNAC do not mention the broader context of the war on terror. So there is no support in secondary sources for emphasizing such a connection.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me - just so long as the article isn't going on about Meacher's 9-11 views (or quoting him on the subject) at excessive length. Personally I think that the discussion of Meacher in this article should be limited to a few sentences, and that this whole debate is pretty tangential to the subject of the article, but I'm ready & willing to compromise here. Also thanks for wading into this, appreciate your efforts!Fyddlestix (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I should add that one primary reason for adding the Meacher quote in the first place was the ridiculously self-serving very long block quote from Kagan that preceded it in the text as well as in real life, with Meacher responding two months later. With the Kagan quote gone the one-sentence paraphrase of Meacher, plus the related statements by the academics seems to be adequate for the main body, with the secondary sources getting more weight (a full pargraph) than the primary source from Meacher.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this, it cuts to what I think the real major issue with this article is, and that is the massive over-quoting and blockquoting: both of people who like PNAC and who don't. There are multiple lengthy paragraphs of quotes in this article that could be paraphrased and summarized in a few sentences. It's completely unencyclopedic and that's what we should be spending our time fixing, rather than getting distracted by this whole sideshow with Meacher.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no position on PNAC, but I do have a position on the 9/11 Truthers. Whenever we give credence to them as though they were reciting "actual fact" it is pretty nearly as bad as we can get. Personally, I would not give Meacher a single word here unless we make clear what his "theories" are. Chees. Collect (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise

I'd like to present another possible compromise, based on the suggestion made by groupuscule above. How would you all feel about revision the relevant section of the article to read as follows:

Multiple journalists, academics, and other critics have asserted that the Project for the New American Century had laid out a blueprint for American hegemony, which later played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. BBC journalist Paul Reynolds, for example, asserted in 2007 that PNAC had sought to promote American dominance, and that the organization's publications helped "to explain some of the administration's actions" in later years. In an article published a few weeks before the start of the Iraq War, Der Speigel journalist Jurgen Bölsche claimed that Rebuilding America's Defenses "had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby." Titling his article "Bush's Master Plan: This War Came from a Think Tank," Bölsche suggested that Rebuilding America's Defenses had been "devoted to matters of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"

Critics like British MP Michael Meacher went further. In a September, 2003 article in The Guardian, which also suggested that American authorities had done "little or nothing to prevent" the September 11 Attacks, and suggested that American security forces might have "deliberately stood down" on September 11 2001, Meacher charged PNAC with having "drawn up" a blueprint for "US world domination." Rebuilding the American Future, he claimed, had called for a US military presence in the Persian Gulf long before the War in Iraq, and provided a "much better explanation of what actually happened" before, during and after September 11 than "the global war on terrorism thesis."

Meacher's views have been criticized by the Daily Mail which charged him with giving "credence to conspiracy theories" about September 11, and journalist David Aaronovitch characterized his allegations as "conspiracy 101." As scholars Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have noted, however, similar views of PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States." Both scholars have been skeptical of these claims. Hammond, for example, notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional." According to Hammond, its recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001." Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain." According to Abelson, "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy."

References

I feel that this is about as close to a compromise as we're going to get: Meacher's views on both Sept 11 and PNAC are summarized, it's made clear that his views have been firmly challenged and that multiple reliable sources consider him a conspiracy theorist, but there's also an acknowledgement from 2 very reliable sources that his claims about PNAC and its role have been influential (not right, not well-founded, just influential) and that similar claims continue to circulate. I've gone over the notes and citations quite carefully here and I think everything is well documented and from a reliable source, but I'd be happy to make reasonable revisions. And most importantly from my perspective (since this is what drew me to comment/revise this article in the first place) there are no over-long or block quotations. I've tried to make everything as clear and concise as possible. What do you think? If you think this falls short, I think it would help a lot if you could be specific about what you'd like to see handled differently, and make some constructive suggestions to help us work towards a version that we can all agree on. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work. I can live with that, with one-word change, as per the Guardian piece, "and suggested that American security forces might have been "deliberately stood down".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing I just noticed is that this sentence has be excised

George Monbiot, a journalist and former political activist from the United Kingdom, stated: "...to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."

