Talk:Stephen Cambone

Untitled

I got rid of the huge, over-sized photo, on the basis that none was better than the problems such a big photo poses for reading the page. Please forgive, if this is a dud-move. bkjmilller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkjmiller (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "war crimes prosecution" section is incorrect. If you read the times article cited, it doesn't say that the german government is prosecuting. What's happened is that private individuals have filed a complaint with German prosecutors. Cttck 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is much difference in content between the current and 09:32, 5 February 2006 revisions. Moreover a couple of paragraphs are completely copied, from the first google result.

Why has there been so much content removed, why are all the categories gone and why are no sources cited and no external links?

(will do my best to update as I see fit)

Jabbi 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In Feb of 2006, someone deleted the material linking Stephen Cambone with Abu Gharaib, the mention of his extreme unpopularity with the US military, and other controversial matters. All of the controversial material was replaced with standard biographical stuff. The changes were made by an unregistered user at IP = 72.66.19.22, which traces back to the US government. That is all that I can determine from the available evidence. I think we can conclude that someone acting on behalf of the subject "cleaned up" the article to make it more favorable. Since the original article violated the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View rule, was very poorly written in the first place, had very few references, and was not up to Wikipedia standards, I suggest that this article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, with more and better references and careful adherence to a neutral point of view.

Aetheling 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, this is completely biased against this fellow Cambone!! Full of speculation, heresay, and is generally libelous to Cambone.

• Your comments will carry more weight if you sign your comments. Mr. Cambone is a politician who has been appointed to a series of political positions of great sensitivity and responsibility. Every action he takes is subject to public scrutiny and comment. Wikipedia has a duty to report the controversies that surround such people with care and objectivity. We do not have the option of ignoring or suppressing hot political controversy. If you have read somewhere that Jeffrey St. Clair did not report that Cambone was responsible for intelligence operations like Gray Fox, or that he was not referred to as Rumsfeld's "chief henchman", or that the "revolver" quote is fictitious, then please add this contribution to the article, with a reference to the publication that made this claim. Similarly, if you have read positive evaluations of Cambone's professional actions or career, then you can add them as well, with citations. The important thing in these cases is for Wikipedia to report the controversy, with citations, and not to take a position one way or the other. — Aetheling 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PNAC membership

At the bottom of p.90 (last page) of the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses[1] where Cambone's name appears, there is a statement as follows.

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.

Furthermore, this peer-reviewed sources describes Cambone as one of the "authors" of the report.[2]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And you seem to forget the rest -- that it does not in any way imply at all any agreement with the report which is what not necessarily represent the views of the project participants says. If you can claim a person is a "member" of a group when he might vehemently disagree with every single statement it makes - that is a very interesting concept of "member" indeed. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Being listed as a person who may disagree with every single position of a group no more makes a person a "member" of that organization than it can make a horse's tail into a leg.

[3] "The other ‘‘listed’’ groups cited in the report were International Workers Order (Goldberg was alleged to be one of the group’s ‘‘representatives’’ in Chicago), the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (he reportedly ‘‘led the discussion on the anti-alien bills’’ at a 1940 conference), American Youth Congress (his name appeared on a mailing list), United Spanish Aid Committee (his name appeared on a list found in the group’s files), the National Emergency Conference (he allegedly signed ‘‘the call’’ for this 1939 conference held ‘‘in protest of legislation’’ believed to threaten ‘‘the civil rights and liberties not only of aliens but of native and naturalized Americans’’), International Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions (he reportedly made reservations at the Continental Hotel for 20 persons ‘‘expected to attend’’ the group’s 1946 convention), Russian War Relief (an unknown source charged he was ‘‘a signer of the Chicago Committee of Russian War Relief’’), and National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (an informant said his name was on ‘‘a list of sponsors’’ of a ‘‘national conference of all civil rights groups to be held in Washington in June, 1940’’ to establish the organization).

As the note you cite states that being listed does not state any agreement with anything, I find it a weak source for asserting "membership" in anything at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it. It means that the views are PNAC's, collectively, not the individuals or their other associations (including other think tanks).

If they are contributing to the production of a policy study, then it seems to be a matter of course that they are counted as members of the group that put the study together and put it out. The RS certainly consider them to be members, (co-)authors of the report, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The claim you assert about the statement on the last page being a "disclaimer" is inaccurate, and there is no need for an "attributed contribution". Would you prefer that I use "co-author", which is how a peer-reviewed source[4] describes him and Zakheim, among others.

