Talk:Douglas Feith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

is a neconservative ?

Why is that the first thing mentioned about him? It seems more significant that he the under secretary of defense. Also, I'm not quite sure how and when labels should be applied. Chomsky isn't described as a Marxist or leftist critic even though that's what most people know him as. I know it can bias the reader to see the label upfront and it is perhaps equally biased to bury it in the article. We just need to be consistent.Lord of the Ping (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, why is Douglas Feith listed as a "neoconservative"? I know that he's been referred to as one in other articles about him, but I've seen nothing in his backround that would indicate him as a NEO-conservative. A conservative yes. Neither William F. Buckley, nor the two Bush presidents are neo-conservatives to my way of thinking, whereas Ronald Reagan could arguably be seen as neo-con. I hate to say it, but I think that since the term has become such a nasty word over the past few years, and so many (but certainly not all) neo-cons have been historically jewish, any right wing jew is now classed as a "neo-con" by those opposed to their world view (and and maybe even mistakenly by supporters who don't know the history of the term, and find it easier to accept a jewish politician, writer or thinker as a neo-con than an outright con).

This might be nit-picking, and I'm sure someone out there will disagree with me, and I can forsee much print spilled on arguing "who and what is a Neo-conservative today", but I suggest that Mr. Feith, given his backround, be labeled, if he must be, as a "conservative".318odyssey (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Most reliable sources that address the issue refer to him as a neoconservative, so that's what Wikipedia should list here, regardless of individual wikipedia editors' views on who and what is neo-conservative. csloat (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly accurate, if the term is being used incorrectly, even by "reliable" sources... For an encyclopedic entry to be meaningful, the CORRECT term should be seeked out and used, not just an often used, but INACCURATE term. I'm not talking about an individual editor's "original research", but what is the closest actual label based upon a person's life and political philosophy (especially when discussing a controversial subject, as Mr. Feith is). Many sources in the media throw around the word "neo-conservative" because it's an easy handle, which is also politically loaded, but is often inacurate. A discussion should be held on the term, it very well might end up that the majority of editors (who happen to be reading this) agree on the neo-con label, and thus so be it at that point, but I'd like to hear from a few objective voices. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.84.25 (talk • contribs)

For us to determine that reliable sources are incorrect and chose a term of our own devising based on our own examinations of his biography and philosophy would be prohibited original research. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still not getting the point, and this will be my last addressing of the issue: I'm not discussing ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Unless someone offers a reason as to why he is classified as such, he's described here incorrectly. Please put forth an explanation as to why he's a "neo-conservative", as oppossed to a "conservative" (there might be a good reason, bourne out by a clear explanation of the word, as well as references), not just that Newsweek, Time Magazine and Keith Olbermann may have called him that. That's not encyclopedic. If Slate.com, Salon.com, and The Nation magazine happens to refer to Christopher Hitchens as a "neo-conservative", this doesn't make him one, and a biographic entry in an encyclopedia shouldn't use the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.98.165 (talk • contribs)

Fine, he's neoconservative because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there. He's intellectually influenced by the circle around Podhoretz and Kristol; he worked alongside Wolfowitz and Perle to elect Scoop Jackson for gosh sakes. His office in the Pentagon was directed by someone who Hersh described as an expert in Leo Strauss. But, of course, none of this matters -- what matters is that reliable sources call him neoconservative, he probably considers himself that, and until you got here I have never heard of anyone questioning that designation. If you have sources that question it, and there is a meaningful public discussion about what kind of conservative he is, then by all means let's publish information about that too. But if not, we'll just have to allow Wikipedia to be as inaccurate as all of the world's journalists and academics who have addressed the issue. csloat (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"he's neoconservative because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there." Supports it in what sense? Because it is something he agreees with or because it was assigned to him by the president? The other evidence offered by Commodore Sloat is laughable. Thus we have the idea that Feith was influenced by the "by the circle around Podhoretz and Kristol" I, myself, was influenced by the triangle around them although not by them directly. Outside the cartoonish logic of Mr. Sloat most people are influenced by a multitude of sources from all different areas of the ideological spectrum. If it weren't for politics, Admiral sloat would be donning a tinfoil hat and talking about the comming martian invasion: The commodore averes "His office in the Pentagon was directed by someone who Hersh described as an expert in Leo Strauss." Filter for a bit more clarity and we have So and so said that the guy who directed Feith's office is "an expert in Leo Strauss" . If there has ever been a shiboleth in this kind of discussion it is has been the referenceds to Leo Strauss. Note that the director was purportedly an "expert" in Leo Strauss, but expertise does not mean advocacy or even agreement. Even if we concede that it does, can we really accept oberfuherer sloats use of guilt by association. That because Feith worked for someone who may or may not have agreed with Leo Strauss, he must therefore also agree. no doubt in oberfuherer sloat's world one changes ideologies with jobs, but most people do not.

Ofcourse, oberfuherer Sloat knows he is peddling half baked evidence. As he puts it "But, of course, none of this matters...." der oberfuherer continues "what matters is that reliable sources call him neoconservative, he probably considers himself that,..." And who are these reliable sources? How do we know they are reliable? The reality is we do not, but oberfurher Sloat knows it is pure bunk for he tells us "he probably considers himself that,..." that is when faced with having direct knowledge of Douglas Feith, der oberfuherer can only come through with a "probably" That is Feith may or may not be a neoconservative. Just as oberfuherer Sloat may or may not be a fool.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs)

Hi Spiker -- please see no personal attacks and assume good faith and please do not ever insult me again like that. Also, if you have no evidence from reliable sources to back up your arguments, please do not come to the talk pages with a host of meaningless innuendo. It is a waste of our time. Also don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested Feith was "guilty" of being a neocon; it is not a matter of guilt or innocence. It's simply a description, one that fits well (for all the well-substantiated reasons I outlined; you made fun of them but never responded to them). If you have a quote from Mr. Feith saying he is not a neocon, let's hear it, but every reliable source (in Wikipedia terms, to answer your silly question about what is reliable) seems to indicate he is. Are you really serious about this argument or just having a go at me? If it's the latter, chuckle chuckle, very funny, you got me; now leave me alone. Thanks! csloat (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Sloat

"Also, if you have no evidence from reliable sources to back up your arguments, please do not come to the talk pages with a host of meaningless innuendo" Apologies, Mr. Sloat, I intended out right ridicule as opposed to innuendo. But if you wish to seriously address the question that is fine. However,if you want people to be serious and expect them to introduce real evidence, you really ought to do so yourself. True you never said Feith was "guilty of being a neoconservative, but then I never said you did. but let's go back to your so called evidence. You assert that:

he's neoconservative because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there.

in 1996 Norman Podhoretz wrote:

"if there is a neoconservative extant who has become an isolationist, I do not know where to find him. At the same time, though, I can think of only a tiny handful who still advocate the expansive Wilsonian interventionism that grew out of the anticommunist passions of the neoconservatives at the height of the cold war, and that repeatedly trumped the prudential cautions of the realists among them. My impression is that today the realists have the upper hand in the neoconservative community, or what is left of it." (Neoconservatism: A Eulogy- Commentary March 1996)"

