Talk:Robert Kagan

Categorization

I do not want to be identified by my religion, unless everyone is identified by their religion, which is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wixifixer (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed claim that Kagan joined "Skull and Bones" in 1980. Such a claim is almost impossible to believe without a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.16.106 (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

May I ask you kindly not to include the names of my children on this site. Sincerely, Robert Kagan.

I just revert a series of edits which had turned this article into a book cover-like praise full of peacock phrases and avoiding important facts like participation to PNAC.

The formulation appears to have been taken verbatim from a text that can be seen on carnegieendowment.org or leighbureau.com, and therefore would also constitute a violation of copyright.

Besides, can someone confirm whether Kagan has made significant contributions to judaism? If not, I think that the categories "Jewish X" should be removed; these categories are meant to categorise people who contribute theologically, not to file people according to their personal religious convictions. Rama (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

You all should talk rather than edit war.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kiefer, I would like to have this discussion on the subject here. Owen (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Owen. I have been over this before. And I have been backed up on this point by Wikipedia editors in the past. The term "neo-conservative," I insist, is a misnomer. It originally meant former left intellectuals who moved right, hence the "neo." I do not consider myself a "conservative" in the traditional sense of foreign policy conservatism. I, of course, cannot control what other people call me. But I can seek fairness in Wikipedia. In addition, I do not think it reasonable to single out some people for an ideological label (especially one they reject) while not labeling others at all. If you look through Wikipedia entries for other foreign policy commentators, you will not find them so labeled, even though others might refer to them as liberal, left-liberal, isolationist, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by wixifixer (talk • contribs)

@Wixifixer,

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relationship_between_the_subject.2C_the_article.2C_and_Wikipedia is relevant to you.

Please review Wikipedia's policies about avoiding conflicts of interest, which suggest that subjects of biographies use bulletin boards, talk pages, or ask for administrative usually. You have every right to protest the inclusion of personal information, per our WP:BLP policies.

Sincerely and with respect,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am learning. all best, Wikifixer

The article does not specifically say he is a neoconservative. The article says that he is identified as a neoconservative by media agencies in their effort to describe his political beliefs. This is very well-documented. Likewise, he is not categorized in this article as a neoconservative. Rather, he is categorized under "neoconservativism". Also, your definition of neoconservatism does not square with the version used by Wikipedia, which does describe a particular political philosophy. If he does personally reject the label, then the best thing to do would be to add that to the article so people know that. But there is a common perception that he is a neoconservative, both among the media and by the citizenry at large, and that should be addressed in the article, even if only to say that he is often considered a neoconservative, but rejects that label for himself. You talk about fairness in political labelling, and I can understand that point of view. All too often we only label the political views of people with more aberrant political perspectives. So liberals, conservatives, and moderates are usually not labeled. I can see that as a problem. But to label neoconservatives is consistent on Wikipedia insofar as people with more exceptional or aberrant point of views are nearly always specifically labeled. See, for instance, any article on any American anarchist, feminist, libertarian, or fascist. In none of these cases do we shy over discussion of their politics, maybe in part because those aberrant or unpopular political beliefs are essential to the way the public sees them.

As for removing the reference to PNAC, you claim to justify that on the grounds that it is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. But that is a spurious argument, since elements from the lead section are almost always expounded upon in greater detail elsewhere in the article. For instance, the lead also says that he is "an American historian, author and foreign policy commentator at the Brookings Institution", and the article later goes on to talk about all of these things in greater depth. If you're removing everything in the lead that is "redundant", why not also all of this information? In general I would consider his founding of PNAC of much greater importance than his current work at the Brookings Institution, and I find your desire to remove this information from the lead suspect. Owen (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Owen,

You should review the neo-conservatism article, which does mention the socialist or social-democratic background of the three (Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol) originally called neoconservatives in the USA (by Michael Harrington). It also discusses the antisemitism of many sources using "neoconservative" as code for "American Jew (who has too much influence on American foreign policy)", despite the important counter-example of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, another socialist. (Many definitions of "neoconservative" seem to define an American who believes in the natural rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence.)

