Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people described as neoconservatives

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 6 clear delete votes (two by users not signed in), 6 clear keep votes, one redirect and one that I could not interpret. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article defaults to keep.

Noting that voters for both keep and delete raised concerns with the maintenance of this article, I am adding the clean-up tag. I also believe that their concerns justify the retention of the "factual accuracy" tag for now. If those concerns are not able to be resolved in a reasonable amount of time, it may be appropriate to renominate this article for deletion. Rossami (talk) 04:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of people described as neoconservatives
List of neoconservatives

I am submitting List of neoconservatives for a vote for deletion based on the reason it is unencyclopedic. I do not see any potential way someone would be able to turn this article into encyclopedic content. After I removed questionable material per Wikipedia policies, the page has remained blanked for almost a day. Brownman40 22:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't blank a page just because you don't like the contents, and I have therefore resurrected it. I vote keep based on the fact that (a) there is a generally accepted neutral definition of what it is to be Neoconservative, so one can check the inclusion of any of the names; (b) lists of people by political belief are acceptable and indeed there are many of them; (c) the list can be useful if it is checked and supported. That does not mean that I think the article as it stands now is all right - it needs a thorough check and copyedit to remove POV. Dbiv 23:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The very article you linked, Neoconservatism (United States), says just the opposite, that "Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed", not to mention the other neoconservatisms. I am abstaining for now because while the current list does not define what is and isn't neoconservative, I see potential encyclopedic value in a list of self-professed neoconservatives, which at least has an objective basis for inclusion. &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The definition may be disputed but as long as you accept that the phenomenon exists then it's reasonable to describe some people as being supporters. Perhaps we could get round any definitional problems by renaming as List of people generally considered as neoconservatives. Dbiv 00:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Maybe I'll be seen as pushing some kind of hobby horse, but is there really a problem with this kind of list? We have other lists of people defined on fairly loose grounds.  Going back to Revision as of 21:58, 23 Dec 2004 I don't think it looks particularly bad, and I have no idea why you scrubbed it like this.  This should not be done.
 * Elliott Abrams, first on the list, has been described in his article as a "leading neoconservative" for over a year now.
 * John Bolton has been "considered to be a neo-conservative" in his article since it was started in September.
 * The Nation reports that Stephen Cambone, the third member of the list, worked for PNAC, widely regarded as a quintessentially neo-conservative group.
 * Eliot Cohen is described by the Washington Post's Capitol Hill correspondent, Dana Milbank, as a neoconservative.
 * Now I'm aware that just because someone is described by someone else as a neoconservative, does not mean that the label is a reasonable one to apply to that person. However Wikipedia provides means of verifying many of the names and so it seems to me that the list is encyclopedic for those names.   No vote yet . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Updated vote: Keep in its current location. Brownman40 will just have to reach a consensus with other editors on what "described as neoconservative" means. I suggest that it should mean that they have been described as a neocon by someone who has identifiable and reasonably consistent criteria for doing so. The criteria given neoconservative seems to be pretty stable and critics on both left and right seem to be remarkably consistent in their choice of targets. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't blank the page because I merely didn't like the content. I deleted specific parts which were unverifiable.  It is only coincidence that happened to be the whole article, which proves why the article is unencyclopedic. Brownman40 23:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article was Neoconservatives I would not vote that for deletion. And if someone wants to put verifiable content in the article in the meantime, that's fine.  But unverifiable content may still be edited per Wikipedia rules.  Brownman40 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you explain to me why you consider this article to be unverifiable? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The definition of neoconservative is subjective. And unlike having a list of words that start with c, every name on there is disputable and thus removable in an edit conflict.  Whereas, the article of neoconservatives can cite sources of the definition and illustrate its history, the list has no such potential.  In a best case scenario, the list of neoconservatives would be just a copy and paste of the neoconservatives article.  I don't believe anyone can legitimately argue how a single person can stay on that list without a never-ending dispute.  Brownman40 00:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page to a location that I consider to be more appropriate for this kind of list. That someone is a neoconservative is very difficult to verify if he himself says he isn't. That someone is called a neoconservative, and by whom, and with what criteria (if any), is verifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a quick query of List of liberals. What if we went down that road? I really want us to find consensus on this topic and not have it be a political debate. Brownman40 00:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a political debate as far as I'm aware. I have moved the list to a more suitable location.  Most of the people on the list whom I checked (see above) seemed to have been described as neoconservatives by reasonably credible commentators on verifiable grounds.  I see that you're still blanking large amounts of the page, but I won't get into a war over this.  Can we agree as common ground that close association with an organisation such as PNAC tends to cause political commentators to describe someone as an ideologically neoconservative thinker? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * (Again, editing may continue while a page is on VfD. This does not constitute blanking.) And no, it is not agreed upon common ground that close "association" with PNAC (whatever that means) is a definition for being a neoconservative.  That allegation is akin to me saying that members of the Democratic Party are liberals. Brownman40 01:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my proposal. I ask if we can agree that close association with PNAC (eg working for them, speaking on their behalf, being a member in any capacity) is likely to cause people to describe someone as ideologically neoconservative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * PNAC's mission: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

Only if neoconservatism was defined as above, (which it is not in our article) would I support your proposal. Currently, your proposal would not suffice as the definition of neoconservatism does not fit with PNAC's mission.

