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)

The account of Joe Bodacious (talk · contribs · logs) has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of the banned Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · logs). This contribution has been struck-through per policy, which encourages editors to revert or remove such edits.

Dear0Dear 20:24, 16 March 2015 (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)

References

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)

Speculation about 'divided loyalties' is irrelevant, as long as the article cites no sources. Unless and until sources are found to verify the statement, BLP policy (and common sense) requires that it not be included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Kagan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Neocons and "divided loyalties" / "dual loyalties"

• Source discussing the "divided loyalties" issue with respect to neoconservatives.

  Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, "They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel."[1]

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 4 February 2015; 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your source: Joe Klein was quoted as saying Jewish neoconservatives have "divided loyalties" The source you just gave here states: "He stands by his criticism of Jewish neoconservatives, and explains Iran's nuclear ambitions this way: 'Given the level of threats that they've been getting from the United States, and from Israel, it's a logical thing for Iran to want nuclear weapons as a deterrent.'" I fear that many people would find the view that Iran should have nuclear weapons is a "fringe view" in the US.

Klein also says: "They pick Ahmadinejad specifically because he's the guy making the wildest antisemitic statements. I think that's being done for political purposes, to scare the shit out of my parents." Which may also not be a mainstream view in the US.

An interesting interview with a person who appears to hold quite unusual views in the US. I fear, alas, that accusing a substantial number of Jews of having divided loyalties (favouring Israeli interests while claiming to favour US interests) could very easily be misinterpreted, unfortunately rather like the person who avers "Some of my best friends are Jews". Collect (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another source, taken from the WP Dual loyalties article, written by former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Kathleen Christison. [2]

Frying pan to fryer? CounterPunch will not pass the "RS for facts" test. It is self-described as "muckraking with a radical attitude" and described by just about everyone as left-wing.

Probably the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

the extremely hawkish, right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place its members inside conservative U.S. administrations

Both JINSA and Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving Moskowitz, a right-wing American Zionist, California business magnate

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the Middle East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and may be the principal reason for his near obsession with the effort,

Even profiles that downplay his attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust, in which several of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source inside the administration has described him frankly as "over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel." Although this probably accurately describes most of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is guilty at least by association

In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel’s causes may be just that — zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that still leaves room for primary loyalty to the United States — and affection for Israel is not in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and emotion — and, as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate attachment to any country — have no place in foreign policy formulation, and it is mere hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to another country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment, and emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.

the paranoid belief that any peace involving territorial compromise will spell the annihilation of Israel, will also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry produces blindness: the zealous effort to pursue Israel’s right-wing agenda has blinded the dual loyalists in the administration to the true face of Israel as occupier, to any concern for justice or equity and any consideration that interests other than Israel’s are involved, and indeed to any pragmatic consideration that continued unquestioning accommodation of Israel, far from bringing an end to violence, will actually lead to its tragic escalation and to increased terrorism against both the United States and Israel.

a bevy of aggressive right-wing neo-con hawks who have long backed the Jewish fundamentalists of Israel’s own right wing

These crazed fundamentalists see Israel’s domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel’s domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other’s policies in administration councils.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East

Thank you so much for suggesting we use this interesting source. Alas, I find it to be over-the-top is assailing people as being extremist fundamentalists who wish to create a Greater Israel." And quite unlikely to be usable for any "claims of fact" per WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PNAC: Vilified as a yiddish speaking Trilateral Commision?

I removed this sentence, which is based on deadlinks and an unreliable source:

In 1997, he was listed as one of the co-founders of William Kristol's now-defunct Project for the New American Century.

