Talk:Max Boot

A2Kafir, perhaps if you were to read Boot's works, you would find that he does support American involvement in Imperialist wars. The petty wars of conquest of the 19th century were imperialism. Indeed, they have become the definition of imperialism. That you say otherwise betrays a lack of knowledge on the subject. Stargoat 22:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"As a hawk, he dwells on past U.S. failures to persist in various military enterprises." - Appears worded to present his ideas negatively. He also dwells on past US successes, otherwise his promotion of American power and management would be ridiculous.

I added the bit about Boot's belief why the American occupation of Hispanola failed; seemed fair to use that as a counterpoint to "Such critics will also note Boot's incredibly shortsighted praise of nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic..."Mattm1138 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Just curious - was he born "Max Boot" or is that a pseudonym?--Paul Moloney 09:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is unworthy propaganda. E. W. August 3, 2006

In what sense is it unworthy propaganda?Tenmilefc 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV can be very subtle

The very first sentence of this article strikes me as peculiar:

"Max Boot (born Moscow, Soviet Union) is a neoconservative advocate, author and military historian who describes himself as a supporter of a strong U.S. leadership role in the world."

That description of his position is extremely vague and not particularly unique, since the same could be said for almost every mainstream U.S. politician of either major party. It is also not a very accurate representation of his own self-description. Specifically, Boot describes his position as support for the use of "American might to promote American ideals." This is quite different from simply a "strong U.S. leadership role." I've changed the text accordingly. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 03:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you check the article cited here, you will see that Boot does not describe himself as a neoconservative in it at all and does not as the above user asserts "describe his position as support for the use of American might to prmote American ideals." Rather, Boot describes neoconservatism while making no claim that he is himself a "member" of any such group. The person who continues to reinstate propagandistic information about Boot here on Wikipedia appears to be obsessed with smearing Max Boot by associating him with a term that some are attempting to turn into a term of abuse generally.

Boot has, furthermore, never been "a member" of the PR firm Benador Associates, a reference which implies a paid relationship of some sort. This fact can be checked by emailing Max Boot himself at CFR. Lynnchu 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Lynn Chu

I'll concede that perhaps I could have chosen a more appropriate title for this talk page section. As far as Benador goes, I have no knowledge of that organization, and other than citation formatting, I have made no edits whatsoever regarding its inclusion in the article text. However, I did alter the text so that instead of specifically labeling Boot a "neocon", it merely names neoconservatism as the position for which he is known. You may find relevant the following excerpt of Boot's own writing from December 2002, in "What the Heck is a Neocon?":

Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, "hard Wilsonians" want to use American might to promote American ideals.

This is, in case you haven't guessed, my own view too. So I guess that makes me a neocon.

While there is a current debate here regarding the "Neoconservatives" category, for the purposes of the article text, Boot's writing has

• described a particular foreign policy position,
• attributed (however reluctantly) the label "neoconservative" to those who hold that position, and
• declared his own agreement with that position.

Regardless of the current popularity of the position, describing these cited facts in a neutral way ("has been a prominent advocate for neoconservative foreign policy") doesn't appear to be engaging in either personal or partisan attacks. I ask that you please refrain from making such attacks yourself on other editors. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the paragraph about Boot and Milloy was obvious partisan propaganda that does not belong in the entry at all. It is a pastiche of false insinuations. First, checking the cited article, it turns out to be a draft of an unsigned Wall Street Journal editorial authored by Boot, that was faxed to Milloy for comment, a copy of which turned up in some litigation discovery, and is dragged up here to be mischaracterized as an "article" on which the two "collaborated." This is an artful twisting of rhetoric to disguise the fact that it was not a collaboration at all, not a co-written article, or even an authored article, but an official WSJ editorial, the points of view of which are dictated by the WSJ editorial board. The fax to Milloy was a routine factcheck by WSJ writer Boot. Milloy, like anyone factchecked by any journalist, was given an opportunity to comment, and did so in a few completely unremarkable tiny marginalia. And there was absolutely nothing remarkable about the editorial itself, as it was one in a long line of editorials of the WSJ in support of deregulatory efforts. The editorial discussed a recently issued government report that had found that certain government regulatory efforts were expensive and dysfunctional. Ho hum. Another day, another such WSJ editorial. Nothing in the Boot fax to Milloy supported any of the successive insinuations by the propagandist, such as that some kind of scandal had surrounded Milloy, or had erupted from the publication of the editorial, or that there had been any finding by anyone of anything unseemly about Milloy, or about any grants he may or may not have received from any corporations to conduct whatever deregulatory research he was then engaged in.

I am actually finding fascinating the concerted effort here, that is obviously malicious, and rhetorically fairly sophisticated, to manufacture smear propaganda, precisely calculated to mislead. ````Lynnchu

Rather than delete information, it would be better to correct it. I've revised the para to indicate the main change proposed by Milloy and adopted by Boot. Readers can judge whether or not it's remarkable. Certainly, it was misleading, given the evidence that subsequently emerged about Milloy's funding sources. JQ 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)\

Explaining a significant deletion

I was drawn to this page in the context of an argument about the objectivity and value of Wikipedia. After reviewing the page, I am sorry to acknowledge that I must agree with the criticism at least in this context. JQ suggests information should not be deleted, but instead, should be corrected. That's correct, except if the information itself violates Wikipedia's Policy on Biographies for Living Persons. That policy requires that the only material included be material "relevant to the subject's notability" and that "does not overwhelm the article." I deleted the following because (as I'll explain below), it is neither relevant to Boot's notability and it plainly "overwhelms the article."

What I deleted: According to Paul D. Thacker, while preparing for The Wall Street Journal a 1994 editorial which endorsed a report criticizing EPA risk assessment methods, Boot submitted a rough draft of his piece to controversial science pundit Steven J. Milloy for review.[2] The report, which also criticized a proposed OSHA ban on indoor cigarette smoking in the workplace,[3] was published by the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project and was written by Milloy,[4] the group's founder and president. At the suggestion of Milloy, who was later found to have been funded by major cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris,[5] Boot changed the description of the group from "private consulting firm" in the draft to "nonprofit research group" for the final editorial.[6]

The problems in this paragraph are many:

1. The paragraph is written as if it is highly unusual for the writer of an editorial at a major paper to fact check the editorial with outside sources before it is written. In fact, as I've just confirmed with two major US papers, it is not.
2. The paragraph is written as if Boot had any knowledge about Milloy's funding relationship. There is no suggestion that Boot did. And even if he did, so what? Is there an ethical problem if the NYT fact-checks an editorial about GM with GM?
3. The paragraph puts Boot in a false light that defames his character by suggesting (wrongly) that his behavior was unethical or even unusual.
4. The paragraph constitutes 30% of the article about Boot. As it is totally "[ir]relevant to the subject's notability," it also obviously "overwhelm[s] the article."

I am also surprised at the criticism raised about Boot's current employer attempting to correct these errors. Attention should go to the substance of the correction, not the editor. But if that norm is not correct, then let this editor be clear: I have met Boot once in my life. As a writer for the WSJ, he only ever mentioned me in a negative light. Boot is a conservative; I am not. And I have no relationship to his employer, nor will I. I am instead simply a supporter and believer in the work of this project (Wikipedia), and disappointed that this page at least has been ceded to a plainly non-NPOV. lessig 08:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)