So as things stood in 1996 realists as opposed to advocates of "the aggressive projection of American military power" dominated the neoconservative movement." Of course the significant point here is not so much who held the upper hand in 1996, but to show that "the aggressive projection of American military power" is not a defining characteristic of a neoconservative.

in the same essay Podhoretz does tell us what is or was

"under the pressure of the countercultural assault, they quickly began to remember, or in some instances to discover for the first time, why American society and its sustaining institutions were worth defending-or, to state it more strongly and more accurately, why the traditional values of the bourgeois democratic order were superior to any of the known alternatives."

people who remembered this all along, who did not need to discover it were garden variety conservatives. Only those described above were new to conservatism and hence neoconservatives. The reality is that the so called neoconservative movement is as diverse as any other group in its thinking or as Podhoretz wrote in the same essay:

"Once upon a time, I could foresee with reasonable assurance where any neoconservative would stand on almost any serious issue in world affairs. Today I am hard put to predict where even some of my closest friends will come out when a contentious issue like Bosnia arises, or on the question of NATO expansion, or on how to deal with China, or on whether to send American troops to the Golan Heights."

Your ball... if you can manage to practice what you preach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk • contribs)

So you've managed to show that the term "neoconservatism" was used differently in 1996 than after 2001. Congratulations. The fact is, this is the way the term has been used by reliable sources for almost a decade now. Your fight is not with me. I don't plan to continue arguing with you because you have clearly stated that your goal is to ridicule me rather than engage the discussion. Suffice to say that "neoconservative" stays in the article since the mainstream media continue to portray Feith as one. csloat (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here? Ridiculing other people only makes you look ridiculous. You can post long block quotes all you want, but it comes down to two facts: 1) Wikipedia relies on standard reference sources and 2) those reference sources identify Feith as a neoconservative. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel

If you read my posts you would see that I was disputing the kind of evidence offered by Mr. Sloat. That is I ridiculed his evidence. Why? because his evidence was ridiculous. Evidentiary standards should mean something @ wiki Not sure why hearsay and guilt by association passes as evidence. Perhaps my tac was wrong; perhaps I could have handled it better; however, you'll notice that my second post, took him at his word, that he wanted a serious discussion: yet asking for a serious discussion requires the requester to adhere to the standards he is requesting. What are the " standard reference sources" being used? And are you suggesting that standard resources can't be mistaken? My disagreement with Commodore Sloat as stated in both my Posts boils down to two things 1.) Commodore sloat offers faulty logic, hearsay and uses guilt by assocation to lable, Feith a neoconservative ("His office in the Pentagon was directed by someone who Hersh described as an expert in Leo Strauss." 2.) certainly using a term accurately would have some relavance to a site like wikipedia. And the reference to Leo Strauss is a popular canard of critcs.

As I demonstrated in my second post "the agressive projection of American military power" is not a defining idea of neoconservativism which undercuts the commodore's asssertion that Feith is a neocon because he "because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there." For all we know, Feith, if a neoconservative, could be a realist. rather than a Wilsonian. Further, his role in ""the agressive projection of American military power" could result from professional obligation as opposed to ideology: Certainly the undersecretary of defense does not have the decisive vote in determining what policies are implemented if the President or SECDEF require him to support a given policy. It is his job to do so Bottom line here is that Commodore Sloat was asked valid questions by other contributors which he chose to ignore For example, 68.161.98.165 noted: If Slate.com, Salon.com, and The Nation magazine happens to refer to Christopher Hitchens as a "neo-conservative", this doesn't make him one. If Commodore Sloat did not ignore such points he chose to offer circular logic: "Most reliable sources that address the issue refer to him as a neoconservative" Once again what are the sources and what makes them reliable? Even if said sources are reliable, that does not make them immune to error. However, since Commodore Sloat considers the main stream media to be a reliable, my concerns about accuracy are well founded.

Similarly, Commodore Sloat states "he's intellectually influenced by the circle around Podhoretz and Kristol;"

The economist John Maynard Keynes was accused of being a communist in part because he was a member of the Bloomsbury group, who were all openly communist or socialist. But Keynes was probably the most prominent Post Marxian economist. That is he rejected marxian economics. I suspect this is due to a beleif that they were outdated. The point is that being influenced by a given group does not mean you agree with them. Keynes was no more a communist than Feith is neoconservative based on who influenced him.

You state: "You can post long block quotes all you want, but it comes down to two facts: 1) Wikipedia relies on standard reference sources and 2) those reference sources identify Feith as a neoconservative." Alright I will assume that you are acting in good faith here as the commodore insists I must. Fair enough, explain how the length or type of quote used is more important than the substance of those quotes. For that matter, explain how citing a first hand source is trumped by a "standard reference". Can you explain the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative? All Conservatives were anticommunists long before the existence of neoconservatives and anticommunism is certainly more a defining idea of neoconservatism than "the agressive projection of American military power" Indeed, the classic historical example of "the agressive projection of American military power" to implement democratic governance is Japan and this was implemented not by "neoconservatives, but by Roosevelt democrats, Namely, Douglas MacArthur, who established new deal institutions: Labor Unions, etc in that country.Spiker 22 (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22

If you have a reliable source that shows that Feith is not a neoconservative and that the standard reference sources are incorrect, please provide it. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel WOW! Never said Feith wasn't a neoconservative nor have I saught to deny it, but I have stated repeatedly that the problem was with the evidence. bad evidence is bad evidence. [personal attack removed] But since you have taken up his cause, can you show that Feith believes in the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there"? and then show how that makes him a neoconservative. For the sake of argument, I will conceded that Feith is a neoconservative, but you must show how this means he believes " in the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy".

Please refrain from attacking Commodore Sloat, he has done nothing to you and attacks are prohibited by our policies.

I haven't taken up Sloat's cause and I have no interest in defending his line of reasoning. I don't have to show how his being a neoconservative means anything. My sole interest is in the content of the article, and if you concede that Feith is a neoconservative, what is left to discuss in terms of article content? Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel: I did not attack Commodore sloat after the first post. I took him at his word and offered a substantiative argument to demonstrate my point only to be asked by you what I was trying to do? Once again whether Feith was a neoconservative was never at issue. I say yet again it was always a question of the evidence. In a normal process of reasoning one assess evidence, then draws a conclusion. Now if the evidence is faulty, the conclusion is unwarranted. I think that is pretty straight forward. What else is left to debate? The same things that have been at issue all along here: The definition of the term neoconservative. If my personal attack in my first post is against wiki standards, why isn't mud slinging? You assert that "My sole interest is in the content of the article" Sounds good. Very close to my point about the substance and judicious use of the term neoconservative. Over the past few years it has become a charge word. Something to smear someone else with. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that many; including Commodore Sloat consider it the equivalent of the word Fascist. This is why many contributors insist it be in the first sentence of a wiki bio. How is attacking a contributor against wiki policy but attacking the subject of a wiki article is not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker22 (talk • contribs)

I never mentioned the word 'fascist'. Spiker, please just leave me out of your campaign. It appears you cannot even mention my name without a barrage of personal attacks -- just leave it alone. The matter of "neoconservative" is settled since that is what many reliable sources call him; if you have evidence of some debate about whether or not he is neoconservative, present the evidence and perhaps we can include it in the article. But this is probably not the best place to start a campaign to change the meaning of the term in public discourse -- try a letter to the New York Times instead, for example. csloat (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For us to determine that reliable sources are incorrect and chose a term of our own devising based on our own examinations of his biography and philosophy would be prohibited original research. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So True Gamaliel. yes reader A may read George H.W Bush's biography and call him a conservative while reader B may draw another conclusion. Since there seems to be a question here about research sources, let's refer to Wikipedia's own article on the subject of neoconservatism:

"The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas)...." "...Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[1]. Of course, all this was prefigured by its coinage as an insult.