...[PNAC's] policy document, RFebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000)...with authors including Cambone, Dove Zakheim (Pentagon), Bolton, Elliot Cohen and Devon Cross (Defense Policy Board [DPB]) and Libby.

You are now revert warring against two peer-reviewed sources based on an inaccurate assertion of a personal POV regarding a statement that clearly indicates something different the way I see it, which is supported by RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We have the "best source" specifically making no such claim. You can, of course, use the disclaimer He was part of a group which may have discussed any part of what PNAC discussed, or furnished material for such a discussion, but he does not necessarily agree with any part of the report at all. Which is not close to "co-author" by most standards. I have and never had any connection with PNAC, any group associated with PNAC, any letters from PNAC, any person who has been a member of PNAC (I am maybe a twelfth cousin of Bush, Obama and a hundred million or so others - but I do not count that), or anything which remotely gives me a POV (oh yes - I vote each year). Proper course is an RfC of course. Collect (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a source describing Cambone as “charter member” of PNAC, etc.
  Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing Tim Shorrock Simon & Schuster, 2009
  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on " contributor to the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" in a BLP

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.

Ubikwit's proposal has no evident dissent, especially since Collect, the principal dissenter, is now topic banned. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Is Cambone properly described as a " contributor to the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ? 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The source provided is [5] "United States Foreign Policy and National Identity in the 21st Century" Kenneth T. Christie; Taylor & Francis, 2009 page 42, which mentioning a book mentions Cambone en passant as an "author" of "Rebuilding America's Defenses." This source also mentions Cambone in footnote 38 which says he held an office as an undersecretary starting in 2003 , or a tad later than the PNAC connection would have held any value).

The report from PNAC proper does not call him an author, by the way. Its only mention of him is as a "project participant." And on that page it states clearly: 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 institution.[6]

Is using a clear statement that he might not agree with anything, and that he may have attended zero meetings or provided zero papers sufficient to call him an "author" of such a report (only that he either attended at least one meeting or else gave a paper to be discussed, and he may not agree with any of the views at all) ? Collect (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there are more than one source posted above, yet you neglected to include perhaps the most direct statement support the text that is found in the main body of the book[7]

...[PNAC's] policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000)...with authors including Cambone, Dove Zakheim (Pentagon), Bolton, Elliot Cohen and Devon Cross (Defense Policy Board [DPB]) and Libby.

Here is another source, though not peer-reviewed, it has been used in a book as well.

”They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish.
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

That sourece is The President's Real Goal In Iraq, Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 29, 2002, reprinted in The Iraq War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions, Christopher Cerf and Micah L Sifry, Touchstone, 2003.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report." is clearly not saying they are "authors" of the report in any way, manner or sense. Collect (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the first source, the peer-reviewed book that discusses the material in the main body of the text and describes them specifically as authors is curiously missing from the content of your response.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: If a book does not name a person as one of its authors, and the source calling a person an "author" is using the book as its source (i.e. the "contributor" page which does not call anyone an "author" as such), it is rational to assume that the primary source is, in fact, correct. Reliable sources "ascribe" the "authorship" of Shakespeare's plays to a bunch of people - but Wikipedia does not use those reliable sources to do any such ascription to others. The most you can possibly say is "xxx uses the contributions page of the report to say that yyy is an author of that report". Is that sufficient for you? As far as I can tell, the report does not assert "authorship" to the people listed on the contributors page. The report, in fact, states Thomas Donnelly is the "principal author" of the report. And ascribes "authorship" to no one else. Period. Collect (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The recourse to "principle author" by default admits that there were other contributing authors. Are you refusing to acknowledge what the sources state? Or are you just [[IDLI|disagreeing with the sources].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about that interpretation? In my experience "principal author" with 'no one else at all named as an author means the report was written by ... the named principal author. Collect (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your post at the Talk page of Robert Kagan that there were three authors negated you strained misrepresentation of the meaning of the simple English phrase "principle author", which requires no further elaboration. The convoluted attempts to misrepresent sources by rhetorical maneuvers is not something I'm going to respond to further here, because such misrepresentations violate WP:TALK.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that making posts which are simply and absolutely aimed at another editor personally are not proper in discussions, and that your iteration of "charges" against me in every venue might actually violate WP:NPA? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On this one I have to agree with Collect although I would not consider the disclaimer the "best source", such things are often pro forma. There needs to be something that demonstrates what Cambone's contribution was. If, for instance, there is a RS that says he participated in the actual drafting of the document. Just participating in the workshops that resulted in the report does not indicate membership or agreement.