Maybe it's not absolutely necessary, but in light of the increasingly fervent attempts to tar and feather Meacher in a manner such as to render the overwhelmingly negative criticism in RS of PNAC with respect to the report in question and the question of "Global supremacy", perhaps it is necessary to emphasize where the sources come down on this issue. The only positive defense in the section from the start was a primary source promotional screed from one of the Directors of PNAC.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I started with the current "live" version of the article, which this quote was not in. Personally I'm not sure what it adds but that might be because I'm missing the context - I'll take a look at his article and see if it makes more sense then.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Way long and not in great balance. And it does not "tar and feather Meacher" at all. Monbiot is a major unbalancing bit to add - which I sure hope is not your aim. Monbiot referred to the very public document as "confidential" and is the only actual reference to the PNAC "confidentiality" in that column! He does assert PNAC wants biological warfare "Among other enlightened policies, it has called for the development of a new generation of biological agents, which will attack people with particular genetic characteristics. " Which I suggest is far from " Moreover, there is a question about the role nuclear weapons should play in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those weapons’ development and use." and " Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." both of which are miles from Monbiot's apparent misreading of the material - the ones who would develop the biological weapons are "America's enemies." Monbiot is off the wall on that one -- do you really want the exact proper quotes added when he gets added? Cheers. Collect (talk) .

I don't see a single produce you've produced that supports anything you attempt to imply (because you can't say it directly). Regarding Monbiot, it's not clear what you are saying (other than asserting that he mischaracterized a public report as confidential), but Monbiot does address Abromovitch in the article[19] with regard to another position David Aaronovitch had taken, and the relevant text needs to be quoted

In this week’s Observer, David Aaronovitch suggested that, before September 11, the Bush administration was “relatively indifferent to the nature of the regimes in the Middle East”1. Only after America was attacked was it forced to start taking an interest in the rest of the world.
If Aaronovitch believes this, he would be well-advised to examine the website of the Project for the New American Century2, the pressure group established, among others, by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom (except the president’s brother) are now senior officials in the US government. Its statement of principles, signed by those men on June 3 1997, asserts that the key challenge for the United States is “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”3. This requires “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.”4
On January 26 1998, these men wrote to President Clinton, urging him “to enunciate a new strategy”, namely “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”5 If Clinton failed to act, “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” They acknowledged that this doctrine would be opposed, but “American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.”6
Last year, the Sunday Herald obtained a copy of a confidential report produced by the Project in September 2000, which suggested that blatting Saddam was the beginning, not the end of its strategy. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”7 The wider strategic aim, it insisted, was “maintaining global US pre-eminence”. Another document obtained by the Herald, written by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, called upon the United States to “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”8.
On taking power, the Bush administration was careful not to alarm its allies. The new president spoke only of the need “to project our strength with purpose and with humility”9 and “to find new ways to keep the peace”10. From his first week in office, however, he began to engage not so much in nation-building as in planet-building.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect's alternative proposal

Some critics say the project laid out a blueprint for American hegemony. BBC journalist Paul Reynolds said in 2007 that it promoted American dominance, and that the report helped "to explain some of the administration's actions" in later years. Der Speigel journalist Jochen Bölsche said Rebuilding America's Defenses had been "devoted to matters of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'" British MP Michael Meacher went further. In a September, 2003 article in The Guardian explaining his 9/11 conspiracy theory, he said that American authorities had done "little or nothing to prevent" the September 11 Attacks, and that American security forces might have "deliberately stood down" on September 11 2001. Meacher charged PNAC with having "drawn up" a blueprint for "US world domination." Rebuilding the American Future, he claimed, had called for a US military presence in the Persian Gulf long before the War in Iraq.'."

Meacher's views have been criticized as giving "credence to conspiracy theories" about September 11, and journalist David Aaronovitch called his article "conspiracy 101." Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have said similar views of the project's origins continue to spread. " Both scholars are skeptical of these claims. Hammond notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional," According to Hammond, its recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say." Abelson wrote "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain."