Commodore Sloat: I never said you used the word fascist, but thanks for continuing to prove my point Q.E.D Spiker 22 (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) SPIKER_22

And now to the question of whether the following is a neoconservative idea or whether the advocacy of such an idea makes someone a neoconservative: "aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there." I have already shown above by citing the existence of realist neocons that such an idea is not a dfining characeristic of neoconservatism. Further, Neither Joshua Muravchik's Exporting Democracy Fullfilling America's Destiny Nor Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the last man (which seems to raise democritization to a historical necessity) contain one sentence advocating such an approach.

 Indeed, as late as 2004 Charles Krauthammer wrote 

" This conservative alternative to realism is often lazily and invidiously called neoconservatism, but that is a very odd

name for a school whose major proponents in the world today are George W. Bush and Tony Blair—if they are neoconservatives,

then Margaret Thatcher was a liberal. There’s nothing neo about Bush, and there’s nothing con about Blair." and later: "Where to intervene? Where to bring democracy? Where to nation-build? I propose a single criterion: where it counts. Call it democratic realism. And this is its axiom: We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity—meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs)

This talk page is for discussion of the accompanying article and not a debating forum. What changes would you make to the article and why? Gamaliel (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

criticism and criticism rebuttal sections are way too long

They are not of interest in an encyclopedia. I suspect they originate from partisans who dislike the guy warring with partisans who do. There are better places (like op-ed articles or essays of criticism) for such stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TCO. The criticism/response sections are a classic example of WP:UNDUE. Feith had a distinguished career in public service which was, as might be expected, highly controversial. There's no need to print every Washington gossip's opinion of him. RayAYang (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They need some prunin'. CENSEI (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To say that criticisms by a list of very important people are not of interest in an encyclopedia is absurd. The fact that no one else in a high government position (that I can think of) has gotten so many on-the-record criticisms by members of the same administration is clearly noteworthy. It's one thing for Republicans to criticize Democrats, and vice-versa (not particularly noteworthy); this is an entirely different thing.

As for Feith had a distinguished career in public service which was, as might be expected, highly controversial., there are far, far more people who have had "distinguished careers" (you're showing a definite point of view here; may I suggest re-reading WP:NPOV) and 'not been highly controversial; again, I think it would be difficult to find someone else so controversial within the same administration.

Finally, the material you're discussing for removal is extremely well-sourced (otherwise it could be removed as WP:BLP violations), and it reflects consensus about what should be in the article. While I'm not a particular fan of the format of the article, the material in it is appropriate. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm expressing a point of view. So are you. That's the point of discussion. NPOV does not stand for "no point of view." It stands for "neutral point of view." That is a viewpoint we can only agree on after expressing our own. And you are assuming the future consensus we are trying to build from the basis of past consensus that we are discussing; that is also a logical fallacy. I'm saying that, while each individual piece of material may be well sourced and conceivably useful in an encyclopedia entry on Feith, the net effect of putting them all together in the current fashion is to overshadow his accomplishments with the current controversy. Feith had significant roles in the Reagan Administration and the formulation of its policy; I believe he also worked in the Carter Administration. Yet, somehow, years of his life and multiple significant accomplishments on arms control, etc., are overlooked in favor of passing references (and recanted, at that) by Colin Powell. Suggestions on how to improve the current mess, anyone? RayAYang (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got a suggestion -- reliable sources are your friend. csloat (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a NPOV tag on this article, as I believe that the extreme amounts on this page devoted to criticism are an absurd example of undue weight, and an attempt to carry on a controversial public debate on a biography. This dispute is slow motion, but my concerns remain. RayAYang (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

These are vague criticisms - could you explain specifically what you would wish to see changed if the tag is to be removed? Without a specific suggestion I'm not sure the tag can stay. I also will caution that what appears in reliable sources is key here -- Charles Manson's biography no doubt seems slanted negatively against him, but nobody would suggest it is NPOV because of that. While Feith is no Manson, it is clear that the preponderance of material discussing him in reliable sources discusses the very notable criticisms that are listed in this article. There is nothing POV or UNDUE about that. csloat (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing vague about undue weight. My complaint is that the listing of every Washington gossip's opinion about him, reliably sourced or not, greatly overshadows the actual description of his deeds, their effects, and the context in which the actions took place (the items that are generally of interest in a biography). I could compile a similar listing for just about *every* prominent political figure having to do with a controversial war, but you do not see such an atrocity repeated on the biographies of, say, Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson or Colin Powell or (with a bit more work due to time-separation) Abraham Lincoln. Indeed those articles are exemplars of the encyclopedic style because they do *not* incorporate such sections, reliably sourced or not.

The section needs to be exhaustively pruned, keeping a few quotes to demonstrate the tone of the debate, and organically incorporated into the discussion of Feith's term as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Criticism is alright, but turning the article into a dumping ground for every sourced thing that anybody's said about him is not. If need be, we can create an article called Douglas Feith bibliography or something of that sort, in line with Richard Nixon bibliography, so that the research put in by previous authors need not be wasted.

One further point. It is my understanding that, with respect to neutrality disputes on articles, so long as neutrality is disputed, NPOV is appropriate. I am disputing it, and this dispute has not been resolved. In fact, given the amount of work I propose (and the likelihood of vigorous discussion at every step) it is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. This is not necessarily a flaw; it reflects that we are honest about the controversy surrounding the subject and the difficulty of arriving at a good biography. RayAYang (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