Pages 5 and 312 give inconsistent lists of the founders of the PNAC, with page 5 ignoring Kagan, so this cannot be a reliable source. It appears to be a collection of informal essays by respected academics, polemics, and curiosities, which is edited by an intellectual at a partisan think tank. Page 5 contains the description of the PNAC in the section subtitle, which suggests obvious concerns about anti-semitism and conspiracy theories in discussions of PNAC and Kagan or both. is a 14:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Irwin Stelzer would use such a description, though I've not currently got access to the source. Are you sure he isn't reporting someone else's words? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the dead links, the relevant pages can be found on Wayback Machine. [3][4] Both pages name Kagan, and the bio page describes him as a co-founder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, so basically more thorough checking of sources is necessary before removal of material with refcites.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC for example also described Kagan as "co-founder in 1997 of the "Project for the New American Century" - and I'm sure that plenty of other sources can be found. [5] Frankly, I am somewhat baffled why Kagan's association with the PNAC should be so controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, me too.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindly re-read the edit history or what I wrote above. The pages give different people as co-founders, with page 5 not mentioning Kagan. An internal contradiction like that makes the source questionable. It is not a collection of referred papers by academics or reporting in a newspaper by professional journalists with editorial control and fact checking. Please restore the tag, along with the updated urls.

Please read the essay beginning before page 5 and review Ubikwit's musings about double loyalties, Jewishness, neoconservatism on this talk page (as well as his history of categorization), for understanding of concerns. is a 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to the IPS "rightweb" on "militarists" violates WP:BLP and must be immediately removed. The other changes you restored do not seem to be gross BLP violations, and I would not revert the other changes. is a 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to IPS appears to be redundant, since the quotes are from the Washington Post. And as for the Stelzer book, I have already stated that I don't have access to it. It seems to me though to again be rather beside the point - we have sources that confirm Kagan's association with the PNAC. Accordingly, all that is needed in my opinion is that we cite appropriate verifiable sources. And no, I'm not going to 'review' other contributors 'musings' - I'm not an admin, and have no authority to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm not that familiar with IPS as a source, a simple search of RS/N appears to demonstrate that it is a reliable news source, as per these threads [6][7] and as Andy says, it is quoting Kagan from a WP piece. What does it violate with respect to BLPs?

And how is the Stelzer book a primary source? There are multiple sources regarding the PNAC information, and I don't find the attempts to dismiss these sources convincing in the least.

Sounds like a simple case of WP:IDLI. And beware of casting aspersions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two IPSes in the article history. The Institute for Policy Studies hosts "rightweb" about "militarists seeking to influence US foreign policy", and your re-adding it violated WP:BLP. There has been a lot of discussion about your restoring contested BLP material on the talk pages here and at Victoria Nuland. Please stop restoring contested BLP material without gaining consensus first. The other ISP's tag has a question mark, I believe, suggesting that it need not be a RS and that one shoul strive for a high quality reliable source. is a 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, because there is only one mention of IPS in the material removed, as far as I can tell. But now I have found that you are referring to this Robert Kagan profile on "Right Web", but only because I googled "Right Web and found the description at the top of the page, "IPS".

That is not the source to which me or Andy understood you to be referring, as is readily apparent from the above discussion.

Meanwhile, the assertion that the website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies is an "attack site" seems a little extreme, but I suppose I'll have to look into that. "Partisan" or "biased" would be a characterization I could understand. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• PNAC source, webarchive page of letter quoted by this Mondoweiss piece. Note that both Donald Kagan and Robert Kagan are signatories.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP/N discussion

Here's the link.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly sources characterizing Robert Kagan as a neoconservative

Jeanne Morefield, Associate Professor of Politics, Whitman College, published by Oxford University Press in 2014 states that Frederick and Robert Kagan are "well-known neoconservative activists". The relevant passage is on p. 73
The book is called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Here's another high-quality scholarly source directly characterizing Robert (and Fred) Kagan as "prominent neoconservatives"

The Culture of Immodesty in American Life and Politics: The Modest Republic (2013)[8] edited by professors Michael P. Federici, Richard M Gambl, and Mark T Mitchell, Claes G. Ryn states

The more prominent neoconservatives include… Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan…

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I read that source when you presented it before. [9], [10]. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia Note no. 3 Associate professor Vedi R. Hadiz states