Per NPOV, it may be fair to mention that (1) Kagan rejects the notion that he is a "neoconservative" (listing 2 reliable sources), (2) others object to the characterization of Kagan as neoconservative (2 reliable sources), (3) "neoconservative" is used as a codeword for "Jew" (2 reliable sources), (4) others have called Kagan a "neoconservative" (usually "columnists" or professional loud mouths rather than professors of political science or historians). You seem to only want to have (4); I think it necessary to mention (1) and (2) and fair to mention (3), per NPOV and BLP.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Owen,

Why don't you expand this article using high-quality reliable sources and show that you understand the WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies, as well as strive to comply with WP:MOS? It would reflect better on your editing than for you to continue pushing your point of view, which (lately) seems to begin and end with classifying Kagan as a "neoconservative", (recently) only in the lede.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I very much agree that we should include #1, as well as #4. It seems overkill to me to point out #2, but I don't necessarily have any strong objection to it. As for #3, I honestly hadn't come across that before, and I don't think it's really a point that needs to be brought up in this article specifically. What concerns me most about the state of the article as it was is that the issue of neoconservatism was utterly void from the article, despite all expectations to the contrary. I also think it's very relevant to credit him with co-founding the PNAC in the lead, because that is probably what he is best known for.

Thank you for all of that. Owen (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As your additional comments, I would be glad to see those changes made. Again, I didn't know as I was editing that Kagan specifically rejected the term. And I'd be glad to see criticisms added. I myself made it a point to soften the text by pointing out that he has been called a neoconservative, rather than saying he is one. So I don't appreciate your absence of good faith in my actions on this article. For my part, I was only responding to the totally unexpected absence of the term in any form, enforced in considerable part by a single-purpose user who has worked persistently towards this end for more than three years. Owen (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't base articles on autobiographies, because they are not reliable sources. Thus (2) is more important than (1).

Per WP:Lede, the lede summarizes the article and introduces nothing that is not discussed in greater detail in the body of the article. Thus, you should not stick new information about anything in the lede.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we don't base articles entirely on an autobiography, for obvious reasons, but I cannot fathom why it would be considered an unreliable source regarding someone's own political beliefs. And I have never heard of any policy saying that autobiographies cannot be used as a source for a subject's article. On the contrary, it happens very frequently on Wikipedia.

Fair enough about the lede. I was more concerned about mentioning the PNAC than anything about Robert's political point of view. Although I do think discussion of it belongs in the body of the article, and I do believe that categorizing the subject under "neoconservatism" is appropriate. Owen (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Owen,

You misread "base" for "base entirely". A house has a base and perhaps a basement, but usually has another floor. A soup has a base, but usually has other ingredients. :)

Base the article on high quality and reliable sources, and then (optionally) cite the subject's writings as seasoning, of course. :)

Owen, you have not written the body of the article and you have not written even a paragraph about the neoconservatism issue, yet again you are pushing the neoconservatism label for this BLP. Try to understand why your focus on "neoconservatism" may alarm some editors. Maybe you should edit another biography where you have more moderate feelings and no history of point-of-view pushing, and get feedback from experienced editors, so that you better understand our policies and have better mastery of our craft, which takes some practice. :)

You might look at the history of e.g. Wife selling (English custom), to see how much pain point-of-view pushers can cause editors, and why therefore it may be politic to avoid triggering POV-pushing trip-wires! ;D

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kiefer, I see that you are again accusing me of bad faith, and pressuring me to leave this article. First of all, I have been an administrator in good standing on this site for over eight years, so I have no idea what you are talking about talking about calling me inexperienced. Second, you clearly want to push me out of this article, which I find very suspicious editing behavior. On Wikipedia, editors debate and discuss POV issues to work out a better article. They don't simply let one extreme faction take control of editing on a page and walk away elsewhere. Third, you accuse me of POV-pushing on this article, and yet you stress no objections to Robert Kagan clearly trying, for more than three years, to dictate exactly how his autobiography appears to others, for apparent reasons of crafting his public relations image in a certain light. Beyond that, you start accusing me of POV-pushing simply because I am busy and hadn't had a chance to return to the article to make further changes, which I can't understand. Owen (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Owen,

It used to be easy to become an administrator. Your editing displayed that you have not internalized contemporary WP policies about ledes and BLP.

