Talk:Project for the New American Century/Archive 2

Silverback.. re: Iraq regime change
Silverback, regarding this line you added:


 * The report makes no assertions about preemptively attacking Iraq or enacting regime change. Instead, it states ..

That is editorial commentary. Don't you think it best to let the reader decide what the quote says and means? BTW I was not the one who remove it originally, but can see some reason for doing so. Stbalbach 17:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is a NOR content issue. Mentioning what is NOT in a document appears to be a useful service to the reader and if it is mere editorial opinion rather than fact it should be easily refutable.  I don't think banning this is what the ban on NOR had in mind.  Its supposed motivation was to prevent crackpot physics theories of individuals.  My section in this arb case addresses the issue of argumentative refutation in an article, so perhaps the arb committee will shed some light there .  I am sure you will agree that argumentative refutation goes far beyond noting what is not in a document. I've also posted some of my thoughts on this issue to the wickien-l email list.  I quote myself here:


 * A scientific case would be more helpful, because there is a more generally accepted concept of the truth being searched for and what constitutes facts and the most authoritative evidence. Therefore there is the opportunity to elaborate NOR beyond the every word must have been used by someone else straightjacket.    Pointing out omissions or flaws that any peer reviewer or scientific literate would acknowledge, should be allowed.   For example, this new study demonstrates this new variable is important, therefor that older study which did not account for that variable (by inspection, because no one else has said it YET) is now called into question.  NOR should not ban simple things like counting, summarizing, drawing conclusions from inspection of an article, application of simple equations or principles to facts, etc.


 * I think this NOR-content issue is one which goes directly to the readability and usefulness of wikipedia. NOR is one of the most abused and destructive objections, but it also is admittedly sometimes quite subjective.  Hopefully the community can deal conform to this standard without being throttled by it.--Silverback 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it reads like your taking sides in a debate, defending the PNAC report. It's a more fundamental neutrality issue. I'm not sure that is your intent, perhaps it could be re-phrased? Why did you deem it important to mention that the report does not mention pre-empt attacking Iraq? Stbalbach 05:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree it does look out of place now. There was a lot reading between the lines conspiracy theories citing this report in the article at one time.  Perhaps that is one justification for keeping it, although they are no longer in the article, they are probably still out there in the community.  The defense was put in the article at a time when there was a lot of debate here by persons who were reading the report and debating what it meant.  So, in a sense, those statements have passed peer review.  If not those familiar with the report would have shot them down if they were wrong, of course, the clincher was probably the quote from the report.  It might need to be reworded now that the other side is no longer present in the article, but something should probably be retained so that newcomers would know we've read the report and have already been down that road.  Thanx for pointing that out.--Silverback 05:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope this new more informational version addresses your concerns.--Silverback 14:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah looks fine now, thanks for the explanation and history, makes sense. Stbalbach 16:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to the suggestion that the context in which the phrase about "a new Pearl Harbor" stands, would change what it might imply.

The chapter in which it stands is about "CREATING TOMORROW’S DOMINANT FORCE" and begins with the following statement:

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and  operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs."

Hence, the general aim behind the wish to develop and use new technologies, was and remains global dominance.

Kind regards. Satuka.


 * Satuka, if you read the report, you will find that much of the "general aim" behind the wish to develop and use new technologies, is to save money, and to utilize existing expenditures more efficiently. Forward ground deployments are in the same vein, given the expense of projecting force with carriers.  Freeing up carriers from Iraq by ground bases in Kuwait was also proposed for these reasons.--Silverback 00:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Silverback, Satuka is exactly right, if one simply reads the documents from the PNAC literally, without introducing their own biases. Firstly, to show that Silverback is wrong that their intent was to save money, the strategy proposal "Rebuilding

America's Defenses" states in the introduction that expense was intentionally not considered. Secondly, to substantiate Satuka's assertion, the document states all over the place "military preeminence", and states it explicitly as one of the suggested goals in the introduction. I couldn't write a paper more obviously about military dominance and not about cost efficiency if I tried - mostly because I consider it bad form to repeat oneself so often in a literary work. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am biased, or just distrustful of PNAC's conclusions, or perhaps it is original research to consider statements like the following as evidence that expense was considered, although, in PNAC's defense, perhaps it is not "intentional":


 * "CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation."


 * "In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come."


 * "In sum, new capabilities will open up new ways of conducting missions that will allow for increased naval presence at a lower cost."


 * "The slight increase in the shipbuilding rate is achieved by purchasing less expensive auxiliary cargo ships, which typically cost $300 to $400 million, compared to $1 billion for an attack submarine or Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer, or $6 billion for an aircraft carrier."


 * "The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment."


 * "With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."


 * And I found these just by searching the text for carrier and looking in those immediate paragraphs.


 * Note the last quote is in reference to Iraq, evidently the Iraq war was not the first major step in their program.--Silverback 02:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * You have certainly demonstrated that at points cost and commitment have been used rhetorically, however, this says nothing about the aim/purpose of the proposal. The statement of purpose of the proposal is most likely where the authors stated, in clear and direct terms, what the purpose of the proposal is.  Duh.  No offense, but I'm going to take the authors' word over yours on this one. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the document is certainly about transformation into tomorrow's force, but the expense arguments are legitimate and not merely rhetorical. How does any of this legitimize taking the Pearl Harbor phrase out of context as Satuka argues, or that the Iraqi war was part of the plan as some conspiracy theorists claim?  With the exception of attempts to export the "Drug War", there could hardly be a more benign or sacrificial military dominance than that posed by the United States.  Given how the tiny Iraqi conflict bogs down the US military, the US military would have to have a lot more domininance to be a threat to any but the most petty nations.--Silverback 03:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Great sentences of the article
“Some proponents of the war claim it was not a foregone conclusion unless one assumed that Saddam would continue to be intransigent and that France, Russia, Germany and China would continue to block unanimity on the UN security council.”

That's a great sentence. Oh, you mean all of the other four members with veto power are “blocking” unanimity? Who's doing the blocking? A citation would be welcome here, so it would possible to tell whether the wording is from the source or the writer. 149.169.20.229 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerning a 2 sentences in "Contreversy"
"Military might is not power in itself; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile. PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements."