…another leading neoconservative, Robert Kagan, is a leading scholar of the Roman Empire at Yale University. His brother, Frederick, is also regarded as a leading neoconservative historian.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do not read Japanese. Collect (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC) To what "Japanese" do you refer?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Read the link you give to google.co.jp . Collect (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC) I'm reading it, what is the problem? Only a few phrases in that page are in Japanese, and the page of the book is obviously in English, along with the title and name of the author, and I have provided a link to the American Amazon site. What is the point?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Maybe Google is at fault - my first view was entirely in Japanese - really. No pointiness intended - I found a complete page with no English in it at all. Collect (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) The book has not been issued in Japanese, so I can't imagine what the issue is. The text displayed from those books is not subject to being copied or translated. Were you able to reload and view the English? If not, try a search from your side.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC) The view had not s single English word in it when I first tried. None. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Vedi R. Hadiz? Writes almost exclusively on Indonesia, including claims of it being an "oligarchy" etc. Widely considered an expert on an American political area? Not. Description of book? " This book analyzes the overall effect of American primacy on social and political conflicts in Asia, discussing how the post-Cold War American agenda does not promote democratization in the region, in contradiction to one of the major proclaimed aims of the proponents of the Pax Americana. This team of renowned scholars argue that the US agenda can strengthen anti-democratic impulses in Asian societies, exacerbating and complicating existing domestic conflicts and struggles." Usability here? Minimal - it appears to be primarily polemic in nature. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the USA has supported numerous authoritarian regimes in Asia, including Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, Sung Man Rhee in South Korea, etc., though there has been progress made as well. His views don't sound unreasonable or overly dogmatic, just reflective of a POV that is not that uncommon; namely, thatthe US is out to serve its own economic interests as opposed to altruistic ends. You'll recall that there is a heated debate about oligarchy within America itself at present.

Also, regarding it being polemical, he makes that comment in a footnote, so you would not be wrong in asserting that the Kagan's and neoconservativism in general were a focus of the book, they were pertinent to the topic and he simply characterized a couple of authoritative neocons to which he must have referred in the text.

I think it is one of many sources generally supporting the characterization, and a peer-reviewed academic publication.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you know from personal expertise that the US deliberately supports evil regimes. We probably kill babies for amusement, and the like. That is wonderful, and when you write Ubikwitipedia you can use that knowledge. We are stuck with horrid, nasty policies including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RS until then. I suggest you read the books you wish to use for their footnotes. Collect (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Another attempt to denigrate a statement reliably published in a peer-reviewed academic journal by a scholar, and shoot the messanger that attempts to situate it and facilitate discussion.

You can't undermine such a work by trying to attack its author or their POV simply because you disagree with the source. ::::Meanwhile, the position you are trying to defend has no support in RS produced thus far. You are running a 100% negative campaign trying to smear me and as well as scholarly sources.

Produce some sources supporting the POV that Kagan is not a neocon, and then we can apply WP:WEIGHT with respect to WP:PUBLICFIGURE to generate an NPOV statement.

Now, please keep it civil and stick to the policy-based arguments.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA I find your iterated personal attacks to be tiresome and tendentious. Your accusation that I am trying to "smear" you is baseless and a violation of policy and guidelines. And note that no editor is required to prove the negative of a claim - it is up to the person adding the claim to show reliable sources for the claim. Asking anyone to prove a negative is a well-known poor debate methodology. I trust this is clear and that you shall cordially refrain from attacks on any editors on Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPEL and WP:EL

WP:BLPEL specifies "do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". The article does not call Kagan a "militarist" or another derogatory term, so the article cannot link to websites calling him a "militarist". The next time user:Ubikwit restores contentious material to a BLP without having consensus on the talk page, I shall ask for an administrator to to take appropriate action, given the months of demands that Ubikwit respect WP:BLP. is a 14:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Ubikwit (talk · contribs) continues to restore contentious material to BLPs without having gained talk page consensus, violating WP:BLP (in the latest reversion, WP:BLPEL [11] despite my explicit quotation of this policy). His arbitration appeal contains a list of similar behavior going back to the summer Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_is_not_a; similar incidents are documented at the decisions imposing topic bans, etc., which are cited in the arbitration discussion. The behavior is ongoing at several articles and his BLP editing is being discussed at WP:BLPN. Still he is restoring contentious material.

is a 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is inaccurate, as the sources that you are trying to delete from the article have been in the article with consensus long before you showed up a week or so ago and started deleted them without discussion of the material and without gaining consensus for the deletions in the limited amount of discussion in which you have engaged.

