Talk:Project for the New American Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

PNAC & Foreign Policy Initiative[edit]

 Noticing no mention of the morphing of PNAC into the
Foreign Policy Initiative in neither the PNAC articles nor the Foreign Policy Initiative article.

It is proper to ask , is this not deceptive to allow such a controversial group associated with such sad and destructive events to merely change their name and continue on with the same activities without being identified?

Chaaa Li (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source detailing what you claim, we can add it in. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghosts of US’s unilateralist past rise

“…The blandly-named Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) - the brainchild of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, neo-conservative foreign policy guru Robert Kagan, and former Bush administration official Dan Senor - has thus far kept a low profile; its only activity to this point has been to sponsor a conference pushing for a US "surge" in Afghanistan. But some see FPI as a likely successor to Kristol and Kagan's previous organization, the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which they launched in 1997…” Asia Times online, Mar 28, 2009 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added a description, with three references.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Bush and the Bush administration are already mentioned more than ten times in the article -- adding a SYNTH table asserting indirectly that either Bush deliberately appointed those who agreed with PNAC or (perniciously) that PNAC managed to get Bush to appoint such is SYNTH. To make claims requires sources making such claims - not using a table to say that the two attributes connect the claims. That is pretty much the definition of SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The charge seems a bit strained, considering the plethora of readily available sources.
  1. Sourcewatch
  2. history commons
  3. AmIraqa and the New American Century(states "In all, more than 32 PNAC members are currently woriking under the Bush administration...")
  4. |! | !| etc.
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. is pretty clear. Collect (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC) "" is a vanity press, by the way. Its books are considered "self-published" and are not RS as a rule. "History Commons" is a Wiki - thus also not RS by Wikipedia policy. As is "Sourcewatch." Sorry -- the rule is "reliable sources" not "wikis and self-published sources." Collect (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see that sourcewatch is only good as an EL, and neither the book nor history commons looks reliable, but it seems hard to believe that there isn't a reliably published list along these lines.
Note, however, that the above listed sources, while not passing RS, all contain lists, they are not references limited to single individuals.
No need to include a bolded block of policy text.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So you understand that no reliable source has yet been given making the explicit links presented in the table. Wikis,by the way, are not usable as ELs either. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll defer to others regarding presenting sourced info in tabular form, and won't argue the point.
This RS/N thread appears to conclude that sourcewatch is usable as EL.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually it states that sourcewatch should not be used for any BLPs. This article is under WP:BLP. Revert all but the BLP articles is quite clear. Note that any articles with claims about living persons falls under WP:BLP. See also [27] from 2010, [28] from 2010, and [29] shows pretty solid evidence that a Wikipedia editor (proven to be a sock) edited Sourcewatch while working on the Wikipedia article for which he was using it as a source. Sorry -- it was, and remains a Wiki. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP/N thread, sources[edit]

Please see this BLP/N thread:


  1. ^ [1] US Foreign Policy and China: Bush’s First Term, Guy Roberts, Routledge, 2014
  2. ^ [2] United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century, Kenneth Christie (ed.), Routledge, 2008
  3. ^ [3]The Peninsula Question: A Chronicle of the Second Korean Nuclear Crisis, Yoichi FunabashiBrookings Institution Press, 2007
  4. ^ [4] Mistaking hegemony for empire, David Grodin, International Journal, Winter 2005.2006
  5. ^ [5] Samir Dasgupta, Jan Nederveen Pieterse (eds.), SAGE, 2009
  6. ^ [6] The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America's Future, Craig Unger, Scribner, 2007, pp. 167, 205
  7. ^ [7] PNAC Captured Part of the U.S. Government and Caused America to Attack Iraq in 2003, Michael S. Rozeff,, 2014
  8. ^ [8] Australia's 'war on terror' Discourse, Kathleen Glesson, Ashgate, 2014
  9. ^ [9] Hijacking America: How the Secular and Religious Right Changed What Americans Think, Susan George, Polity, 2013

Meacher as a source for any facts ...[edit]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#multiple_biographies He appears to not be a really good source for claims of fact:

Experienced professionals know that this was a state sponsored inside job by the US regime; 2 NATO ministers from Germany (Minister for Technoloy Andreas von Bulow) and UK minister Michael Meacher and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga) all confirmed publicly that the 9/11 event was an inside job perpetrated by the US regime.

And 9/11_conspiracy_theories. If we add him - we add the 9/11 stuff as well, I would suggest. Collect (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The operative fact for this article is "Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 ", which he presents vis-a-vis his "Pax Americana" statement, attributed as opinion in the article.
How does the 9/11 "context" relate to this article?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher Guardian article[edit]

The article is about his 9/11 truther position -- and the PNAC conspiracy theory is part of his "theory" about 9/11. Removing anything which shows the actual nature of the article to get a cheap quote about PNAC is improper -- once we use a cite, we use the full cite, not a quote out of context. The context is that 9/11 was a conspiracy to find a reason to invade Iraq, as the full article shows clearly. Meacher has been a guest a few times now on Alex Jones' radio show, and I suggest his writings on Infowars [30] [31] makes his status clear. When we quote conspiracy theorists, we should not hide that fact. Collect (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (for more fun see [32] starting at 9:50) Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No the article is not "about his 9/11 truther position".
The article subtitled, "The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination", and global domination of the US is the subtheme of the bogusness of the global war on terror.
The material you've added is obviously UNDUE under the section "US global spremacy"[33]. It seems that you are trying to besmirtch his character in order to discredit his opinion. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How is it undue when you use a cherry-picked quote with "Bush" in it and the really big news was in the rest of the article where he goes flaming about the 9/11 "truth"? Meachers is a pure Alex Jones type. Collect (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"Discredit his opinion" about the 9/11 attacks? Already discredited, I believe. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Why use material from conspiracy theorists at all? Why does this need to be included? There are plenty of reliable sources on this organization. Is this really an improvement? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why use Meacher at All?[edit]

Hello Ubkikwit and Collect. I'm Posting in the hopes that a third opinion might help you two resolve this dispute - my question is, why is Meacher being cited/quoted on this report at all? There are much better sources out there who could be cited about the report, which would allow us to skip over the issue of whether or not Meacher is a proper/reliable source:

  • this book, for example, notes that while the report "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional. It calls for increased defence spending, proposes reform of the armed forces, and argues emphatically tat military power is the key to continued US hegemony... This is, in fact, exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001" Source here is an academic, book is published by Routledge, so no question of reliability there.
  • This book addresses the very same controversy that you two are hashing out here, even quoting Meachar at length. It, too, questions Meachar's claims, noting that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain," and noting that "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy." Again, an academic book from a reputable press, no question of reliability here.

Personally I think all that needs to be said in the article here is that Meacher has claimed that the document provided a blueprint for "US global hegemony" (or however you want to word/quote it), but that more reliable sources have questioned that claim. There is no need to quote him at length, regardless of whether or not any info on his alleged 9-11 trutherism is included in the article (Personally I don't think it needs to be, since his claim can be counterbalanced with other sources anyway.) Since these sources quote Meacher at length, you could rewrite using just the sources I linked above, even, and skip the debate over whether or not his article in the guardian is a RS.

Hope this helps. I'd encourage you both to take a look at the article with fresh eyes - it's a bit of a mess with all of the blockquotes and could use a substantial trimming in my opinion.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Thanks. Those look like good sources, and your suggestions should be taken on board.
One aspect of Meacher that I found particularly notable is that he is British, and a Labor member of Parliament who was criticizing his government for supporting a "Pax Americana", which resonates with the British Empire's Pax Britannia.
I arrived here via BLP about neocons, and have spent quite a bit of time on the topic than intended...--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher is a 9/11 truther who regularly writes for Alex Jones "Infowars", and on his radio program. His assertion that the US was warned by 11 countries before 9/11 is about as reliable as a $3 bill AFAICT. Giving him credence here without allowing readers to know how far out he is would be absurd. Collect (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're that concerned about Meacher being quoted/referred to, then add text to the article which notes his views on 9-11, and cite a source or two. If it's a reliable source and the information you add is verifiable, there's no reason why you can't add that caveat. But the quote you keep re-adding is out of place in that section - it doesn't relate to PNAC, or to the issue being discussed in this section. I'm going to remove it a second time, but I want to be clear that I'd have no problem with you adding a concise, well-cited explanation of why readers might want to be wary of his statements.
This entire article is a huge mess because wikipedians (I don't mean you: I haven't checked who the main contributors are) have been lazy and relied way too much on quotations to communicate information, rather than paraphrasing, summarizing, and explaining in a concise, clear, and straightforward manner - as an encyclopedia should. I'm not removing the quote to try to hide any of Meacher's (alleged) faults, I'm removing it because it's out of place - especially when the same info could be communicated by adding a few words along the lines of "and alleged 9-11 conspiracy theorist" and some citations, instead of going off on a big tangent with an over-long quote.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is the exact same source -- written by Meacher. Not a different source -- the same article - a little further down the page. If we can seem to bless Meacher by forgetting his 9/11 conspiracy theories by not noting that they are in the same place as his Bush bit, we must recall his Bush accusation is part and parcel of the same conspiracy views about the exact same people. It is not a separate article by Meacher. Collect (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's beside the point. You're including it because you expect wiki readers to read the quote and draw a particular conclusion about Meacher - but by that logic we should just reprint the whole article and have people evaluate it for themselves. That's not what encyclopedia's/wikipedia is for. If you think his opinion should be dismissed, make an argument for dismissing it - don't rely on quotes that aren't pertinent to the subject of this article, and which are clearly tangential and out of place in that section, to do that for you.Fyddlestix (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Read Meacher's entire article -- it is entirely about his conspiracy theories. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we not discuss this simultaneously in two conversation threads? You gave the same response below (under the RFC), I've replied there.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the article cites John Pilger, would it be fair to exclude Meacher? Think about it. It's bad enough when journalists use Wikipedia for sourcing, but when they use Facebook....[34] Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus supports either removal of the text entirely, or inclusion but only with the context of Meacher's Truther agenda, but this is likely to be considered WP:UNDUE. None of the specific proposals seems to have consensus yet, so the safest course is to avoid mention altogether at this time. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[35] removes a second quote from a source still being used for the statement: British MP Michael Meacher, made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration

The material removed further cites Meacher specifically for

it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

Was the second quote properly removed as UNDUE or should it remain per NPOV? 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC I am offering an alternative statement here since I do not believe the above is an accurate reflection of the question being debated. Alternative statement would be:

Is the lengthy quote necessary, or was it rightly removed as part of a broader effort to reduce the number of block quotes in the article? Is it necessary for Meacher's views on September 11 to be quoted at length in this section, or should his views be summarized/paraphrased (with appropriate citations) instead? Fyddlestix (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • If we go with the alternative question presented by Fyddlestix, I would have to argue in favor of the section being summarized/paraphrased with appropriate citations. Red1996 (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm fine with removal of the quotes, and do not agree with Collect's assertion that the 9-11 material belongs in the article. As described below, the academic sources do not mention it in this context, and as far as I can tell, that is because it is not relevant to the topic.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If you use Meacher's quotes about Bush benefitting from a conspiracy, and elide the fac that it is about Meacher's well-known 9/1 1 conspiracy theories, then the cite is being abused. If we use Meacher, we must use Meacher and not just a fragment about Bush wrenched from his 9/11 conspiracy screed. Maybe we should include his claim that Mossad was involved as well as PNAC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Now you are crossing the line into simply misrepresenting the source.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Look at the heading for the source: This war on terrorism is bogus Michael Meacher The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination Right at the very top of the source you seem to think is not about 9/11! If the source were not about 9/11 why is that heading there in big letters? Or if you feel that big heading about 9/11 does not mean the article was about 9/11 perhaps the first paragraphs will give a hint:
Massive attention has now been given – and rightly so – to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
Which screams "conspiracy theory!" At least I rather think it does, YMMV? Collect (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The quote provides a basis by which a reader may decide to give greater or lesser credence to the accusation that Bush was benefitting from a conspiracy (as seen by Meacher). Without such balance showing Meacher's actual claims in the full article, the bit about "key members" of the Bush administration benefitting from a conspiracy might be tenable. Once the rest of the quote gets in, it is clear that Meacher (whom Wikipedia places in the "9/11 conspiracy theorists" category) might not be absolutely accurate in his depiction of events. So how much strength should we give a conspiracy theorist who has appeared a few times with Alex Jones (radio host) and written for Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't quite think we'd reached the point of needing an RFC here (I only entered this debate a few hours ago) but OK. Please note my alternative statement above - I asked Collect to change the initial statement but he appears unwilling to do so. My argument for removing Meacher's comments about September 11 is simple: this section of the article isn't about September 11. The quote seems to have been included as a way to signal readers that they should dismiss his opinions/comments, but to me it seems out of place and off-topic in this section of the article. I contend that if Meacher's opinion on the subject of this article is to be dismissed, Collect (or another editor) should be able to indicate that by stating what he wants to say in wikipedia's voice, and citing a reliable source or two, rather than relying on a lengthy quote to do that, and contributing to this article's major problem with over-quoting and over-long block quotes (I've already trimmed some of these - it was even worse earlier). Alternatively, he could make an argument for altogether omitting Meacher's arguments from the article - but given the fact that his piece was printed in the Guardian, and that several other academic sources (which i linked above) have sought to refute Meacher's opinion, rather than dismissed it out of hand, I think that would be a hard argument to make. Also please note that Ubikwit has his own (I think slightly different?) reasons for wanting to see the quote removed, if he doesn't post his reasons here I'd encourage others to read some of the above posts by him as well and take those arguments into account. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually if you read the article, the entire article is, indeed, related to 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq actions. Meacher, in fact, makes it exceedingly clear that the US knew ahead of time about 9/11 and used it to benefit the Bush administration. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I did read the entire article, and yes, I disagree with his contentions/theories about 9-11. But just because I disagree with what he says later in his article doesn't mean that I can dismiss what he said earlier in his article, in the only part of the article that bears quoting on this page. I'm referring to his assertion (to quote the current, live version of the article) that "Rebuilding America's Defences was 'a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana,' which had been 'drawn up for' key members of the Bush administration."
Look at how the academics I quoted and linked above address this exact same claim - they note it, they refute/take issue with it, and they move on - all without feeling the need to even mention Meacher's views on September 11, much less quote his views on that subject at length. That's what this article should do. It seems to me like you're trying to argue that nothing Meacher says is valid because he holds questionable views about September 11, but this is obviously not the case - it's perfectly possible for him to be wrong about 9-11 but right about Rebuilding America's Defenses. Since the latter is what's relevant to this article, that's what should be addressed here.
Note, though, that as I already said in my first post on this page, I'm not in favor of quoting any of Meacher's opinions at length - a quick mention/paraphrase, followed by a quick counterpoint using the academic sources I linked above is all that's required here. Meacher and his opinions are notable: he's a former minister/MP, his piece was published in the guardian, and has been addressed by multiple reliable sources. I think it bears mentioning in the article - just not quoting at length. And as I also already stated, I'd support you adding a sentence or two about him having controversial views about Sept 11 - I just don't think he's views about 9-11 need to be quoted in so much length.Fyddlestix (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Two more things: One, what do you mean by saying (in your last edit summary) that you "feel like Alex Jones is here?" Are you comparing me to (or calling me) a conspiracy theorist? I'm saying that we should give Meacher the same treatment that the perfectly respectable university professors and academic publishers I cited above gave him. Are they conspiracy theorists too, for failing to just dismiss everything Meacher says? They obviously found his ideas (about the subject of this article, not about Sept 11) worth mention/refuting, and since they are without question reliable sources, I submit that the wiki article should handle the issue in much the same way. Second thing: isn't the point of a RFC to seek someone else's input? I don't really see the point in us re-hashing the same argument we've already had up-thread repeatedly.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Meacher is a friend of Alex Jones (radio host), appears on his radio shows and writes for his web-site. I commend you to read about him and the pushing of conspiracy theories. In his article cited, Meacher specifically promotes conspiracy theories. Ought we promote such here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
And if we use the article, and only use what we want where he says Bush benefitted from a conspiracy without noticing the entire article is about Meacher's 9/11 conspiracy theory then we are truly deluding the reader. Collect (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
For what feels like the 10th time, I am not trying to "promote" Meacher. I don't see anyone who is. But his views were/are nonetheless pertinent to the subject of this article - they were addressed and discussed in multiple reliable sources. My only argument/point here is that the article should rely on those sources to summarize and discuss Meacher's views, instead of relying on lengthy block quotes from Meacher himself. Full stop.Fyddlestix (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The assertion that "the entire article is about Meacher's 9/11 conspiracy theory" is your fanciful interpretation, nothing more, but you refuse to listen.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you think Meacher's entire article is about? It is entirely about his 9/11 conspiracy theories. You wish to use the part where he says it was for the Bush administration -- pulling out one tiny piece of the full article. Read the whole article - it is about the Bush administration deliberately wanting 9/11, that Israel ( Mossad as Meacher states) knew about the entire plot, and 11 other countries told us about the entire plot and we deliberately did nothing, as planned by secret meetings. The guy is an Alex Jones (radio host) talk show denizen, and you fail to notice it? Collect (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can figure this out amicably.
  • Meacher's comments on PNAC are notable. (Incidentally, a lot of people have appeared on The Alex Jones Show, according to the list given on Wikipedia. Although they fall on the left of the narrow American political spectrum, people like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky are usually not considered unacceptable to cite or quote on Wikipedia.)
  • Collect seems to feel strongly that we should include a longer quotation—because anything shorter would be taken too far out of context from his actual views. I can respect that.
  • Fyddlestix thinks the blockquotes are already too long. I can respect that also, though I tend to err on the side of including more information when possible.
  • (P.S.: Ubikwit thinks the extra material shouldn't be included for the different reason that it's not germane. It seems germane enough to me, but regardless, maybe the footnote solution will also be pleasing to U, in de-emphasizing the secondary material.)
  • Perhaps a shorter quotation in the article, combined with a footnote, would be a good compromise solution.
salaam, groupuscule (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Groupuscule: I wouldn't have a problem with a footnote. There is too much information about his examination of why the war on terror is bogus to be inserted into the body of this article, which is only about PNAC, and in the section "Global supremacy". It would probably need to be a paraphrased version of his views per:

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

Note, again, that the academic books addressing his statements on PNAC do not mention the broader context of the war on terror. So there is no support in secondary sources for emphasizing such a connection.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me - just so long as the article isn't going on about Meacher's 9-11 views (or quoting him on the subject) at excessive length. Personally I think that the discussion of Meacher in this article should be limited to a few sentences, and that this whole debate is pretty tangential to the subject of the article, but I'm ready & willing to compromise here. Also thanks for wading into this, appreciate your efforts!Fyddlestix (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I should add that one primary reason for adding the Meacher quote in the first place was the ridiculously self-serving very long block quote from Kagan that preceded it in the text as well as in real life, with Meacher responding two months later. With the Kagan quote gone the one-sentence paraphrase of Meacher, plus the related statements by the academics seems to be adequate for the main body, with the secondary sources getting more weight (a full pargraph) than the primary source from Meacher.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for saying this, it cuts to what I think the real major issue with this article is, and that is the massive over-quoting and blockquoting: both of people who like PNAC and who don't. There are multiple lengthy paragraphs of quotes in this article that could be paraphrased and summarized in a few sentences. It's completely unencyclopedic and that's what we should be spending our time fixing, rather than getting distracted by this whole sideshow with Meacher.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have absolutely no position on PNAC, but I do have a position on the 9/11 Truthers. Whenever we give credence to them as though they were reciting "actual fact" it is pretty nearly as bad as we can get. Personally, I would not give Meacher a single word here unless we make clear what his "theories" are. Chees. Collect (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise[edit]

I'd like to present another possible compromise, based on the suggestion made by groupuscule above. How would you all feel about revision the relevant section of the article to read as follows:

Multiple journalists, academics, and other critics have asserted that the Project for the New American Century had laid out a blueprint for American hegemony, which later played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. BBC journalist Paul Reynolds, for example, asserted in 2007 that PNAC had sought to promote American dominance, and that the organization's publications helped "to explain some of the administration's actions" in later years.[1] In an article published a few weeks before the start of the Iraq War, Der Speigel journalist Jurgen Bölsche claimed that Rebuilding America's Defenses "had been developed by PNAC for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby." Titling his article "Bush's Master Plan: This War Came from a Think Tank," Bölsche suggested that Rebuilding America's Defenses had been "devoted to matters of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"[2]

Critics like British MP Michael Meacher went further. In a September, 2003 article in The Guardian, which also suggested that American authorities had done "little or nothing to prevent" the September 11 Attacks, and suggested that American security forces might have "deliberately stood down" on September 11 2001, Meacher charged PNAC with having "drawn up" a blueprint for "US world domination." Rebuilding the American Future, he claimed, had called for a US military presence in the Persian Gulf long before the War in Iraq, and provided a "much better explanation of what actually happened" before, during and after September 11 than "the global war on terrorism thesis."[3][4]

Meacher's views have been criticized by the Daily Mail which charged him with giving "credence to conspiracy theories" about September 11, [5] and journalist David Aaronovitch characterized his allegations as "conspiracy 101." As scholars Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have noted, however, similar views of PNAC's origins, goals, and influence "continue to make their way into the academic literature on the neo-conservative network in the United States." Both scholars have been skeptical of these claims. Hammond, for example, notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional." According to Hammond, its recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say, and it is no great revelation that they said it in publicly-available documents prior to September 2001."[6] Similarly, Abelson has written that "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain." According to Abelson, "we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy."[7]


  1. ^ Paul Reynolds, "Analysis: Power Americana: The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", BBC News, March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.
  2. ^ Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,"A Think Tank War: Why Old Europe Says No", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
  3. ^ [10] This war on terrorism is bogus, Michael Meacher, The Guardian, September 6, 2003
  4. ^ Donald E. Abelson, Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; p. 213.
  5. ^
  6. ^,%22+September+2000&source=bl&ots=z0d7zefjHT&sig=Bj1lBvbJJWBAxcmoCvfzCJBXsQA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FkLvVOGkB9a4ogTuioGoCA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
  7. ^,%22+September+2000&source=bl&ots=XmyLEM5tAz&sig=K9867JxcRkLRws3colf_6hipjOM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FkLvVOGkB9a4ogTuioGoCA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I feel that this is about as close to a compromise as we're going to get: Meacher's views on both Sept 11 and PNAC are summarized, it's made clear that his views have been firmly challenged and that multiple reliable sources consider him a conspiracy theorist, but there's also an acknowledgement from 2 very reliable sources that his claims about PNAC and its role have been influential (not right, not well-founded, just influential) and that similar claims continue to circulate. I've gone over the notes and citations quite carefully here and I think everything is well documented and from a reliable source, but I'd be happy to make reasonable revisions. And most importantly from my perspective (since this is what drew me to comment/revise this article in the first place) there are no over-long or block quotations. I've tried to make everything as clear and concise as possible. What do you think? If you think this falls short, I think it would help a lot if you could be specific about what you'd like to see handled differently, and make some constructive suggestions to help us work towards a version that we can all agree on. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Good work. I can live with that, with one-word change, as per the Guardian piece, "and suggested that American security forces might have been "deliberately stood down".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
One thing I just noticed is that this sentence has be excised

George Monbiot, a journalist and former political activist from the United Kingdom, stated: " pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[1]

Maybe it's not absolutely necessary, but in light of the increasingly fervent attempts to tar and feather Meacher in a manner such as to render the overwhelmingly negative criticism in RS of PNAC with respect to the report in question and the question of "Global supremacy", perhaps it is necessary to emphasize where the sources come down on this issue. The only positive defense in the section from the start was a primary source promotional screed from one of the Directors of PNAC.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I started with the current "live" version of the article, which this quote was not in. Personally I'm not sure what it adds but that might be because I'm missing the context - I'll take a look at his article and see if it makes more sense then.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Way long and not in great balance. And it does not "tar and feather Meacher" at all. Monbiot is a major unbalancing bit to add - which I sure hope is not your aim. Monbiot referred to the very public document as "confidential" and is the only actual reference to the PNAC "confidentiality" in that column! He does assert PNAC wants biological warfare "Among other enlightened policies, it has called for the development of a new generation of biological agents, which will attack people with particular genetic characteristics. " Which I suggest is far from " Moreover, there is a question about the role nuclear weapons should play in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those weapons’ development and use." and " Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." both of which are miles from Monbiot's apparent misreading of the material - the ones who would develop the biological weapons are "America's enemies." Monbiot is off the wall on that one -- do you really want the exact proper quotes added when he gets added? Cheers. Collect (talk) .
I don't see a single produce you've produced that supports anything you attempt to imply (because you can't say it directly). Regarding Monbiot, it's not clear what you are saying (other than asserting that he mischaracterized a public report as confidential), but Monbiot does address Abromovitch in the article[36] with regard to another position David Aaronovitch had taken, and the relevant text needs to be quoted

In this week’s Observer, David Aaronovitch suggested that, before September 11, the Bush administration was “relatively indifferent to the nature of the regimes in the Middle East”1. Only after America was attacked was it forced to start taking an interest in the rest of the world.
If Aaronovitch believes this, he would be well-advised to examine the website of the Project for the New American Century2, the pressure group established, among others, by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, all of whom (except the president’s brother) are now senior officials in the US government. Its statement of principles, signed by those men on June 3 1997, asserts that the key challenge for the United States is “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”3. This requires “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.”4
On January 26 1998, these men wrote to President Clinton, urging him “to enunciate a new strategy”, namely “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”5 If Clinton failed to act, “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.” They acknowledged that this doctrine would be opposed, but “American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.”6
Last year, the Sunday Herald obtained a copy of a confidential report produced by the Project in September 2000, which suggested that blatting Saddam was the beginning, not the end of its strategy. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”7 The wider strategic aim, it insisted, was “maintaining global US pre-eminence”. Another document obtained by the Herald, written by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, called upon the United States to “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”8.
On taking power, the Bush administration was careful not to alarm its allies. The new president spoke only of the need “to project our strength with purpose and with humility”9 and “to find new ways to keep the peace”10. From his first week in office, however, he began to engage not so much in nation-building as in planet-building.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with removal- summoned by bot. I think his first quote is sufficient. I don't agree with him being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" - this to me is by now a pejorative label of someone completely off their rocker. Earlier on this discussion page there is a reference to him being included among people who claim 9/11 is an inside job. That is not on his bio and that's not what he said in the Guardian article at all. Saying the U.S. government had intelligence about a forthcoming attack and did nothing or next to nothing is not the same as saying the U.S. planned and coordinated the attack and blew up the WTC with explosives. But anyway that's for a different discussion. I don't think his quote about 9/11 here is necessary and removing is just easier. Wikimandia (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect's alternative proposal[edit]

Some critics say the project laid out a blueprint for American hegemony. BBC journalist Paul Reynolds said in 2007 that it promoted American dominance, and that the report helped "to explain some of the administration's actions" in later years.[2] Der Speigel journalist Jochen Bölsche said Rebuilding America's Defenses had been "devoted to matters of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"[3] British MP Michael Meacher went further. In a September, 2003 article in The Guardian explaining his 9/11 conspiracy theory, he said that American authorities had done "little or nothing to prevent" the September 11 Attacks, and that American security forces might have "deliberately stood down" on September 11 2001. Meacher charged PNAC with having "drawn up" a blueprint for "US world domination." Rebuilding the American Future, he claimed, had called for a US military presence in the Persian Gulf long before the War in Iraq.'."[4][5]

Meacher's views have been criticized as giving "credence to conspiracy theories" about September 11,[6] and journalist David Aaronovitch called his article "conspiracy 101." Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have said similar views of the project's origins continue to spread. " Both scholars are skeptical of these claims. Hammond notes that while Rebuilding America's Defenses "is often cited as evidence that a blueprint for American domination of the world was implemented under cover of the war on terrorism," it was actually "unexceptional," According to Hammond, its recommendations were "exactly what one would generally expect neoconservatives to say."[7] Abelson wrote "evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain."[8]

Which is a lot shorter and quite balanced. Collect (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (emendations reflecting comments from others are included in order to achieve compromise - the above is not a "static" proposal) Collect (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ George Monbiot, "A Wilful Blindness" ("Those who support the coming war with Iraq refuse to see that it has anything to do with US global domination"), (author's website archives), reposted from The Guardian, March 11, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
  2. ^ Paul Reynolds, "Analysis: Power Americana: The US Appears to Be Heading to War with Iraq Whatever Happens, with Implications for the Future Conduct of American Foreign Policy", BBC News, March 2, 2003, accessed May 29, 2007.
  3. ^ Jochen Bölsche, "Bushs Masterplan - Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam", Der Spiegel March 4, 2003; English translation, "This War Came from a Think Tank", trans. Alun Breward, published in Margo Kingston,"A Think Tank War: Why Old Europe Says No", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 7, 2003, accessed May 28, 2007.
  4. ^] This war on terrorism is bogus, Michael Meacher, The Guardian, September 6, 2003
  5. ^ Donald E. Abelson, Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; p. 213.
  6. ^
  7. ^,%22+September+2000&source=bl&ots=z0d7zefjHT&sig=Bj1lBvbJJWBAxcmoCvfzCJBXsQA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FkLvVOGkB9a4ogTuioGoCA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
  8. ^,%22+September+2000&source=bl&ots=XmyLEM5tAz&sig=K9867JxcRkLRws3colf_6hipjOM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FkLvVOGkB9a4ogTuioGoCA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Note: Collect has altered the above since I wrote this, the following was a response to this version of the page.] I think you may have lost sight of what the article we're discussing is about here, and in particular of what this section of the article is about. You've removed Meacher's statements about PNAC (which are why he's being mentioned in the article at all) but left in his statements about September 11 (which, with his statements about PNAC removed, becomes wholly off-topic in this article). I'm once again driven to ask - if you want Meacher's views on 9-11 to be discussed at length, but don't want his views of PNAC raised, then why aren't you making the case for removing him from the article altogether?
I also have a problem with removing the phrase "which later played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush administration." I'm open to rewording it, but that's the topic sentence for this whole section - this section of the article is about the views of people who have argued that PNAC advocated a kind of "US global supremacy" (as the section is currently titled - I'd advocate changing that btw) and that this blueprint had a heavy influence on the Bush Administration's FP agenda. And to be clear: I'm not saying that the article should accept those views or advocate them. I'm saying that those concerns have been addressed in enough reliable sources to justify their being discussed in this article.
Same issue with your treatment of Jochen Bolsche (thanks for catching my error with his name, btw) - you've removed any reference to Bolsche's view that PNAC had influenced the policies of the Bush administration - which was the primary argument his article made, and the reason why he's been brought up in this wiki article at all. What's left is a simple description of PNAC's views as Bolsche sees them, which (similar to the Meacher quote) leaves the reader wondering why the article would bother quoting him at all. I'm open to rewording, as I said, but your revision begs the question of why we're talking about Bolsche at all, when in reality there's no question that his views are pertinent to this article and deserving of mention/discussion in this section of it.
Finally, I think you've done a decent job of trimming some excess verbiage (something I know I'm prone to) but I'm puzzled by the assertion that the draft is "way too long." Have you seen what this section looked like before? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. See Joseph Widney and compare that "good article" with [37]. The draft had used "the project" before - so I now lengthened Meacher's contribution per your request and used his explicit "PNAC" here. This article is about PNAC and not about the "Bush administration" and not about individuals in the "Bush administration" - if one wishes to use quotes about that subject, this is the wrong article. We try to stick to germane material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting perspective - I imagine you'll be wanting to edit this passage out of the lede of the article then?