You seem also to have missed my suggestions to a person who may (or may not) be Kagan, below.

Try to calm down. I tried to explain why editors become nervous about the appearance of POV-pushing, per WP:AGF. I did not accuse you of POV-pushing but I raised concerns about appearances. It would be great if, by words and deed, you showed an interest beyond the neocon label: For example, I am delighted you found a source noting that he rejects that label.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Owen,

I copy-edited your sentence. As my edit summary noted, I am concerned that your sources for the neoconservative label seem to be derived from liberal-labour media, and none are from centrist or conservative sources. This raises a risk of political bias.

It is also surprising that your Pittsburgh source noted that Obama endorsed the central thesis of Kagan's book in his 2012 State of the Union Address. Would you use that as another source for Kagan's influence on Obama, which is discussed later in the article, please?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the word "despite" is a neutral point of view because it suggests explicitly that these media sources know that Kagan doesn't like to be considered neoconservative, and are using it anyway to spite him. And yet frankly it is very difficult to find any sources on the internet that say he rejects that label. The one I did find is not a very good one, and for all I know used an earlier version of this article as a source. I don't mind if you want to use that article to say something about his ties with Obama, but I don't see why you think I need to do that for you. As for all the sources being "liberal-labour" or moderate, I don't find that true. For instance, I looked up Foreign Affairs on Mondo Times and it is said to have a slight right-wing bias. http://www.mondotimes.com/2/topics/5/society/89/4218 Owen (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs used to be centrist. The author is a historian who used "theology" to describe neoconservative foreign policy, which makes him ... , even if he meets WP:RS. You agree that Dionne and The Guardian are fairly described as Lib-Lab, then. I reworded "despite" per your concerns.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for changing that wording. I don't disagree that those sources are from a labor, liberal, or moderate perspective. But again, the citations are there to show what he has been called, and not to say what his beliefs actually are. I'm fairly satisfied with the sentence as it looks now, and I have no objection to the sentence you listed afterwards where he describes his own political beliefs. Owen (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his mention in the State of the Union is significant, and perhaps does belong in the lede. However, this speech does less to explain anything about the subject, and more to illustrate his general importance. Whereas his founding of PNAC, an institute that counted among its members prominent figures such as VP Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard L. Armitage, and many others, many of them who served in George W. Bush's cabinet and helped direct national policy for eight years, does say a lot about his political accomplishments. Certainly this is more important than his current stint at Brookings, and if we are going to keep one and remove the other from the lede, then we should dump Brookings and leave PNAC. But I do think that if we can we should include both. Owen (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am perhaps excessively skeptical about PNAC, because Wikipedia used to have a lot of articles charging that the world had been controlled by a shadowing network of followers of Max Shachtman, who had launched neoconservatism, some of whom signed a letter from PNAC, apparently. I exaggerate only slightly. Reading enough articles about political psychic surgery gave me an allergy against "neoconservativism", etc. Please keep the state of the union, but mention PNAC in the lede; however, I really ask (not as policy but for the sake of reason and the spirit of BLP) that you try to find a reliable source for PNAC, if it is in the lede. Respectfully,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will bring back the State of the Union and include a better source for PNAC in the lede. Owen (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Owen, I appreciate this discussion. Here is my case for keeping PNAC in the body rather than in the lede. You may feel it is the most important part of subject's biography, Owen, and there are many who would agree with you. However, I believe you are in the minority. A majority of readers would not say that was the most important fact about the subject. They might refer to his historical work, his best-selling books, his work as an adviser to two presidential campaigns, etc. To place PNAC in the lede is the victory of one minority perspective over others. I am not recommending exlcuding PNAC from the bio. But it seems to me the least biased approach to the lede would be to focus either on a general description (author/historian/etc) or to mention current position. I would be happy to drop Brookings from the lede, for instance. thank you for the discussion, and I am sorry that I am not yet familiar enough with the etiquette of Wikipedia, though I am trying to learn. Sincerely User:Wikifixer