neoconservative is a subjective category

Neoconservatism is not a political party, it is not even a fully established intellectual movement, to the extent that British encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have a special article dedicated to neoconservatism [2], and only uses the term in quotation marks: the so-called “neoconservatives”. Agaist this background, it is inappropriate to apply the term to people just because some critics branded them as “neocons”. The only realible source in this situation can only be Douglas J. Feith himself. Has he ever described himself as neoconservative?Keverich1 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? All that matters is that reliable sources (not just "some critics" but pretty much all reliable sources on the issue) recognize him as neoconservative. I've explained why that designation is accurate already elsewhere on this page. Please give this up; it's been discussed to death already here. csloat (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how can talk of realible sources in this situation. In the absence of any commonly accepted definition of neoconservatism, people tend to hand out "neocon" labels based on their personal judgements. But in the encyclopedia its important to make distinction between personal judgements and estblished facts, personal judgements should indicated as such.Keverich1 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death, csloat, and you have never achieved consensus. Perusing the debate, several other editors have occasionally been yelled under, but have never agreed. Similarly, I register the most profound disagreement. The designation is only accurate to the extent that the term "neocon" has been thrown around as a pejorative in the heat of the political debate. The historical use of the term neocon is used for new conservatives, specifically the movement of Scoop Jackson Democrats into the Republican Party. Feith's biography makes it explicitly clear that his Republicanism predates that movement, so he can't be a neocon in that sense. The only sense that remains is the guilt-by-association attempt to use neocon as a perjorative for all people who support the Bush Administration's foreign policy, which is clearly inappropriate for any encyclopedia desirous of achieving a neutral point of view. RayAYang (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I only see one editor who agreed with Keverich, that would be a very abusive anon ip, and he eventually backed off after it was clear that he had no reliable sources to back up his claim. If you are claiming there is dispute about the neocon tag in Feith's book, I'm sure I would support including that information here. But I would not support excluding the information that is here and is very well sourced about Feith's neocon label. To say it is used pejoratively is silly; neoconservatives certainly don't consider it pejorative. And I have never heard of Feith rejecting the label or anyone else rejecting his fitting in the label except here in Wikipedia talk. And Feith worked on the Scoop campaign so I'm not sure what your point is about that, but, again, if you have a reliable source suggesting he is not a neocon (or that there is a debate about his neocon-ness), let's include that. csloat (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I do not believe it is appropriate to place such a label as is done in this article. We shouldn't state as fact what people believe. It should not state "Douglas J. Feith (born July 16, 1953) is a neoconservative" but instead a sentence should be added later on, along the lines of "Feith has been deemed/labeled/referred to as/described as a neoconservative."<ref><ref><ref> If possible, it would even better to specifically ascribe the belief by name. - auburnpilot talk 02:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! "Neocon" is not a scientific definition. There is no clear definition of a "neocon". In this circumstances there can be no other realiable sources than the man himself. If Feith doesn't call himself a "neocon", then the "neocon" lable should be presented as an opinion, not an established fact. Keep in mind, this is encyclopedia, not an op-ed article.Keverich1 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he calls himself if he is widely known as a neocon. But I agree with using the qualifiers; feel free to modify as long as the well sourced fact that he is known as a neocon is not deleted. And we should not pretend there is some big dispute about whether he is a neocon unless we can provide sources that have evidence of such a dispute. csloat (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded a bit, as this claim should not be the very first thing someone reads when coming to this article. We don't have an article of Feith because somebody thinks he is a neoconservative, but because he "served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush". That's what should be introduced first, in order to identify the subject. - auburnpilot talk 14:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Praise is way too long; should be rebutted

Every criticism is rebutted. And every praise section goes unrebutted. That's not NPOV. I agree the article is not neutral. It is way too slanted in favor of Feith. What is the point of the praise section? Does it belong in a biography that someone called him brilliant? I suspect most everyone in wikipedia would be called brilliant by somebody. But the criticism is real and has to do with illegal undermining of the Government. None of that should be deleted. A fair article would leave out subjective weasel words like brilliant and focus instead on what Feith did or didn't do. Since he's controversial, it makes sense the criticism section would be longer than the praise section. I'm sure the same is true with Aaron Burr or Benedict Arnold.GreekParadise (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Rarely have I been given such a straight line. As a matter of fact, the articles on Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold have no criticism sections per se. Rather, examination of their behavior is integrated into the narrative about their lives, without undue weight, exactly as I have been championing. RayAYang (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with GreekParadise. This praise section is absolutely ridiculous. I've never seen anything like it. It's like an advertisement for Douglas Feith. The fact that he and/or his supporters have to post praising quotes on this page is a tribute to how controversial (and in my view, just plain terrible) he really was at his job. Why not balance it out with all quotes from his detractors? Wouldn't you agree that this page would be much more "complete" if we included every single quote that casts him in a negative light? Here's one to start. "Douglas J. Feith was a terrible public official and according to several prostitutes I talked to he was one of the worst lays in Washington D.C. (Chris Webber, former Washington Bullet)." Having said all that, I'm on my way to create praise sections on all my favorite porn stars' wiki pages. It's going to be a good night.

Article Tags

Will anyone defend the two article tags on the page? The neutrality and quote tag. Abe Froman (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my to-do list. Hopefully I'll get to it during my spring break, as I'm not travelling then (for once). The article is a mess, but it looks like to revise it properly I'll have to do a good bit of research in order to fill it out. Ray (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is most in-need of work? Perhaps I could help out. 64.20.188.2 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some poor soul has to convert the gigantic quotefarm and mess of random news articles into a workable narrative description of Feith's term as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. It's a smelly ugly task. Ray (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How do you pronounce "Feith"? 200.125.115.82 (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section rewrite

I am here from the BLP board. The praise/criticism sections seem over the top and the external links section seems overdone as well. I am sure those can be worked on, but I did trim the lead per undue weight. Can the lead be improved? TIA Tom (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP or criticism article?

WP:STRUCTURE clearly says that we should refrain from the structure this article has. It is a mess with the information of BLP hidden in a sea of praise and criticism. We get it, Feith is controversial, but this article is a non-encyclopedic mess.--Cerejota (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick perusal quickly reveals weasel wording and OR/synthesis, nasty. --Cerejota (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusations and rebuttals

Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit

Feith oversaw the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit, established to find links between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. The group issued a report about connections between Iraq and al-Qaida that Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld requested Feith deliver to CIA Director George Tenet in August 2002. The report has been widely discredited. Tenet told a congressional committee in March 2004 that the report was not reliable. Daniel Benjamin, former director of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, wrote that, far from proving Saddam-Osama ties, "the document lends substance to the frequently voiced criticism that some in the Bush administration have misused intelligence to advance their policy goals."

Office of Special Plans

Feith led the Office of Special Plans (OSP) at the Pentagon from September 2002 to June 2003. This now defunct intelligence gathering unit has been accused of manipulating intelligence to bolster support for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. According to The Guardian, "This rightwing intelligence network [was] set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force." According to Kwiatkowski, the Office of Special Plans was "a propaganda shop" and she personally "witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president." Senator Carl Levin, in an official report on the Office of Special Plans, singles Feith out as providing to the White House a large amount of Iraq-Al Qaeda allegations which, post-invasion, turned out to be false. Disarmament expert George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told National Public Radio in 2004, "By all accounts, things in Iraq have gone very, very badly. Doug Feith should have been fired a long time ago for incompetence."

According to The Guardian, the Office of Special Plans kept an extremely low profile, but was able to do the work of a much larger, high-profile organization.

Actions Feith authorized at the Office of Special Plans concerning Iraq

A source of Iraqi WMD intelligence was overseas "back-channel" meetings with foreign citizens, which Feith authorized. According to Newsday and The Boston Globe, these foreigners included former Iran-Contra figures and agents of Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi who were shopping WMD intelligence to the Office of Special Plans..