Saying the 'letter signers' being discussed elsewhere are 'members'is, in my opinion, OK because that is the term that has been settled on by most RS when discussing that/those group(s) of people. If a large preponderance of RS refer to these people the ones listed on the report as 'authors' or 'members' I would change my mind. As it stands the two groups are not the same. Jbh (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Jbh (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, the reason that this RfC is pointy to begin with is that there are many ways to describe the relationship of the "participants" to the product issued in the form of the report. They are described as "contributing, or"people who "contributed to" the report, contributors", "PNAC study participants", "[co-]authors", etc.

Accordingly, the specific phrasing of "contributor" is not the issue, the issue is how to represent the situation as per the reliably sourced statements that have been published on the connection.

Below are sources on another "participant", Abram Shulsky, which Collect has not mentioned and demonstrate the nature of the problem, common to this article.

The members point is completely separate, but there are sources for that in relation to many of the "participants" as well, in addition to their being signatories of other policy docs (letters). Perhaps you misread the statement of the RfC:

"Is Cambone properly described as a " contributor to the PNAC report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ?
It also is worth taking a look at the reverts in the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oopps... Sorry, yes I did, I originally wrote the above as a reply to the earlier section and edited/moved it here assuming the same question.

• No - Based on the information presented it would not be proper to call him a contributor to the report. He can, in my opinion, properly be called a participant in the study but not a participant in the report since that implies some participation in the drafting and would be synonymous with contributor. To overcome the disclaimer I think a RS which describes his participation/contribution would be needed or a preponderance of RS which refer to the group of people listed as contributors Jbh (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the source where I saw contributors, and so I'll post it below. I'm not sure what a "preponderance" would require in such a case (more than one, no doubt), but I'm sure you recognize the ways in which sources have addressed the strategically slippery status of the "particpants" in the production of the document.

The peer-reviewed source is US Foreign Policy and China: Bush’s First Term

PNAC’s… Rebuilding America’s Defenses… This publication again included future Bush administration officials as contributors, among them Stephen Cambone, Scooter Libby, Eliot, and Wolfowitz himself.

sources including other "participants" in the production of the report

• This peer-reviewed source describes him as a "PNAC study participant" with reference to the report Rebuilding America’s Defenses. The director of the Office of Special Plans was PNAC study participant Abram Shulsky. The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press, 2008
• This peer-reviewed source describes other "participants" in the production of the report as a "PNAC associates": Other PNAC associates and/or prominent unipolarists who landed positions included… Cambone…Cohen…Feith…Libby…Shulsky…Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana, Gary Dorrien Routledge, 2004
  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise wording

How about:

• ...participated in the study which resulted in the writing of the report Rebuilding America's Defenses...

It reflects what it is known he actually did without implying anything the disclaimer disclaims. Jbh (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not much is needed since this is a biography of an individual. That he was involved with PNAC needs to be included in his bio for context but not much more unless there is discussion in RS about what he did beyond sign the letters and participate in the study. Jbh (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks good to me regarding the report. he also signed letters, so maybe a comprehensive version--with reference to the reverted text--would be even more helpful at this point... There are at least three BLPs to which this applies, bacisally, so I don't want to make another edit and be reverted... Should we use "members", "PNAC associates" or etc.?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording would need to be worked out in another section (not in RFC) but I have no objection to the concept. I would limit to 1-2 sentences to avoid UNDUE though. Jbh (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is a disclaimer, and we deliberately ignore it, then we are not following the requirements of WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"We" are not ignoring the disclaimer, and I don't think the RS describing this matter are either. The interpretation you seem to be insisting on does not have support in the sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

How to talk about PNAC

I would keep the PNAC stuff pretty limited since it is only part of his life. Maybe:

• Cambone is often referred to as a member of the Project for the New American Century. He is known for signing their 1998 letter to President Clinton on Iraq, the Statement of PrinciplesJbh (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)and for participating in the study which resulted in the writing of the report Rebuilding America's Defenses.
  

Jbh (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope.

Some have associated Cambone with PNAC as he signed a single letter proposed by that group in 1998, and is listed as either having attended a meeting or provided material to a PNAC report, which he is not stated to agree with.

