Talk:Patrick Clawson

Clawson & Iran
I've reverted the statement that: "In September 2012, Clawson was criticized in some opinion pieces for advocating that the US government provoke a war with Iran at a Washington Institute for Near east Policy event." This is not an accurate summary of what Clawson was saying. Clawson was very explicit that he was describing a scenario in which a compromise with Iran could not be reached. He then noted that in the past American entrance into war has required more than just a calculation of American interests, but also some instigating event. He cited a number of such events (Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania sinking, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the destruction of the USS Maine). He did not advocate or propose any course of action - he noted a historical trend. Whether or not the listener was intended to draw a conclusion from his remarks would require speculation, which Wikipedia does not engage in.GabrielF (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Clawson is part of a think tank, an influential body of lobbyists who know very well what they say in public has an impact, or else they wouldn't hold these events.

From his mouth: "I frankly find that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us into war with Iran. Uh, which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way that America gets into war is what would be best for U.S. interests. " "So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war." "I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition, you know it’s just sanctions has – has to succeed or it’s other things. We are in the games of using covert means against the Iranians. We could – we could get nastier at that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.174.182 (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, people who work for a think tank are not lobbyists. They are researchers and their research may be targeted towards advising policymakers, but the term lobbyist has a very specific meaning. More importantly, he never uses the term "false flag". He's noting certain historical trends. Pearl Harbor or Fort Sumter were not false flag operations. They were incidents in which the US acted in a way that was provocative (in the Pearl Harbor case, the oil embargo against Japan), but the decision to take military action lay entirely with the other side. Given Clawson's purposefully oblique statements, any statement saying that he's advocating a particular policy option would be an analysis rather than a pure statement of fact. Finally, antiwar.com is not a reliable source for wikipedia.GabrielF (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing YouTube itself, i.e. "what someone actually said," and determining whether it's notable or relevant is not our job. That's what reporters, bloggers, etc. do. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, where we report on what other journalists and the like have said in reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not an investigative journalism type thing. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A few points:


 * Antiwar.com is a perfectly credible source, meeting all the conditions of a reliable source.


 * The incident is extremely relevant to the personage in question, and in fact, the most notable public fact about him, so there is no undue weight given to any of the entries about it.


 * If you want to edit, don't wipe out all mention of the incident. That comes across as politically motivated sterilization of the article, rather than an objectively motivated edit. Instead, edit the mention of the incident in a manner that you think will make it comply with Wikipedia rules.--Cincinatis2 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is antiwar.com a reliable source? See:,.
 * I don't see any indication that this is "the most notable public fact about" Clawson. It hasn't been reported in mainstream sources for instance. Dedicating 50% of the article to a single quotation is clearly undue weight. GabrielF (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that Antiwar.com is not considered a credible source according to the WP consensus, but Antiwar.com was referenced as an example of a group criticizing Clawson for his speech, not a media account of Clawson's speech. To clarify that Antiwar is not being referenced as a credible source, the text could be clarified to: Many groups, like for example Antiwar.com (reference inserted), have criticized Clawson for the comments...
 * I imagine you're in the extreme minority. A quick Google search could confirm that this is a major fact about him. A search of Google News shows multiple articles from sources that Google News considers news media about Clawson's war provocation speech: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=patrick+clawson&oq=patrick+clawson
 * If you think it's too much weight, then the very least you could do, instead of deleting the mention of the incident without first discussing it, is to edit it to reduce the percentage of the article dedicated to the "single quotation" (which was in reality an entire talk about how the US could provoke a war). --Cincinatis2 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Patrick Clawson.png