Hello, Wixifixer. The lede currently refers both to PNAC and to your recent bestseller. I feel that does a justice to the range of your work. PNAC is a good representation of your more private political work. And Obama's public display of your recent bestseller, I think, emphasizes the popularity of your work among a broad segment of the population, including those one might expect to disagree with you. I feel that this is a good balance, and provides a considerable amount of relevant information in the lede. Owen (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Owen. Except that the PNAC, is not only defunct, as you note, its significance is now more than a decade old. Why single that out, as opposed to other past actions and affiliations? Again, YOU may feel it is most important. But that is a minority view. Why impose this minority view on the entry? Thanks, Wikifixer.

I don't feel that it is singled out. Your work with the Brookings Institution is also mentioned in the lede. If I do consider PNAC more important than Brookings, the Foreign Policy Initiative, the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs Policy Board, or the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it is because: A) The PNAC had a clearly fundamental role in the policies of the George W. Bush administration, with 18 members of that Cabinet being a member of your organization, including people filling the roles of Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, two Deputy Secretaries of State, as well as the Chief of Staff. And B) You were not only a member of PNAC, you co-founded the organization, and this difference is highly significant, because you were not simply a part of it, you are also credited for its existence. Owen (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Owen, First of all, your facts are in error. The people you named were not, in fact, members of the the PNAC. You have mistaken a statement they signed with the actual PNAC membership, which consisted of William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Bruce P. Jackson, and Randy Scheunemann, none of whom served in the Bush administration. Their names are listed on the PNAC website. The fact that you have made this elementary error about the organization further demonstrates that political prejudice rather than concern for the facts is your primary motivation. I am not an expert on Wikipedia, but what I do know is that biographies of living persons should not be shaped by such considerations. Again, I believe it is appropriate to list PNAC in the body of the biography, but not in the lede. Thank you, Wikifixer

You are splitting hairs here, Robert. I'm sorry that I failed to make a distinction between members and signatories, but the point remains that they were affiliated with your organization. And while we're talking about prejudice or bias, don't pretend that you don't have a very specific point of view regarding this article. After all, this is your article, and it is absolutely expected that you, more than anyone else in the world, would have an interest in crafting it in a way that expresses you in the most positive possible light. That you have been directly involved in shaping your own article is very suspect under Wikipedia policy. No one in the world has such a stake in how you are represented here as you. So don't even pretend to dismiss what I am saying because of bias, and reducing this argument to an emotional crusade against me. Out of respect for you, I have not reduced myself to making these accusations against you. I am interested in improving the article, not engaging in a war of personal attacks. Owen (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they were not affiliated. My only interest is in the appropriate neutrality that is fitting for a biography of a living person. Thank you, Wikifixer

I'm perfectly willing to entertain that you are editing with good intentions, so long as you can assume likewise of me. By saying they were not affiliated, are you say they weren't signatories? Or are you saying that you don't consider signatories to have an affiliation? Owen (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

On the question of affiliation, there were over a hundred signatories of PNAC letters and statements over the years. Many of them were Democrats, who worked in the Clinton administration and later in the Obama administration. This is another fact often missing from discussions of PNAC. However, I don't think it is right to say that these Democrats were affiliated with PNAC just because they signed statements or letters. Affiliation to my mind requires something more than signing a statement. Thanks, Wikifixer.

As for Democrats being involved with PNAC, that doesn't surprise me, although that is surprisingly absent from the normal discussions. But I think it is clear that 18 signatories in a single presidential cabinet is quite a significant number. If there were 120 signatories altogether, 18 would account for a full 15% of the total signature base. Personally, I would disagree with you on the matter of affiliation. Publicly signing statements that you abide by the principles of an organization seems to me to be an affiliation. For instance, if someone registers as a Republican, I tend to consider that as meaning they are affiliated with the Republican Party. They don't in any way represent the party, but they are affiliated with it. In any case I'm not sure how this distinction pertains to this article. Owen (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there is so much misinformation about PNAC, which is one reason I think it should not be in the lede. Thanks, Wikifixer.

