Jump to content

Talk:Project for the New American Century/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Removed alleged PNAC members or signatories

The references provided for the list of PNAC members did not substantiate the entire list. The following names were removed from the article, pending confirmation (with a reliable source) that they were PNAC members, former members, or signatories to significant statements or reports. MoodyGroove 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Name Department Title Remarks
Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State Disclosed Valerie Plame's identity (Plamegate).
John R. Bolton Department of State (2001-2006) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005-2006) Previously Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001-2005).
Rudy Boschwitz Department of State (2005- ) Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights[1]
Seth Cropsey International Broadcasting Bureau
(12/2002-12/2004) 		Director Voice of America was under his purview
Abram Shulsky Department of Defense (2002-2003) Director, Office of Special Plans ad-hoc department (2002-2003) created by Donald Rumsfeld, reporting to Douglas Feith
Richard Perle Department of Defense (2001-2003) Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee resigned as chairman in March 2003, under accusations of bribery
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corporation[2]
Robert Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

MoodyGroove 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Struck out cropsey. Thanks moody. this re-org of membership is great! --67.101.189.143 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Left wing or extreme right wing?

Moody - I note that you have labeled American Free Press as "far-right extremist" in one paragraph labeled it as "left wing" (or left-leaning) - this seems inconsistent, and I wonder how you came about this conclusion - for now I have added a fact tag, pending resolution of this inconsistency. --Boscobiscotti 05:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If I said left wing for AFP then I made a mistake. From the American Free Press website:
If the Big Media decides you will be the patsy, then the patsy you will be. It’s that simple. Ask Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray or Gordon Kahl or Randy Weaver or the victims of Waco. As we said: THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY. And that’s why American Free Press is right here on Capitol Hill taking up the challenge against this enemy. We’re in the forefront of the battle to reclaim America.
Ahem. I'm going with extreme right wing. MoodyGroove 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Oops, I should have read this discussion before I tried to edit. But I don't think "far-right extremist" is accurate, based on the same quotation. Its about page (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/about_us.html) reference to an "elite-controlled Big Media Monopoly" strikes me more as a "conspiracy theory kook" site than anything meaningfully described as right wing. But both "far-right" and "conspiracy theory" are violations of neutrality. I thought the best way to refer to the site would be to quote the conspiracy theory buzz-word from its own site, which allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the site's outlook. --Steve Schonberger 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
(Also, I mis-clicked an edit, messing it up. I tried Undo, but it didn't remove the embarrassing mis-edit from the history. Can a bad edit and an Undo by the same user four minutes apart be wiped out entirely?)
  • "Far right" and "conspiracy theory" are not violations of Wikipeidia's neutral point of view guidelines. The POV problem stems from using such unreputable sources in the first place. Once they are used (the only reason I haven't removed them is to avoid an edit war) then they need to be identified, so that no one mistakes them for reliable sources. It's easy to cite sources that the American Free Press is right wing, extremist, anti-semitic, and so on, but the sources I would need to cite are as unreliable as the American Free Press, and frankly, it's not worth my time to bicker over it. The far left sources are just as bad. At least the sources are named now which has gone a long way toward mitigating the weasel phrases that permeated the Controversy section. Regards, MoodyGroove 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • Thanks for the explanation. I think I get it now. Neither "far right" nor "conspiracy theory" are good, but it's not because they're not neutral, but because we don't have a high-quality source that calls them one of those terms. Right? I suppose I was on the right track, then, quoting part of the site's self-description that readers can recognize as the work of conspiracy theorists. It doesn't directly make the point that the site looks at the same issue from a different point of view as the other sources cited, but maybe that's not necessary there. Don't worry about an edit-war with me; as a newbie contributor, I'm happy to concede that I'm not as familiar with means of conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines as old-timers, so rewrite me if you have a better answer. --Steve Schonberger 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not exactly what I meant. Let me try again. Neither a "far right" or "conspiracy theory" web based news organization make for a particularly good or reliable source for an encyclopedia article. If a particular controversy is notable enough, there will