Okay, I'm new to this, but here goes: While I agree with the first sentence, it sounds like an assertion. Is there a way to make it seem a little more neutral? The second one sounds like it's making a point, or sounds like a criticism. Is there a way to convey the same information while still maintaining an impartial ... um voice? :)

Also, the section that mentions that some feel the PNAC is an unfair victim of conspiracy theories, wouldn't it be fair to include some of the quotes that have fueled the theories? Garden Stater 04:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Part of the sentences you are concerned about are in italics. You might want to review they history and past versions to see what their origin is.  They may be actual quotes, the cites for which have been lost in the article, or perhaps were posted here on the talk page.--Silverback 09:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong document
I mistakenly quoted from this document that was from the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. Thanks for catching my error. --JWSchmidt 02:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

New US Air Force mission statement
Someone might want to consider adding a comment about the U.S. Air Force's new mission statement that reads: "The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace." You can find a press release on that on the Air Force's website. The New American Century's website has a document that made mention of US plans in this area from September 2000.

Changes to 'Criticisms of position on Iraq'
Clarified 'be intransigent' and removed '...continued to block unanimity..' for reasons given by 149.169.20.229 above (05:35, 27 September 2005). The previous sentence did not make sense - the point of those who believed that the war was a foregone coclusion, and would go ahead irrespective of the result of a vote on a further resolution, is that US policy was clearly not contingent on Great Power unanimity, as the war DID go ahead despite the prospect of being vetoed by the Security Council. Hippo43 07:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

New Pearl Harbor
Shouldn't the paragraph quoting this line go under controversy instead of Iraq policy criticism? --BohicaTwentyTwo 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerned Alumni of Princeton material
The following was deleted by User:163.1.231.234 for the reason that "They were factually innacurate, openly opinionated, politically motivated, and badly written." I don't know anything about this particular subject, but any large deletion by an anonymous user on a politically sensitive article like this deserves a bit more justification IMO so I've moved it here. Anyone want to comment on this stuff? Bryan 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Increasingly there is concern that the policies of the group are best represented by a group called the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, or CAP. CAP was organized at Princeton in the 1970s in order to work against the rights of women and minorities to have equal opportunities to the portals of entry into the nations elite represented by attendence at Ivy league colleges such as Princeton.
 * "Undoubtedly the opportunity to network with other upwardly mobile young professionals, and gain access to the grants and scholarships and guidance and reccomendations into positions of power in academia, law, banking, commerce, politics and the media whereby they might help shape America into a society friendly to the tenets of the neo-conservative elite.
 * "Looking at the boards and foundations of the Project for the New American Century as represented by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, there are many well known concerned alumni of Princeton including Donald Rumsfeld, judge Samuel Alito, Bill Frist, and Andrew Napolitano of FOX news, Shelby Cullom Davis as well as several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors."

PNAC, Conservatism, and Foreign Policy
Under the heading "Controversy" is says that "[s]upporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from other conservative foreign policy assessments of the past". However, the view of PNAC differs greatly from that of, say Pat Buchanan, who opposes interventionist foreign policy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan). Buchanan is often regarded as an archetype of a traditional conservative, today known as Paleo-conservative. And as the article on Paleo-conservativism also points out "[a] central pillar of paleoconservatism is a foreign policy based upon non-interventionism or isolationism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative#Paleoconservatism.27s_foreign_policy_concerns). Thus, although the supporters claim that their policy is in line with assessment of other conservatives, this statement is incorrect. And in order to fulfil the Wikipedia principle of being informative, this ought to be pointed out, in my opinion. PJ 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what your definition of conservative is. Are there only two types of conservatives these days? Paleo- and neo-? --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several types of conservativism, but Paleo-conservatism certainly is a major one. (In fact, neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism are most likely the two major types.) For example, both the The American Conservative and Chronicles are oulets for paleo-convervatism. With that, the claim by PNAC seems to me incorrect. Furthermore, there are other major conservative figures, such as William F. Buckely Jr., founder of National Review, who has expressed criticism of the neoconservative agenda, such as the Iraq war, and further even arguing that Bush — who should be regarded as a neo-conservative, in my view — is not even a conservative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley%2C_Jr.). It seems wrong, therefore, to say that there is no difference between neoconservatives and other conservatives. PJ 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fukuyama, Neocons, and PNAC
Given Fukuyama's heavy-weight status within the neocon intelligensia, I definately believe that his critique of the PNACs policies ought to be mentioned in this article. (Se e.g. "After Neoconservatism", http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=2405; and "Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens", http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-election2004/article_2190.jsp#.) PJ 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fukuyama's article belongs on the Neoconservatism page, not here. Good luck adding it there. The edit war there is pretty intense. --BohicaTwentyTwo 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Expansion?
Project for the New American Century concerns me very much and when I looked it up on wikipedia I would have thought it would have had more information. This is a bigger threat than terrorism (I know a lot of people won't agree with me, especially as this is US based (I am Australian)) but gets next to zilch media coverage... c'mon wikipedians, expand, expand! Timeshift 05:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support for liberal democracies
I think this section should be deleted. It is basically non-cited possibly anti-semetic POV.
 * I agree it should be deleted. It adds nothing to the article as a whole, which I think is pretty good otherwise. If no-one objects, I'll delete it in a week. --BobFromBrockley 09:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bork
I think that the information on Ellen Bork is incorrect... The article says she is Robert Bork's wife, but her wiki page and his both say she is his daughter... (I changed it originally but then changed it back, thinking maybe those other two articles were wrong and this one is right)

media
This article is linked to by Prisonplanet.com www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/250706ethniccleansers.htm]. --Striver 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New World Order
These are the evil architects of the war machine to march into a New World Order. Leo Strauss trained Trotskyites looking for a compliant American citizenery to pay the blood and tresure for an American/Israeli Empire. They are the sofa samaurais that will send your children to war in foreign lands while allowing illegal immigrants to invade the homeland to take your job. Backed by Rupert Murdoch they were able to brainwash the public into a connection of 9/11 to Iraq, then onto Syria, then Iran, then a compliant Egypt. This dillusional group has no loyalty to America or it's Founding Father's Constitution, it's Zionist agenda gives a bad name to Jews everywhere.


 * Yeah, thanks for the meth-induced astral space trip, but here on Wikipedia we deal in facts and not fantasy. Jtrainor 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about the politics of the person who wrote the above, but he has a real point! Jtrainor, if his/her musings are so rediculous and false, why not refute them with fact? I suppose you would rather resort to ad hominems about a meth-induced astral space trip. The above poster said nothing outrageous! The poster did not claim American complicity in the 9/11 attacks nor state that the Jews rule the world (merely that Zionists, which are not the same as Jews btw, have considerable political influence in America, which they do).

Yo Jtrainor, you are the one who is living a fantasy thinking your leaders are saints who would do no wrong! You are a people hijacked and made blind to the reality; your government is not of the people, but of the AIPAC,Christian zionists,christian fundamentalists(who think the USA is mentioned in the bible and all sorts of other crap).The hidden agenda of the true powers operating within the white house and capitol hill are apparent from the foreign policies of the US.This is a dangerous game they play and it will end with the fall of the American Empire.(I fear you are as naive as the romans were!).MEanwhile you can go about all smiles and totally ignorant to what is going on and make it known to others that ignorance by making fun of those who are trying to expose the truth...