I can't really see how alleged misunderstanding of PNAC by the general public is a reason to remove it from the lede. So far as I can tell, this page does not reinforce those misunderstandings. A better place to address those problems would be on the Project for the New American Century article. Owen (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The PNAC article is shit shat by many editors. Don't waste your time trying to write an honest article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We're using The Colbert Report as a source now?! User:Wixifixer Also, that sentence is illiterate.

I didn't like it either. Video sources are bad, and I didn't see how it was helpful to the article, so it has been removed. Owen (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not related to Supreme court justice elena kagan

This might not belong in the article but some people may assume they are related. Here is a link that says they are not. No Relation: The Kagans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.211.141 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

PNAC: WP:RS and WP:Secondary

PNAC is again in the lede with only links to the website (in the lede). It is time to either to provide secondary reliable sources or remove it from the lede.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A review of The Center for Computational Stylistics in David Lodge's Changing Places (or Small World: An Academic Romance) may serve as a reality check. ;D  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I trust the bibliographical information shall be completed with all deliberate speed. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What I've cited from is the author description at the end of the book, which included an essay from Kagan. You can read it in full here: http://books.google.com/books?id=31y5P8Lz-S4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=co-founder&f=false The nature of the blurb doesn't make for good quoting. The book itself, by the way, is a conservative source, with an endorsement from Henry Kissinger calling it a "valuable contribution to demythologizing the neoconservative 'movement'". Owen (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity that you were less attentive to the other neoconservative cabals, the Washington Post and the Carnegie Foundation. It's about 80 years too late for demythologization to arrive to discussions of neoconservatism and American conservatism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the PNAC entry in Wikipedia is so flawed, it should not be used as a source. It lists people as "core members" who were not part of PNAC. It conflates he actions of other people and groups. It gives an incomplete picture of PNAC's overall activities, which included extensive commentary on the Balkans during the Clinton years, China/Taiwan, etc. Why direct readers to a poor source? User:Wixifixer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.153.252 (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The PNAC article isn't being used as a source, it's being used as a link. And on Wikipedia, we don't stop using links because the article on the other side is bad. We work to fix the other page instead. And I'd be glad to see more work done there. I did just remove the unqualified and unsourced reference to you and Kristol being "neoconservatives" there, since although he doesn't object to that term, you obviously do. Owen (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide proof that PNAC is "defuct"

This article's lead claims that PNAC is a "defunct" organization. However, it seems very much alive and has an active webpage, address and telephone number and no indication that it defunct at all. I made a simple one word change and that was responded to with an insulting message on my talk page but no proof that the organization is defunct at all. The organization's webpage is found here Calicocat (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This article has had active discussion by three experienced editors, who have reached consensus on some things. You claimed in your edit summary reversing things that you could not find any indication that PNAC was closed down. I explained why it was obviously closed in the edit summary, which meant that your confidence in your reading and writing was somewhat exaggerated, at the time you made that claim and now, if you have been too lazy to read the site you keep mentioning. Its listed "NEWS" is dated 2006, and its HTML code says it was updated 2009. What year is this?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see by the tone you've decided to take that you are simply asserting your correctness without regard to the spirit of the wikipedia project. I will therefore stop editing this article and you can consider your insulting language the reason. I've removed your precious artricle from my watch list and won't have anything further to do with you or this article. I did read your edit summary, such as it was, and I have also read many articles by and about PNAC. Your rudness is unwelcome and unwarranted. Calicocat (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Demanding a proof of non-vitality of PNAC after your previous editing was not the way to inspire the welcome wagon.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Marriage and puffery

The article is not encyclopedic in tone but reads in places like a rather crude and undignified PR puff piece. So I attempted to tone that down. The fact of Kagan's marriage to Victorian Kagan cannot be suppressed, as both are public figures. Why anyone would want to suppress such information is beyond me. It looks weird. Same with Kagan's joining his father and brother in being PNAC signatories. 173.77.12.210 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorsed by Obama (?...)