Brownman40 01:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you listed it above yourself. That is what many people mean when they say "neoconservative." The proposal that US dominance is good for the USA and good for the world, and the proposal to pursue dominance by military means. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing that disturbs me greatly is that you continue to claim that your editing was not "blanking", yet at one point you removed every single name from the list. This is what most of us would call blanking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to get it. Those names were deleted because they were unverifiable.  Your claims of blanking are back-door attempts to suppress editing.  You know perfectly well that the only reason large parts of the article are being edited is because the article is just that bad. Brownman40 01:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I know nothing of the sort. I am seeing people whose entries in Wikpedia have described them as neconservatives without controversy. Here you come in, mob-handed, and decide that the description is "unverifiable." These people exist and have been credibly described as necons.  So why did you blank the entire list? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Weasel terms Brownman40 01:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * definition of neoconservative on Wikipedia (IMO, badly written. Italics are my comments).

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States.

''That sure explains a lot. [/sarcasm]''

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

''Does not fit with PNAC's mission. PNAC does not state anything in its mission regarding a "lesser social conservatism" or a "lesser dedication to minimal government. Furthermore, PNAC does not state that it is unilateral (mentioned in the article) and its mission does emphasize diplomacy, which pokes holes at the "aggresive foreign policy" theory.''

Brownman40 02:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're straining a bit too hard here. Diplomacy is part of foreign policy. You say that PNAC "does not state anything in its mission regarding 'lesser social conservatism'". Nobody has claimed that it did. I'm asking you if you recognise that a close association with PNAC is likely to cause commentators to describe someone as ideologically neoconservative. This list isn't about who is and who isn't a neoconservative, it's about people who are often deescribed as neoconservatives. I'm looking for common ground. Please stop trying to turn it into as debate about who is and who is not a neocon. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand Tony you're looking for common ground, but I disagree that a member of PNAC equating to a neoconservative is common ground per the current definition. The conclusion that PNAC membership equates to neoconservatism is invalid unless we are about to say that being a member of the Democratic Party means you're a liberal.  The word usage "people who are described a neoconservative" is merely a weasel word and does not change the dynamics of this debate.  Brownman40 02:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll have to take this up with whoever else edits the page. I've tried to explain to you that a criterion for someone being called a neoconservative isn't the same as a criterion for someone being a neoconservative. I fail to see how the statement that someone (who is described as being a neoconservative) is described as being a neoconservative is a weasel phrase.  They either are or are not described as being a neoconservative. This is verifiable, you can find who said it and look into the circumstances in which he said it and the reasons he gave. Then you put that into an article and you have a list that will be useful in people who have their own ideas about what they think neoconservatism is and can evaluate it accordingly.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at the weasel word article. This attempt fits that definition perfectly. Brownman40 02:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, impossible to maintain, docking prank bait, not encyclopedic. Wyss 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please Delete. As someone who attempted for a few months to remove ridiculous assertions of people who are simply not neoconservatives, I certainly vote for deletion.  People in the discussion are trying to get into political debates rather than simply looking to see who is a self-identified as, or frequently externally identified as (through legitimate sources), a neoconversative.  The page is useless and damaging to the wikipedia.  There is an obsession with the PNAC association (however loose) and the Iraq war that many people cannot get over with.  [Weasel word] fits this problem perfectly.  Sure, you can find people who call Dr. Rice a neocon, but you can also find idiots who call bill clinton a socialist.  Is bill clinton debatedly a socialist???  This page should be revisited in 5-10 years.  --Jesse
 * Unsigned vote left by User:66.65.116.34. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 06:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As on other similar pages, we need to set criteria for what counts as valid citation, indictate citations for all entries. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Jmabel said. It's difficult, but possible, and quite necessary. Lacrimosus 06:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * While I think the page should be deleted, I disagree that it is impossible to have a list of people who are verifiably neoconservative. Wolfowitz, Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Irving and Bill Kristol, Francis Fukuyama, John Bolton, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, and a select bunch of others are DEFINETELY neoconservatives.  One problem is that the neoconservatives are a small movement that is decades old, and it is not a broad and consistent political philosophy.  The other problem is that many of the editors are attaching a moral judgement to the term (as a codeword for a "cabal" that has taken over the Bush Administration and American foreign policy) and hence - deliberately or subconciously - are trying to label anyone associated with the Bush administration as a neoconservative.  So instead of looking to see which legitimate sources have called someone a neoconservative, people on the page are trying to disect the neocon philosophy (which is broad and inconsistent, as to be expected from a diverse group of people spanning decades) themselves and try to determine if an individual is a neocon.  Delete the page and if someone is a neoconservative, put it in their page with a description of references to who and why they are called that.  --Jesse
 * Keep, nowt wrong with lists. My old Pears Cyclopedia has loads of them. Dan100 20:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another impossible to maintain POV list. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. My view is that "neoconservatism" is an absurd ad-hoc conspiracy theory, but the label's widespread use in the press makes it encyclopedic. Only self-identifying neocons and people repeatedly identified as neocons by widely read sources should be listed. Gazpacho 21:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This "article" doesn't belong in WP and is far from NPOV. However, as with Bush family conspiracy theory, I believe there probably won't be a consensus to delete, so a major cleanup is in order. Carrp 13:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the "prominent neoconservatives" section of neoconservatism. The context from this article would help that section.  -Sean Curtin 01:31, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.