Which is a lot shorter and quite balanced. Collect (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (emendations reflecting comments from others are included in order to achieve compromise - the above is not a "static" proposal) Collect (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References

[Note: Collect has altered the above since I wrote this, the following was a response to this version of the page.] I think you may have lost sight of what the article we're discussing is about here, and in particular of what this section of the article is about. You've removed Meacher's statements about PNAC (which are why he's being mentioned in the article at all) but left in his statements about September 11 (which, with his statements about PNAC removed, becomes wholly off-topic in this article). I'm once again driven to ask - if you want Meacher's views on 9-11 to be discussed at length, but don't want his views of PNAC raised, then why aren't you making the case for removing him from the article altogether?

I also have a problem with removing the phrase "which later played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush administration." I'm open to rewording it, but that's the topic sentence for this whole section - this section of the article is about the views of people who have argued that PNAC advocated a kind of "US global supremacy" (as the section is currently titled - I'd advocate changing that btw) and that this blueprint had a heavy influence on the Bush Administration's FP agenda. And to be clear: I'm not saying that the article should accept those views or advocate them. I'm saying that those concerns have been addressed in enough reliable sources to justify their being discussed in this article.

Same issue with your treatment of Jochen Bolsche (thanks for catching my error with his name, btw) - you've removed any reference to Bolsche's view that PNAC had influenced the policies of the Bush administration - which was the primary argument his article made, and the reason why he's been brought up in this wiki article at all. What's left is a simple description of PNAC's views as Bolsche sees them, which (similar to the Meacher quote) leaves the reader wondering why the article would bother quoting him at all. I'm open to rewording, as I said, but your revision begs the question of why we're talking about Bolsche at all, when in reality there's no question that his views are pertinent to this article and deserving of mention/discussion in this section of it.

Finally, I think you've done a decent job of trimming some excess verbiage (something I know I'm prone to) but I'm puzzled by the assertion that the draft is "way too long." Have you seen what this section looked like before? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. See Joseph Widney and compare that "good article" with [20]. The draft had used "the project" before - so I now lengthened Meacher's contribution per your request and used his explicit "PNAC" here. This article is about PNAC and not about the "Bush administration" and not about individuals in the "Bush administration" - if one wishes to use quotes about that subject, this is the wrong article. We try to stick to germane material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting perspective - I imagine you'll be wanting to edit this passage out of the lede of the article then?

With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War

I find your tone ("we try to stick to the germane material") unnecessarily patronizing, and I think it's a tad disingenous to try to argue that I'm bringing tangential/unrelated material into the article when the lede says the exact same thing, and has read that way for seven years without anyone ever having an issue with it.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly a tendentious proposal that has no basis in RS and NPOV.

To whom does Collect by "we"? The proposed text is certainly not compliant with NPOV and RS, so what I want to know is where's the policy that defines "germane". The phrase "views continue to spread", for example, makes said "views" sound like rumors or disease, which is clearly a misleading presentation of the source. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I presented this proposal in good faith. Your response is, however, not apparently made in good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're in a position to lecture anyone on arguing/responding in good faith Collect. Your edits here, and here were what drew my attention to this debate in the first place - both are clear cases of WP:POINTy behavior.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you needed to read prior discussions before making that leap. Cheers. The goal is to abide by NPOV, and the new edits by Ubikwitclearly break that by a mile. Collect (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no leap required: you were very clearly adding material you don't agree with and which you know makes the article worse to make a point. I don't care what was said in prior discussions, thats not an acceptable or a productive way to try to resolve a disagreement. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed unsupported claims from the lede -- we should not use "quotes" in the lead in a misleading manner or violative of any policies. Cheers. The claims made in Wikipedia's voice are opinions only - stating them as "fact" us violative of policy. Opinions must be cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: It seems that Collect has tried to latch onto the inclusion of the Meacher primary-source Guardian article in order to transform this article from an article about PNAC to an article about "9/11 conspiracy theories" so as to obfuscate the well-sourced criticisms of PNAC and the Bush administration.