With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War

I find your tone ("we try to stick to the germane material") unnecessarily patronizing, and I think it's a tad disingenous to try to argue that I'm bringing tangential/unrelated material into the article when the lede says the exact same thing, and has read that way for seven years without anyone ever having an issue with it.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's clearly a tendentious proposal that has no basis in RS and NPOV.
To whom does Collect by "we"? The proposed text is certainly not compliant with NPOV and RS, so what I want to know is where's the policy that defines "germane". The phrase "views continue to spread", for example, makes said "views" sound like rumors or disease, which is clearly a misleading presentation of the source. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I presented this proposal in good faith. Your response is, however, not apparently made in good faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're in a position to lecture anyone on arguing/responding in good faith Collect. Your edits here, and here were what drew my attention to this debate in the first place - both are clear cases of WP:POINTy behavior.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you needed to read prior discussions before making that leap. Cheers. The goal is to abide by NPOV, and the new edits by Ubikwitclearly break that by a mile. Collect (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no leap required: you were very clearly adding material you don't agree with and which you know makes the article worse to make a point. I don't care what was said in prior discussions, thats not an acceptable or a productive way to try to resolve a disagreement. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now removed unsupported claims from the lede -- we should not use "quotes" in the lead in a misleading manner or violative of any policies. Cheers. The claims made in Wikipedia's voice are opinions only - stating them as "fact" us violative of policy. Opinions must be cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: It seems that Collect has tried to latch onto the inclusion of the Meacher primary-source Guardian article in order to transform this article from an article about PNAC to an article about "9/11 conspiracy theories" so as to obfuscate the well-sourced criticisms of PNAC and the Bush administration.
In particular, the elephant in the room as far as Meacher is concerned is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with respect to which he first criticized Blair, and then examined America's "motivations", engaging in a sort of retrograde analysis leading from verified falsifications of claims of WMD to the association of the 2000 report by PNAC with a plan for Pax Americana global supremacy, etc.
Insofar as the secondary academic sources do not address Meacher in terms of conspiracy theory with respect to his statements on PNAC, they are not deemed noteworthy by the secondary sources in this context. Accordingly, I'm going to propose that we not use the Guardian article, and use only the secondary sources on Meacher. Does that sound reasonable? What issues might remain?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me - that was basically my initial suggestion Fyddlestix (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, great, then I think we have something to go with.
Note that though I didn't have a problem with including mention of Aaronovich's criticisms of Meacher, in retrospect, considering the Monbiot article, it's clear where Aaronovich stands overall; i,e, as a supporter of the Bush administration that chooses to ignore PNAC's connections to the administration, etc., and the flood of media reports on that topic. The problem is that scholarly sources do not agree with Aaronovitch's characterizations of Meacher and his statements related to PNAC, and Monbiot accurately challenges the premises of those views. Accordingly, I think Aaronovich and Monbiot should be left out, and we should stick to the secondary sources on Meacher. The current text is fine by me, but you did some good work, as far as I'm concerned, on the proposed compromise text. The It would be worth including some of that and leaving out the above-mentioned material. I also posted a number of recent academic sources today, several from 2014 that are worth having a look at if you have time. The Bolsche piece, incidentally, as described in "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy" includes another passage that resonates somewhat with Hammond (contrasts with Abelson):

The influential German weekly Der Spiegel expressed the widespread consternation at the increasingly far-fetched reasons given for the impending war against Iraq by pointing to Bush’s ideologically driven policy advisers: “It was the exact opposite of a conspiracy. In broad daylight ultra-rightwing US think-tanks were as early as 1998 drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq. They weren’t taken seriously for a long time. In the meantime the hawks in the Bush administration are calling the shots.”

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collect's wholesale removal of long-standing, well-sourced material[edit]

For starter's, the fact that Collect can't find the CS Monitor article diesn't mean it doesn't exist, but he knows removing on the basis of such a false claim is against policy.
Here are several examples of its use in secondary sources [38] [39] and cite for ten signatories serving in Bush administration
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your additions are "bold" but since we were politely discussing trimming the article, the contentious claims about living persons added are UNDUE and violative of WP:BLP. Discuss before re-adding 15K of material please. And we do not need to quote a huge percentage of the pamphlet - all that does is look silly at this point. The object is to follow NPOV, not to ignore that policy utterly. We were on the way to making a balanced article until this. Collect (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, the only thing I added was a copy edit to the lead after discovering that many PNAC members served in an advisory capacity, not as appointed officials.
All the other material was tendentiously removed by you.
Bearing that in mind, to what do your trumped up BLP claims relate.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk about good faith -- your bold edit was removed. Your seeming love of BATTLEGROUNDS is clear. Cheers. Note this article is in the 9/11 category. Collect (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's you that are continually trying to game the system to push a non-compliant POV while attempting to subvert WP:RS. That, my friend, is representative of a battleground mentality.
Do recall that I've already raised your tendentiousness on the Neoconservativsm and Joe Klein articles with ArbCom.
Go ahead and post your BLP claim related to 9/11 at BLP/N. There have already been a couple of discussions that have not gone your way though, so you want to be careful about WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and not repeat the same claims.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Um -- you have complained as an ArbCom case and a whole bunch of other cases - you are a Drahma Board Denizen, and your edit here adding the SYNTH table is blatant. The person for whom the shopping cart allegory applies is not I, clearly. You have over 200 edits in the past month to Wikipedia space. I suggest that your re-addition of the table is sufficiently POINTy that you are likely to be notified that this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Cheers - now let's work on what I thought was a productive discussion here. Collect (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The claims you made were rebutted by two other editors including myself, and you demurred to defend them in terms of the policies to which you'd made recourse after others were presented by @Jbhunley:.
You'll note that the bulk of what I added today was merely sources, which I finally was able to get around to searching after many distractions.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
And what specific source do you have for your table? Oh? Did you notice you now wikilink people multiple times in a single article - which connecting them to a 9/11 conspiracy theory? Do you consider explicit accusations of conspiracy to be contentious at all? Oh? Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a plethora of sources, with all statements of opinion being properly attributed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. The article accuses living persons of supporting genocide, of supporting biological weapons, of seeking war, of having the US ignore warnings ahead of time about 9/11, of conspiring to engage in acts of war, conspiring to support acts of terror, listing people three and four times in a single article making such allegations. And you manage to see nothing amiss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that on February 26 you tried to slip a "See also" to "9/11 conspiracy theories"[40], and categorize the article under that, too.
You should start editing according to the sources, and avoid imparting the impression that you are engaged in some sort of advocacy.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:12, 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Acrually this article has a number of mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists, and so it properly belongs in See Also. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vertrag: The edit summaries you left do not sufficiently describe the scope of your deletions.
The removal of the table is against policy-based consensus, and you've not contributed to the discussion in any form. Other material you deleted was also unrelated to "summarizing" the damning report that some seem to want to keep from the reading public, and seems purely based on a politicized POV.
I suppose that Wikipedia needs a dedicated article on that aforementioned notable report.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're very arguments against the deletion, that somehow, I am attempting "to keep from the reading public" is the reason that it violates WP policy. Wikipedia is not a means of promoting your ideology. Having reviewed snippets of the article history, it looks like it has been the battleground for some time with much of the original article language that was clearly not neutral in its tone or word choice still remaining in the article prior to its report on WP:COIN. And, rather than consensus, it looks to me like a long term project based on an ideological belief. Mix that in with quite a few biography of living person issues and this article needs work. -- Vertrag (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The article may need work, but not whitewashing. The vast majority of literature on the PNAC is critical, though I stick to the sources. You don't seem to have a solid grasp of NPOV, as the mainstream view is the mainstream view, etc., it doesn't matter if you don't like it. You shouldn't accuse editors of "having an ideology", as that is a personal attack. The report in question is probably notable enough to have a stand-alone article.
Prominence in reliable sources determine which points receive more [[WP:|weight]], etc.
What was that about COI?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So are you admitting that you have been trying to keep the article in a certain state? Because I never accused you of that - I just said that the consensus you point to looked to me from the review of the history was an issue with article ownership? Therefore, it's current state is not a true consensus. As far as I know you have only recently begun to edit it. Vertrag (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That is not the claim I make, obviously, or what I am accused of by Collect--inserting conspiracy theories.
Doesn't it strike you that there might be a contradiction between the fact that I've only recently started editing the article and an allegation of ownership?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll read through the talk then to better understand your concern; however, the edit I restored seemed reasonably related to the overall problems I saw when I read the article: quotes in the lede, too much original material, overall length, lists of people, blp, etc. I really don't know what Collect's view is nor did I know your political view before making the edit. Vertrag (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Vertrag: I don't know anything about the 9/11 stuff they are talking about but Collect brought the PNAC/Bush Adminstration table to BLPN and failed to engage when asked what his specific objections were and what type of source he would accept. There was also this source which seemed to address his objections but he never commented on.

Mistaking hegemony for empire:Neoconservatives, the Bush doctrine, and the Democratic empire., David Grodin - International Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1 Turkey: Myths and Realties (Winter, 2005/2006) pp. 227-241 JSTOR stable link.

As for the totality of what is going on here I have no opinion right now. JBH (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Any source making a contentious claim about a living person must be a strong secondary reliable source. I had thought I made that clear at BLP/N - if not I am sorry. Here we have catenations of unrelated sources being used to imply improper acts by individuals on the basis that "source a associates this person with group b" and "source 2 associates group b with position c" thus giving "a > c"" which is a logical failure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Collect: And I asked you for specific problems with specific texts. A B and C are fine for theoretical work but completely useless for talking about a specific issue like we have here. What is the contentious claim in the table? Spell it out. What do you want a source to say to support the claim? The three claims I see in the table are 1 - That these named individuals were signatories of PNAC / members of PNAC - Non contentious. 2 - That these same people were members of the Bush Administration - Non contentious. 3 - That this relationship means something - I gave you one source that I think ties it up but you never commented on it.

You two are back to just arguing and not trying to solve the problem. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not (on the table/drawing attention to PNAC/Admin). But so far, that I have read, you have only quoted generalities and not directly addressed the issue. Right now I think the table should be in. Convince me otherwise. Cheers. JBH (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And again -- look at the "sourcing" for the table making specific implicit charges about living persons. No actual single reliable source has that table. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes and... so what... A table exists to summarize information that would be awkward to show in prose. It is not OR.

Do you have a problem with any of these statements?

  • Dick Cheney signed the PNAC statement and was Vice President.
  • Paul Wolfowitz signed the PNAC statement and was Deputy Secretary of State.
  • etc. etc.
If not then there are no BLP and no SYNTH issues in the table. If you have a problem with the statements above and analogous statements about the other people in the table please describe the issue. What are these "implicit charges" you speak of? Thank you. Cheers. JBH (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

fail verification[edit]

The CSM "Empire Builders" article is not on the CSM site. The versions posted at [41] etc. do not mention PNAC at all, nor do they list the names for which it is used as a source. [42] is 404,and no search shows any such article at CSM.

RightWeb is not WP:RS and the material does not appear to support any specific claims on its own.

Guy Roberts is used only to support SYNTH lists of people.

Christie is linked to two footnotes, neither of which is relevant to the claims asserted.

Funabashi does not support the claims made.

Grondin is paywalled. And only used as a catchall for the SYNTH lists.