Is what the sources support. "Often" is a strange word here, and it is clear the report itself states he may not agree with any of it. Collect (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the text proposed by Jbhunley except for the fact that I don't think Cambone signed the PNAC Statement of Principles.

Otherwise, it is sufficient and NPOV. A version without "member" might read better in this context. Since I agree with the point made at BLP/N that "associated" is summary (npov paraphrasing) of the sources, I don't think it needs attribution, which would resulting in something like:

Cambone was associated with the Project for the New American Century. He is known for signing their 1998 letter to President Clinton on Iraq, and for participating in the study which resulted in the writing of the report Rebuilding America's Defenses.

This same page of the Roberts book, incidentally, mentions that there were 25 signatories to the PNAC SoP, and those names can be seen on the archived webpagehere.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops thought he had signed the SoP. Struck above. I have no problem with associated either.

• Cambone is [often] or [sometimes] associated with the Project for the New American Century. He is known for signing their 1998 letter to President Clinton on Iraq, and for participating in the study which resulted in the writing of the report Rebuilding America's Defenses.
  
• Cambone is often associated with the policies advocated by the Project for the New American Century. He is known for signing their 1998 letter to President Clinton on Iraq, and for participating in the study which resulted in the writing of the report Rebuilding America's Defenses.
  

This one would need better attribution but it handles 'associated' and 'member' but still reflects the position he has taken on the issue.

Collect nothing in the first option says he agrees with the resulting report only that he participated in the study that resulted in the report. Would you please explain how that says he agrees with it? The second option is, I agree, more problimatic on that point and more sources would be required to use it. I would also suggest that the second option be used if his policy views are to be discussed in more detail - a proposal which I have no opinion on right now.

I suggest the first option with the selection of often/sometimes based upon the prevalence in RS. Jbh (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the first option, as I don't foresee a detailed examination of his policies in the immediate future, though I did not an interesting passage regarding "a greater role for intelligence agencies in war fighting" associated with a point from the PNAC report, and also about outsourcing/private contractors (same source as "charter member" linked to above).

He is definitely "often" mentioned in conjunction with the PNAC report, so often would seem DUE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the AfD on the SYNTH of connecting people with PNAC is a salient concern here. Absent any actual basis for making the connection, we run the real risk of violating Wikipedia policies here and elsewhere. Collect (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: It seems you missed this discussion.
There's no reason not to put something notable in the lead that doesn't fit well elsewhere in the article as it stands. Of course, there's been quite a bit written in recent years about Cambone with respect to his connection to PNAC, so it will undoubtedly be expanded at some point. Where you placed it now makes the article in an even greater state of disrepair than it already was with inane and uninformative sentence.
As can be seen we have been discussing options for text related to the above-described sources.

• Another peer-reviewed source describing relation to PNAC, PNAC report.[8]
  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now it looks inane (either at lede or body). The subject wrote a letter to the president ? Big whoop. Either here should be a well ref'd paragraph in the body or it should be out. It's addition currently looks Pointy or Tendentious.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo - I have no opinion on where this is being placed. This section is only in response to the RFC question above, in an attempt to reach an NPOV compromise on the wording issue being asked. Jbh (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect the two are not congruent. No one has said anything about saying a single individual did anything with PNAC is controversial and I do not understand what is SYNTH in this case.. Please provide some specific diffs that show that consensus, or even that opinion. The SYNTH argument is about the list please describe how reporting what RS say, in this specific case, is SYNTH. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)CapitalismojoPlease stick to discussing the sources. Dismissive statements like "big whoop" made in reference to an important matter specifically addressed in the sources and specifically at issue here is not constructive, collaborative or collegial. If, by chance, you have yet to read the sources and aren't aware of the context or to which letter the text refers, then I don't understand why you are commenting in this thread about PNAC. It is not like were talking about a personal letter "the subject wrote" "to the president".

The sentence is not in accord with RS and NPOV, as should be readily apparent from the discussion and the sources, so we're working on that.

There is a policy based emerging consensus about a text to insert, and there is certainly nothing pointy about it, and tendentiousness refers to editor conduct, so what exactly are you implying?