I'm going to request that you read WP:BRD, and self-revert your last revert.

I'm also going to ask you to stop accusing editors of defaming the subject of the article because you disagree with the sources and don't think that Wikipedia should have BLPs in the first place[12].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the registered user "Is not a" does not understand Wikipedia policy, or is misunderstanding it just enough to enable the whitewashing this biography. We cannot throw away highly reliable sources just because a new user does not like them. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk · contribs) Check the thread above with AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) and I engaging him.

A number of long-standing sourced statements were removed, including this tertiary source, for example, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link here, and then used as a reference in January 2008 here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Kagan's been called a neocon so many times by so many reliable sources that I find it frankly ridiculous for the biography to quote only one or two such sources, as if those were the only ones. At the same time, the neocon label should not take over the biography by listing 20 or 30 such labelings to prove the point. I think we should say that Kagan is commonly classified as a neocon[source, source, source] but he disavows the label. I also think the neocon label should appear in the lead section. Basically, Kagan's opinion about the matter is of interest but it does not replace widely held views. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that 'is a' misunderstands Wikipedia policy. We can and do cite sources which express negative opinions of article subjects, and there is nothing whatsoever in policy which forbids doing so. Indeed, WP:BLP policy requires that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" - which of necessity means citing negative material if it exists in sufficient quantity in appropriate sources. As to whether the particular source in question is appropriate, that is a matter best asked at WP:RSN I suspect, but it cannot be ruled out solely on the basis that it says something that the subject of this article might not like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, it goes beyond that one point, though. Check the discussion above and all of the material removed, particularly the discussion about IPS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Ubikwit (talk · contribs) has filed a complaint about my editing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Is_not_a is a 18:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Right Web's profile of Kagan

This tertiary source, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link here, and then used as a reference in January 2008 here.

User:EvergreenFir has suggested a policy-based rationale for removing the link to this site and one other that we haven't heard yet.

First, I'd like to link to this relevant RS/N thread on the source.[13] The rationale given by EF in the edit summary was that "These do not seem to meet WP:ELYES.

The only portion of that guideline that might be relevant is the following

What can normally be linked
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

The phrase that seems most relevant is "amount of detail", which I believe is fair reason justifying the inclusion of this pieces in External Links. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me WP:Eternal Links as a policy? External links are subject to the same strictures as anything else - and that one has been online for a thousand years does not mean it can not or ought not be removed. Longevity does not confer immunity for edits. Collect (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I never asserted that it did, but consensus has not changed that it belongs in the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I was under the mistaken impression that the website was an open editor site. I was mistaken. Seems fine to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you for checking into that. Incidentally, this is not readily apparent from the webpage itself, but it is hosted by this organization Institute for Policy Studies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And I find no such consensus. Alas - that suggests you should initiate an RfC is you believe RightWeb gives a unique resource here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding external links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the link "Robert Kagan profile on conservative site "Right Web"" be included in the External links section of the article? Relevant guidelines can be found at WP:EL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Include - Per WP:ELYES #3. Though the neutrality of the site as a whole is questionable, they provide plenty of citations and provide extensive details about the subject and appear to use neutral enough language when discussing the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• No And note "RightWeb" is not a "conservative site." The site contains no facts about Kagan which are not already fully covered by the sources already in place. WP:EL: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. are what should be listed. A non-neutral site has problems meeting those requisites from the start. "Right Web" is part of the self-described "Washington’s first progressive multi-issue think tank" which rather suggests it is not "conservative" but that it does have some political point of view. Again Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. should not be linked, and RightWeb has no "unique resource" to offer. Thus fails on both parts of the dichotomy. The nature of RightWeb is given in its tagline Welcome to Right Web, Tracking militarists' efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy which again appears to indicate it may be giving non-neutral weight where that is against the stated purpose of "external links." Collect (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• No. Per Collect.