And so on. Many are used for "names" and not for actual content, and in some cases claims are made which are not supported by the sources given. Collect (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's OK for sources to be paywalled and not accessible online; that does not equate to failure of WP:V per WP:SOURCEACCESS.
Furthermore, Funahashi and Ray (an academic whose book is in its 8th edition) both cite the CSM piece, and Funahashi states that 10 of the 25 'PNAC Principles' signatories went on to become officials in the Bush administration, naming a few in the same paragraph.
Christie and the other sources all mention various PNAC members in conjunction with their respective positions/roles in the Bush administration. The table is not SYNTH, and consensus was against your assertion to that effect.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I.e. you use them as a substitute for a cite actually making statements about the persons - just "if they are listed in any source, I can tie them to PNAC in the article" - right? Collect (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources mention PNAC members and their respective connections to the Bush administration, which have been cited in support of the compiled table, per previous discussions.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is using A>b and b>c to say a>c. Which is errant. Collect (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Repeating the same argument over and over after consensus has decided that the argument is not valid is a sign of tendentiousness.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reality Check on Sources[edit]

Ok, maybe I can help here as far as the sourcing argument goes. I have pretty good library access. I'm going to assume here that we're looking at this version of the article to see if the citations support what they're supposed to:
  • The Christian Science Monitor source appears to have been a page on its website, rather than an article in the publication (I checked the archives of the periodical on LexisNexis and turned up nothing). Since their website has robots.txt disabled, it's not possible to retrieve an archive of the page, so I don't think we're going to be able to recover the original unless someone happens to have an archive of it somewhere. All we have to go on is the published sources that cited it, like the conference paper by Tim Dimuzio that Ubikwit linked. That quotes the CSM source with the blockquote that starts at the bottom of this page, however it should be noted that as far as I can tell, both the paper and the quote seem to be talking about "neoconservative strategists" in general there rather than PNAC in particular.
  • The rightweb source is a link to the front page of their website. Not helpful. That footnote (#5) also as way too many scare quotes in it. We can do better, and the same point could be made with a proper secondary source. That said, if all we want to confirm is that PNAC was seen by many people/critics as having influence on the Bush Admin than we can do much better than that - Abelson states clearly that PNAC was often portrayed as having "unparalleled access to the white house," and this article from Commentary, is a response to what it suggests were numerous efforts to portray PNAC as part of a "neoconservative cabal" that was setting the Bush Administration's agenda. So as long as we're phrasing this along the lines of "some critics asserted that PNAC had exerted a substantial influence on the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War," then the citations I just mentioned could be used to support the statement.
  • The footnote to Christie links to another footnote, which is not exactly a good way to reference something. In other pages of the book however, it does say that PNAC was "heavily connected" to the bush administration, particularly through Elsewhere (page 46) it says that PNACs leaders "were highly connected with the state," including 12 (personal) connections to the white house, 10 with the National Security Council, and 23 with Congress. The conclusion drawn is that "PNAC may be considered strongly integrated into the political and administrative machinery of US power." (that's from page 46 again.) The same book also notes in the foreward (on page xxi) that neo cons were "seen to have 'hijacked' the Bush administration" (page xxi). So with better citations to the proper pages, this does become a very useful source - it's an academic study by reputable scholars, no question that it's a RS. Could be used both as a ref for showing that PNAC was perceived to have influence in the Bush admin and as a ref to show that there actually were multiple personal connections - ie, that 12 individuals had connections to both PNAC and the Bush White house. Clearly, Christie is relevant to the point being made.
  • As far as Funabashi goes, the book does contain this statement, on page 505: "many people associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are considered neocons. Of the twenty-five signatories of the PNAC's statement of principles, signed in June 1997, ten went on to serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz among others." Looks pretty "relevant to the claim being made" to me.
  • Grodin may be paywalled, but luckily I have access. (You know you can read limited articles free, right?) Anyway, here's a quote from him that I think is pertinent: "There can be no question that September 2002 'national security strategy of the united states of america,' announcing a Bush doctrine predicated upon military prevention, regime change, and enhanced defense spending, has been heavily influenced by neoconservative writings. Among these have been works published under the aegis of the "Project for new American century," including Rebuilding America's Defenses' (by Donald Kagan, Gary Schmitt, and Thomas Donnelly), and Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (by William Kristol and Robert Kagan).Fyddlestix (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Fyddlestix (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
My interpretation of what all this means in case this is hard to follow: Some of Ubikwit's sourcing had been lousy and could be better. But many of the cited sources do support the claims that Collect is claiming they don't. There's plenty of reliable sources that document a widespread perception of PNAC having a policy influence on the Bush white house, for example (something that Collect has continually dismissed as "opinion" that doesn't belong in the article), and there's also plenty of reliable sources which document direct personal connections between PNAC and the admin (something which Collect has, for reasons which I don't fully understand, suggested is libelous). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Opinions must be sourced and cited as opinions. "Contentious" does not mean "libelous" nor would I use that term at all. It means "it is an opinion which is not strongly sourced and which another editor is insisting be better sourced". And I would also note the history of "guilt by association" claims made historically about persons -- If George Gnarph attended a "communist front meeting" (sourced fact) we can not on Wikipedia say "George Gnarph was associated with a communist front". Is that distinction quite clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The distinction is clear, but your meaning isn't. How is any of this assigning guilt to anyone? If someone was involved with both PNAC and the white house, it's not an "opinion" to state that fact, particularly if (as in this case) there are multiple reliable sources that confirm that fact. The idea that PNAC was a major influence on US Policy is an opinion, but if it's reliably sourced as an opinion that many people had, then it's worthy of being included in the article - clearly marked as an opinion. Neither of things has anything to do with assigning guilt on anyone. You need to state your specific concern more clearly. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:SYNTH unless the reliable source cited specifically makes the connection, we cannot do so. Note the new source add which specifically states:
However, as we will examine in Chapter 9, while there is no doubt that PNAC has had an important impact in contributing to the debate on global terror, its influence in Bush's post-9/11 strategy, has, by its own admission, been greatly exaggerated. Abelson page 95
Do you understand finally? Collect (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're confusing (or refusing to acknowledge) what's being argued. The influence/connection is being included in the article as an opinion that some people have had, not as a fact. A reliable source that clearly says "this is an opinion that some people have" is all that's needed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

cherry picking again[edit]

Donald E. Abelson, Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U. S. Foreign Policy; McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006; p. 213 is cited for

British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.

But the citer forgets to add:

However, as we will examine in Chapter 9, while there is no doubt that PNAC has had an important impact in contributing to the debate on global terror, its influence in Bush's post-9/11 strategy, has, by its own admission, been greatly exaggerated. in Abelson's own words on page 95.

Which would seem a far more noteworthy comment from that same source than the second-hand Meacher bit. Collect (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where the article says "Academics such as Donald E. Abelson and Phillip Hammond have suggested that many of these criticisms were overblown?" It's at the top of that same paragraph and is basically a paraphrase of your second quote, but with the added authority of bringing Hammond in too. Also note the quote: "similarly, Abelson has written that 'evaluating the extent of PNAC's influence is not as straightforward as Meacher and others maintain,' as 'we know very little about the inner workings of this think tank and whether it has lived up to its billing as the architect of Bush's foreign policy.'" Again in the same paragraph. You can argue for swapping out the quotes (looks like yours might be better, even), but this is hardly a "gotcha." You need to stop trying to find a smoking gun against Ubikwit (so that you can "win" what is clearly a personal dispute), and focus on the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes[edit]

OK, so I took the opportunity of the current lull in debate over this article to start going over it very carefully. I found some major issues and have made some major changes. Posting some diffs and rationale for some of the most important revisions in order to demonstrate that there were major problems in need of fixing, and as evidence that I'm doing my best to improve the article and maintain NPOV here:

  • I found misleading references, or references which did not support what was being argued. For example: here, here, here, and here.
  • I found poor, biased and non-reliable sources. For example: here and here.
  • I found numerous long, completely un-encyclopedic block quotes, some of which weren't even on point. For example: here, here, and here. This one wasn't even the words of anyone related to PNAC - PNAC was quoting a different group/organization's words there, and yet this article portrayed them as PNAC's.
  • I found major omissions - in this edit, for example, I both condensed a block quote and, in the process of confirming the source, realized that the article said nothing about the main recommendations of Rebuilding America's Defenses.
  • I added multiple, reliable, sources to the article (academic books, articles in reputable newspapers, etc. Something that this article was sorely lacking. For example: here, and here and here. I was particuarly attentive to the lede here, see this note for an example of the kind of thoroughness I'm aiming for.
  • I found poor organization throughout, including significant repetition of information.Here, for example, there were two consecutive paragraphs talking about the same PNAC letter, but treating them like different things. The people who were "key members" of both PNAC and the Bush Admin were listed like 3-4 times.
  • I have added a new section on PNAC's origins and the reason for its creation, citing an academic source. The old article began very abruptly with the statement of principles, giving zero information on how or why it was formed.
  • I have done my very, honest best to strive for a NPOV, including several self-reverts where I worried that my own perspective had crept in too much, and several places where I intend to look for more refs to bring better balance still. For example: here, here, here, and here.
  • I have attempted to improve the article per WP:CRITS, folding the "criticism" sections into a broader discussion, and adding rebuttals to several of those criticisms using the academic sources I looked up.

You can see a Diff of all my revisions so far here, but I'd encourage you to take a look at the page now and compare it to this version, which is before I made most of my revisions. This version, from a bit earlier was even worse. The article was, if I may say, in a truly sorry state before.

I am more than happy to make changes, have constructive changes made, discuss revisions, and/or defend my edits as needed. I will stand by the need for major revision and most of my edits, however, as I don't think there can be any doubt that this article needed massive improvement, and that my recent edits were constructive.

This is, by the way, still a work in progress. I started at the top of the article and have been working my way down, so several of the lower "controversies" sections have not been touched by me. There are also parts of the article that I simply moved rather that altering in too much detail, so this still needs multiple people to go over it with a fine-tooth comb, particularly given the poor and misleading sourcing that I've already found (I'm sure there's some that I've missed). Assuming no one blanket reverts all of the constructive changes I've made, I'll get to working on all of that in a day or two if no one else does. But obviously the more people willing to look this article over the better.

As a final note, please notice that I've stayed away from altering much of the wording around Meacher that was causing all of the controversy above - I moved it, but left most of the current wording intact as I assume there is still a debate/developing of consensus to be done on that point. Last version before my edits was Here, and I moved that text here, leaving the part thats caused so much debate untouched. I did, however, remove the conspiracy theory category and "see also," as I don't think they apply to the subject of this article by any stretch of the imagination.

Fire away! Fyddlestix (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Incredible job. Is there anything you need help with? JBH (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Glad someone appreciates the work. There's still lots to do, jump right in if you see stuff that needs fixing! I still have a big "to do" list for the article, and I was going to bring some of this up on the talk page so I guess no time like the present:
  • something needs to be done with the last three sections under the "other controversies" section, but I'm kind of stumped on where to put those or what to do with them. I'm particularly stumped as to what to do with this section, as I can't find or access the original article anywhere, so all we've got is PNAC's rebuttal. I'm tempted to say it should be removed as it's an awful big allegation to hang on one source, but was going to bring that up on the talk page anyway. So if anyone has ideas on what to do with that stuff that's great.
  • I'm still uneasy with some of the sources being used here, not sure if CounterPunch is a RS, for example, or if a film called "hijacking catastrophe" (the Democracy Now source) is as shady as it kinda sounds.
  • Ditto this edit - I removed that one simply because the source looks a little 9-11 truther-y to me and thus might not work as a RS, but was planning to bring it up here so that others can weigh in.
  • My command of the ref tags and cite templates sucks so some of that needs cleanup too, I'll work on that gradually over time I guess as it's pretty boring work.
Mostly, though, I hope anyone who thinks these revisions improved the article can watch the article for reverts/edits and make sure they're constructive. I have no idea how some of these errors in the article crept in or went unnoticed but clearly it needs more eyes.Fyddlestix (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have this article on my watch list.
  • Yes, Gene Bomb tech has been on the scare list at least since I started studying CT back in the late 80's. The section in Rebuilding that talks about it is the speculative threats section. They are not advocating for such a weapon. They are describing the potential long term strategic environment. Here is a link to the document at Archive [43]. The subject is discussed near the beginning of p.60 and pp.58ff gives context. My opinion would be to cut the section as unsupported. JBH (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • After reading the Pilger source I see no need for the CounterPunch source not the DemocracyNow source. Hijacking Catastrophe seems like q good source based on who is interviewed. CounterPunch is always iffy in my opinion and I have seen several threads at RSN about using them. JBH (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with removal of The New Pearl Harbor Griffin is not qualified to write on the subject. It is not within his area of expertise as a Philosophy professor. Looks to be entirely Trutherish although I only read a review of the source. JBH (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not have a problem with the subjects addressed in sections 4.1 and 4.2. They are, in my opinion, reasonable criticism of PNAC. The Neocon theory of international relations is Utopian at its base. I would not feel entirely comfortable doing a wholesale rewrite of those sections myself as I have a very minor COI I was educated in Realist Mode International Relations at Johns Hopkins (~25 yrs ago) and I have a less than cheery opinion on the effect of Wolfowitz's tenure as Dean of Johns Hopkins SAIS and his Neocon theoretical outlook had on SAIS. It is no where near bad enough to compromise my editorial judgement but I feel my opinion would show through if I were to do the initial write up of a critique of the weaknesses in the conception and application of Neocon IR theory in the Bush administration. I can try to find some good sources for those sections and tweak written text though. I would prefer to see some academic sources rather than newspaper and TruthOut. JBH (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with removal of the section as "unsupported", per JBH. Having checked the original document JBH linked to, it seems clear that they were addressing that in terms of potential use in conflict zones for war crimes like ethnic cleansing. The cited source represents a misreading of that context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow - excellent work @Fyddlestix: - Haven't read through it critically yet, but the skim I just did shows how much effort you put into cleaning up the article. Thank you! Espeically for addressing my concise and unclearly worded concerns. One other thing I would support is the removal the list of signatories to letters/reports. This seems a little "WP:OR" to me since it is a compilation (which only exists on Wikipedia) which synthesizes the primary sources. Perhaps we could mention that many notable people signed various letters and/or reports and had varying degrees of support for the full mission of the group and refer them to the website and/or letters themselves for the list. And even if we found a secondary source, the list itself suggests agreement by those listed with PNAC by association. Vertrag (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no real issue with removing the big list of paper contributors+signatories but the list of the original 25 signatories is non-contravercial and relavant even today cf. these two recent news stories Salon = Jeb’s clueless Bush privilege and Politico - Jeb Bush's burden. In my opinion it should stay because who these people are has been referred to in US political discourse for nearly 20 years. JBH (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Please clarify the selection criteria, very clearly. Was everybody included? If not, who was left out? the list does look like OR to me, and it would not surprise me to find it overlapping the RightWatch names for PNAC. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on the ref I would say the criteria is if they are listed as signatories on PNAC Statement of Principles they are listed here. If someone is missing please add them. No OR at all. Maybe RightWatch used the same source? JBH (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I checked, the list of people here is an exact duplicate of the signatories listed on PNAC's own website. Not seeing how it could be construed as off-base. I have no issue with your edit here, I don't see why an encyclopedia article should list any more than the staff & the signatories to the founding statement.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks are due for the removal of the material which I had specifically called violative of policy - including the wonderful "genocide" implication which I found to be an inexplicable thing for any editor to try placing into this BLP-subject article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of neoconservative cat[edit]

