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 [1] from 2010, [2] from 2010, and [3] 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)

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 [4] [5] 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 [6] 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"[7]. 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)

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)

RfC

[8] 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)

Discussion

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. 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)