In particular, the elephant in the room as far as Meacher is concerned is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with respect to which he first criticized Blair, and then examined America's "motivations", engaging in a sort of retrograde analysis leading from verified falsifications of claims of WMD to the association of the 2000 report by PNAC with a plan for Pax Americana global supremacy, etc.

Insofar as the secondary academic sources do not address Meacher in terms of conspiracy theory with respect to his statements on PNAC, they are not deemed noteworthy by the secondary sources in this context. Accordingly, I'm going to propose that we not use the Guardian article, and use only the secondary sources on Meacher. Does that sound reasonable? What issues might remain?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me - that was basically my initial suggestion Fyddlestix (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, great, then I think we have something to go with.

Note that though I didn't have a problem with including mention of Aaronovich's criticisms of Meacher, in retrospect, considering the Monbiot article, it's clear where Aaronovich stands overall; i,e, as a supporter of the Bush administration that chooses to ignore PNAC's connections to the administration, etc., and the flood of media reports on that topic. The problem is that scholarly sources do not agree with Aaronovitch's characterizations of Meacher and his statements related to PNAC, and Monbiot accurately challenges the premises of those views. Accordingly, I think Aaronovich and Monbiot should be left out, and we should stick to the secondary sources on Meacher. The current text is fine by me, but you did some good work, as far as I'm concerned, on the proposed compromise text. The It would be worth including some of that and leaving out the above-mentioned material. I also posted a number of recent academic sources today, several from 2014 that are worth having a look at if you have time. The Bolsche piece, incidentally, as described in "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy" includes another passage that resonates somewhat with Hammond (contrasts with Abelson):

The influential German weekly Der Spiegel expressed the widespread consternation at the increasingly far-fetched reasons given for the impending war against Iraq by pointing to Bush’s ideologically driven policy advisers: “It was the exact opposite of a conspiracy. In broad daylight ultra-rightwing US think-tanks were as early as 1998 drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq. They weren’t taken seriously for a long time. In the meantime the hawks in the Bush administration are calling the shots.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect's wholesale removal of long-standing, well-sourced material

For starter's, the fact that Collect can't find the CS Monitor article diesn't mean it doesn't exist, but he knows removing on the basis of such a false claim is against policy.
Here are several examples of its use in secondary sources [21] [22] and cite for ten signatories serving in Bush administration
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your additions are "bold" but since we were politely discussing trimming the article, the contentious claims about living persons added are UNDUE and violative of WP:BLP. Discuss before re-adding 15K of material please. And we do not need to quote a huge percentage of the pamphlet - all that does is look silly at this point. The object is to follow NPOV, not to ignore that policy utterly. We were on the way to making a balanced article until this. Collect (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, the only thing I added was a copy edit to the lead after discovering that many PNAC members served in an advisory capacity, not as appointed officials.

All the other material was tendentiously removed by you.

Bearing that in mind, to what do your trumped up BLP claims relate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk about good faith -- your bold edit was removed. Your seeming love of BATTLEGROUNDS is clear. Cheers. Note this article is in the 9/11 category. Collect (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's you that are continually trying to game the system to push a non-compliant POV while attempting to subvert WP:RS. That, my friend, is representative of a battleground mentality.

Do recall that I've already raised your tendentiousness on the Neoconservativsm and Joe Klein articles with ArbCom.

Go ahead and post your BLP claim related to 9/11 at BLP/N. There have already been a couple of discussions that have not gone your way though, so you want to be careful about WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and not repeat the same claims.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Um -- you have complained as an ArbCom case and a whole bunch of other cases - you are a Drahma Board Denizen, and your edit here adding the SYNTH table is blatant. The person for whom the shopping cart allegory applies is not I, clearly. You have over 200 edits in the past month to Wikipedia space. I suggest that your re-addition of the table is sufficiently POINTy that you are likely to be notified that this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Cheers - now let's work on what I thought was a productive discussion here. Collect (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The claims you made were rebutted by two other editors including myself, and you demurred to defend them in terms of the policies to which you'd made recourse after others were presented by @Jbhunley:.