This group is strongly tied to the neoconservative movement at the turn of the century. Many, many RS, cited here, tie PNAC with the theory. Please explain how they are not neoconservative. JBH (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, no question that the group is neoconservative, or at the very least should be identified as "often characterized as" (or whatever). I linked/cited like 8 reliable sources on this very point yesterday.Fyddlestix (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Please sign your posts. The courtesy of a ping would be nice. :)
You added 8 sources that noted that PNAC was called neoconservative, which does not make it neoconservative. It has been called "Reaganite", so perhaps it should be categorized as Reaganite or neoliberal (in the sense of Reagan and Thatcher). Dear ODear ODear (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be pedantic - how many sources are required for wikipedia to say anything about anyone? My refs were from mainstream newspapers and academic books, they are more than enough to justify at minimum a sentence noting that many people have called it neoconservative, and the inclusion of the category. The RS and academic sources are crystal clear about this, I don't really see how there can be much debate unless you're arguing that the vast majority of what has been written about PNAC in reliable sources is wrong. In which case you'd need to find some evidence of your own to back that up.Fyddlestix (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would be happy to discuss comparative International Relations theory with you all day but where they fall on the spectrum of IR theory is not at issue here. What RS calls them is and RS calls them neoconservative. JBH (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Try googling neoliberal and PNAC, and you will find plenty of reliable sources that call it neoliberal. Should it then be categorized as neoliberal, after such RSes are added? (What has happened is that the original meaning of neoconservative has been dropped and "neoconservative" is now applied reflexively to the international military- and -foreign-policy of neoliberalism, while ignoring domestic policy.) Dear ODear ODear (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I could google PNAC and "communist" and get some hits that might look like reliable sources at first glance. But let's look at what happens when we restrict ourselves to only reliable sources:
  • JSTOR search for "Project for the New American Century" and "neoconservative" yields 71 search results. The top one is a a book from Yale Uni Press, which contains the phrase "Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Cheney aide I. Lewis Libby already had their collective eye on Iraq as they gathered at the neoconservative think tank Project for the New AmericanCentury." Many similar results with a clear identification of PNAC as neoconservative. Another one: "In June 1997 a neoconservative policy group, the Project for the New American Century , produced a statement of principles that they argued." Seems pretty clear.
  • If we search the same database for "Project for the New American Century" and "neoliberal," however, we get... 29 results. I looked through the top results, and only one of them could be construed as applying the term "neoliberal" to PNAC itself, through this sentence: "In 2003 counterposed world agendas-the Bush government's plan for world dominance as presented in the Project for the New American Century (Bookman, 2002) and the world antineoliberalism movement-were girding for battle." Note here, that unlike the above results, this is not even a clear description of PNAC as "a neoliberal" group comparable to the above examples (of which there were many more).
  • I also did a similar search of proquest's newspapers database (which contains almost all the major "newspapers of record" in the US). A search for "Project for the New American Century" and "neoconservative" turns up 12 results. The same search but with "neoliberal" turns up... none.
  • Restrict yourself to google scholar: the "neoconservative" query yields 1720 results, the "neoliberal" one yields less than half of that.
Some sources are more reliable than others. And among the most reliable sources (respected newspapers, academics, proper journals) "neoconservative" is clearly the more common and preferred descriptor for PNAC. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the work. You showed that, among reliable sources (by Google scholar), "neoconservative" is more commonly used than is "neoliberal", by roughly 2:1. However, "neoliberal" is also commonly used. Thus, "neoconservative" (and "neoliberal") fails the consistency requirement of the WP:CATDEF guideline, which states
Thus, "neoconservative" is not consistently applied. Do you want to argue that consistency is only a guideline requirement, not a policy demand? (Or invoke "ignore all rules"?)
Dear ODear ODear (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't cherry pick the Google results and ignore what the JSTOR and pro quest queries show. Also, the number of results in itself means very little. As I showed w the JSTOR query, a lot of those "hits" may not actually be an instance of someone calling PNAC neoliberal, whereas the neoconservative query yields numerous clear instances of it being called neoconservative.
The labeling is inconsistent. Neoliberal has been used in many reliable sources,as you have already established.
There is no definition of neoconservative given here. Can you find one high quality reliable source that that defines "neoconservative" and then gives evidence that PNAC satisfies the definition? Such a hqrs would be useful to use for the article.
I agree that many of the reliable sources just label the PNAC as neoconservative, with neither definition or explanation. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 16:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't require reliable sources to break down everything into baby food, digestible by everybody without any effort - indeed, especially academic sources usually serve steak quite raw. We have plenty of sources to justify the "neoconservative" label. Do you have any that explicitly disagree with the label? Please note that "neoliberal" is in no way a contradiction to "neoconservative" - the term is not derived from the US use of "liberal" as "a little bit less stone-agey than the Tea Party", but typically refers to economic liberalism (free trade, few regulations, ...), and is aligned more often with right-wing politics - compare Liberal Party of Australia, Venstre (Denmark), Freedom Party of Austria. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Stephen, Please consider how you sound before hitting the save button, particularly after I traced the origins of "neoliberal" above. (Pity that I do not run into disciples of Giovanni Sartori on Wikipedia.)

Google Scholar reports that by far the two most cited articles with the terms neoconservatism, neoconservative, and PNAC' [expanded]" have 71 hits: M. Boot‍‍ '​‍s Foreign Policy review, which is available at JSTOR [44], and a piece by Francis Fukuyama (which I'd rather not use). Boot's piece seems good, and it also discusses the definitions of its terms; presumably it can be used to give a relevant definition in relation to its discussion of PNAC, which I have not yet read. It also discusses the extremely negative (e.g., antisemitic) connotations of "neoconservative", a discussion underscoring the need for care with "neoconservative".

So let us focus on Booth and see whether "neoconservative" can be used informatively in this article, rather than as an unexplained and loaded term. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 18:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (emboldened and Booth correctly spelled. 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)~)

I took a very quick look at what came up on JSTOR when you do a search on "Project for a New American Century" and neoliberal. They seem to be contrasting more than anything else.

"The neoconservative case for American power, as set forth in the Project for a New American Century" Political and Economic Brinkmanship by Jan Nederveen Pieterse.

"...for any wavering in allegiance to the project of "freedom" and "democracy" as defined in the neoconservative vision for the " New American Century" Flexible Citizenship/Flexible Empire: South Asian Muslim Youth in Post-9/11 America

" to participate in neoliberal global governance via the United Nations..." American Orientalism and American Exceptionalism: A Critical Rethinking of US Hegemony by Meghana V. Nayak, Christopher Malone.Yeah that is really something PNAC believed in.

Why don't you bring some sources that specificly address PNAC as a neoliberal organization. Pull out the quotes you think support your position. Also do not bring out 'antisemitic' unless you can directly support it. Just throwing is out looks like you are attempting to stake out a moral position or chill debate. Trying to not categorize PNAC as neoconservative is simply not going to fly. Jbh (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Among the uses of "neoconservative", the antisemitic use of "neoconservative" for "Jewish" is discussed by Booth, as I clearly wrote. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Do not see the word anywhere. If you are going to pull out antisemitic in a discussion it needs to actually be in the source. Not every criticism of Israel or comment about Jewish ethnicity is antisemitic. Trying to label it as such does an incredible disservice to those who have been subject to antisemitism. Jbh (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)\
Booth notes that neocons are sometimes seen as supporters of Israel, and that some critics have highlighted certain neoconservative's Jewish identity. That's not the same thing as saying that the term neoconservative is anti-semitic. The article says nothing of the sort. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This looks silly. Everyone knows they're neoconservatives, it's just that that word became a perjorative because the economy crashed on W's watch, the wars were lost etc. This looks bad to have a ton of sources on it.

The following refer to or label PNAC as a neoconservative organization:

   Albanese, Matteo (2012). The Concept of War in Neoconservative Thinking. p. 72. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
   Ryan, Maria. Neoconservatism and the New American Century. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Feldman, Stephen. Neoconservative Politics and the Supreme Court. NYU Press. p. 67.
   Brownstein, Ronald (17 April 2003). "War With Iraq/Political Thought: Those Who Sought War are Now Pushing Peace". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
   Greenberger, Robert S; Legget, Karby (March 21, 2003). "Bush Dreams of Changing Not Just Regime but Region". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
   Maddox, Bronwen (July 14, 2004). "Nation-Builders must not lose their voice". The Times. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
   Salvucci, Jim (August 25, 2003). "Bush Uses Crisis to Push Preset Agenda". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved March 3, 2015.
I know certains democrats don't want to be labeled neoliberals either. But if there are reliable sources, wikipedia isn't the place to deny it. Popish Plot (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Replaced some removed 'See also'[edit]

I replaced these in the 'See also' section:

All, in my opinion, are sufficiently related to PNAC, its character, or its goals to be xreffed with PNAC. JBH (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the Netanyahuh discussion statement? For the others, can you find an RS mentioning them in one sentence and then properly move them into the body? Dear ODear ODear (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there any objection to the re-removal of A Clean Break. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I was just addressing them in the context of the 'See Also' section. Putting them in the body is something else entirely. As to A Clean Break it is a document written by Richard Pearl and shows his thinking very near the time of the formation of PNAC. In my opinion the intellectual line between PNAC and A Clean Break is both straight and short. I think that a reader wanting to get more information or context would gain something from the link. JBH (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
My take on the "see also's:" FPI, CLI, and CNAS all belong there, I think. I'm on the fence about A Clean Break as I'm not super familiar with it. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently re-removed FPI because it was linked in the main body. I have no problem with it being added back though. Jbh (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh. I don't feel super strongly about it so if everyone else is happy with a discussion and link to it in the "end of the organization" section then I'm fine with that. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the old American Century?[edit]

The See also section lists American Century. Perhaps this article should explain the connection? Dear ODear ODear (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The connection is that PNAC wanted to bring about a rejuvenation and continuation of US hegemony as it was in the last half of the 20th century going into the 21st. It gives context to 'American Century'. Likely it is not discussed in the body of the article because the term was not discussed in the sources the original writers used. If you want to talk about the term in the article sources need to be found. As far as I know you do not need to have RS for a 'See Also' just that is be a reasonable service to the reader and be a reasonably appropriate topic. JBH (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Honestly I just saw this link as a way of explaining the name of PNAC, and it still makes perfect sense to me to include it that way. It might make more sense to the reader if we added a sentence or two to the article (and a wikilink) referring to the idea (perhaps as part of an explanation of why PNAC was named PNAC?). When I get a chance I'll look for a RS on this - maybe Kristol and Kagan explained why they chose the name at some point. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of section 6.4[edit]

I removed section 6.4 the 'Other Contributors' section. It seems to be too catch all and there is no indication these people were tightly tied to PNAC or what the significance of their contribution was. I do not see the encyclopedic value of their inclusion. This has been discussed quite a bit and I think there is enough consensus for a BOLD edit. JBH (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I noted this above, but: I have no problem with this removal. We have to draw the line somewhere (can't list anyone who ever attended a PNAC event or something, for example) and the signatories of the founding statement seems like the best place to do that to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about PNAC, not Kristol and/or Kagan.[edit]

Therefore, this material has no place in the article, much less in the lede. If people want to know/debate whether or not these two individuals were neoconservative, or held neoconservative views, then the place to do that is on their wiki pages, not here. Incidentally, Boot's definition of what neoconservatism is is inconsistent with a much broader consensus on this. Witness:

  • Britannica's definition: "a variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition."
  • The OED's very inclusive definition: "A new or revived form of conservatism."
  • The Encyclopedia of Globalization (Wiley-Blackwell)'s definition: "At a fundamental level, the neoconservative worldview came to embody and has been guided by two critical elements. First, in a post–Cold War world, the United States – which stood as the sole superpower – should reshape and mold the international order to reflect American interests. Second, the neoconservative worldview believed that using the superior American military power was critical, if not imperative, to achieving this end. Generally, neoconservatives advocated the view that promotion of a new order that reflected American interests and international policy should be based on explicit support for the advancement of “democracy” – as they saw it – around the world."
  • The Encyclopedia of Political Theory:(Sage): "Neoconservatism is a new conservatism that began to exert influence on American politics after 1945 and reached the height of its power during the administration of George W. Bush (2000–2008). Neoconservatism combines conservative social policies with liberal economics and a Realpolitik (i.e., realist) approach to foreign policy."
  • Webster-Mirriam: Defines the term as either "a former liberal espousing political conservatism" or "a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means"
  • The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics defines it as: an "approach characterized by a fear of social breakdown and liberal decadence, and a response based on the vigorous assertion of conservative values, often associated with the teaching of Leo Strauss. In terms of international relations and US foreign policy, neoconservatives challenged isolationist tendencies in the Republican Party, and pressed for international intervention based on a strong conviction that American values and moral goals should be advanced."
  • The Dictionary of Human Geography's definition: "A political ideology mainly associated with the USA. Neoconservatives stress the importance of traditional moral, religious, and family values in opposition to the kinds of personal hedonism and anti-establishment attitudes associated with the 1960s counterculture."

Just a sample of what comes up when I look for a definition of neoconservatism in summon. Of the top results, webster's is the only reference book that suggests that neocons are (or need to be) former liberals, and even that definition clearly notes a double-meaning, which allows for people who have never had liberal leanings to be labelled and classified as neocon. Sorry but Boot's hair-splitting is nowhere near widely "accepted" enough to bear discussion in this article, particularly in the lede. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see an over reliance on Boot in an attempt to disassociate one of the primary neoconservative think tanks of their time from the term neoconservative. Boot alone is not sufficient for this task considering the weight of RS on the matter. These additions to the lead are POV and unsupported by the body of the article. I am removing the bulk of these additions for these reasons. Jbh (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Boot in Foreign Policy, as already noted, is the most cited article discussing PNAC and neoconservatism. Boot at least defines the word neoconservative in its application.
Again, can you find other sources that define the word and explain how it applies to PNAC? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 08:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Then I am sure you can find some good sources, other than Boot, that use Boot's definition to support your argument. Jbh (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Boot is not "the most cited article discussing PNAC and neoconservatism." Not in google scholar, anyway. I count eleven references cited far more frequently than Boot. Boot also clearly identifies PNAC as neoconservative. On page 22: "let's be serious: The Project for the New American Century, the leading neocon foreign policy think tank, has a staff of five." The place for "defining" neoconservatism is neoconservatism - this article is about PNAC, and the vast majority of secondary sources (including Boot) describe PNAC as neoconservative without qualification (and without feeling the need to go off on a long, irrelevant tangent about whether or not Kristol & Kagan are themselves neoconservatives). There is no need to "explain how it applies" to PNAC, because there's a clear consensus among reliable sources that PNAC is neoconservative. Even Boot frames it that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"as already noted". Read what I wrote "Google Scholar reports that by far the two most cited articles with the terms neoconservatism, neoconservative, and PNAC' [expanded]" have 71 hits: M. Boot‍‍ '​‍s Foreign Policy review, which is available at JSTOR [45],". LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 15:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I just duplicated that search: Google puts your article on top because (for whatever reason) it thinks it's the most "relevant" - but it does not have the most citations. Not even close. Your article has 71. this one has 127. this one has 123. this book has 158. this book has 132.
More to the point, what exactly do you think any of what Boot says means/contributes? As I've already stated, this article is clearly not the place for a prolonged discussion of what is or isn't neoconservatism, or whether Kristol and Kagan should be labelled as such. This article is about PNAC, and the literature (including the article you keep holding up as if it proved something else) clearly indicates that very large numbers of scholars & writers apply the term "neoconservative" to PNAC, without feeling the need to qualify or unpack that identification. There is no question that PNAC is neoconservative, and thus no reason to clutter up the lede with an off-topic discussion (using a single source, which does not even appear to represent the majority view, as I showed above) of which individuals are or aren't neoconservative. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Kristol and Kagan were the founders and directors, so obviously the judgment of a leading review article on neoconservatism (discussing NPAC) that states that neither is properly neoconservative (in the original meaning) is worth noting. Perhaps it does not belong in the lede. Please move it below, for example, the weak section on associates, which just is a list now. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You said it in the original meaning. Only the founders of the movement were neocons in the original meaning. So no, not relevant in this article. PNAC is a necon organization promoting neocon ideas in the current meaning any other position is UNDUE. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jbh (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Synthetic table, poorly sourced[edit]

This controversial edit needs consensus before being restored.