 * What makes you think I'm an American? Also, sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) afterwards as it is not considered polite to post anonymously. Jtrainor 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This appears to be yet another instance of the time honored game: When you don't know what you are talking about, blame the Jews. This is not helpful.47.230.0.45 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they do appear to have quite a grip over the US government. Check out the US' record on vetoing resolutions at the UN. This is factual, not fantasy. "When you don't know what you are talking about, provide blanket support for AIPAC" is a more apt statement. 195.157.52.65 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a big difference between Jews and Zionism.


 * This whole article percolates with hints of paranoia and conspiracy mongering. "Some people" think neocons are responsible for 9/11? So what? "Some people" think the Pope is the anti-Christ. Does that mean it belongs in the text of a Wikipedia article? This whole article badly needs a neutrality-check. DesScorp 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh great, here come the NWO conspiracy theorists. The biggest hole in any conspiracy theory is that they assume the government (weather controlled by liberals or conservatives) is competent. Yes PNAC is bad, but do you really think, (given how the events in Iraq have unfolded), that they will be able to conquer the world and set up some worldwide fascist government? Even some hardline neo-cons like Richard Perle now say they regret advocating for the invasion of Iraq. You can stick a fork in PNAC and the neo-cons cause they're done. --Jml4000 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Let's trust that their own political incompetence will keep them from imposing their sinister agenda. On the other hand, either Bush really is an idiot (if he truly believes what he promotes I would suspect he is), or he is a Machiavellian genius who wants us to think him a fool. But think about it. Would the village idiot make it in an Ivy Leage School? How does the village idiot get elected POTUS?
 * "Even some hardline neo-cons like Richard Perle now say they regret...". Talk is cheap my friend. The fact they advocated the war in Iraq in 1998, suggests that the means were created to justify the end to me. If you want to believe otherwise, fine. But don't trot out establishment ideas that are fed to you by your partial media and believe they're always correct, because it makes you look just as stupid as people who believe in all conspiracy theories. As to competency, the government is pretty incompetent in important matters. My theory on this is because they devote their time to lining their pockets and advancing their own personal agendas, rather than supporting the people of the country they serve. 195.157.52.65 13:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perceived?
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections

Perceived?

Stuff like this does you guys no good.... the more opinion in the articles - the more you turn off a lot of people.

I would think that kicking the weapons inspectors out of Iraq qualifies as something other than a "perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections"

Controversy
I have some concerns with the paragraph regarding genetically tailored bio weapons. While the author provides some very detailed information on genetics, they fail to cite any sources arguing that this passage shows the PNAC to be violent racists. In its current form this paragraph is an opinion. I ask the author to provide a source that discusses racist charge in the statement.

Rory Bremmer??
That link points to a british comedian, are you sure your not refering to another Bremmer? Paul Bremmer perhaps?

That's Bremner. Looking at the citation it appears that the British comedian is indeed cited and all is okay. 71.57.34.186 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sidestepping the issue
The issue which should be dealt with in this article is the project for the new american century. The issue of the PFTNAC's stance on the war on iraq seems to be overshadowing the actual project its self. This should not only be reformatted, but possibly completely re written as well...

As for that conspiracy theorist...I wonder what his DU (democratic underground) name is? 72.25.77.134 02:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ~RJH www.thatpoliticalblog.com

Pax Americana
I'm just curious about one thing, why is Pax Americana listed in the opening paragraphs as one of the claims of the critics of PNAC? They have on their website very blatant claims that it is precisely what they want, take for instance this pdf, which is titled "Preserving Pax Americana". So how is this an allegation of critics alone as implied? --Paul Barkley 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * quoting from the second paragraph in the article, Pax Americana, "The term Pax Americana is used by both supporters and critics of United States foreign policy, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context." The next sentence in that paragraph refers to the "rebuilding america's defenses" document, where the term is also used.  Maybe you can help to clarify this somewhere, somehow in this article also.  Umeboshi 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction needed:
this section does not display properly:


 * I. Lewis Libby
 * Bush Administration (2001-2005)
 * Chief of Staff for the |Vice President
 * Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements, and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.

All you see is Vice President, instead of Chief of Staff for the Vice President
 * Ok, I fixed the problem with the link. I'm not sure that it should still be listed as such, or if it should be former CoStotheVP. Umeboshi 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Should someone mention that Israelis dominate the membership? Only asking.


 * Erm, no, because it's completely untrue. BobFromBrockley 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
May I ask a question? References 12 and 13, in the 'Controversy' section, both lead to documents on the 'Springerlink' website about genetic modification of plants, in particular fungi. Are these really a useful link when talking about the PNAC document's discussion of possible future uses in bio-warfare? I'm not an expert in this field, but can't someone find a more appropriate link?--Lopakhin 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PNAC defunct??
see this BBC article.

From the article:

"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."

"The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up. "

"Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."

"Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era."

"Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said."

This article needs to be updated.

Yeago 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Socioeconomic?
What is the socioeconomic vision of PNAC for rest of the world? Known 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Page
With respect to the page number concerning ethnocentric warfare the page number is 60. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guam is good (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

More Info on the group
Most of the sources for this article come from critics of the group and include mainly criticisms of the groups goals, but there seems to be little linking to information about the group itself (the structure, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.118.123 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree. more research is needed in this area. especially what consitutes membership, or who signed letters. more about the financial structure. nuts and bolts stuff.--Boscobiscotti 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Much Opinion
In the table entry for Richard Armitage: "Committed treason by disclosing Valerie Plame's identity (Plamegate scandal)."

Treason is a very serious charge to state in an entry when no such charges have been made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megatech (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * However, treason is what RIchard Armitage would have been guilty of if he was the one who reveleaved Plames status. He would also have been guilty of attempted extortion, trying to force cooperation of other Bush appointees into a 'lock-step' position or face dangerous consequences. The statement needs to include others who may have been responsible for leaking Plames identity including Cheney.
 * [user:masterzvoice 13:33, 29 May 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterzvoice (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Much as I hate to say it, he would not have been guilty of any of those until/unless found so by a court of law.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * by BOTHWELL, 27 Sep 2007
 * WTF? I ain't a legal scholar, but I'm pretty damn sure that "treason" in the USA is defined as:
 * Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


 * How in the name of all that is holy did anyone write on this site that Armitage (or anyone else involved in this case for that matter) committed treason when they allegedly revealed Plame's status as a worthless POS agent for the CIA? Especially since no one has actually been convicted of treason in this case...will unthinking, pseudo-intellectual, knee-jerk liberals please stop writing what they wish is true and stick to facts?  This kind of sh*t dumbs down this otherwise noble adventure in communal education.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Plame was not a worthless agent. Your statement sounds as uninformed as the person who wrote that Armitage committed treason.  Plame was working on nuclear nonproliferation and outing her has generated an enormous security risk for the US. CT0001 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Amiraqa site gone
are there any archives or backups of this site, as the book itself claims that the list of sources was on the website that seems to now be defunct.