Let's remove this promotional thing in the introduction about being endorsed by Obama... It's sufficient that this minor point is mentioned at the end of the article, isn't it? (Obama having spent fully 10 minutes reading an excerpt of this book...). Greetings, 83.79.16.176 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Done! It is much more effective to put down honest facts about what someone has done and said, and who they are married to (if that is extremely notable, as here) and to avoid hyping prizes and best sellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.12.210 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect my critical suggestion to have such a quick effect ;-), but I really think it makes sense. It's sufficient that this is mentioned later in the article, not in the brief introduction. Greetings, 81.62.243.57 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over sourcing of characterization of Kagan as a "leading neo-conservative"

There is a thread at the BLP noticeboard to get input about whether the deletion of this sourced characterization is justified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and having checked the BLP policy on sourcing, there would seem to be absolutely no viable basis in that policy for reverting the material in question, which is sourced to multiple RS, to which I've just added another.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are not sufficient for a BLP. Editorials etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statement seems to be an arbitrary pronouncement on policy without providing an substantiation of your policy-based rationale with reference to specific provisions in the policy against which the sourcing could be evaluated.

To what specific provisions in the BLP sourcing policy are you appealing in making the above assertion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The following addition was removed by Ubikiwit on the grounds that it gave undue weight to fringe sources. I would like to know why the editor thought this was so. The source is Robert Kagan himself:

and is widely regarded as a neoconservative.

Kagan rejects that label, however, now preferring to call himself a realist. In a tongue-in-cheek article published in the neoconservative Weekly Standard, he admitted that some of his best friends were followers of Leo Strauss but maintained that he himself had never been a Straussian, "since I have never understood a word the political philosopher wrote. I mean not a single word. Nor have I been very good at understanding his disciples". Kagan went on:

I can recall, their biggest point of contention was whether Plato was just kidding in The Republic. Bloom said he was just kidding. I later learned that this idea – that the greatest thinkers in history never mean what they say and are always kidding – is a core principle of Straussianism. My friend, the late Al Bernstein, also taught history at Cornell. He used to tell the story about how one day some students of his, coming directly from one of Bloom's classes, reported that Bloom insisted Plato did not mean what he said in The Republic. To which Bernstein replied: "Ah, Professor Bloom wants you to think that's what he believes. What he really believes is that Plato did mean what he said."

Iraq War critic Andrew Bacevich described Kagan someone who:

sounds themes reminiscent of the great American realists Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr. Kagan once professed to believe that "there is something about realism that runs directly counter to the fundamental principles of American society." But now he deploys realist principles to explain the world.

For his part, Kagan describes his foreign-policy views as "deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans".

173.52.253.134 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas of how this can be make more acceptable on the talk page - without summarily deleting it? Say, by omitting the admittedly editorializing epithet "tongue in cheek" -- or explaining that many of the neo-conservatives beginning with the coiner and founder of the term, Irving Kristol, professed themselves disciples of Leo Strauss. Anyone? Crickets? I think the anecdote actually reflects well on Robert Kagan. 173.52.253.134 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Me too, in thinking the anecdote actually reflects well on Kagan. For what it is worth, I am rather impressed at Kagan's foresight, despite the ridicule as a war monger at the time! Hefted from the External Links, Lest We Forget: Neo-conservatives and Republican Foreign Policy, 1976-2000, 6 April 2000:

The arms control process was hijacked, beheaded and left to rot besides the discarded corpse of detente...Infused with the righteousness of the true believer, neo-conservatives are terrifyingly fanciful when it comes to international affairs. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two neo-con architects of GOP policy, recently penned an essay in the conservative National Review entitled "The Present Danger" in which they explicitly held up the Cold War era Reagan model as appropriate for the next president...enhancing America's ability to project force abroad and the pursuance of "regime change," i.e., the invasion of foreign countries and the overthrow of leaders unpalatable to Mr. Kagan and Mr. Kristol. Flagrant disregard for international law and arms racing is to make the world safe for democracy--again.