As Kwiatkowski described, this unvetted WMD information was then "stovepiped" to the White House outside of established intelligence review safeguards for use in building support for the war. Post invasion, the Iraq Survey Group found Iraq had no stocks of WMD, and had not produced WMD since 1991.

These accounts conflict with the official findings of U.S. House and Senate inquiries into these matters. As noted a March 14, 2004 Washington Post article entitled "Feith's Analysts Given a Clean Bill": "Neither the House nor Senate intelligence committees...which have been investigating prewar intelligence for eight months, have found support for allegations that Pentagon analysts went out and collected their own intelligence.... Nor have investigators found that the Pentagon analysis about Iraq significantly shaped the case the administration made for going to war." The subjects of these investigations would be investigated again in 2006 by the Pentagon Inspector General (see below).

Actions Feith authorized at the Office of Special Plans concerning Iran

The "back-channel" meetings Feith authorized dealt not only with Iraq, but also with Iran. When Powell learned that Feith was authorizing secret meetings with former Iran-Contra figures such as arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar to investigate options for regime change in Iran, he angrily complained on August 9, 2003 directly to Rumsfeld and then Rice about Feith conducting unauthorized missions that were contrary to official U.S. policy. A senior administration official said the US Government had learned about the unauthorised talks "accidentally", and that it was unsettling "the government hadn't learnt the lessons of last time around", referring to the secret contacts and rogue operations that led to Iran-Contra.

Feith's authorization of contact with Manuchar Ghorbanifar was also controversial. The CIA said that Ghorbanifar "should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator", and put him under a burn notice, warning other intelligence agencies not to use him.

Investigations of the Office of Special Plans and of Feith

Officially, Feith is currently under investigation by the Pentagon's Inspector General and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Republican Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts began the investigation when he wrote to the Pentagon Inspector General asking him to start the review:

"The Committee is concerned about persistent and, to date, unsubstantiated allegations that there was something unlawful or improper about the activities of the Office of Special Plans within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy ... I have not discovered any credible evidence of unlawful or improper activity, yet the allegations persist." In an attempt to lay these allegations to rest once and for all, he requested the Inspector General to "initiate an investigation into the activities of the Office of Special Plans during the period prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom to determine whether any of [its] activities were unlawful or improper; ... [that is,] whether the personnel assigned to the Office of Special Plans, at any time, conducted unauthorized, unlawful, or inappropriate intelligence activities." Senator Levin has asked the Inspector General to look at the activities of the OUSDP generally, and not just the OSP. The SSCI is awaiting the outcome of the DOD Inspector General's review." Sources within the SSCI report Feith and the Defense Department have been less than helpful to their investigation.

As of March 2006 the news organisation Rawstory reports Pat Roberts, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was not allowing a complete investigation of Feith and his role at his Office of Special Plans. "One former intelligence official suggested that part of the reason for deferring the Feith inquiry was its sensitivity. A Feith investigation might unravel a bigger can of worms, the source said"

The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller twice alleged that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy or Feith may have engaged in unlawful activities, Phase II of the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq "found nothing to substantiate that claim; nothing unlawful about the "alleged" rogue intelligence operation in the PCTEG, nothing unlawful about the Office of Special Plans, and nothing unlawful about the so-called failure to inform Congress of alleged intelligence activities." The previous year, the chairman released a press statement claiming that it appeared that the offices were "not in compliance with the law."

Defense Department Inspector General Report Issued

Tasked to examine a briefing that members of Feith's Policy office delivered in summer-fall 2002 to Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet and White House officials including Steve Hadley and Scooter Libby, the Defense Department Inspector General Thomas Gimble found on February 9, 2007 that Feith's office did nothing unlawful, unauthorized or that attempted to mislead Congress But, the Policy briefing's criticisms of the CIA's intelligence work were found by Gimble to be "inappropriate" because they were "inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community."

The Policy briefing in question "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers", Gimble argued, at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

According to the Washington Post, Feith's "office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was 'mature' and 'symbiotic,' marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics. Instead, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives. The contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office – and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war were publicly praised by Dick Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as 'inappropriate' work."

In February 2007, Feith launched an Internet website, dougfeith.com, following the Defense Department's Inspector General report on pre-war activities of the Pentagon's policy organization. The report, "spawned a lot of inaccurate commentary by politicians and misreporting by journalists," and Feith said he launched the website, "to provide accurate information and sound commentary on the IG report controversy. I will use it also to provide reliable news items and other material about the work of the policy organization during my tenure as Under Secretary."

Feith's undergraduate work at Harvard and National Security Council position under Professor Richard Pipes in the 1970s and 80's presages present-day controversy over intelligence critiques. At University, Feith was involved with "Team B" analysis: or critiques of existing intelligence. In the late 1970s, many American conservatives believed the Soviet Union was a qualitatively graver threat than US intelligence agencies believed. These fears later proved unfounded. Feith applied a similar ideological lens to existing intelligence regarding Iraq.

The response to the Inspector General's report has been determined along partisan lines.

Allegations of facilitating "enhanced interrogation" techniques

In his 2008 book Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, the British lawyer Philippe Sands accused Feith of being among those in the Department of Defense who pushed for not applying the standards of humane treatment afforded to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention to enemy combatants. Feith, in turn, has denied the charge and stated that, to the contrary, he strongly argued for a pro-Geneva position. According to Feith the book is "wildly inaccurate" and Sands "grossly misquoted [him] on a number of points".

In March 2009, Baltazar Garzon, a Spanish judge, considered whether to allow charges to be laid against six other former officials of the George W. Bush Presidency, including Feith, for violating international law by providing a legal justification for torture.

|}

I've removed the above information and posted it here so it can be rewritten, perhaps condensed into as many as three paragraphs in narrative format (as opposed to something more like a list of blurbs). I favor the cohesive treatment, myself, which doesn't lend itself well to huge lists of details... But this is a encyclopedic biography, after all, not a book or an indictment/defense of someones character and professional history. Avruch ^T 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned over a large -- and poorly explained -- excision

Another contributor excised an enormous block of text from the article, with the edit summary moving text to talk to be reworked. They then pasted the text to the talk page, in some kind of hidden box.

1. I have never seen this done before. Perhaps there are circumstances where it is appropriate -- but surely this kind of move should follow a suggestion that explained why it was necessary, and a discussion, where a consensus was reached?
2. This move, followed by some editing, and then a move of the edited material back to the article will make the revision history very difficult to untangle.
3. It seems to me that the contributor who made this radical move hasn't really offered much of an explanation as to why they consider it a good idea.

I suggest this radical move be reverted, before the article's revision history is royally screwed up.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we needed a new section for this - as you see, I commented in the section immediately above with a brief explanation and a copy of the removed text. Much of the removed content which you can see there was a mess of accusations and POV descriptions of the work of the Office of Special Plans. For the most part, even if that content was properly written it belongs on the article for the department and not the biography of its director. The rest of what I removed can be described as "Comments by notable people." One or two of those comments might be useful if incorporated into the narrative of the article - two huge sections of opposing comments are not useful or necessary. Avruch ^T 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a new section because I don't know how these hide boxes work. I didn't want to mix up the discussion of whether you should have removed this material from the article in the first place from any discussion that might take place as to how it could be improved.