You'll note that the bulk of what I added today was merely sources, which I finally was able to get around to searching after many distractions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And what specific source do you have for your table? Oh? Did you notice you now wikilink people multiple times in a single article - which connecting them to a 9/11 conspiracy theory? Do you consider explicit accusations of conspiracy to be contentious at all? Oh? Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a plethora of sources, with all statements of opinion being properly attributed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. The article accuses living persons of supporting genocide, of supporting biological weapons, of seeking war, of having the US ignore warnings ahead of time about 9/11, of conspiring to engage in acts of war, conspiring to support acts of terror, listing people three and four times in a single article making such allegations. And you manage to see nothing amiss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that on February 26 you tried to slip a "See also" to "9/11 conspiracy theories"[23], and categorize the article under that, too.

You should start editing according to the sources, and avoid imparting the impression that you are engaged in some sort of advocacy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Acrually this article has a number of mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists, and so it properly belongs in See Also. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vertrag: The edit summaries you left do not sufficiently describe the scope of your deletions.
The removal of the table is against policy-based consensus, and you've not contributed to the discussion in any form. Other material you deleted was also unrelated to "summarizing" the damning report that some seem to want to keep from the reading public, and seems purely based on a politicized POV.
I suppose that Wikipedia needs a dedicated article on that aforementioned notable report.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're very arguments against the deletion, that somehow, I am attempting "to keep from the reading public" is the reason that it violates WP policy. Wikipedia is not a means of promoting your ideology. Having reviewed snippets of the article history, it looks like it has been the battleground for some time with much of the original article language that was clearly not neutral in its tone or word choice still remaining in the article prior to its report on WP:COIN. And, rather than consensus, it looks to me like a long term project based on an ideological belief. Mix that in with quite a few biography of living person issues and this article needs work. -- Vertrag (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article may need work, but not whitewashing. The vast majority of literature on the PNAC is critical, though I stick to the sources. You don't seem to have a solid grasp of NPOV, as the mainstream view is the mainstream view, etc., it doesn't matter if you don't like it. You shouldn't accuse editors of "having an ideology", as that is a personal attack. The report in question is probably notable enough to have a stand-alone article.

Prominence in reliable sources determine which points receive more [[WP:|weight]], etc.

What was that about COI?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you admitting that you have been trying to keep the article in a certain state? Because I never accused you of that - I just said that the consensus you point to looked to me from the review of the history was an issue with article ownership? Therefore, it's current state is not a true consensus. As far as I know you have only recently begun to edit it. Vertrag (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not the claim I make, obviously, or what I am accused of by Collect--inserting conspiracy theories.

Doesn't it strike you that there might be a contradiction between the fact that I've only recently started editing the article and an allegation of ownership?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through the talk then to better understand your concern; however, the edit I restored seemed reasonably related to the overall problems I saw when I read the article: quotes in the lede, too much original material, overall length, lists of people, blp, etc. I really don't know what Collect's view is nor did I know your political view before making the edit. Vertrag (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vertrag: I don't know anything about the 9/11 stuff they are talking about but Collect brought the PNAC/Bush Adminstration table to BLPN and failed to engage when asked what his specific objections were and what type of source he would accept. There was also this source which seemed to address his objections but he never commented on.

Mistaking hegemony for empire:Neoconservatives, the Bush doctrine, and the Democratic empire., David Grodin - International Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1 Turkey: Myths and Realties (Winter, 2005/2006) pp. 227-241 JSTOR stable link.

As for the totality of what is going on here I have no opinion right now. JBH (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Any source making a contentious claim about a living person must be a strong secondary reliable source. I had thought I made that clear at BLP/N - if not I am sorry. Here we have catenations of unrelated sources being used to imply improper acts by individuals on the basis that "source a associates this person with group b" and "source 2 associates group b with position c" thus giving "a > c"" which is a logical failure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: And I asked you for specific problems with specific texts. A B and C are fine for theoretical work but completely useless for talking about a specific issue like we have here. What is the contentious claim in the table? Spell it out. What do you want a source to say to support the claim? The three claims I see in the table are 1 - That these named individuals were signatories of PNAC / members of PNAC - Non contentious. 2 - That these same people were members of the Bush Administration - Non contentious. 3 - That this relationship means something - I gave you one source that I think ties it up but you never commented on it.