There should be trimming of the article's external links. Presumably Kagan's university or Brookings or his publicist has a webpage for which it is appropriate to list appearances and videos, to which the EL section should refer. Also urls can be added to references.

If a leading journal publishes a review or paper by a leading researcher stating that "Right Web" is a serious resource, then it would be worth consideration for inclusion.

The socialist and contrarian Institue for Policy Studies has published exposes of interlocking directorates of its opponents' organizations, from the Central American conflicts of the 1980s to this "Right Web", just like Forbes publishes e.g. an expose of Ralph Nader's alleged control of liberal/consumer-rights/good-government organizations c. 1991---and both are just intellectually silly. (Right Web and Forbes seem to be a step better than the John Birch Society's publications on the Trilateral Commission, but as pseudo-academic compilations of networks both are far below the standards of academic research.) In management and sociology, organizational theorists publish studies of organizational ecology, where they try to examine the influence of individuals and organizations; a serious study of PNAC's "influence" (real or fantastic) would be useful somewhere, and possibly here if it mentioned Kagan.

Of course, an RfC does not trump WP:BLP. Why was the discussion at WP:BPLN not sufficient? is a 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please strike the erroneous "conservative" in the motion. is a 07:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to the closer. The above user has been indefinitely blocked for using mutiple accounts in order to avoid scrutiny regarding the posting of contentious material.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather, MastCell (talk · contribs) blocked only that account and welcomed me to use my old account, which I have. No big deal. Dear ODear ODear 20:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about the link itself, not the wording. But I'll strike it if it makes you feel better. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Include The first few paragraphs are very neutrally worded, and the sources cited represent a potential for further study. I will read the entire profile before commenting in depth, but the progressive think tank hosting the site obviously has views that will invariably differ from Kagan's on most topics, so the only reason I can imagine someone objecting to a neutrally written tertiary source is a dislike of the sources and respective POVs presented. It certainly meets "[3] amount of detail".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Having now read the entire piece, I affirm that I think it deserves to be included, and is policy-compliant (too much detail for the article) as an External link to a tertiary source. The profile presents a fairly neutral treatment of Kagan and his positions, and presents his writings in context, including reception, etc. The last entry on the list is particularly notable insofar as he breaks with the position taken by the Israel Lobby regarding Egypt. There are highly critical pieces cited as well, but from notable individuals such, as Stephen Walt, and most of the sources are mainstream.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see consistency. Where a source is not generally going to be usable per WP:RS (that is a strongly stated POV concerning the topics involved) if used at all it should be within the body of the article, with all opinions cited as opinions and attributed to the source holding those opinions. WP:EL however has a different and distinct goal - Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. as the aim is to provide additional neutral matter for the reader, and such links as are directly related to the topic but which would otherwise be excluded as indicated. See the section on "what normally can be linked" which includes official sites for the person or organization and Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. . This cite falls into neither of those allowed groups. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, there is also WP:ELMAYBE Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. I don't think Right Web profiles should be removed from Wikipedia BLPs. Maybe the qualifiers for "amount of detail" pertain only to what is found in a single reliable source. The overall content of the Right Web profile is neutral, including both positive self-representations, high-profile notable exchanges, and criticism.