KurtFF8 04:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Source for members?
I think there needs to be a source for the listed members. There is an interview with Bill Kristol on the Colbert Report where he claims that Rumsfeld wasn't a member of the PNAC and that he just signed some of the letters.

If this is the case and the signatories of the letters are the only source for who some of the members were, then the article needs to be revised.

KurtFF8 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am checking members. I think the section could be changed to: "members and signatories"
 * I removed Karl Rove - since a cursory google search of the pnac site gave no hits.--Boscobiscotti 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing all unsourced, poorly sourced, weasel, or original research comments to talk page

 * Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
 * Critics allege that the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a U.S. dominance in world affairs. Some have argued the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
 * [ Interjected ] What are the weasel words here? "some have argued?" without a citation I do agree that this phrase is weaselish. There is a citation earlier in the article about this, however. but this section is about Controversy not whether what critics have said is true or not. What we need here is not to remove the controversy, but to cite what critics have said vs what PNAC supporters have said. I do agree that 'global domination' is an overly loaded phrase - American Hegemony might be more accurate. --Boscobiscotti 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * on second thought - I have been researching what critics said. So far I have found three sources which call the plans of PNAC "global domination". Do you contest that people characterize their reports that way? or is it that you dont agree with that characterization? Personally I barely find this controversial. If you look a the reports, they seem to clearly make a case for america more agressively becoming a sole superpower. I have edited this section, and added a reference. --Boscobiscotti 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments on the current revision of this section? what do you think? it has been cut down, and reworked.--Boscobiscotti 00:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be true, but needs a reference.
 * In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests. Restored with reference. MoodyGroove 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) MoodyGroove


 * Stringing these facts together in this manner implies that September 11 was used as an excuse to engage in warfare that was already planned. Hence it is original research:
 * One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;" After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks.  In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds.  2003 invasion of Iraq
 * [ Interjected ] Moody- I this part was removed. Your criticism is well taken. I am doing a strikeout on it.


 * Weasel words, poorly sourced, original research:
 * ''The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile. PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.
 * [ Interjected ] The above section has been reworded, and some sourcing added. please take a look --Boscobiscotti 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sourced:
 * ''Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left.


 * Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
 * A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event &mdash; like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)". This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”. The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event &mdash; like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote to support the argument that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
 * [ Interjected ] This section has been sourced. lets take a look and identify weasel words --Boscobiscotti 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
 * Other critics make the claim the PNAC conflicts with long held American values and it is in fact, a plan to overthrow the democratic republic of the United States.
 * [ Interjected ] striking out - this section has been removed. --Boscobiscotti 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsourced and by stringing it together in this manner, original research:
 * Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean [stated on page 60] citation needed since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype, a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.  Both Israel and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.
 * [ Interjected ] Striking this concern for now, since the text has been removed, and we are discussing it in another area of the talk page. --Boscobiscotti 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unstriking because the manner in which this was presented in the article speaks to the issue of whether or not it was added for the purpose of stigmatizing the PNAC. MoodyGroove 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
 * Many critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq claim the U.S.' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration.


 * Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
 * Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun", showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' former and current ambassador to the United Nations, respectively.


 * This is truly the most shameful POV pushing I have ever seen on the English Wikipedia. Placing it under "Controversy" does not obviate the need to be responsible. Since the Project for the New American Century is composed of notable living persons, the same policy standards should apply to this article that apply to biographies of living persons. As a reminder, "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And yes, the cited source needs to be reliable, verifiable, and substantiate the text it is linked to. Fringe theories in particular should be very well sourced. MoodyGroove 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * References


 * Hi Moody. so we meet again. you may have some concerns, but in fact 1) this is not a biography of a living person 2) when in doubt, do not do massive deletions, but improve. You have completely removed the entire controversy section. In fact PNAC is a controversial organization. Whitewashing this fact does not make the controversy dissapear. I agree that comments should be sourced and well considered.


 * PNAC is a historic and influential organization, as well as a controversial one. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html for a sourced example of how they are considered to be influential. --Boscobiscotti 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, Boscobiscotti. I found the edits in question quite distasteful, and I feel quite certain that I improved the article and protected the integrity of the Wikipedia by removing them. I was well within my rights to delete the material. Note that I moved it to the talk page as a courtesy. Biography of a living person or not, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores the material. That's not even controversial.  But I'd be happy to read the link you provided. Best, MoodyGroove 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Incidentally, it's not my desire to make the controversy disappear. I just wanted it presented in a responsible manner. Best, MoodyGroove 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * I have been reading through your suggestions for removal. I think that some are valid, but in some cases, it would be better to tag with and find citations, because the claim is not outlandish, it is simply that the claim is not cited. for example, we could remove the entire table of members, etc, etc, because little of that is cited. I have been going through that table, and updating with correct information, from the participants wikipedia pages. I looked a bit into the stuff about the biological ethnic weapons, stuff, and found a source for this cricism. I think it should probably be put back in, along with response from PNAC, which is available on their website. --Boscobiscotti 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, here is the link to the PNAC website, where they make response to the ethnic biological weapons claim. Evidently they took this controversy seriously enough to respond. see http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20031125.htm "On November 16, 2003, the Austin-American Statesman ran a book review by Kip Keller that claimed a report by the Project for the New American Century advocated the use of genetically targeted biological weaponry. Mr. Keller further suggested that individuals with ties to PNAC endorsed 'genocide.' Subsequently, we asked the Austin-American Statesman to correct the assertion that our report advocates biological warfare or genocide in any way, shape, or form. The Statesman refused to issue a correction, arguing that in the context of the PNAC report as a whole, it is somehow ambiguous whether the sentence in question proposes the use of biological weapons with genocidal potential." It was indeed a controversy. we can report the controversy on wikipedia without taking sides. --Boscobiscotti 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It sounds shocking, speculative, and defamatory to me. I don't know who Kip Keller is, or why a book reviewer was making these sorts of reckless allegations against PNAC, but I would personally need to see more evidence that the controversy is notable in the mainstream media or based on some kind of evidence. That's why I want a fresh set of eyes on our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * sure that's fine. here is my proposed start of a rewrite of the "biological ethnic" weapons controversy. I think that it is enough evidence to point to both the original article, and the response by PNAC. Reporting on a shocking claim does not mean that you endorse the claim. But the editorial board of the paper felt it was plausible enough to refuse to issue a retraction.The fact that PNAC responded with a formal letter, meant that they felt the source was notable. Here is my proposed start to a rewrite of that controversy. I encourage you to look at the PNAC letter to provide the rebuttal from PNAC POV. "'Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: 'Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.' as evidence that PNAC supported a 'gene bomb', which horrified him, he continued 'That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment. (here would go PNAC response.)" --Boscobiscotti 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * read about the Austin American Statesman it is the major daily newspaper in Austin.


