Talk:Project for the New American Century/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

calls to invade Iraq PRE 9/11

I believe that to be correct, this article should mention all of the essays that deal why and how to remove Saddam before 9/11, not just after. It seems that this was their first goal in stabalizing the middle east PRE 9/11, not just after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.245.57 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army, ISIS and other terror gangs, human right abuses, brutal murders, whole countries undermined - is that want the neo-cons call a successful policy? 2.96.124.218 (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for PNAC?

Disambiguation page for PNAC needed?

See IEEE 802.1X: "IEEE 802.1X is an IEEE Standard for port-based Network Access Control (PNAC)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.184.193 (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years

Something missing here: "For instance, in 1996 Perle formed a that composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East."

Formed a what? Committee? Group? Dawright12 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Brattleboro Reformer ref

I've just reinstated a ref cited to this newspaper, which is well-known for its coverage of PNAC, and which unquestionably passes WP:RS standards. I see no legitimate rationale for its having been deleted in the first place. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, not suitable for statements of fact. Eat memory (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment of obvious sock stricken by Ohiostandard at 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

PNAC and biological weapons

I appreciate that the anonymous user has modified the text of this addition to better conform to Wikipedia's policies, but the modified text is still very problematic.

This quote has created controversy in the mainstream media, social networks and scientific papers, as it shows the perspective of PNAC on issues like crimes against humanity, diversity, human rights, mass murder, the Nuremberg Principles and racism.

There are a number of problems here:

1. Does the quotation actually show PNAC's perspective on crimes against humanity, diversity, human rights, mass murder, the Nuremberg Principles and racism? I would argue that it does not. The statement that you are quoting comes at the end of a paragraph describing what future wars might look like. It does not advocate that these weapons or tactics be adopted by American forces, it says that some forces might find them useful. For instance, the preceding sentence says: "Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces." If the preceding sentence is referencing what PNAC believes America's enemies might do, there is no reason to believe that the sentence you are quoting isn't doing the same thing - describing what warfare might be like in the future.
2. By suggesting that this quote "shows the perspective of PNAC on issues like..." you are analyzing a quote and drawing a conclusion that the quote does not directly support. That's not Wikipedia's role. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
3. You CAN cite a reliable source that makes this analysis. For instance you can say: "According to so-and-so, this quote demonstrates PNAC's perspective on...". However, the sources that you are using don't appear to do this. Several of them, for instance the Guardian and Daily Kos sources, simply repeat the quote without doing anything with it. As such they are unnecessary.

Please consider these issues carefully before re-adding this section. GabrielF (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected everything according to these above mentioned points and cited the original speech by Dr. Helen Caldicott.

You have not addressed these concerns. The source that you cited does not say that this quote shows PNAC's perspective on anything. All the source says is: "The report contains ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare...". GabrielF (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The direct source of the quote, Helen Caldicott´s speech, which I've cited twice(original download site and Al Jazeerah mentioning it in the article, which also contains the transcripted quote, if you had actually read the whole article before you began to delete corrected versions. I´ve even separated these citations from the other ones concerning the controversy, so you would have seen it better, if you had looked at it at all), compared it to Hitler´s Mein Kampf, as their new Pearl Harbor is the new Reichstagsbrand in her view(listen to her whole speech, she also mentions biological weapons, not only nuclear, before you make unfounded claims again) and the use of words for genocide as "politically useful tool" alone would be sufficient to determinate it as obviously racist, even when they weren't speaking of their own use of this weapons(that's what you obviously don't understand, that this use of words alone for genocide, instead of war crime is already racism), as any political or social scientist(or anybody with a bit of understanding of logic, public relations and semantics) can tell you, but I've deleted all the issues like crimes against humanity before and included the quote of Helen Caldicott, as demanded by you before as a direct proof of the controversy it created. All your last deletes had nothing to do with the current version, but the old version which I've corrected according to your points on the talk page. Please start to read before you delete, the word "perspective" isn't even in the text anymore! Furthermore, you had not to delete the original PNAC's R.A.D. quote (as it is definitely in the document and created controversy), only the explanation about the controversy, but as you obviously didn't even care to read the corrected version, this is no big surprise to me.

Nobody has answered to my corrections, but still there are deletion attacks on the citations that prove the controversy which this quote has created. The pure personal opinion that The Guardian and The Sunday Herald are not "mainstream media", was the last attempt by 64.134.70.84 to delete all of my corrections that were demanded by GabrielF who didn't answer on the talk page, after I've corrected all he said that had to be corrected.

There are still significant issues here. You are citing a ton of stuff, but your citations are garbage. Here are your first seven citations. None of them are (1) acceptable per WP:RS or (2) support your position. GabrielF (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The guardian citation - it repeats the quote, but all it says is that: "It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons..." This doesn't indicate that the quote is controversial

The Hearld Scotland citation does the same thing - it just repeats the quote, it doesn't discuss it.

The Indymedia citation is just the Herald Scotland article posted on another website!

The 4thmedia citation repeats the quote but doesn't discuss it.

The first democraticunderground citation is just a mailing list post. Not acceptable per WP:RS

The second democraticunderground citation is just a forum post. Not acceptable per WP:RS

The tribe.net citation is a blog post. Not acceptable per WP:RS

The repetion of the quote alone is also discussion, letting the perversion which is inherent in this quote speak for itself, as it is mentioned there and anybody with a functioning brain and a knowledge of the Nazi`s Eugenics and of Operation Overcast or Unethical human experimentation in the United States can see the clear controversy this quote creates by itself. The developement of biological weapons by the US or any other country is controversial and this is so clear that it doesn't has to be especially expressed, at least in the view of The Guardian and The Herald Scotland, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.224.126 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I took out the "garbage" for you, as you rather just delete content, instead of bringing it to an acceptable form(for your opinion) and resolved all the other issues, plus added PNAC's reaction to a book review that compares it to the Nazi's Eugenics in the Austin-American Statesman.