One of its "sources" claims that PNAC hijacked the US government and led the US to war, pretty nifty for a 5-employee organization. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 09:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some of the sources look a bit biased, but what exactly is SYNTH about the claim that person a (or person b, or person x) was a signatory to PNAC's statement (or a group member) and then later went on to serve in the Bush Admin? Assuming it's properly sourced that seems like a simple statement of fact, I'm still not clear how it's SYNTH. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There is enough honest work to be one finding and soberly reporting the central points of high quality reliable sources. The names are already linked, so there is no need to create the table. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 11:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The sourcing of the table, BLP concerns, SYNTH concerns etc have been discussed to death and there is consensus against those claims. DEADHORSE. My only objection to the table is that it is UNDUE in the article. I would support a linked LIST which contains a sources statement of its significance. Jbh (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"A person signed anything related to a group - therefore they are directly related to the group" = "guilt by association" and is precisely the reasoning given to "George Gnarph signed a petition from 'People for the Constitution'. Some of the signers of that document were Communists, and the group was led by Communists, therefore Gnarph is associated with Communists." Sorry -- SYNTH does indeed still apply, and any such edit must have a strong positive consensus in any event as being contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, we've been through this. Like, multiple times. Where exactly do you see this article, as written, assigning "guilt" to anyone, for anything? We're talking about a list of names indicating a simple, straightforward fact: that the people listed were both members/signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, and played a role in the GWB admin. You need to explain much more clearly how and why exactly you think that is SYNTH, or why it should even be regarded as contentious. The listed people were involved in both organizations, and there are reliable sources that testify to that fact. So where, exactly, is the problem? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding to clarify - if you think there's significant doubt that some of these people can be portrayed as "involved" with PNAC that's a different matter (see JBH's list below) - that kind of need for sourcing/checking I can get behind for sure. I just don't see a problem with the table itself if the content is reliably sourced.Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
OK - Who "just signed 'anything' related to" PNAC and did nothing to publicly advance that position or otherwise reinforce the position they took in that document. Your statement implies that all of the people on that list 'just signed something' - other than the 'Statement f Principals', which is a strong sign of association - if you can specify people like that I will support their removal from the list. State specifics which can be addressed. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
For instance I can see a case for the removal of Dov S. Zakheim. After a brief check, I do not see a lot of press associating him with PNAC. Jbh (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Going through the table these are the only people who are not Signatories, Staff or Officers and therefore would need better sourcing for their connection to PNAC for purposes of the table. I suggest discussing the sourcing for including them or not be discussed in the list below:

"Mr Khalilzad was a founder member of the now ailing neo-con Project for the New American Century, and signed its 1998 letter that called on President Bill Clinton to topple Saddam Hussein." BBC - Zalmay Khalilzad: US power broker - 8 January 2007

Jbh (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak source about the US Ambassador ... signing a "statement of principles" does not make one a "founder member" per se. Collect (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The BBC is a RS Collect. If it says that he was a "founder member" then that's good enough for me and I'd wager it's good enough for most people. Certainly it meets RS criteria. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting claim - but wrong. The claim appears to be catenated with views of Cliff Kupchan , and furnishes no basis for a claim not found in any other source. In fact, it appears based on his signing the 1998 letter. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. I see an article from a reliable source (the BBC) that contains this text - not as a quote, not attributed to anyone else, but in the BBC's voice: "Mr Khalilzad was a founder member of the now ailing neo-con Project for the New American Century." So, sorry but you don't really have a leg to stand on here. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which sources are trustworthy and which are not. This is clearly a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a tertiary source (Britannica) but: "During the 1990s Bolton was active in prominent conservative organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute, at which he was a vice president during 1997–2001, and the Project for the New American Century." looking for a better source but it would seem the statement that he was "active in" the group at least is not controversial. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hah, an even better source, right from Kristol's mouth: Bolton "served in the late 1990s as a director of the Project for the New American Century" Source is Irving Kristol, "Bolton's the One," Weekly Standard, 10.29 (Apr 18, 2005): 9. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose Checney has been struck because the connection is the most publicized, aside from being well-sourced.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

While it is apparent that Zakheim has not received as much coverage as others, note that hementions the connection himself in his own book, and claims he wasn’t a neocon, downplay PNAC's role in the administration, etc.
Note that the Christie book, in a footnote(p.48) to the discussion started on p. 47 lists 18 other PNAC appointees (apparently), including Zakheim, some not included on the table, such as Bruce Jackson. I don't see why Zakheim (or anyone else) shouldn't be included if there is to be a table/list, and Jbhunley, I think that the table is a worthwhile cross-reference, much better than a list.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked the book (Christie) up - that footnote is a list of "Bush appointees who have been identified as neon-cons or as very close to the neo-cons by various observers." So that specific source doesn't document a PNAC connection. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry -- your basis for SYNTH is still SYNTH. And your desire to use "guilt by association" tables is contrary to policy. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The size of the table alone with respect to the article makes it UNDUE. The article is about PNAC not about PNAC and the Bush administration or people who who were sympathetic to PNAC and the Bush Administration. There is a good case for listing people who associated themselves strongly with PNAC's policy positions, by signing the Statement of Principals, or policy letters and multiple public statements in support of those policies and PNAC. If the table becomes a repository for listing weak associations just to make it bigger I would be forced to support its complete removal. Jbh (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's sound reasoning. I was justing thinking along the lines of being comprehensive, but your rationale is stronger, being more focused and precise.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't find anything on an Armitage-PNAC connection other than his signature on the letter to Clinton about Iraq. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Struck here. Struck on hatted list above. Removed from List article. Jbh (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Jbh (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Fyddlestix I found plenty, and his status as a signatory to the Clinton letter is well-covered in academic sources such as this, this, this, and this. Armitage outted a CIA officer that was writing a report refuting false claims about yellow cake and MWD, didn't he? Obviously he is going to attract a lot of attention in relation to Iraq, which was the subject of the Clinton Iraq letter, as per the sources.
Other book sources include [46][][47]
Let's centralize the discussion of the table at the List page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
So far, I see no conceivable need for the infamous "table". We have specific mentions already of the signers, and wikilinks for them. Anything past that is SYNTH unless you find specific fact sources linking them in such a manner. (BTW Cheney is already listed as a PNAC signer above - no need to add him here) Some here are on the basis of "they signed a letter which core members of PNAC signed" which, IMHO, is a very weak sort of claim to use. Some not even for that much. Period. Collect (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
So far other editors see a "conceivable need for the infamous "table"." So, there is a place to discuss the specifics of inclusion above. Signing the 'Statement of Principals' is a strong tie of association. The 25 Signatories are referred to collectively in the press regularly and individuals are often referred to as one of the 25 Signatories when discussed in the press. If you see a weak association please discuss it above. General complaints have been addressed multiple times. Specific addressable concerns about individuals will move the discussion forward. Jbh (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And that means they signed the "Statement of Principles" and nothing more. If you find that to be a "strong tie of association" then I am sorry indeed. Collect (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that that statement and those people are not strongly tied to PNAC in the press? Otherwise strike 'members' in the table and leave signatories. That would remove the people listed above from the list, keep the list from becoming a coat rack and limit the group of people to one that is often referred to as a group in the press. the '25 Signatories'. Jbh (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest "signers" is a better word - we can use ordinary words in articles, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Note The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions. is not the same as calling a person a "member" of PNAC, or even being able to suggest they agreed with the report, or any part of the report. I suggest the disclaimer is dispositive here. Collect (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And where is that disclaimer. I see it no where on the Statement of Principles. Jbh (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we simply ignore that clear disclaimer from the actual report from PNAC? Or did you miss my use of The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century ? I suggest we ought neither state nor imply that any person on the list of the end of the report subscribes to that report. The "statement of principles" is a "statement" and is not the "report". Collect (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Jbhunley Having reviewed the literature a bit as well as the subjects articles on Wikipedia, I think that only Fukuyama and Zakheim can be removed from the list. The others would seem to be too embroiled in the core controversies related to the group.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: The issue though is whether they were embroiled as strong associates of PNAC or merely intellectual fellow travelers. There were a lot of people who drank the kool-aid on Iraq, US hegemony and a mono-polar international system. That some of these people would be weakly in PNAC's orbit is unremarkable. The section above is a place to bring cites to sources to demonstrate whether a person should be included. The more focused and defined the criteria for inclusion the more relevant the list is to the article.
@Collect: Right now the list consists of directors/staff/fellows and signatories. Whether the others should be included is what is being discussed above. I removed the list of people "Participated in one meeting...." over a week ago. That is not what is being discussed here. There is no mention of the report in the table, what is being discussed those who signed the Statement which is encyclopedic for the reasons I have previously stated. Please find sources to back up your assertions. I am sure that I and everyone else here would be very happy to discuss them, otherwise you are simply repeating yourself to no avail. Jbh (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
And I consider that we already have the lists of signers etc. and that the table becomes SYNTH as soon as multiple sources are combined in order to show a relationship not found in the individual sources. Once a person is in the article, the need to have them listed more than once is de minimis at best. And the assertion that using multiple sources to make a claim not found in any single source is directly and precisely what WP:SYNTH requires. It is not up to me to "prove" anything - it is up to those making such claims to prove that they are not making claims based on SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not the definition of SYNTH Collect, perhaps you should review what WP:SYNTH actually says. It clearly defines SYNTH as "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." In this case, however, the only conclusion that is being drawn is that there were multiple personal connections between the GWB admin and PNAC. And we already have multiple sources that state that conclusion clearly. Since the only conclusion that I can imagine anyone drawing from the table is reliably sourced, I don't see how this table can be construed as SYNTH. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Using two or more sources to reach conclusions not reached by any individual source is SYNTH. Making a table whoch implicitly makes claims not made by individual sources is SYNTH. Cheers. Collect (talk)
Yes. So what, exactly, is the SYNTH "conclusion" that you see being drawn by the table? What are these "implicit claims" that you think the table makes? We've been here before, remember? Either explain specifically what you see as the conclusion/implication being made through SYNTH, or stop making the claim that the table is SYNTH. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this is going no where I have created the list article I suggested above:

I am sure the title could be better but it is a start. Comments on inclusion criteria can be made on the article talk page. Jbh (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you're proposing a list article then every single PNAC member associated with the Bush aministration, including advisors, needs to be included. No "if ands or buts" about it. The characterization "strongly" in that context would be purely an OR/SYNTH appellation of your own making.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Check out the inclusion criteria on the lists talk page. I could care less about the word 'strongly'. Before someone can be placed on the list they must be notable enough for their own article. They must be Directors/Staff/Fellows etc of PNAC or they must be one of the 25 signatories or they must be shown through RS to have tied themselves to PNAC, for instance commonly referred to as a part of PNAC, signed multiple policy letters etc. There needs to be a good case for inclusion for each person added. I will be extremely disappointed if you and Collect move your battle to a new venue. We have a pretty good consensus here of who should be on the list here. Please do not screw that up with your zeal. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't start casting aspersions on me because you changed your position about the inclusion of the table.
Every single individual I've supported inclusion on that table has their own Wikipedia article and is notable. As a matter of fact, you should pay closer attention, because I even added one person from a new category (advisors) that I haven't had time to explore further:
others served in important advisory roles, such as William Schneider, Jr., who was appointed to the Defense Science Board:
Neoconservatism and the New American Century, Maria Ryan, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010
Obviously it is sourced to a peer-reviewed book and you can check his Wikipedia article for further info.
Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow! You stated "every single PNAC member associated with the Bush aministration, including advisors, needs to be included. No "if ands or buts" about it." that is not the comment of someone who is about to do something moderate.

I have not changed my position at all I have always said the sheer size of the table overbalances the article and could make it UNDUE. I suggested a list above and the debate here is going nowhere. we are at the same point we were at when I stepped into this at BLPN a month ago. By making it an article now the SYNTH must be proven at rather than asserted.

I care not one iota who is on the list as long as their association is strongly sourced. Adding "every single PNAC member associated with the Bush aministration, including advisors, needs to be included. No "if ands or buts" about it." does not equate to strong sourcing in my mind.

As to aspersions are you really telling me you and Collect have not been carrying on a battle? Really? Really?