One of the sections you removed was one I started a few days ago, on Spanish investigative judge Baltazar Garzon considering whether to allow Feith and five other Bush administration officials to face Spanish war crime charges. You may remember Augusto Pinochet traveling to Britain for medical treatment, only to face months of controversy, when a Spanish judge wanted to extradite him to Spain for war crimes. That was Garzon.

This is a current event. In the days since I added that section additional references have surfaced. I'd like to work on incorporating that new material into this section of the article. But I can't, because you excised it. You excised it without discussion.

I dispute that the material I wrote, which you excised was not "properly written". I dispute that it was "comments by notable people".

Sorry, I do not regard the explanation you offer as sufficient or convincing. I repeat my recommendation that your very large excision be reverted. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living people should not be used to chronicle ongoing events; it can't be avoided in some circumstances, but until the relevance of a particular event can be determined and placed in the greater context of a persons life and public image best practice is to delay inclusion.

Your addition noted that the judge was considering making a decision, but that such a decision had not yet been made. I would argue that once the decision is actually made (that is, to request the extradition of former government officials to Spain for war crimes trials) it will be quite well covered in news sources and I imagine we'll be able to work it on. However, to me the possibility seems vanishingly unlikely - extraditing an aging former dictator, deeply unpopular around the world and with his home government, is quite apart from extraditing a group of United States officials from the recently departed administration.

A simple statement that you dispute my characterisation is not really an argument for returning the text to the article. You could simply do so, but I submit that you would be markedly decreasing the quality of the text overall. As a whole, the general character of the material I removed can be described as not properly written for a BLP in my opinion. Your specific addition didn't have the problems of POV that much other text did, but it still fails (in my mind) the guidelines in WP:RECENT (or WP:NOT#NEWS) and WP:UNDUE. Avruch ^T 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Wikipedia biographies of living people should not be used to chronicle ongoing events." Really? If this is recorded in a policy or guideline, would you mind citing that particular document? If that is part of your particular wikiphilosophy let me respond by suggesting wikipedia articles should not be hagiographies -- compliance with BLP does not compel articles to be hagiographies.

My personal opinion, or your personal opinion, of how likely it will be that Feith will be charged, or, if charged, how likely it would be that he was extradited, don't belong in article space. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR would preclude me inserting the unreferenced opinion that it was likely. Similarly, I suggest, those same policies preclude you suppressing coverage of the motions before Garzon, because you, personally, think they are unlikely to be carried to fruition.

I strongly disagree with you that the motion that charges be laid against him would have to be carried to fruition for them to be worthy of coverage. I read a comment, in the WAPO or NYT I think, that Feith now faced the worry that it was no longer safe for him to leave the USA. The article suggested that, on any foreign trip he dared to take, Feith would now have to worry that he might be arrested. So, while I couldn't insert my personal opinion on how the motions affect Feith's future travel plans, I suggest that an RS made the comment means it does belong.

No offense, but you seem to be trying to assert a distinction between "deeply unpopular aging dictator" Pinochet and Feith and other "United States officials from the recently departed administration". How exactly could we allow this distinction to affect the article, while still complying with WP:NOR? Can you cite RS that say: "Garzon's attempts to extradite Pinochet needed to be taken seriously, because he was deeply unpopular around the world -- but any charges Garzon might place against Feith and his colleagues can be discounted, because as former US administration they still enjoy world-wide popularity."

WRT your comment: "A simple statement that you dispute my characterisation is not really an argument for returning the text to the article." Well, first, I think you have that completely backwards. You were the one who stated the material you excised, without any prior discussion, lapsed from policy. I think you should be the one who should have to substantiate a claim -- not me.

WRT your opinion that reverting would "markedly decrease the quality of the text overall" -- first, you haven't addressed my concern over the chaos your excision invites, to the revision history of the article; second, your excision invites unnecessary duplication. Good faith contributors can come to the article, see it lacks coverage of all the topics you excised, and obfuscated in your hidden text box, and put in a lot of effort to add that coverage, without realizing that they were essentially duplicating work that someone else had already put a lot of effort into performing that you sidelined. Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. (Chronicle of ongoing events) It's well established, in practice as well as in guidelines (see the NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENT links above), that articles are intended to give a full treatment of a subject and not, necessarily, to document in detail ongoing news events. In some cases its impossible to prevent that from happening, but in BLPs of less than the highest order of notability it should be quite possible. The guidelines explain it better than I can do briefly here, but the nut is that a blow-by-blow account tends to place undue weight on the most recent (and unresolved) of events - which often makes it difficult to give each issue in the article the appropriate balance that time would allow. I fully agree that biographies should not be hagiographies, and I've never argued otherwise. Indeed I've made that same argument many times, in many places, and I'm even the subject of a 50 million euro lawsuit by Giovanni di Stefano for just this argument. Not chronicling every detail of ongoing events is not at all the same thing as mandating a hagiography.

2. (Extradition) I think it is unlikely that extradition will be sought, yes. I believe that if that were to happen, it would be big, big news. Neither of those things weigh directly on whether the consideration of an extradition request should be included in the article - they are more in the way of a suggestion on how the issue should be treated in the future. For the moment, my belief is that the fact of consideration is not on its own significant enough to include in this BLP.

3. (Pinochet and Feith) I think you misunderstood me here - the initial comparison was made by you, by way of suggesting how important the development you added should be to the article. My counter is that while yes, it turned into a major news event for Pinochet it is unlikely to develop to that extent with Feith as a result of the differences in circumstances. Again, the significance of the event in and of itself (consideration without action) strikes me as limited. I could see it included as part of a larger point on the international reaction to the OSP, but then that would be more appropriate on the OSP article. As to whether Feith should be concerned about arrest during foreign travel... Wouldn't an actual extradition request be required first?

4. (Arguments in dispute) While my initial comment didn't comprehensively describe each item, it did give the general thrust of my reasoning. Since then, I've given more detailed explanation for why I think various sections should be excluded. My point was that your counterargument was simply that you weren't convinced - which is fine as far as it goes, but doesn't help much in the way of furthering discussion.

5. (Excision chaos) I don't see the chaos you mention. Material is removed and added to articles all the time, all over the 'pedia. The integrity of the history is unaffected. As for duplication, that strikes me as irrelevant - if material is determined not to belong in a BLP, the fact that some of it might be re-added in the future argues for vigilance and not lax standards in the present. A comprehensive biographical article doesn't demand the inclusion of every published detail - I think you'll find that few prominent individuals have fully exhaustive BLPs, and very few heavily trafficked articles find themselves saddled with heavily POV descriptions of every iota of criticism and accusation.

Lastly - I think this will go much better if we spend less time parsing specific comments and more time discussing specifically what you think should be returned to the article and in what section. You've made an argument for including the review of the Spanish judge, which I've countered and we should continue working on that. You agree that the praise/criticism sections should stay out. I'm happy to go over in detail other sections you think should be returned. Avruch ^T 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(continuing my comments from above...) Feith offered a defense to the Spanish allegation in the Wall Street Journal, a few days ago: [3]. Feith's own defense, published in a major news paper, can not fairly be characterized as "comments by notable people".