 * Ok. here is a proposed rewrite of the "bioweapons" controversy. let me know what you think. I did my best to represent both sides of the controvery. In case you're concerned - I have no intention of putting this on the main page without a discussion of anything found to be POV or unverifiable:
 * "Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him.  He continued "That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment."  The Austin-American Statesman refused to issue a correction stating that the quoted sentance was "ambiguous." PNAC responded with a letter  refuting the claim, and explaining  that the context of the quote was "methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not ... actions we recommend." and that indeed no recommendation for use of biological weapons was made in the report.  The letter went on to state: "Keller's outlandish accusation ... is both disgusting and utterly false.... [to] selectively use a quotation from the report without providing appropriate context but also then accuse people of supporting 'genocide' is truly appalling." --Boscobiscotti 18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a huge improvement, but I'm still not satisfied, because you're giving a fringe theory undue weight. When I performed a Google search using the search terms "Project for the New American Century" and "Kip Keller" I got | 4 hits. The first is the PNAC response to the book review. The second is a blog calling the Kip Keller review the "hateful attack of the week." The third is a link to the first hit. The last was some kind of porn site. Clearly this "controversy" isn't notable.
 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 * In my opinion, every trace of this manufacturered (and de-bunked) "controversy" should be eliminated from the talk page. Clearly it was only inserted into this article to spread misinformation about the PNAC. MoodyGroove 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Hmm. perhaps you are right on that. The angle of minority viewpoint is reasonable. It pains me that my lovely attempt at NPOV prose which I labored over will be consigned to an eternal garbage heap, But so it goes. Lets move bravely onward! I have two questions:


 * 1) What other specific BLP violations do you see in the Article so that we may address them? I see some Verifiability and RS questions - But no BLP ones. Please enlighten me so that we may deal with them immediately.


 * 2) Are you willing to back me up if I go to moveon.org and challenge a debunked minority viewpoint about their alleged "anti-semitism" (interesting especially in context of founder being Jewish). Per the |Talk page see comments: This was certainly not "a major controversy." I just did a Google news search and found only a handful of mentions on weblogs, and none in a major media outlet.? I would appreciate the support, since I am concerned about the possibility of another WikiMaelstrom.
 * --Boscobiscotti 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will look into it tomorrow. MoodyGroove 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * A Google search with the search terms "MoveOn" and "anti-semitic" and "bulletin" or "message" and "board" yields 123,000 G-hits. I'm in no way suggesting that MoveOn is anti-semetic, but it would seem to indicate that, unlike the alleged PNAC genocide controversy, the episode involving the MoveOn bulletin board is notable. Sorry, Boscobiscotti. You can remove it (if it's not well sourced) but chances are it's been in the mainstream media. Having said that, it needs to be presented fairly, from a neutral point of view, and show both sides of the controversy. MoodyGroove 12:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * A google search on PNAC OR "project for the new american century" and biological and weapons and race OR ethnic OR gene gives 85,500 hits, one of them is a scholarly article which has an interesting slant, and suggests (with plenty of evidence) that the US is now developing bioweapons with genetic modification component. It cites the PNAC report. I looked at some of the links and in the first two pages the majority were relevant. I am not suggesting that this means that PNAC supports genetically coded biological weapons,  but it would seem to indicate that it is notable.  oops - wrong controversy, higher standard.. To word in another way. I doubt that were I to say to you about this bioweapons controversy um... yeah, can't give you any links, but there's a lot of google hits chances are that there are a couple of prominent adherents you would be down with that. Nor should you be. exceptional claims require exceptional sources. a charge that a jewish person is an anti-semite is pretty exceptional, as is the claim that PNAC supports "genocide" or even "development of genetic bioweapons." as for the glasses, we all have a tint - no problem, I certainly do too, we all do we can get past that by getting less entrenched...I just read little thing on that NPOV_tutorial That was the spirit in which I suggested you go there with me. Have some fun taking another POV. :)--Boscobiscotti 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you get a lot of G-hits when you cross reference PNAC, genocide, and bioweapons. The PNAC, like most everyone else, believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when they were denying inspections to the UN. They also came out against the genocide in Darfur, for example. So this result isn't surprising (although I do see that you found numerous blogs that claim the PNAC advocated the development of a "gene bomb"). I referenced the PNAC against Kip Keller because that seemed to be where the genocide controversy was coming from (and that's who the PNAC replied to). As for the MoveOn controversy, I tried to filter it down to the message board controversy, because a Google search with the search terms "MoveOn" and "anti-semitic" actually yielded 252,000 G-hits. I didn't bend over backward searching through 123,000 Google hits to find specific links in the mainstream media that mentioned the MoveOn bulletin board controversy for two reasons. 1.) Two wrongs don't make a right (see also the tu quoque fallacy). I have never had anything to do with the MoveOn Wikipedia article, and what is says (or does not say) has absolutely nothing to do with this article. 2.) Asking me to join you over at the MoveOn article to right whatever alleged wrongs exist there is inappropriate, because it leaves me in the position of having to do work to prove to you that I'm even-handed about the application of Wikipedia guidelines, which goes hand in hand with your refusal to retract your comment that I'm editing this article in bad faith. If you have reliable sources to back up the alleged PNAC genocide controversy, then bring it. Otherwise, this side issue about the anti-semitic comments that appeared on MoveOn's bulletin board is a red herring. MoodyGroove 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * correction to your statement. the google search was PNAC+bioweapons+race or gene or ethnic. It seems that a larger group of critics are concerned about the larger issue of what they see as PNAC support for increased bio weapons research, especially with genetic modification. Note this is not about accusations of "support for genocide". I have taken some time to think over, and want to drop the whole question of Moveon and google as well. Let's just focus on this article, discussing it with cool heads, and improving it. The rest is an unrelated diversion. So far I have another prominent published source with bioweapons concerns, who credits PNAC for promoting this issue- Besides Kip Keller is Thom Hartmann in the ecologist "Pnac is quite right. 'Advanced forms of biological warfare that [could] 'target' specific genotypes [could] transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.' Given that Kristol, Wolfowitz, and their Pnac chums (Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, et al) have already seen the achievement of such long-standing Pnac goals as the invasion of Iraq and a hugely increased US defence budget, it's tempting to wonder whether the genetic bomb is not also being explored by the Pentagon. But maybe you'd rather not know. At least, that is, if you have politically problematic relatives." In addition there is a scholarly article I mentioned (I think) by a publication published by the atomic scienitsts. first hit in my google search. They mention PNAC's support for genetic biological weapons in an article on recent increase in this research in the US.--Boscobiscotti 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've done a lot to improve the article, and I give you credit for that. I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons by a third party who has not been involved in our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Project for The New American Century is not a living person, its an organization!
 * The article contains a list of living persons, and the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons states: editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, "and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia..." (emphasis added). The broader point is, we need to get it right, and we need to cite reliable sources, especially when discussing living persons and controversial organizations made up of identifiable living persons. Regards, MoodyGroove 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Adding the following section from my Talk page to this discussion, since it gives additional history of changes: I recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, particularly the burden of evidence. You are currently restoring content to the Project for the New American Century without reliable and verifiable references. Jimmy Wales has spoken on this matter personally, which you can read yourself at the link I provided. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, but I will take it to the next level, because the edits you're restoring are completely irresponsible. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