There are currently three Profile on Right Web links on WP, two on BLPs: Reuel Marc Gerecht as an external link; and Bruce Jackson (Project on Transitional Democracies) as a reference.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In short -- one where it is used as an EL for a BLP. Which means what when there are always "another article does it the other way" examples. And that BLP also uses it as a source in the BLP - thus it is not a valid EL there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Include Sent by the random RFC bot. While the source may not be used as a source. It does have information that is referenced. Per WP:ELYES #3 it looks like a good external link. AlbinoFerret 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• No This does not improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a vote without discussion of its rationale, basically, because you apparently just don't like the POVs presented in the overall neutral tertiary source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Mindreading, hmmmm? I don't see any critical or important information at the link not already ref'd. The link doesn't look neutral for a BLP ("tracking militarists"), nor does it strike me as RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer: Attacks on editors' !votes by asserting that the editor has no valid reason for a !vote are improper, and must be disregarded. The above post is an example thereof ,alas. Also - I fixed the transclusion of an entire essay. Collect (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Include - The profile on him there is a good summary, discusses his bipartisan affiliations and does not appear to be any kind of smear on him. In addition, it draws on many sources that are all wholly credible as far as I can tell per Wikipedia's standards (NYT, Washington Post, etc), many of which are his own writings. I see there are many issues with the references on this article (dead links, primary sources etc) so I would recommend improving this article beyond reproach before arguing the link to this other bio on him is not necessary. Wikimandia (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nice super vote ;), NE Ent (talk · contribs), particularly ignoring Rightweb's avowed purpose of "Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy". "Nothing malicious" at all. ;) Not a single reliable source cited in the article calls Kagan a militarist, but your supervote libels him as a militarist. Dear0Dear 07:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" in lede

Binksternet introduced a new discussion of neoconservatism in the lede, using "neocon" [14]. I copy-edited it.[15] Ubikwit reverted with the claim that he was restoring consensus arrived by talk page discussion,[16] a falsehood. I don't have a problem with a restoration of the pre-Binksternet lede, e.g. Ubikwit's [17],of course, per WP:BRD.

Dear0Dear 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is required for such controversial BOLD edits. Did you mention BRD above?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The source uses the label "neocon"[18] which is why I prepared a summary sentence with the linked term neoconservatism and the label "neocon". (Many, many other sources describe Kagan as a neocon, so this is significant information.) Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is to be a summary of important points found in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and support that edit.

I disagree strongly with all of the other revisions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: You know that it is not just "critics" that describe Kagan as a neoconservative, which is a legitimate academic categorization, so what was your point?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You disagree with normal copyediting - and avoiding the use of the "neocon" word when the subject appears to object to "neoconservative" as well, and quite notably so? Is there some reason for that objection, please? And kindly note that the lead is a summary of any article - your personalized commentary here is ill-suited for this talk page discussion. And if a person disputes a label, then we must note that fact in a neutral manner. Collect (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with most of that, except for the point that "critics" is not neutral.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In most fields, all reviewers may be termed "critics" - what term would you suggest as a substitute? As the subject demurs on the term, would you say "people who do not accept his self-identification as 'liberal'? or the like? The catenation appears to be "Some people call him (word). He does not accept that term." - so how would you term those who demur with his stated position? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, tell me what is non-neutral about the following phrasing: He is considered a leading theorist of neoconservatism, though he rejects the "neocon" label. Contrariwise, your phrasing makes the substantial mistake of "some critics": Some critics have called him a theorist of neoconservatism. He rejects that label. Far more people call Kagan a neocon than just some of his critics. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

He appears to also reject "neoconservative" as well -- no need to restrict his objection to "neocon" only, is there? Broadest apt wording is superior to narrower possibly inapt wording as a rule - but this was basically a copyedit. The term here is "theorist of" which very few people actually call him per sources. "He is considered" is, of course, a claim in Wikipedia's voice in itself, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

He also embraces neoconservatism "with enthusiasm", according to Australian political scientist Christopher J. Fettweis, who says "Although critics have characterized neoconservatism in many ways over the years, the most useful definitions of the world view are supplied by those who have embraced the label with enthusiasm. At its core, according to Robert Kagan, neoconservatism has six main components..." Wikipedia's voice should indeed tell the world that Kagan is considered a leading neocon theorist. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source does not say Kagan self-identifies as a "neoconservative" and does not actually say much more than "neoconservatism has few pure members" - which seems rather to temper what you aver it means.