Here are some of the additional recent references: [4], [5], [6], [7] Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my description of 17:30 doesn't accurately describe 100% of the removed content, but I think I've described my opinion on that specific addition above. I'd be happy to hear your opinion on the substantive issue and the remainder of the content, give your belief that it should all be returned. Avruch ^T 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles aren't supposed to have a "criticism" section, and a "supporters" section. This is a valid point. But one that should trigger a re-organization in place -- not a huge excision. I remain very concerned that the excision was made, without prior discussion.

I'll take a look at the excised material, and see if I agree that any of it should have been excised. Geo Swan (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I took a close look at the other sections you excised.

Some sections need more references.

The split into testimonials and criticisms hasn't worked out because someone seems to have added defenses to all the criticisms, but didn't bother adding rebutals to any of the testimonials.

I think those portions of the testimonials section that basically said: "I worked with him, and found him a great guy -- very hard-working..." -- don't really add much of value.

I don't think any of the sections merited summary excision.

I think fixing this article would be easier, and much clearer to follow, if the material was reverted, and fixed, in place. {{cn}} tags for instance, used in place, would be much more likely to lead to the poorly referenced portions either getting referenced, or a consensus being reached that they should be pruned.

No, I am not suggesting that the current structure of testimonials and criticisms remain. But I think it would be easier to reorganize the article if the excised sections remained in the article -- so those working to re-organize the article could see the sections we might regard as problematic in the context of those sections not regarded as problematic.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I support Avruch's removal of the content -- it was a bit bolder than what I would have done in my cleanup, but it was definitely in Wikipedia's better interests. He has faithfully followed both the guideline of preserving information by moving the information to the talk page. The existence of a massive professional praise and criticism section creates enormous potential for violations of neutrality, poor synthesis of material, and violation of good article style. Remember that the policy on biographies of living persons requires us to be conservative in the addition of controversial material, not willy-nilly. The former setup was a disaster. The current situation is better. Ray^Talk 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ray: I completely 100% agree with this: "existence of a massive professional praise and criticism section creates enormous potential for violations of neutrality, poor synthesis of material, and violation of good article style". I go further: not potential but existing issues. Faith himself is not at the center of many of the controversies (except among the tin-foil hat set), after all his position was not cabinet level, and the praise section smacks of POV vanity. I think that sourcing material establishing his bona fides, both positive and negative, can be found. I am thinking, for example, of the excellent coverage in The Atlantic and The New Yorker a few years ago, which provided a very thoughtful exploration of Feith-as-a-person, which is what BLPs should do - he can be mentioned with wikilinks here in other articles around the specific controversies if the sources say so, no need to clutter the BLP with this nasty sections.

If there are no objections for a few days, I will be bold and propose a paragraph or two to substitute the sprawling quotefarm POV madness those sections are. Quite frankly a very nasty disappointment finding this article in this state, very unacceptable, in particular as it seems the editing history is WP:POINTy and basically POV driven. --Cerejota (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

More OnT: WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM should never mean that news and recent events are not covered. 2008 Mumbai attacks was started a few hours after the attacks began, and is now a Good Article. It should mean the event is notable itself. I am not sure if Feith being investiagted or even charged by Garzon is notable enough at this point, but if enough coverage is presented, or if clearly notable events happen (like a formal request for extradition or even arrest), then no matter how recent it goes in. I agree with Avruch that being careful with BLPs doesn't mean writting hagiographies (shit, I love us nerds and our long words!), but he should remember that it is not uncommon to find people who hide behind BLP to propose exactly that, and in fact, there is always that danger even unwittingly, when we err on the side of caution. A great example is Jimbo Wales, which under the steely defense of BLP became, not hagiography, but Messianic eschatology, before it was brought under control by more resonable voices of the community.--Cerejota (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hidden in the wall of text up there somewhere, but I did indicate that if the extradition issue went further it would need to go in the article. The guidelines aren't absolute bans on news - as I said, there are circumstances where its impossible or not desirable to exclude news items. But generally speaking, no article should be a chronicle of news items over time or spend a great deal of time focusing on recent news items of marginal significance. Avruch ^T 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Geo Swan that the excision of this large amount of text is not the right way to address the issue, and think it must be undone. Whether the excised criticism was justified or not, much of it received significant coverage in reliable sources, and can still be found in many places on the Web. By suppressing the information here, also the rebuttals are suppressed. For example, I disagree strongly with this earlier edit and I think the rationale given in the edit summary is misguided. Our NPOV policy requires that we report neutrally on all significant viewpoints, not that we suppress all of them because they are not neutral. Most of the criticism was directed specifically at Feith, and not diffusely to the OSP. If there are specific issues with the various items in the (now excised) text, they should be dealt with individually. We have no reasonable mechanism for resolving a multiplicity of non-specific and unstated issues with a text that we cannot edit in place.  --Lambiam 07:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch, that the article is better without the quote farm. Some of that material likely does belong back into the article, but not in its current form. I have not reviewed the quotes in detail to come up with a proposal for re-introducing the important parts. In addition, a fair bit of the subjects quotes in the article need specific references. I don't doubt that they are representative of his positions, but they need verification through reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When do the Spanish legal proceedings merit coverage here?

The view that the Spanish legal proceedings don't merit coverage here until the charges are officially laid has been expressed above.

The Donald Rumsfeld article has a section "Criminal charges sought". How much risk of arrest did Rumsfeld actually face? Significant enough that it was widely discussed. One of the efforts became public when Rumsfeld was a week or less away from a long-planned European trip. Various commentators mentioned how embarrassing these charges would be, if they flowered during his trip. There was speculation that fear of arrest might cause him to cancel the trip. Commentators said even the possibility he might be charged, during his trip, was embarrassing.

Although Feith has not been charged there is speculation that he might be. Several commentators have suggested that Feith will have to consider the risk of arrest, anytime he considers travels overseas, for the rest of his life. I strongly suggest this is significant, and merits coverage in the article, without regard to whether the charges have come to fruition, or even if they are dismissed.

I am very frustrated. I want to continue contributing to the section on the discussion of spanish charges. I don't think those of us who want to work on this section should have to do that work in a ghetto-ized hide box here on the talk page. In my four and a half years of contributing to the wikipedia, and my over 40,000 edits, I don't remember ever seeing sections moved to the talk page like this. I anticipate this doubling or tripling the effort required to work on this section. Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it would double or triple the work required. Frankly, it seems obvious to me that the current version of the article is far superior to the version which includes the removed sections. Given that much of what was removed were heavily slanted recounts of accusations and criticism, I think it would be poor judgment indeed to return them to the article with no improvement whatsoever. Eventualism doesn't work with BLPs - we should not permit poor content to remain in the article with the fond hope that it will someday be improved. It was there before I removed it, it could have been improved, but it wasn't. In my two years of editing, and less than 10,000 edits, I've seen text moved from the article to the talkpage more than a few times. Perhaps that is because the majority of my editing has been in the area of improving BLPs.