replied on your talk page --Boscobiscotti 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the lead seems reasonable, but I don't understand why you insist on replacing unsourced content that contains weasel words, particularly since I've made verifiability an issue. Yes, I removed a lot of content, but not as brutishly as you make it sound. I carefully read each item, and placed them in separate bullet points, with explanations for each. If something was referenced, I weighed the reliability of the reference, whether or not it corresponded with the claim that was made (look at the "smoking gun" reference for example), and whether or not the way it was strug together constituted original research. The Controversy section is extremely problematic. I just don't understand why you're defending it in its current form. MoodyGroove 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Brutish? love that word. I suspect no pixels were killed in your edit, and no brutality involved :) However, it is indeed a massive edit. (perhaps heroic, not brutish, who knows?, I dont.) but large, as in: you removed the *entire* controversy section, including references. bingo - wipeout. no controversy. I suggest we work together to improve that section. I am sure we come from differing viewpoints, and together we can fashion a fair representation of the controversy. --Boscobiscotti 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Boscobiscotti. I apologize for bristling. I don't know where you live but it's almost 0200 here on the east coast of the U.S. I need to get some shut eye, but I'll stop back tomorrow and see how it's coming along. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * well I do have a day job. I have started with the first section and tried to remove some POV, and source claims. perhaps you will want to tweak that. as time permits, I will attempt to move through, read and address your comments as time permits in the next couple days.. lets improve and remove specific weaselish words, phrases,etc. --Boscobiscotti 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement. Keep in mind that some comments have multiple problems. For example, "Some have argued the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.[citation needed]" Problem 1: "Some have argued" is a weasel phrase. Problem 2: No citation. Problem 3: Hence it is original research. It's not a matter of cleaning up a comment like this, so much as removing it from the article pending a reliable source being added that explicitly makes this connection. Here's another example. "The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism." A comment like this needs multiple citations. MoodyGroove 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * I think you've done a lot to improve the article, and I give you credit for that. I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons by a third party who has not been involved in our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

And from your MoodyGrove's talk page: You removed a large amount of text, some which was sourced, and some not so well sourced. Instead of attempting to improve on the text(not mine, as a matter of fact) you simply removed entire sections. I have worked on, for example one of the first sections which you had a legitimate concern about - that it gave a single POV - I attempted to introduce two views, instead of simply removing the controversy.. take a look. --Boscobiscotti 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * responded to your comment on my talk page. lets work deliberately through the article to make it better sourced, and less POV, while retaining the details.--Boscobiscotti 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing you of anything, Boscobiscotti. I think you've done a lot to improve the article. I just want to check my own POV against other Wikipedia editors that were not involved in our content dispute, to help ensure fairness and neutrality, although for the record, we could have worked through my concerns from the talk page, without restoring them while they were under dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * That is fine with me. I didnt think you were. I have no problem with involving other editors. In fact I wish there were a bunch more people working on this article, all from varied points of view, because I do believe this group was obviously quite influential in the Bush administration in general, and more specifically in the move to invade Iraq. I think everyone suffers if the article includes only accusations, with no countering arguments. but also if it only presents talking points put forth by the group itself, without clearly discussing point by point the large controversy which continues to swirl around this group.--Boscobiscotti 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a biography
Why is this article in Biography? check: from the WP:BLP page "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons  - PNAC is not a living person the only "biographical" information contained here is the table on appointments of PNAC members and signatories to the Bush administration. I have been going painstakingly through that section and checking it all against wikipedia sources. what biographical material is in question here? --Boscobiscotti 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the Project for the New American Century section on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Athaenara 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that we're discussing whether or not PNAC members condone or planned genocide is reason enough to make sure it conforms with Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. MoodyGroove 01:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * You are stretching the facts. there was no discussion of whether genocide in fact was planned. There was a discussion of a controversy where a reporter claimed that PNAC condoned the use of methods which could lead to genocide. eI approved of you removing the previous edit which was inferential. this controversy was not something I had previously heard of, so I did some research. The controversy exists, it is a "real controversy." - Or perhaps should be worded a "real criticism." See above for my rewording. I think the PNAC letter does a good job of supporting their point of view on the criticism let's include it also. Look. the Moveon.org wikipage quotes acriticism thusly "Ads by the NRCC in the 2004 race in support of Gerlach accused MoveOn (and Murphy) of supporting the Taliban and rape of women.[4]" - That is currently on the controversy page now. as well as this "Ads by Jim Gerlach against Lois Murphy ...accuse MoveOn (and Murphy for accepting donations from MoveOn) of being anti-semitic and anti-Catholic." This is reporting on a criticism which was made. Do you think that should not be included because it suggests that Moveon actually supports the Taliban, rape of women etc? In fact on that page, there is no counter argument. I think those quotes should be allowed to stay on the Moveon page, because they document some notable criticisms which were made. They do not attest to the falsity or truth of the claims.


 * I know this is a rule somewhere, but I havent been at wikipedia for too long. I will search for it. -- Boscobiscotti 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MoodyGroove is not stretching the facts. A reading of the Biographies of living persons policy page will help you to understand how and why the policy applies to this article.  — Athaenara 05:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I read it. I re-read it. please state the basis. are you suggesting that we should go to the moveon.page and remove those documented criticisms of the organization and a poliitcal candidate they supported because they are outrageous? Is it a biography page as well? What makes these two organizations different? --Boscobiscotti 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLP: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."