I still think that including this quote is ridiculous since the idea that it promotes biological warfare is an obvious misreading and misinterpretation of the report. Nonetheless, if we are going to include it, WP:NPOV demands that we consider both the criticism and the response to that criticism from the organization. We also need sources that were actually published somewhere, not just things that you found in a google search - these "scientific papers" as you describe them are random PDF files with no publication information and no information on their credibility or appropriateness. Sources also need to actually comment on the quote. Just repeating it is not acceptable. I have rewritten the section in a way that, I think, addresses these issues. GabrielF (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think that it is absolutely obvious, that PNAC wouldn't use the words "politically useful tool" instead of "war crime"(or at least "military threat"), if they had a real conceptional problem(not just an inconvenient public relations issue) with genocide by the use of biological weapons and given these persons disrespect for basic civil and human rights(disrespect for national sovereignty, Gitmo, KUBARK, openly lying to the congress and manipulation of the UN and the world´s public, sexual torture and rape, Waterboarding, etc.). But thank you for bringing the passage to a form that is acceptable for Wikipedia´s standards. Why did you delete the very appropiate comparisson of "R.A.D." by Dr. Helen Caldicott with Mein Kampf(which was the original source and another which cited the original source)? It was very fitting from a neutral perspective, given their obvious demand for "a new Pearl Harbor"(PNAC´s Reichstagsbrand), their constant deception and lying and their disgusting views on biological genocide(it doesn't matter if they actually plan to use these weapons, it´s a "crime against humanity" and/or a "war crime", but it's never just another "politically useful tool", even when only their enemies use it, every political and social scientist that doesn't come directly from AIPAC, CPAC or PNAC or a similiar think-tank can tell you that for sure) and their aim of world domination("CREATING TOMORROW´S DOMINANT FORCE"). Furthermore, why would they detail the process of taking such weapons from the "hands of terrorists", so that they become a "politically useful tool"? Usually they try to portray their future enemies(invasion victims) as terrorists, so "taking these weapons from their hands" to make them a "politically useful tool" precisely sounds like they´re planning to use them on their own, not just some "rogue state"(who they think they are to decide that, anyway?) who will make it a "politically useful tool"(they would use a far more aggressive word, if it really was only about their enemies). Plus, they describe to stay in competition in that same chapter (V) with all the mentioned future developments, so that they don´t fall behind in war technology and they don´t make their opposition to such possible biological genocides clear in R.A.D.

Can you point me to the time in the video when Caldecott specifically addresses this quote about biological weapons? A general quote about the organization doesn't belong in a section of an encyclopedia article that addresses a specific quote from the organization's report. GabrielF (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PNAC & Foreign Policy Initiative

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

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

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

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

Ghosts of US’s unilateralist past rise

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

2.96.124.218 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

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

SYNTH

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

The charge seems a bit strained, considering the plethora of readily available sources.

1. Sourcewatch
2. history commons
3. AmIraqa and the New American Century(states "In all, more than 32 PNAC members are currently woriking under the Bush administration...")
4. |! | !| etc.
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

So you understand that no reliable source has yet been given making the explicit links presented in the table. Wikis,by the way, are not usable as ELs either. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll defer to others regarding presenting sourced info in tabular form, and won't argue the point.

This RS/N thread appears to conclude that sourcewatch is usable as EL.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it states that sourcewatch should not be used for any BLPs. This article is under WP:BLP. Revert all but the BLP articles is quite clear. Note that any articles with claims about living persons falls under WP:BLP. See also [10] from 2010, [11] from 2010, and [12] 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

Please see this BLP/N thread:

• SYNTH is not ubiquitous
• Compiling information is not OR
  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Meacher as a source for any facts ...

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

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

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

The operative fact for this article is "Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 ", which he presents vis-a-vis his "Pax Americana" statement, attributed as opinion in the article.

How does the 9/11 "context" relate to this article?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Meacher Guardian article

The article is about his 9/11 truther position -- and the PNAC conspiracy theory is part of his "theory" about 9/11. Removing anything which shows the actual nature of the article to get a cheap quote about PNAC is improper -- once we use a cite, we use the full cite, not a quote out of context. The context is that 9/11 was a conspiracy to find a reason to invade Iraq, as the full article shows clearly. Meacher has been a guest a few times now on Alex Jones' radio show, and I suggest his writings on Infowars www.infowars.com/our-corrupt-self-protective-unaccountable-establishment-michael-meacher-mp/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} www.infowars.com/meacher-this-war-on-terrorism-is-bogus/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} 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 [13] 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"[14]. 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?

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....[15] Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed 'five employees' claim

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)

CHICKEN HAWKS! DRAFT DODGERS! violation of WP:BLP

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[16] 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[17], 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[18] 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)

Linking within quotes

is against Wikipedia WP:MOS and scholarly practice. See Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s reminder[19] and my previous edit summaries, for example [20].

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

Whigged-out history

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?
LLAP,
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.

• Power & Duty; U.S. action is crucial to maintaining world order Schmidt for PNAC
• American imperialism, embraced
• Bush Carries Some Baggage In Developing China Stance
• The Brains Behind Bush's War Policy
• Arms and Taiwan; Our Interests Lie With Theirs Schmidt and Donnelly for PNAC

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.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP

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

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)

The lead is looking pretty good!

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

NYT review[21]: 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 [22] 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)?[23]? 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.[24]
--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)