It cites [19] so we should look at what Kagan actually wrote rather than making a massive leap not directly supported by the source you gave.

Kagan wrote:

The conventional wisdom today, likely to be the approved version in the history books, is that a small group of neoconservatives seized the occasion of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to steer the nation into a war that would never have been fought had not this group of ideologues managed somehow to gain control of national policy.

To examine this premise requires first understanding what people mean by “neoconservative,” for the term conjures very different images. For some, it is synonymous with “hawk,” to others, it is an ethnic description, and to still others, it is a term to describe anything evil—I once heard a Cornell professor earnestly define neoconservatism as an ideological commitment to torture and political oppression. But when employed fairly neutrally to describe a foreign policy worldview, as Packer does, neoconservatism usually has a recognizable meaning. It connotes a potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America’s exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy, a belief in the preservation of American primacy and in the exercise of power, including military power, as a tool for defending and advancing moralistic and idealistic causes, as well as a suspicion of international institutions and a tendency toward unilateralism. In the hands of more hostile critics, the neocons are not merely idealistic but absurdly and dangerously hubristic about the unlimited capacity of American power to effect positive change; not merely expansive but imperialistic, seeking not only American pre-eminence but ruthless global dominance; not merely willing to use force, but preferring it to peaceful methods; and not merely tending toward unilateralism but actively spurning alliances in favor of solitary action. Even these deliberately polemical caricatures point to something recognizable, a foreign policy that combines an idealist’s moralism, and even messianism, with a realist’s belief in the importance of power.

Is he "theorizing" here about "neoconservatism" as your source avers - or is he trying to simplify the complex history of war in US political discourse from 1776 on? To me it appears to be the latter. He specifically traces this misnamed "neoconservatism" back to 1776 <g>. So the "source" your source avers makes him a "neocon theorist" appears to do nothing of the sort. What his essay tries to do is say that what some folks call "neocon" has been around since the beginning of the US. His essay ends with:

In fact, the expansive, idealistic, and at times militaristic American approach to foreign policy has produced some accomplishments of world historical importance—the defeat of Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and Soviet Communism—as well as some notable failures and disappointments. But it was not as if the successes were the product of a good America and the failures the product of a bad America. They were all the product of the same America. The achievements, as well as the failures, derived not from innocence or purity of motive, and not because Americans abided by an imagined ideal of conduct in the world, but from the very qualities that often make Americans queasy: their willingness to accumulate and use power, their ambition and sense of honor, their spiritedness in defense of both interests and principles, their dissatisfaction with the status quo and belief in the possibility of change. Are we really interested in abandoning this course?

Which does not comport with the claim that it shows him as being a "neocon theorist" at all, but a fairly liberal historian. Collect (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all very entertaining, but your review of Kagan's own writing does not rise to meet WP:RS. What does meet RS is Australian political scientist Christopher J. Fettweis who introduces Kagan as an enthusiastic neocon to supply the inside view of neoconservatism. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean here on p.66?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as quoted up higher. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

categorizing Kagan

See [20]

Jacob Heilbrunn appears to quite muddy any simple categorization of Kagan -

Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto.

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

etc. From here, it looks more like Kagan is one of those people for whom any simple label may, in fact, fit poorly. Collect (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it was called freshman disease, the tendency to come to a conclusion based on one source. Let's collect a bunch of sources before trying to throw out the "neocon" label. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So far we have one and only one source for "neoconservative theorist" at all -- the Bacevich article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The twisting of Kagan's words takes my breath away. [21] He does ask the good question of how people can be so ignorant of history to believe in the strawman of neoconservatism. Dear0Dear 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen multiple other sources for "neoconservative theorist" on Kagan. No time to retrieve presently, though.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are dozens of sources for neocon theorist. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple along these lines.

1. [22] "Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, can also be deemed a neocon intellectual."
2. [23] "In the New Republic (for which he is a “contributing editor”), neoconservative intellectual Robert Kagan"

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Um -- you do know that the Eric Black piece is an opinion column? Perhaps his words

" The righty commentariat hated the speech"

might indicate that the source might be one better suited for noting as opinion rather than as "fact"?