You two are back to just arguing and not trying to solve the problem. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not (on the table/drawing attention to PNAC/Admin). But so far, that I have read, you have only quoted generalities and not directly addressed the issue. Right now I think the table should be in. Convince me otherwise. Cheers. JBH (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And again -- look at the "sourcing" for the table making specific implicit charges about living persons. No actual single reliable source has that table. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes and... so what... A table exists to summarize information that would be awkward to show in prose. It is not OR.

Do you have a problem with any of these statements?

• Dick Cheney signed the PNAC statement and was Vice President.
• Paul Wolfowitz signed the PNAC statement and was Deputy Secretary of State.
• etc. etc.

If not then there are no BLP and no SYNTH issues in the table. If you have a problem with the statements above and analogous statements about the other people in the table please describe the issue. What are these "implicit charges" you speak of? Thank you. Cheers. JBH (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

fail verification

The CSM "Empire Builders" article is not on the CSM site. The versions posted at [24] etc. do not mention PNAC at all, nor do they list the names for which it is used as a source. [25] is 404,and no search shows any such article at CSM.

RightWeb is not WP:RS and the material does not appear to support any specific claims on its own.

Guy Roberts is used only to support SYNTH lists of people.

Christie is linked to two footnotes, neither of which is relevant to the claims asserted.

Funabashi does not support the claims made.

Grondin is paywalled. And only used as a catchall for the SYNTH lists.

And so on. Many are used for "names" and not for actual content, and in some cases claims are made which are not supported by the sources given. Collect (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK for sources to be paywalled and not accessible online; that does not equate to failure of WP:V per WP:SOURCEACCESS.

Furthermore, Funahashi and Ray (an academic whose book is in its 8th edition) both cite the CSM piece, and Funahashi states that 10 of the 25 'PNAC Principles' signatories went on to become officials in the Bush administration, naming a few in the same paragraph.

Christie and the other sources all mention various PNAC members in conjunction with their respective positions/roles in the Bush administration. The table is not SYNTH, and consensus was against your assertion to that effect.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I.e. you use them as a substitute for a cite actually making statements about the persons - just "if they are listed in any source, I can tie them to PNAC in the article" - right? Collect (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources mention PNAC members and their respective connections to the Bush administration, which have been cited in support of the compiled table, per previous discussions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is using A>b and b>c to say a>c. Which is errant. Collect (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument over and over after consensus has decided that the argument is not valid is a sign of tendentiousness.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reality Check on Sources

Ok, maybe I can help here as far as the sourcing argument goes. I have pretty good library access. I'm going to assume here that we're looking at this version of the article to see if the citations support what they're supposed to:

• The Christian Science Monitor source appears to have been a page on its website, rather than an article in the publication (I checked the archives of the periodical on LexisNexis and turned up nothing). Since their website has robots.txt disabled, it's not possible to retrieve an archive of the page, so I don't think we're going to be able to recover the original unless someone happens to have an archive of it somewhere. All we have to go on is the published sources that cited it, like the conference paper by Tim Dimuzio that Ubikwit linked. That quotes the CSM source with the blockquote that starts at the bottom of this page, however it should be noted that as far as I can tell, both the paper and the quote seem to be talking about "neoconservative strategists" in general there rather than PNAC in particular.
• The rightweb source is a link to the front page of their website. Not helpful. That footnote (#5) also as way too many scare quotes in it. We can do better, and the same point could be made with a proper secondary source. That said, if all we want to confirm is that PNAC was seen by many people/critics as having influence on the Bush Admin than we can do much better than that - Abelson states clearly that PNAC was often portrayed as having "unparalleled access to the white house," and this article from Commentary, is a response to what it suggests were numerous efforts to portray PNAC as part of a "neoconservative cabal" that was setting the Bush Administration's agenda. So as long as we're phrasing this along the lines of "some critics asserted that PNAC had exerted a substantial influence on the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War," then the citations I just mentioned could be used to support the statement.
• The footnote to Christie links to another footnote, which is not exactly a good way to reference something. In other pages of the book however, it does say that PNAC was "heavily connected" to the bush administration, particularly through Elsewhere (page 46) it says that PNACs leaders "were highly connected with the state," including 12 (personal) connections to the white house, 10 with the National Security Council, and 23 with Congress. The conclusion drawn is that "PNAC may be considered strongly integrated into the political and administrative machinery of US power." (that's from page 46 again.) The same book also notes in the foreward (on page xxi) that neo cons were "seen to have 'hijacked' the Bush administration" (page xxi). So with better citations to the proper pages, this does become a very useful source - it's an academic study by reputable scholars, no question that it's a RS. Could be used both as a ref for showing that PNAC was perceived to have influence in the Bush admin and as a ref to show that there actually were multiple personal connections - ie, that 12 individuals had connections to both PNAC and the Bush White house. Clearly, Christie is relevant to the point being made.
• As far as Funabashi goes, the book does contain this statement, on page 505: "many people associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are considered neocons. Of the twenty-five signatories of the PNAC's statement of principles, signed in June 1997, ten went on to serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz among others." Looks pretty "relevant to the claim being made" to me.
• Grodin may be paywalled, but luckily I have access. (You know you can read limited articles free, right?) Anyway, here's a quote from him that I think is pertinent: "There can be no question that September 2002 'national security strategy of the united states of america,' announcing a Bush doctrine predicated upon military prevention, regime change, and enhanced defense spending, has been heavily influenced by neoconservative writings. Among these have been works published under the aegis of the "Project for new American century," including Rebuilding America's Defenses' (by Donald Kagan, Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly), and Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (by William Kristol and Robert Kagan).Fyddlestix (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Fyddlestix (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation of what all this means in case this is hard to follow: Some of Ubikwit's sourcing had been lousy and could be better. But many of the cited sources do support the claims that Collect is claiming they don't. There's plenty of reliable sources that document a widespread perception of PNAC having a policy influence on the Bush white house, for example (something that Collect has continually dismissed as "opinion" that doesn't belong in the article), and there's also plenty of reliable sources which document direct personal connections between PNAC and the admin (something which Collect has, for reasons which I don't fully understand, suggested is libelous). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions must be sourced and cited as opinions. "Contentious" does not mean "libelous" nor would I use that term at all. It means "it is an opinion which is not strongly sourced and which another editor is insisting be better sourced". And I would also note the history of "guilt by association" claims made historically about persons -- If George Gnarph attended a "communist front meeting" (sourced fact) we can not on Wikipedia say "George Gnarph was associated with a communist front". Is that distinction quite clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The distinction is clear, but your meaning isn't. How is any of this assigning guilt to anyone? If someone was involved with both PNAC and the white house, it's not an "opinion" to state that fact, particularly if (as in this case) there are multiple reliable sources that confirm that fact. The idea that PNAC was a major influence on US Policy is an opinion, but if it's reliably sourced as an opinion that many people had, then it's worthy of being included in the article - clearly marked as an opinion. Neither of things has anything to do with assigning guilt on anyone. You need to state your specific concern more clearly. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH unless the reliable source cited specifically makes the connection, we cannot do so. Note the new source add which specifically states:

However, as we will examine in Chapter 9, while there is no doubt that PNAC has had an important impact in contributing to the debate on global terror, its influence in Bush's post-9/11 strategy, has, by its own admission, been greatly exaggerated. Abelson page 95

Do you understand finally? Collect (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

cherry picking again

Donald E. Abelson, Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; p. 213 is cited for

British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.

But the citer forgets to add:

However, as we will examine in Chapter 9, while there is no doubt that PNAC has had an important impact in contributing to the debate on global terror, its influence in Bush's post-9/11 strategy, has, by its own admission, been greatly exaggerated. in Abelson's own words on page 95.

Which would seem a far more noteworthy comment from that same source than the second-hand Meacher bit. Collect (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)