You expect a moderate response when you say to me "No "if ands or buts" about it.". I suggest to you that my response was measured precisely with respect to your immoderate statement. Now I suggest we chalk this up to a miscommunication arising from the limitations of a talk page, move on and learn something about how we each communicate. Jbh (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you see the problem - and agree that such a list would be SYNTH for damn sure. We already list signers etc. The table is going to violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV just as the earlier efforts to label PNAC as a "Jewish group" with "dual loyalties" also failed. We already list the participants - anything else is getting into murky water. And my only "battle" has been to obey policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The best thing to do now if you feel that the list violates policy is to AfD it, I take no offence if you do. That will allow more people to comment and an un-involved administrator can close it. I chose this vehicle for dispute resolution because discussion here and at BLPN got us essentially nowhere. This list has nothing to do with calling PNAC a "Jewish Group" or about "dual loyalties", and I certainly advocate neither of those positions, so bringing those up makes no sense to me. The overall membership of the list is tightly constrained, contains only BlueLinked subjects and serves an encyclopedic purpose. If you disagree you now have a vehicle for definitive resolution, Keep/Merge/Delete, whatever it is it ends this particular issue on this article and we can all move on with further improvements. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry -- AfD is for deletion of the entire article. Not just a BLP violating list. Collect (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. This article:
I know the title is crap. It is under discussion on the talk page. Jbh (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved List article, as follows[edit]

New title: List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed 'five employees' claim[edit]

Misleading claim. They may have had only five employees in the technical sense of the word (ie support staff) but the article itself lists five directors/officers and 7 staff (ie Fellows etc). Jbh (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was puzzled as to why that info was considered relevant in the first place. Seems like (pretty irrelevant) trivia. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Two high-quality reliable sources state that it had 5 employees (one newly added), a fact that should be weighed against claims that the PNAC led the US into war, as one of the sources I removed today stated. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 15:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Then make the case do not just drop in a statement of misleading trivia. It looks like 'employees' is being used as 'paid staff' not the people who actually were participants in the 'think tank' of which there were demonstrably more than five. The number of secretaries, copy boys etc do not have any bearing on the influence of the organization. If you can find a source that ties 'five employees' to something substantive, like possibly they were the only ones doing anything on behalf of PNAC rather than the unpaid 'Directors', 'Fellows', etc. then I will support its inclusion. Until then.... Jbh (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Moving the claim down does not help it. I will let someone else revert if they think appropriate though. Jbh (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
High notes that it had 5 employees in the context of noting that it was a letterhead organization. Obviously, calling it a think tank is misleading. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 15:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Come on now, this is getting silly. There are many, many, many sources that describe PNAC as a think tank, and your source says that it was a "letterhead" organization long after most of the events discussed in the article. The quote you're taking that from specifically says, "ten years later" it's a letterhead organization. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is calling it a think tank misleading? Are you claiming it was not a think tank?
Also, when removing content, please leave more accurate edit summaries the first time.
I see that you are right about the quote, but the article does not have a special focus on PNAC, it treats PNAC and its mission statement as representative of neocons.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Un fortunately, we can not make assertions not clearly supported in the source. You may "know" it is about PNAC, but we can not use your specialized knowledge in making any claims here. Collect (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Then make the statement within the body of the article "High says PNAC was a letter head organization because" do not just slip in a bare statement with no context. It does not improve the article. Also understand that High's opinion may be discussed here and may be considered UNDUE or refuted. I have no opinion on that right now. I have a strong opinion that the 'five employees' statement should not be in the article without context. Jbh (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Put it back, and I shall expand it tonight,withcontextfromthe2 hqrses. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 16:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As a Swede, I prefer consensus and I am afraid of conflict. Thus, I prefer gently to remove problems before making major improvements, so that we can all agree on a good basis for expansion. Frankly, let me say that it does not seem that this article has been written using the most cited articles or scholarly books discussing it, but rather it looks a lot like conspiracy-theoretic website pages, which have been expanded using any possibly reliable source available on the internet---such as discussions of the culture of postmodernity. If we cannot agree to get rid of junk, then I shall not waste my time trying to expand the article. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, see the quote below. He says that ten years later it was a "letterhead" organization. There's no suggestion that that was the proper way to characterize it in its heyday. As for academic vs dodgy sources, you should have seen it before. A lot of improvement has been done and there's still more to do, but improving the article is not easy when there are people waging the kind of conflict over the article that's going on right now. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that this should be removed. Note that one of the sources cited as a ref for this "fact" directly states that the number of employees doesn't mean anything:

The creation of The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 1997 (in the same building as The Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute), is an example of the way in which neoconservatism has always created small ad hoc organizations to influence opinion on specific topics. The PNAC had a staff of only five. That did not matter: its purpose was to write embarrassing letters to important people. Its letter to President Clinton in February 1998 (signed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Fukuyama), calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, helped to bring about the Iraq Liberation Act, which Clinton signed in November 1998. It was irrelevant that Clinton did nothing about it: the PNAC had helped to create a climate of opinion in which what was previously thought insanely reckless was now entirely permissible. Ten years later, it is now a ‘letterhead’ organization, and functionally dead.

The "five employees" claim was clearly added to undermine the claim that PNAC was influential, but there's no evidence that the number of employees mattered in that respect. It's just trivia, and it doesn't belong in the article. If you want to quote Boot saying that it only had five employees, and that this was a reflection of the organization's influence, that's fine. But I'll be quickly adding the above quote to counter the claim that the number of employees was in any way meaningful/significant if you do. The article already cites many RS on the non-influentialness of PNAC. There's no need to try to make the case further with this "five employees" stuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


Lack of military service

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'"[52]

In response to the "chicken hawk" charge, Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", wrote in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"[53]

Appears to cite a single opinion source which makes contentious claims about a group of individuals. It does not present facts per se, and in intrinsically accusatory of that group. The "balance" doe s not address the contentious and specific BLP violation of asserting Cheney was a "draft dodger". In fact any such claim on the Cheney BLP would be summarily and properly removed. Will someone kindly delete that grotesque and clear violation of WP:BLP? Collect (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it should be removed until a 2nd RS is found. The first such attack I recall was made by columnist Mike Royko, not a reliable source unless he is quoting Dr. I.M.Cookie. Presumably a similar attack can be found, although it should be clearly about PNAC rather than about neocons or anti-isolationists. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 16:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I returned the section to the state it was in prior to the BLP issue. Jbh (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with the talk page discussions and review editors' comments before reverting again. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 16:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Ummm... Collect says remove --> Dear O Dear says remove ---> I say remove ---> I remove. Your issue is? Jbh (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: The quote attributed to Rothkopf does not directly indicate "PNAC". It might be better just to use Reynolds

The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And the claim to be made from the source? Looks like a strictly en passant mention at best from here. Collect (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Jbhunley restored the original "Inexperience in realities of war" section with more relevant text. Whoever added the sensationalistic material diverted the original focus. The BBC source is still relevant, but should be modified as per above or the like, and the statements from PNAC statements about Iraq and the removal of Hussein should probably be incorporated for context. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed what was a BLP issue and reverted the text back to baseline. I have no objection to modifying that baseline text per the other issues. Dear ODear ODear placed the original BLP violation and reverted back to it. I would say the BLP violation is what first needs to be handled, not so Collect?(unsigned by JBH)

The BLP violation dated back to 2007 ... I ought to have caught it but there was too much other stuff in the way :( Collect (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I replaced part of the older section that I believe was not contested so we do not loose that section without discussion. Jbh (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The source for the labour fellow is missing. The thing left did not discuss PNAC. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's the source[48] for the Labour MP

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.
'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And where does Dalyell say "PNAC"? And do you not see that calling a living person a "draft dodger" is a contentious claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There are other RS criticizing Cheney as a draft dodger[49], a “self-confessed draft dodger”.
@Collect: The article mentions PNAC four times, and no other "right-wing think tank"; meanwhile, the quote might not mention PNAC directly, but would clearly seem to implicate PNAC, with which Cheney was affiliated, and he is connected to the report. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Using a quote which makes a contentious claim and where the quote does not refer to PNAC is not going to work. Calling anyone a "draft dodger" is a BLP violation per se here, and since the person does not specify PNAC, that rules it out as a source. "Seems to implicate" means "does not support the claim." Sorry. Collect (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's one peer-reviewed source
Why Did the United States Invade Iraq?, Jane K. Cramer (Editor), A. Trevor Thrall (Editor), Routledge, 2011
that mentions the lack of military experience of all those pushing for the use of force to reassert America's role, etc., tracing the notions to the influence of Albert Wohlstetter

Wohlstetter had mentored such administration figures as Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, and Perle, even introducing Perle to Iraqi exile and eventual Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi. His most politically active followers had no direct military experience of their own, but they developed an appreciation for the efficacy of force...

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your quote does not mention the PNAC and it does not contain "all". LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 06:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I don't want to debate the SYNTH claim, as I don't know if he mentions those individuals with respect to PNAC ealier in his chapter, for one point. It's a shame though, as that passage connects the predisposition to use military force with a lack of military experience.
What did your edit summary mean regarding the Powell quote? I can't figure out where to put it yet, but it is good material.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Kagan & powell should go in 1 or both blps, not here, unless a rs discusses pnac. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 14:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The RS specifically characterizes Kagan as the co-founder of PNAC, making his affiliation with PNAC significant to the statement; in other words, he presents Kagan as representative of PNAC, or lets Kagan speak for PNAC, as it were. It is definitely about PNAC.
Next, The material removed with this revert is indeed about PNAC, per both sources. How is the following statement not about PNAC?

...would create a lobby group called "The New American Century" (PNAC), which espoused a neoconservative vision of the future.

The page of the source for Khalilzad[50] states

Consider also the signatories of a PNAC letter sent to then-President Bill Clinton on January 26,1998: besides Rumsfled, Dobraiansky, Khalilzad[italics added]
Scmitt, meanwhile, has often collaborated with Abram Shulsky, who (like Wolfowitz, Khalilzad and the new Iraq oil minister Ahmed Chalabi) studied with Strauss’s friend and colleague at the University of Chicago, the nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter.

Would you mind reverting that and discussing your concerns? Maybe we could start a new section on "Intellectual background" or the like, and change "Origins" to Beginnings". The material is about PNAC and relevant to this article. This article provides almost no background on the continuities and difference in the policy orientations of PNAC. One would think an encyclopedia would provide a little insight into the intellectual orientations of a "think tank".
You are technically over the revert count, too, so I'd appreciate it if you could restore that.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Has not yet been abolished. This article which had started to be rational is now a model for BLP violators to emulate. Edit warriors adding material which is not related to the actual topic are ill-serving Wikipedia, and those who re-insert the "draft dodger" bit are violating policy and consensus here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What policy is being violated, specifically? I have seen a lot of people Crying BLP on this page since I first stumbled across it, removing content with only the vaguest explanations ("BLP violation!!!") as to why. Yet, when I go looking at WP:BLP actually says, I often have trouble finding where wikipedia policy actually rules out the content being removed. Please, be specific. "BLP violation" is not a magic word that you can use to justify removing whatever you want. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Read the previous section, where living persons were being vilified as hypocritical cowards, based on comments about unnamed "think tanks" (plural) from a ranting member of parliament. Pray that Wikipedia's articles on medicine do not have long sections based on the most extreme statements of Leahy and Kucinich. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I did read all that - All I see is a reliably sourced quote, which is clearly labelled as a single (non-fringe) individual's opinion. Now I'd like you to point out which wikipedia policy you think rules out including the quote. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I have posted two other sources that characterize Cheney as a draft-dodger. It is a legitimate criticism made against him as far as I can tell. Several sources quote Cheney as stating, "I had better things to do". How is it that criticism a BLP violation if properly attributed?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Put it in the Cheney biography, not here, unless you have reliable sources stating that that allegation is related to PNAC. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 14:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the context/wording of the article makes it crystal clear that the "think tank" he's talking about is PNAC. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. He refers think tanks (plural). In the word "tanks" (not "tank"), the s indicates plurality. (This is another clue that the Scottish paper's piece may not be the highest quality reliable source.) LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I know how little you care to abide by WP:BLP. You have been previously notified of discretionary sanctions for BLPs as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Collect You know that you are supposed to raise BLP claims at the BLP board after deleting text on the basis of a claimed violation of BLP. You need to start following that directive and stop making unilateral pronouncements on such matters.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there, let's keep the focus on the issue under discussion: You still haven't answered the pertinent question here - exactly which BLP rule/policy does the quote run afoul of? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It is pertinent because the place for discussing BLP issues is at BLP/N, where uninvolved editors and admins can weigh in.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed quote for now[edit]

So, Collect has removed part of the quote in this edit, and I don't see the point in keeping a gutted quote like that. Per Mr. X's suggestion over at BLP/N, I've removed the quote altogether for now. I urge everyone to stop editing/adding it until we have consensus one way or another. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there is a clear consensus that the material is not a BLP violation; thus, there is no policy-based rationale for its removal.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion at BLPN did/does seem to be leaning that way - I think it's fair to say that the question is still being debated, though. Mainly I just didn't want to revert, and was uncomfortable with a quote that had been massaged like that being in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking within quotes[edit]

is against Wikipedia WP:MOS and scholarly practice. See Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s reminder[51] and my previous edit summaries, for example [52].

Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 11:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Whigged-out history[edit]

This article focuses the George W. Bush Administration and its ... umh ... er ... activities with Iraq....

The article should discuss the history of the organization and its activities, without such a monomaniacal focus.

Presumably PNAC was founded to put pressure on the lame-duck Clinton administration and more importantly Republican Presidential candidates. Cannot somebody with access look at The Washington Post and The New York Times archives to see coverage of PNAC, in particular any effect on Clinton and Madeleine Albright and Al Gore and on John McCain, George W. Bush, and the Republican Platform?
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I can look for stuff but am skeptical that you're going to find evidence of PNAC having much influence in its earlier years - most administrations are unlikely to pay much attention to the advice of think tanks that are politically/ideologically opposed to them. Also I think you're overlooking the article's section on the letter PNAC sent to Clinton re: Saddam Hussein. "Monomaniacal focus" is definitely hyperbolizing. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick search in the ProQuest newspaper archives. There is quite a bit mentioning PNAC and I have not gone through the whole list. In its early days PNAC seems to have been concerned with increased Pentagon spending and Taiwan. I picked out some articles, including two by Garry Schmidt as executive director of PNAC and two where PNAC is discussing Taiwan (this was an issue for them pre 9/11 with both Clinton and Bush).

I have posted five of these articles in my user space as accademic fair use (photocipies for discussion) they have been NOINDEXed and the pages will be deleted in 7 days, sooner if everyone is done with them. I can provide other articles in the same manner or via email unless there is some Wikipedia policy I am unaware of which would prevent me from doing so.

Jbh (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"monomaniacal" being "hyperbole": Guilty as charged. Thanks for the correction.
A broader discussion would be useful. Thanks for discussion of Taiwan,etc.
Thanks for the information about the Proquest pdfs.
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead is looking pretty good![edit]

I'd like to point out that recent work on the lead looks to have borne fruit! That is a lean and encyclopedic lead.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fall of the House of Bush[edit]

NYT review[53]: In his new book, “The Fall of the House of Bush,” the reporter Craig Unger (the author of the 2004 book “House of Bush, House of Saud”) attempts to turn an all-encompassing, wide-angle lens on the Bush presidency, looking at the rise of George W. Bush and his support from the religious right; his relationship with his father, George H. W. Bush, and its impact on foreign policy; the alliance between Israeli hard-liners and Christian Zionists, and the neoconservatives’ push for the war against Iraq; the administration’s use of flawed intelligence before the invasion; and Vice President Dick Cheney’s efforts to expand executive power. The resulting book is a sprawling hodgepodge of the persuasive and the speculative, the well researched and the hastily assembled, the original and the highly derivative.

Other assertions made in this book are more poorly sourced. For instance Mr. Unger not only writes that at least nine intelligence officials believe that forged documents, which described efforts by Iraq to buy uranium ore from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, were “part of a covert operation to deliberately mislead the American public and start a war with Iraq,” but he also goes on to insinuate — without any sort of smoking gun — that Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative analyst with ties to both Italian intelligence and high-ranking Bush administration officials, might have played a key role in that operation.
In his eagerness to connect all the dots, Mr. Unger resorts at times to innuendo and speculation and hyperbolic language. For example he draws heavily upon the reporting from Peter and Rochelle Schweizer’s 2004 book “The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty” to underscore the Oedipal tensions between the current President Bush and his father. But while he nimbly explicates the differences in their approach to foreign policy — the senior Bush and his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft belong firmly to the realist school, while the younger Mr. Bush chose a decidedly more messianic approach — he takes the fact that the current president has allied himself with some figures (like former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld) who were rivals of his father to come to the melodramatic conclusion that Mr. Bush the younger “with the help of so many of his father’s nemeses” had “destroyed his father’s legacy” piece by piece.
It’s unfortunate that Mr. Unger occasionally hypes his material and extrapolates from the documented facts in this book, as these tactics distract attention from — sometimes even undermine — his more carefully researched findings.