 * Nothing makes these two organizations different. They are both subject to the BLP policy.  What is different is that the accusations about Moveon represent the views of a substantial number of critics, and the accusations that this group wants to commit genocide represent the views of a tiny minority. Ken Arromdee 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, so they are similar, and BLP applies to all content in both? Great! MoodyGrove - could you head over the the moveon.org page and remove the content from the criticism section about anti-semitism there, and note BLP concerns? Thanks!. If you look at the talk page, it was not much of a controversy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MoveOn#Criticism - even less RS than this thing. The criticism was not published in any Reliable source as this one was, just a handful of blog entries. Are you up for it Moody? if so, I will believe you are truly,truly in good faith. :)
 * See this reply. It wasn't just a handful of blog entries. I know you're being light hearted here, and I appreciate that, but retracting an ill-considered accusation of bad faith editing should not be contingent on my doing anything. MoodyGroove 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * No contingency, no requirement, no coercion. I am just trying to get a sense of where you stand. I searched through 5 pages on google and could find no RS reporting on this. only blogs. by comparison, there are two RS reportings on the bioweapons/PNAC thing as well as a prominent reporting on their own site. Just gives me an data point about of the tint of your glasses. Peace to you and have a great weekend. --Boscobiscotti 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really that difficult for you to believe that someone can edit the Wikipedia without POV pushing? My glasses aren't tinted, Boscobiscotti. I'm a student of philosophy, not ideology. I was obviously mistaken to supply a link to my relevant comments instead of the full text, so here it is so that no one is misled about my position with regard to MoveOn.
 * A Google search with the search terms "MoveOn" and "anti-semitic" and "bulletin" or "message" and "board" yeilds 123,000 G-hits. I'm in no way suggesting that MoveOn is anti-semetic, but it would seem to indicate that, unlike the alleged PNAC genocide controversy, the episode involving the MoveOn bulletin board is notable. Sorry, Boscobiscotti. You can remove it (if it's not well sourced) but chances are it's been in the mainstream media. Having said that, it needs to be presented fairly, from a neutral point of view, and show both sides of the controversy. MoodyGroove 12:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * 4 G-hits v. 123,000. But I didn't leave it there. I said that the comments could be removed if they weren't well sourced, but that chances are it's been in the mainstream media. Maybe you should open yourself up to the possibility, however remote, that I'm doing the best I can to interpret Wikipedia guidelines accurately and fairly. I'm sorry I didn't go through all 123,000 G-hits, but that's your battle, not mine, and two wrongs don't make a right. You don't have any reliable sources (from the standpoint of Wikipedia guidelines) for the fringe theory you're pushing. All you can show is that a not-particularly-notable book reviewer made a reckless allegation about the PNAC in a Texas newspaper, and PNAC responded with a letter asking for a retraction. That's all you've got. The tint of my glasses has nothing to do with it. MoodyGroove 00:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Onto the bioweapons thing. This info is not in this wikipage now. The Original research stuff was removed days ago, with my blessing. A letter about the controversy is currently published on the PNAC website, however, which gives some credible information. So I doubt they think that merely mentioning the controversy is somehow libelous. But lets just table the whole question of the Austin-American Statesman Bioweapons thing.  I put up above on talk my humble attempt to make a fair version  - as I said before I have no intention of moving this live without a consensus opinion. Since this is off the table - what are the other BLP concerns? --Boscobiscotti 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Moveon is irrelevant to this article, though, rest assured, I will turn my attention there in due course. The point is that if criticism of PNAC can be sourced to reliable sources, then it is permissible. Blog posts should not be used. Even sources which have self-identified as being partisan in nature should be sparingly used, and mentioned as such. Please attempt to reword the article keeping this in mind. Hornplease 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. well that seems to be pretty simple. But that does not seem in agreement with MoodyGrove's view. I have found 4 RS sources which discuss the PNAC support for genetic bioweapons 3 of them are partisan(not blog posts, 3 published articles - one is from a book review in the Austin-American Statesman - and one is an opinion piece in the magazine The Ecologist and one is commentary published in [The Guardian by Michael Meacher, in addition, PNAC has a self-published response on their website.[] In addition there is a small mention of PNAC and their position in supporting bio weapons research in a scholarly article. "Taking Biodefense Too Far" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ISS 0096-3402, Volume 60, Number 6 / November/December 2004. are these 4  sufficient reliable sources to verify that the controversy exits and is notable? Opinions? --Boscobiscotti 05:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing BLP check tag from the article, as I have received no response for 6 days from anyone as to what current text in the article is considered to be a BLP violation. Discussion continues on the BLP noticeboard as to whether is is even appropriate to consider organizations as "living persons" - I see no point of BLP check tag when no one can point to any BLP violations existing in the article as it stands. --Boscobiscotti 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The biggest remaining violation is that undue weight is given to critics. Ken Arromdee 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so - this is certainly an area for improvement - the discussion of the philosophy, ideology and actions of this group could be greatly expanded. some good work By Moody has been done to expand the core belief sections. I also have attempted to add some of the PNAC view. I think that the voice of critics is most lengthy, partly because this is where most notable well-known info about the group has come from, and partly because there has been an attempt to be quite rigourous about attributing controversy only specifically to exact quoted sources, and using no generalizations. This makes for a lengthier section, because each source is explicitly named and labeled, instead of being implicitly named via the footnote. I have no quibble with this. I think it ia a reasonable thing to do when an organization is controversial. I recently read an article (forget where) by Jimbo wales, saying that this type of flaw is a reason to expand an article.


 * But this flaw aside, it is not clear that this is a BLP violation, especially since this is an article about an organization, and not an individual. If this were so, then we should put BLP check tags on any article in wikipedia about an organization which has a good-sized controversy section. The BLP check tag seems to be used minimally, and in fact, not all the articles on the BLP noticeboard are there. I am not clear on the purpose of the tag, But I guess it is for some kind of egregious incorrect or potentially damaging and unsourced biographical info. --Boscobiscotti 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Position on Iraq invasion
Removed the following

"One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." "

Because it made it look as if this was justification for the Iraq war, no source cited for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zx398er (talk • contribs) 02:00, May 9, 2007 (UTC)

Guerrilla mediation request
undefined

Problem: Dispute about whether this article is a biography, or subject to Biography article rules. And if so, why. If not, why not? And if it is which rules? and which parts of the article? all of it?