And as for the first -- I rather suspect the fact your specific googlesearch was for "neoconservative intellectual Robert Kagan PNAC" is pretty likely to find a result with those words in it. But when finding the quote you diesire, it pays to read the source. In the case at hand, in fact just before the quote you cite, we find:

To assert that some sort of conspiracy or coup occurred which saw neo-con intellectuals assume complete control over the making or executing of US foreign policy is not the intention here; a great deal has been published in the media and elsewhere which presents the neo-cons as some sort of sinister cabal .... It is also important to note that the neocons are not, nor have they ever been, a unitary or homogeneous group. On the contrary, they comprise several different generations, are influenced by many philosophers and thinkers, and have on some occasions disagreed about particular policies or principles.

In short - Hirst specifically and absolutely distances herself from asserting anything monolithic about neocons, or any conspiracy theories about them. In that context, you must then read the sentence so nicely google-mined - Kagan is way down her list, she only says he can be "deemed" a neocon, and she notes Kagan signed the letter to Clinton, and that is the sum total of her writing on Kagan. When asserting a source supports a claim, it is well to read the source and not rely on a single sentence found by Google. I am sure there are better sources - but please read them before asserting that they support a specific claim. I have a horrid habit of looking at the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- and this source[24] specifically says the PNAC report was written by three people - Kristol, Kagan and Donnelly -- precious little room for a host of other authors per this source you kindly provided. Collect (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the passage in the source, but it names Schmidt, not Kristol. It also, however, describes the "participants" as having "endorsed" the paper, which is clearly a mistake, as per the statement on the final page containing their names.

The rest of your comments about Hirst are utterly irrelevant to her specific characterization of Kagan.WP:NOTFORUM--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The part of the paper which does not back your assertion is "clearly a mistake"? Incredible! Um -- when using a source which actually contradicts your assertions as to what it supports, calling that part of the source "clearly a mistake" does not actually impress those who wish reliable sources to actually be something backing up the claim they are attached to! And the horrid fact that I actually read the sources provided does not obviate the problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly an example of inverting the actual state of affairs. The text of the primary sources is clear that they were "participants" in the process of creating the report, not "endorsers", which is a characterization that could more aptly be applied to the PNAC letters. Other sources have them either contributing a paper or participating in a related conference.

I've produced peer-reviewed sources that support a straight forward reading of the text, and you keep trying to dismiss it based on the bias of personal opinion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

more sources for kagan as a "neocon", "neoconservative", etc.

1. Remembering 9/11: Terror, Trauma and Social Theory, Victor Jeleniewski Seidler, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 (peer-reviewed), quoting William Pfaff from an article in the Observer[25]
2. America Through European Eyes: British and French Reflections on the New World from the Eighteenth Century to the Present, Aurelian Craiutu (Editor), Jeffrey C. Isaac (Editor), Penn State University Press, 2012 (peer-reviewed)[26]
3. Bush's Wars, Terry H. Anderson, Oxford University Press, 2013 (peer-reviewed)[27]
4. ABC: Bush’s Neocon Spokesman for Illegal U.S. Occupation of Iraq Slams Russia for Crimea, Juan Cole, TruthDig, 2014[28]
5. Twice As Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power, 2008[29]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it proposed that these opinions or characterizations be used? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer something more along the lines with the text Binksternet had inserted, but have settled on a compromise version in the lead for now. Kagan's reputation as a leading neocon theorist is prominent, but I will gather more sources, such as the following.

• Peer-reviewedsource

[PNAC's] policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000), the writing of which was chaired by leading neocons, William Kristol and Robert Kagan...

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Anything else the article needs, or just a desire on your part to add negativity? Seriously ask yourself what your motivations are for even caring if the man is labeled a neocon. Liberals toss that label around like some kind of epithet. Considering your intent here, I'd say that such an effort is a BLP violation....we should approach all BLP's with neutral compassion, not with malice.--MONGO 03:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)