The content you added about the Spanish judge simply recounted that he was considering an extradition request. If I remember, there were no implications expressed or sources to support them. That he might have to "fear arrest for the rest of his life" is simply speculation. Even so, if you'd like to propose a specific addition to the article (or make it, with the understanding that someone else may revert it and return here for discussion) I'm happy to discuss it. In the same vein, if you have specific parts of the content previously removed you would like returned I'm more than willing, and I'm sure the others are as well, to go over it in detail to determine the merits of each point. Avruch ^T 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Doug Feith (2009-04-03). "Spain Has No Right to Try U.S. Officials: What next? Prosecutions for bad advice on global warming?". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Doug Feith (2009-04-02). "A Tale of Two Farces: Sudan's dictator roams free, but Bush officials are in jeopardy". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Frank J. Gaffney Jr. (2009-03-31). "Looming specter of transnationalism: U.S. needs a State Department defender of its sovereign rights". Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Ron Kampeas (2009-04-06). "If the Spanish court doesn't work, they can always try a Bet Din". Jewish Telegraph Agency. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Dale McFeathers (2009-04-02). "A misuse of international law". Scripps News. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Lisa Abend (2009-03-31). "Will a Spanish Judge Bring Bush-Era Figures to Justice?". Time magazine. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Justin Elliot (2009-03-31). "Feith Shocked, Simply Shocked By Possible Torture Charges. Should He Be?". The Political Muckraker. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• "Top Bush advisor denounces Spanish torture probe". Agence France Presse. 2009-03-30. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Jeremy Rabkin, Mario Loyola (2009-04-13). "The New Spanish Inquisition: Judge Garzón launches a crusade". Vol. 014, no. 29. The Nation. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Paul Havens (2009-03-28). "Spanish court considers trying former US officials". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Tracy Rucinski (2009-03-29). "Spain may decide Guantanamo probe this week". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2009-04-09.
• Matthew Rothschild (2009-03-30). "The Spanish's Judge vs. Bush's Architects of Torture". The Progressive. Archived from the original on 2009-04-10.
• "Spain Pursues Torture Case Against US". Military.com. 2009-03-30. Archived from the original on 2009-04-10.
• "Ex-White House officials could be arrested". Laos.net. 2009-03-30. Archived from the original on 2009-04-10.
• "Spanish 'superjudge' turns his attention to the Bush administration". Typically Spanish. 2009-03-30. Archived from the original on 2009-04-10.

I don't have a strong opinion on this matter but I'll add a few comments.

On the one hand, the person who filed the charges is a left-wing extremist formerly imprisoned in Spain for supporting terrorism. It's as though Lynne Stewart had filed the charges in the U.S. There is no chance that any of these extremists oppose torture.

But my main concern is this: What happens if the judge declines the prosecution? Does such an accusation remain in this article anyway? I'm not completely against addressing this, but I'd be wary about putting too much into this story until a judge gives the go ahead.

Regardless, if the judge does go through with it then this should also be noted in the articles on Spain's foreign policy.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that Garzon was imprisoned in Spain. Was that when Spain was ruled by Generalismo Francisco Franco? How much should someone's credibility be eroded for being imprisoned, when the country that imprisoned them is a totalitarian regime, with questionable respect for the rule of law? Geo Swan (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear.

It wasn't Garzon who was imprisoned, it was Gonzalo Boye, the lawyer who filed the charges. Stuart Taylor says he was involved in a group that kidnapped a businessman in 1988.

But on Garzon, Taylor says:

It's noteworthy that Garzon's past targets have included such people as Augusto Pinochet, Henry Kissinger, Silvio Berlusconi -- and not, say, Vladimir Putin, who has presided over massive war crimes in Chechnya, or Syrian leaders who have done the same there and in Lebanon.

Like a lot of these people, he seems pretty selective about which "human rights" violations he cares about.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I too read that comment about Garzon charging Pinochet, but not Putin. But, this may not be entirely fair to Garzon.

There was a Spanish connection to Garzon's charges against Pinochet. Some Spanish citizens, I think about two dozen, died during Pinochet's coup -- and the attendant confusion. Similarly, there is a Spanish connection to Guantanamo. An article I read said five Spanish citizens and Spanish residents were held in Guantanamo. I think Guantanamo only held one actual Spanish citizen. So, in Garzon's defense, he may not have charged Putin, and others accused of human rights violations, because there was no Spanish connection to their alleged crimes. I'll keep my eyes peeled to see if anyone publishes an explanation as to how Garzon chooses whom to charge. Of course if those references turn up that would belong in Garzon's article, not this one.

You know Garzon charged Jamil El Banna, and some other alleged jihadists? Geo Swan (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he also dropped the one on El Banna, which is pretty funny considering that he opposed Pinochet's dismissal that was made on the same grounds. (And yes, I am aware that Pinochet's health issue may have been a bit too convenient.)

Putin's situation may seem a bit different but the Spanish connection to Pinochet's case was a bit of a stretch. I believe Pinochet should have had sovereign immunity against ordinary murder charges. Two dozen deaths may be a bad thing (I don't know who they were) but it's not a "crime against humanity." (Maybe those two dozen were Tablighi Jamaat missionaries in the wrong place at the wrong time.) Besides, our articles claim universal juridiction anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As for credibility, Gonzalo Boye's credibility is just a footnote. I'd think it becomes a decisive issue only if Garzon declines to prosecute.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we could probably work up something for the article using the WashPo, WSJ and AFP references. Something similar to what was there before, perhaps, but worked into the article context and including a description of why its significant. We should take care to note that there isn't much of an official Spanish imprimatur at this point, so that we don't overstate the circumstances. The process has had a pretty high level of coverage at this point, given the sources above, and if it turns out to not be a big deal we can remove it in a year or two. Avruch ^T 15:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if the Spanish attorney-general is opposed to proceeding [8]. As I understand the Spanish legal system, investigating magistrates can proceed over the opposition of prosecutors, but it would be highly unusual, to say the least. The thing about incidents like this is, they are immediate and flood the news over the short term, but rarely amount to more than a footnote in history in the long term. I've recently been reading a memoir by a secretary of state, and I'm astonished by the number of things that were major news items that barely get a mention (if they're mentioned at all) on Wikipedia today. It may remain a noteworthy incident in the history of international law, but I doubt it'll be important to the lives of the people accused. Ray^Talk 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless whether or not the case proceeds, I think its encyclopedic value is enhanced if the people pushing it are noteworthy.

I'll be the first to say that Philippe Sands isn't completely trustworthy (it's questionable whether anyone getting a friendly interview on Democracy Now! truly opposes torture) but he is a famous law professor, and this event helps to define him. These cases are at least as notable as the articles in Category:Protests against the Iraq War.

Even if the case doesn't proceed, it should still be mentioned in the articles on Garzon and Sands. It probably deserves a mention in Feith's article simply because he spoke about it. I'm less sure about the other defendants. My understanding is that they've been quiet about it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)