People: MoodyGrove, Boscobiscotti

In my opinion this is not a biography, and should not be under this dispute. I looked on the biography dispute page, and this is the only non-biography on the page. --Boscobiscotti 06:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look in the noticeboard archives, which are listed and linked in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc, you will find quite a few. — Athaenara 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a few. and they cite which particular biographical facts in the article an editor is concerned about


 * for example this is a list of people (not an organization) and the editor cites concerns specifically about whether mention of Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity is libelous.


 * this article: linkmentions specific concerns the individual has about claims sourced to a newspaper which quotes an anonymous source.


 * In this article about an organization under BLP rules: it was determined that there were no BLP concerns: link


 * The problem I am having here, is that I *really don't get* what current biographical facts in this article are under contest as libelous, or questionable and without sources. There are still some unsourced criticisms of the political views put forth by the organization but Moody and I have agreed upon removal of what he felt was mischaracterization - but what I dont get is what this has to do with biography.  In my opinion, Moody and I were working along, improving the article, addressing his concerns about [Wikipedia:Verifiability], and now there is this whole meta-discussion. I initially supported the idea, because I thought it would bring more editors to the article to work on improvement. but instead we have meta stuff. Could you please explain what biographical facts currently contained in this article are in dispute? I can't seem to get a precise answer to this question. If I could understand Moody's current concerns, then  we can address them. The problem I have is with removing sourced, or noncontroversial material along with questionable material --Boscobiscotti 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I | noted on the biographies of living persons notice board:


 * "...I didn't just delete material, which I had every right to do (and perhaps should have done). Rather, I moved the questionable content to the talk page, with bullet points for each. The "sourced material" you're referring to was part of a connect-the-dots narrative that was original research, in my opinion...it's clear that all material on the Wikipedia needs to be well sourced and accurate. Considering the notability and high profile of the members of PNAC, and the fact that the article lists them by name, I believe that the intent of biographies of living persons applies. Arguing that this article is somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy on the grounds that it's not, strictly speaking, a biography, borders on WikiLawyering. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether or not to include an alleged controversy that implies PNAC members somehow condone genocide, based on a book review in a Texas newspaper. Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Dan Quayle, et al. That is reason enough for the article to be seriously reviewed for compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, including biographies of living persons (for obvious reasons)."


 * I can't state it any clearer than that. Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to retract your comment that my edits were in bad faith. MoodyGroove 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * My impression was that you did the edit in bad faith. Perhaps I was wrong! To explain: my first impulse had I been you would have been to act in a more conservative fashion and only remove the original research stuff on the bioweapons - and put  tags and a discussion of proposed changes in the rest, because the rest, though missing some sources, is within reason. In fact, since then, many of the parts you were concerned about have been sourced, and a few have been removed. looking at the history of the page, I saw that the controversy section you removed had been worked on in good faith by many editors over many months. thus my concerns about removing the whole thing to the talk page, instead of being more selective. throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Looking at the page now, after so many changes, I wonder what you think is a BLP issue now? I see none. --Boscobiscotti 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, the burden of evidence rests squarely on the shoulders of the editor who adds or restores controversial content to the encyclopedia. I was under no good faith obligation to tag the content as needing a reference. Please know that this is a core principle of the Wikipedia. As a courtesy, I removed the disputed content to the talk page. Why do you find fault with that? You were wrong to restore it while it was under dispute. I'm still not pleased with the quality (or absence) of the references in the Controversy section, (which I think is way too extensive considering the size of the article). I also think the section reads like a conspiracy theory that blames PNAC for the war in Iraq. But I'm glad we've come to terms on the genocide issue. Regards, MoodyGroove 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * and again along with disputed material, you removed non-disputed non BLP material - which is now also almost fully sourced. Why can you not understand that I took it as excessive to remove that. but lets move on, and agree to disagree. that we see that differently.only the shadow, (or the great spaghetti monster knows the real score :) yes, the controversy section needs additional PNAC POV - I have added some - If you could add some too that would be great. expanded discussion of the structure of PNAC would be nice- e.g. staff, vs members, vs signatories duties of staff, how and where views published etc.- I note they promoted their views through reports, and articles especially in the weekly standard. I agree that the primary focus of the article is on Iraq. I think that's because that is the area of their policy which has had greatest influence on world events, got most attention and therefore more people are aware - that is that it has been notable. If you know specifics of their views on US policy in other regions, it would be a welcome addition. --Boscobiscotti 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're going in circles here. I reply to an argument in one place, only to see the same argument resurface someplace else. There are several issues here that concern me:


 * I did not remove any "non-disputed, non-BLP material" from the article, and I challenge you to demonstrate where I did so. As I have explained on numerous occasions   , any "sourced" material that I removed was part of a connect-the-dots narrative that constituted original research.


 * You continue to ask me to provide the PNAC's POV in the article, as if the Wikipedia is designed to be an adversarial process, whereby one user provides any criticisms of an organization he can find on the internet, and another user defends the person or organization. That is not the intent of the neutral point of view guideline.


 * You continue to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy with regard to the burden of evidence     in spite of the number of times I have explained it.


 * You have implied on numerous occasions that two wrongs make a right , or that because the MoveOn article lists controversies in an irresponsible manner, the PNAC article should, too.


 * You suggested on the biographies of living persons noticeboard that my original edit to this article was not in good faith, and in spite of my repeated requests that you retract    that accusaion, you have refused     to do so. Accusing a fellow Wikipedian of bad faith editing (without compelling evidence) is considered a serious breech of Wikipedia etiquette, as is the refusal to retract such an ill-considered accusation once it is made.


 * In spite of it all, I don't dislike you, Boscobiscotti. You seem like a an intelligent person, and you have shown occasional light heartedness, and the ability to admit (within limits) when you are wrong. But I also feel like you avoid evidence when it suits you, that you occasionally make statements that don't stand up to scrutiny, and that you sometimes prefer to muddy the water rather than accept the implications of Wikipedia guidelines for this article. I'm still not satisfied with the quality of the references in the Controversy section. MoodyGroove 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Moody -Re bad faith. I'll say again. that was my impression. At that moment. it does not mean I think you are always in bad faith, or that you have been since then. but that was my impression at that moment. and since then, though you have done a few nice improvements to the article, it seems the good faith approach for both of us is to refocus on improving the article. what does my opinion matter really? anyone can look at the history and decide for themselves. Maybe I was wrong. I dont know. I really dont want to spend time arguing about that. I really would rather spend time improving the article, especially expanding the parts which give more facts about this organization, maybe their policies in other parts of the world.  if you really want I will go through the history and pull out paragraphs which were sourced, which it bothered me that you removed. but tonight I have real work to do.--Boscobiscotti 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)