Not so fanciful, in hindsight! Even more timely, in 2008,

Part 2: International NGOs interfere in domestic politics; international organizations...monitor and pass judgment on elections; international legal experts talk about modifying international law to include such novel concepts as "the responsibility to protect" or a "voluntary sovereignty waiver." In theory, these innovations apply to everyone. In practice, they chiefly provide democratic nations the right to intervene in the affairs of non-democratic nations...The United States, though traditionally jealous of its own sovereignty, has always been ready to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. The nations of Europe, once the great proponents (in theory) of the Westphalian order of inviolable state sovereignty, have now reversed course...
Part 3: Rather than accepting the new principles of diminished sovereignty and weakened international protection for autocrats, Russia and China are promoting an international order that places a high value on national sovereignty and can protect autocratic governments from foreign interference. And they are succeeding. Autocracy is making a comeback...It is a mistake to believe that autocracy has no international appeal. Robert Kagan -The End of the End of History Environment and Energy, The New Republic APRIL 23, 2008

In today's Wall Street Journal, p. A1 via Twitter Leaders of China and Russia drink to their momentous gas deal. Robert Kagan was so prescient, honest, concerned about loss of national sovereignty, that my skin is tingling slightly. It is shocking and original, for something written in 2008.

I would strongly caution against too many references to what Kagan prefers to be labelled, neo-con or otherwise. We don't do that on Wikipedia; rather, we use secondary or tertiary sources. Neo-con, current or former? I don't know. What Robert Kagan is, is right, as in correct, and insightful in the context of 300+ years of Enlightenment and modern geopolitical history and, yes, realpolitik, I suppose.--FeralOink (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Kagan's actions speak for themselves. Clearly, US policy (whatever you call it -- I call it oportunism) is still that of destabilizing and regime change under cover of NGO's (including vaccination campaigns). The results, or lack of them, likewise, speak for themselves, as Kissinger and Bzezinski (self-identified "realists") have pointed out. Nevertheless, I think Kagan's, or really his father's objection to Strauss -ism (a lynch-pin of neoconservatism), as a form of double-talk is useful information for wikipedia readers -- or anyone. 173.77.75.113 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX. Note also that WP:BLP applies to talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got carried away the other day. I am high-strung, but will try not to be so exuberant here, as it isn't appropriate.--FeralOink (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of Kagan as "Jewish"

As an individual that has been associated with the "Israel lobby", it would seem that such categorization is merited, but two reverts have been made, with the reason given in edit summary, "request by article subject on talk page" and a link to blpcat. I don't know whether the assertion about the Talk page request is verified or not, or whether it matters, as it would seem that Kagan is a public figure.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting from BLPCAT:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities.

The policy sets up two criteria which must be simultaneously fulfilled for us to publicly identify a living person with a religion or sexual orientation. First, the subject must have publicly self-identified as such, and second, the identification must be relevant and verified by reliable sources. In this case, both are lacking. There is no discussion by Kagan of his religious or ethnic identity (if any) that I can find, other than the brief request at the top of this page asking that his privacy be respected (which is unverified, as you pointed out, but does not bear any of the hallmarks of a hoax). In the second, the sources to demonstrate relevance to notability and reliability are not present in your edit -- in fact, the edit I reverted does not contain references to any sources at all. I would caution that casual identification of being Jewish with being pro-Israel is both sloppy thinking and very close to an ethnic slur/accusation of divided loyalty. You're going to need a really good source to substantiate something like that (by the way, your link to a political commentator blog really doesn't count). I would also caution against politically charged labels like "Israel Lobby," which comes from the title of a book widely panned as anti-Semitic. Ray^Talk 14:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think it is also quite possible to be "associated with the Israel lobby" without being Jewish or even being sympathetic to Judaism. So I too think the cat should go. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that there are people that aren't Jewish that are associated with the Pro-Israel Lobby.

The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see Ray's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)