• Scholarly source, describing Cambone as "PNAC peronnel"[9]
• Peer-reviewed source, stating, "PNAC included... Stephen Cambone, a Pentagon bureaucrat in both Bush administrations", and the discussing the PNAC report[10]
• Peer-reviewed source describing Cambone as "co-author" of report.[11]
  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 18:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit The sentence "Cambone signed a letter to Clinton about Iraq.[5][6][7]" either in the lead or in the body is poorly done. Editors here may view that line as important, general readers will look at that and say "Huh?". There is no context. There is no ref saying that Cambone did this and it was important either in his life, or the politics of the country, or in Clinton's life. It may well be all of those things. We don't have any explanation for it. That's why I'd say it was inane or pointy. It is so bad an addition that I feel there must be some other reason for its inclusion. As it was written it certainly does not improve this biography, in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest saying after it: "That letter is seen as important because X." whatever X may be. (Leading to a policy of rebuilding defences or what-have-you). Capitalismojo (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Absent that, I'd take the sentence out until agreement can be made on what to say. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Before engaging in this somewhat involved content dispute, it is necessary that the related threads on this page as well as the edits to the article and the sources have been read.

Aside from agreeing that the statement "Cambone signed a letter to Clinton about Iraq." looks inane (and adding that "pointy" as well) (which is helpful), your question is in effect asking us to recapitulate the above discussions.

I have just re-inserted the material into the lead according to "option 1" above. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to create Draft:PNAC 1998 letter to President Clinton on Iraq to discuss the significance/or not of the letter to US foreign policy. This same issue is going to come up in BLP after BLP so it would be best if we could come up with a standard NPOV way of dealing with it. I would suggest, as others have, that we do an article on Draft:The PNAC Statement of Principles as well for BLPs where it will be mentioned. Someone else can create the bloody things though. I have learned my lesson about making sub-articles - I am still spitting out crow feathers. :) Jbh (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC) PS - And Draft:PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses Jbh (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be good. I would also create one for "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Someone just commented at the AfD that the list article should be renamed so as to include all of the "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration, which seems to have some support in the sources, as I commented there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the addition of the lede to comply with the refs. The "open letter" was from the organization the "Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf", not PNAC. It was signed by several people associated with PNAC, but wan't a PNAC letter. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, as has been mentioned several times now.

This material has been under discussion for over a month, basically. Either bring yourself up to speed with the content dispute by reviewing the discussions and sources.

Please self-revert and discuss with others to at least hear the opinions of other editors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:V we can not do that. Cabone did not sign a PNAC letter on Iraq. That failed verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

IRAQ open letter

Read the refs. They leave nothing to interpretation. The Cambridge University book ref, CNN, and other refs all explicitly state that the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf sent the well-known 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.

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 makes it clear. The letter signed by Cambone was sent by the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. It was signed by several people involved with PNAC.

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) 13:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the PNAC Iraq letter issued not long before the Iraq letter that Cambone signed. This is archived from PNAC's website. We can see that Cambone was not a signatory to the PNAC letter. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

ATTENTION: I can find no evidence that Cambone signed either letter or even any letter on Iraq. I have assumed that with "months of discussion", that someone would have vetted such a basic fact. Apparently not. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There were a number of sources uncovered during the creation of the deleted list article that listed him as a signatory, but they may be wrong, because his signature is not listed on the document shown on the PNAC site. It was not clear if all names were shown there, given the statements of the sources. Here is one, for example. This https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=QZg7AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT306&dq=%22Stephen+Cambone%22,+%22Letter+to+Clinton%22&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=AzMQVY-pHMHCmQXRqoHgBg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Stephen%20Cambone%22%2C%20%22Letter%20to%20Clinton%22&f=false source] and this source, however, seem to make it clear that that is an error.

I will assume responsibility for that error and apologize for the confusion.

Meanwhile, there is no mention anywhere of Cambone signing the CPSG letter, either, so I believe that the recommendation that the discussions and sources be examined before making even further erroneous edits is still sound. In this case, at least one source is in error and others have to be read closely.

I will remove mention of the Clinton letter. The report is more significant overall, being described as a "blueprint", etc. There are numerous other peer-reviewed sources associating Cambone with that

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]
6. [17]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that seems correct. (as an aside, the google books ref you included just above doesn't suggest Cambone signed any letter/s, it just lumps him in a group as a "PNAC associate or prominent unipolarist" (which I imagine means neo-conservative) who joined the Bush admin.) Capitalismojo (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that I'd put the recite in the wrong paragraph. I fixed it and added the link. This page describes the connection to the report.
[18]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, Great! Capitalismojo (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)