B&N [54] The most interesting parts of Unger’s book deal with the odd, potent alliance between born-against Christians and Israeli hardliners. Reaching back through history, he explains the evolution of premillenial dispensationalism, the end-times theology that dominates the American evangelical world. According to dispensationalist doctrine, the return of the Jews to the biblical state of Israel — which includes the occupied territories — will precede the second coming of Christ, making the annexation of Palestinian land a precondition of earthly paradise. So-called Christian Zionists have thus been among the fiercest champions of Israeli irredentism. And, Unger writes, because the Christian Zionists are politically useful, Jewish hawks have mostly been content to ignore the narrative of Christian triumph implicit in these “millennial dreams.” (The New Republic‘s Leon Wieseltier has aptly called this ecumenical bargain a “grim comedy of mutual condescension.”)

One error, though, made me suspicious of how closely he read all this material. About a third of the way through The Fall of The House of Bush, he attributes a quote to the late televangelist D. James Kennedy (“It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”) that actually comes from one of Kennedy’s former employees, George Grant. Curious about Unger’s source, I followed the footnote and was surprised to find it pointing to my own book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. The quote in my book clearly comes from Grant; one would have to be skimming pretty quickly to miss that.
Such mistakes aren’t enough to undermine Unger’s credibility, but they do add to the sense that the book was hastily written and edited.

Are you sure this is the book on which to hang claims about PNAC? Which it mentions in a footnote for your use - but otherwise basically ignores in favour of a cabal (word directly used in re Abrams) of some sort? A book which compares Jewish "halachic edits" to fatwas (page 138)?[55]? Page 102 - the author states Israel is "occupying Palestinian territory". Page 146, he asserts Israel wants all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. Page 40 quotes David Brooks as deriding those who attacked neoconservatives as "an evil Jewish conspiracy - the Axis of Circumcision" Collect (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:I think you're on the wrong talk page here Collect - the book is not cited/used in this article. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit presented it on this very talk page - sorry that you missed it. Collect (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned the source for consideration on the Talk page.
Collect cherry picks his reviews, however.[56]
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Using The New York Times review is "cherry picking" anything? Wow! Sorry -- the NYT is considered one of the best sources for book reviews. Even if you "know it is wrong" here - I do not "cherry pick" reviews. The "six questions" article, moreover, is not a "book review" in case that elided your notice. By the way, we do not wikilink words within quotes - that is considered against the MoS and I am sure you will undo that particular edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
There are other reviews that are favorable, so you could have presented one along with those you chose to dismiss the source as unreliable--which it is not even if there are mistakes (which I haven't evaluated). We do not have to use the source in the article, but it is certainly viable to discuss as a corroborating source here on Talk.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I chose the two most notable reviews. You wish to cherry-pick only reviews that are "favourable". sorry --- that is intrinsically absurd. Collect (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And you missed a couple of pertinent quotes in the NYT review

When Mr. Unger sticks to the facts (often facts initially unearthed by other reporters) and focuses less on the personal lives of his subjects and more on policy making in the Bush administration, his narrative skills enable him to do a fluent job of putting the available jigsaw puzzle pieces together. He gives readers a powerful account of the long-standing campaign by neoconservatives (which long predated the terrorist attacks of 9/11) to topple Saddam Hussein, the ideological roots of the administration’s ideas about pre-emption and unilateral action, and the efforts of hawks in the Pentagon and the vice president’s office to bypass regular policymaking channels and use cherry-picked intelligence to push for war.
One of the things that’s new in this volume is the level of detail that Mr. Unger brings to his account of how Colin L. Powell was maneuvered into making the administration’s case for war with his February 2003 speech at the United Nations, an account that clearly leans heavily on the author’s interviews with Lawrence Wilkerson, Mr. Powell’s former chief of staff, who has become an increasingly outspoken critic of the Bush administration.
Mr. Unger quotes Mr. Wilkerson saying that in trying to vet material for the United Nations speech, Mr. Powell kept having to throw out discredited allegations (made by the vice president’s office) that the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent.
“They were just relentless,” Mr. Wilkerson says of the vice president’s staff. “You would take it out and they would stick it back in. That was their favorite bureaucratic technique — ruthless relentlessness.” According to Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Cheney’s office continued the night before and the morning of the speech to insist that Mr. Powell tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"That was their favorite bureaucratic technique — ruthless relentlessness."
Hmmmm. DearODear 19:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"When" he sticks to facts - is a tad telling - might you be claiming that everything in the book is a "fact" by any chance? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Post-AFD discussion[edit]

So the AFD on the list article landed on a delete, see here. This is, I think, a surprise to no one given the way the discussion was going, although I was a bit surprised to see the closer suggest that the table "had been found" to be synthetic. I personally still disagree with that assessment, but I think perhaps now's the time to put a pin in the whole "table" debate and move on.

I would like to suggest, however, that some of the large number of sources that were used/found in support of the table could be put to good use in this article:

The number and weight of some of these sources suggests to me that this article does need to address/discuss the perception that PNAC and the George W. Bush admin were closely linked, and the reality that there were a significant number of people with ties to both. My two cents is that this is best handled through a prose section, though, which can discuss the different perspectives on this topic more thoroughly and give due weight to the more reliable/academic sources.

To be clear - I'm not in a hurry to stick all this back in the article or anything, I just think it's worth noting that there's a large body of literature here that the article should probably address in one way or another. Any thoughts? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As discussed on the Stephen Cambone article Talk, a couple of the documents merit their own respective article, at least starting with a section in this (main) article (such a section already exists for the report and Statement of Principles), where the signatories may (or maybe not) be listed along with the connection to the Bush administration.
Those include the 1998 Letter to Clinton on Iraq and ''Rebuilding America's Defenses'', which the sources leave no question about notability, largely addressed specifically with respect to subsequent connection to the Bush administration.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

1998 Letter to Clinton on Iraq[edit]

@Capitalismojo: The interpretation you have attempted to force on the article regarding the abovementioned letter is based on a misreading of the sources. Please check this page and the related links, according that to the document itself on the now defunct PNAC website.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have interpreted nothing. The Cambridge University book ref, CNN, and other refs all explicitly state that the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf sent the letter. The refs state that a number of people associated with PNAC signed it. Original research that assumes that the letter was a product of PNAC because a copy appeared on their "now defunct" website does not trump both contemporaneous reporting and subsequent academic analysis (in the existing and longstanding refs). WP:V. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
From CNN ref February 20, 1998 posted at: 4:04 p.m. EST (2104 GMT)
"A bipartisan group whose members are prominent in U.S. international policy circles called on President Clinton Friday to go beyond a military strike on Iraq and to help overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and replace his regime with a provisional government."
"The 39-member group, organized as the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, includes former U.S. Rep. Stephen Solarz of New York, who was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Richard Perle, a former assistant defense secretary for international security policy."
That was the reporting. From the Cambridge University Press ref:
"At the beginning of 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Sven Kraemer, and William Kristol, along with thirty-four other neo-con members of the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), signed an open letter to Clinton insisting that regime change in Iraq 'needs to become the aim of American foriegn policy'."
Reading the refs leave no wiggle room. The letter was sent by the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. It was signed by several people involved with PNAC. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, here is the letter. This copy is archived at the Center for Security Policy think-tank. It takes no interpretation to see that it was issued by the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, it plainly was. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Capitalismojo:@Ubikwit: I checked the books I have available, turns out you're actually both right here. Maria Ryan (who is one of the more reliable scholars to have treated PNAC in depth) is very clear on this: there were two Iraq letters, one which she clearly identifies as having been "initiated by" PNAC in January 1998, and a second one from February 1998, which she describes as: "this time from a one-off reassembling of an old ad hoc coalition called the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf." She clearly identifies the first one as "the PNAC letter," and the second one as coming from CPSG. (page 104-5)
So while you're both right, note that this diff, Capitalism, you're incorrect in labeling that particular letter (Jan 1998) as the "Committee for Peace and Security" letter - that one was signed/released a month later, in February 1998. Ryan is also quite clear (p 103) that the January (PNAC) letter was signed by Abrams, Bolton, Dobriansky, Rodman, Rumsfeld, Scheneider, Woolsey, Zoellick, Fukuyama, Bennet, Weber, Armitage, and Berger. So it's clear that as written, that paragraph was actually referring to the first (PNAC) letter.
Hope that clears things up. No reason why both letters can't be mentioned but it needs to be clear that there were two letters - one "by PNAC" and one by the CPSG, and the article needs to be clear which one it's referring to when these are discussed (I'd suggest referring to the date as the easiest way to distinguish them). Fyddlestix (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is helpful. I just took the existing refs as I found them and read them. Hence the above. Two questions, the first question is did the "first letter" (PNAC open letter) get any reporting i.e. was it noteworthy? The second question is if the "PNAC open letter" was noteworthy, who signed it as opposed to the signers of the headline-making second (CSPG) letter. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
They waybackmachine answers the question about the 18 signers.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's much question that both letters were notable - both are discussed at significant length in secondary sources like Ryan, and the PNAC (January) letter in particular is mentioned by many of the sources I linked in the "post-AFD" discussion above, listing the same signatories you just listed. So regardless of whether it got media coverage at the time, it has been discussed a great deal later on by RS. Ryan also mentions coverage in the New York Times, Washington Times and Weekly standard in a footnote.
The sources you found on the second letter seem to testify to its notability as well. I think both could/should probably be included in the article, it just needs to be made clear which "1998 Letter to Clinton" is being discussed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's discussed frequently, sometimes in error regarding Cambone, such as here.
I don't know where the February letter could be integrated, but again, the January PNAC letter probably merits it's own section in this article. Here are some more sources for that:
  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
However it is handled I think that there should be at least a brief mention that there are two letters even if the February letter is not discussed. This will be a service to our readers because of the obvious potential for confusion. Jbh (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Carter misquote?[edit]

I never made it to the bottom of the article when I was doing a source-check, but was just glancing over it now and I think there's a big problem with the long block quotation from Carter in this section of the article. The source given is this article from the Sidney Morning Herald, which is a translation from Jochen Bolsche's article in German. Problem is, the Herald article specifically notes that it was translated by one of the paper's readers rather than by one of its reporters - so possibly not such a reliable translation. It seems like Carter's words have been translated from English into German and then back into English, and have gotten garbled along the way. So compare the quote to what seems to be the original text, which I found here:

Some new approaches have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions by President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing from a core group of conservatives who are trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism.


At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror"

We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords.


As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad.


The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad"

Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements, the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations needed to join in combating terrorism.


"This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".

Bottom line, these aren't Carter's words and they should not be (block)quoted as such. Even more importantly, however, is that if this is indeed the source for these quotes, there is zero mention of PNAC or any specific conservative individuals/groups in Carter's column. So any direct association between Carter's words and the PNAC seems to have come from Bolsche's article (in German) rather than from Carter himself. Seems like a very misleading quote at worst, and an inaccurate quotation of Carter's own words at best. I'm going to go ahead and remove the whole quote - no objection if someone wants to re-insert a discussion of this, clearly marked as Bolsche's interpretation of Carter's words. But unless I'm wrong about what the original source is here (and I don't think I am) the article is misleading when it suggests that these are Carter's actual words, and when it suggests (with certainty) that he was talking about PNAC. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work, worthy of a barnstar! Capitalismojo (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about the Bolsche piece, but here is the original in German.Bushs Masterplan: Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam. It is not clear that the interpretation published by the Sydney Herald should be discarded because, it must have been subject to editorial control, and here is the originalA think tank war: Why old Europe says no. It is clear that Bolsche is talking about PNAC.
Incidentally, Carter was subsequently interviewed by the Independent on March 22, 2004 Carter savages Blair and Bush: 'Their war was based on lies', and he indirectly refers to PNAC (not by name) in that ("Pax Americana", etc). It is clear from the interview in the Independent that Carter made at least one public statements on the matter during 2002, and then an on later, with no reference to the above-linked WP op-ed.

Before the war Mr Carter made clear his opposition to a unilateral attack and said the US did not have the authority to create a "Pax Americana". During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in December 2002 he warned of the danger of "uncontrollable violence" if countries sought to resolve problems without United Nations input.
His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Centre in Atlanta, are notable for their condemnation of the two serving leaders. It is extremely rare for a former US president to criticise an incumbent, or a British prime minister. Mr Carter's comments will add to the mounting pressure on Mr Bush and Mr Blair.
Mr Carter said he believed the momentum for the invasion came from Washington and that many of Mr Bush's senior advisers had long ago signalled their desire to remove Saddam by force.

I think that the text should be restored, with the sources, and discussed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Carter's nobel lecture is here, I don't think it's the source of the quotes Bolsche was using. The Independent piece can't be either, because it was published later. I spent quite a while yesterday trying to figure out where the quotes might have come from, the WP piece is the only thing I could turn up. Again, to be clear: I'm not adverse to this being discussed in the article, but I'm not really comfortable with us quoting "Carter" when we're really quoting translated-Bolsche-quoting-Carter. It needs to be re-written (and, I'd suggest, paraphrased) to make the context clear and avoid making it look like "Carter said X" when it seems likely that he never actually used those words. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've further copy edited to attribute the statements to Bolsche. Here's a secondary source for the Carter quotes that cites the same Sydney Herald article.[61]
Perhaps there is a transcript for "His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Centre in Atlanta" cited by the article in the Independent. There are close parallels between some of the statements in the WP op-ed and statements by Bolsche. It wouldn't be that unusual for Bolsche to take those statements by Carter and apply them to the ten PNAC members in the Bush administration he specifically lists in the Der Spiegel article:

...wenn nicht zehn PNAC-Mitglieder, die diesen Brief beziehungsweise den Gründungsaufruf unterzeichnet haben, mittlerweile im Telefonverzeichnis der Bush-Administration stehen würden:

・Richard B. Cheney ist Vizepräsident der Vereinigten Staaten,
・Lewis Libby ist Cheneys Stabschef,
・Donald Rumsfeld ist Bushs Verteidigungsminister,
・Paul Dundes Wolfowitz ist Rumsfelds Stellvertreter,
・Peter W. Rodman ist verantwortlich für "internationale Sicherheitsangelegenheiten",
・John Bolton ist Staatssekretär für Rüstungskontrolle,
・Richard Armitage ist stellvertretender Außenminister,
・Richard Perle, einst Vize-Verteidigungsminister unter Reagan, ist Chef des American Defense Policy Board,
・William Kristol, der PNAC-Vorsitzende, berät Bush und gilt als das "Hirn des Präsidenten",
・Zalmay Khalilzad ist, nachdem er als Sonderbotschafter und Königsmacher in Afghanistan gewirkt hat, derzeit Bushs Sonderbeauftragter für den Kontakt zur irakischen Opposition.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)