be plenty of reliable sources in the mainstream media to derive a controversy section from. There should be no need to utilize any type of radical, extremist, conspiracy oriented, or politically polarized website (and in fact I don't think it's necessary to find good material on why the PNAC is controversial). When we use unreliable sources, we compromise the integrity of the Wikipedia, and become a secondary podium for minority views that the mainstream media does not take seriously (or worse, those types of sources are blended into the article with in-line citations making the article look like it's well sourced when it is not). The entire point of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline is to present controversies in a fair, measured, responsible manner. We're not striving to make something sensational, and our goal should not be to stigmatize, engage in investigative reporting, or create a speculative connect-the-dots narrative. In short, neutral point of view means that we are reporting the facts, not pushing a particular point of view (that the PNAC is "bad" or manipulated the United States into a war, for example). Having said all that (and I apologize for the length of this reply) if poor quality sources are going to be used in an article, they need to be identified. If you label a particular source as "far left" or "far right" or "conspiracy oriented" it opens up a can of worms, because now you might be asked to produce a source for why you're labeling another source a certain way. Does it have to be a reliable source? Or can we use an unreliable source to tag an unreliable source a certain way? I'm sure you see the dilemma. The best solution is to engage in high quality research in the first place, and use only reliable sources. It's a painful process, but we're getting there slowly but surely. MoodyGroove 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • Also on the subject of the "New Pearl Harbor" introductory sentence, I think it's a pretty clumsy piece of writing. How about a rewrite that puts the point of the sentence at the beginning, followed by the list of sources, rather than the current structure of the sentence? To be specific, how about a sentence structure like this: "A variety of critics have drawn attention to this line in the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000):" Then move the entire list of sources into the paragraphs that follow the quotation, maybe with an introduction like this: "Others, representing a variety of editorial viewpoints, have criticized the 'New Pearl Harbor' line in the following publications (among others):" Then put the list sources into a list, where the characterizations of the sources won't turn the list of sources into an unwieldy sentence. I can do the edit, but I figure it's worth a "How does this sound?" before I do it. (Maybe this deserves its own Talk topic. Feel free to move it into a new one if it does.) --Steve Schonberger 10:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It probably looks like a clumsy piece of writing because I've been pretty insistent that the sources be explicitly identified, and matched with the specific criticisms mentioned in the article. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's avoid weasel words guideline. In my opinion, the phrase "representing a variety of editorial viewpoints" gives this particular criticism an undue air of respectability. If it represented a variety of editorial viewpoints, this section would be citing sources from the mainstream news media. Having said that, you are free to take a stab at it. The "variety of critics have called attention to" part is easy. It's figuring out how to summarize their dubious conclusions that will be difficult. Why have they drawn attention to it? What does it allegedly prove? That the PNAC somehow orchestrated 9/11? Or that it gave the PNAC the "9/11 they needed" to... what? Americanize the world? The current section doesn't say. If you can improve the section and maintain a neutral point of view (that does not give this particular criticism undue weight) then I will support the change. Best, MoodyGroove 15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

First attempt ever, please excuse. I just came across this discussion on the use of Pearl Harbor here and I'm confused. I am holding an article by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in which he states the term derived from Bobby Kennedy calling the notion of a preventive strike on the Soviet missile bases in Cuba Pearl Harbor in reverse. Mr. Schlesinger states that anticipatory self-defense, or preventive war has been adopted as the Bush doctrine, and that is the context of he uses, no reference to anticipating a Pearl Harbor as stated in the online press publication.

I cannot find this article online to link but if this is relevant, will provide information required, it was written in 2004, Who Rules America. I3obolink 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pax Americana

Removed from article:

PNAC has supported efforts to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a U.S. dominance in world affairs. [3]

The cited source from the Asia Times Online refers to a draft DPG that an unnamed senator described as a prescription for "literally a Pax Americana." The article mentions the PNAC briefly at the bottom, and mentions that Wolfowitz and Libby (authors of the DPG) were members of the PNAC at one time. That does not mean that this source proves that the PNAC advocated a Pax Americana. MoodyGroove 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

  • Apparently the PNAC believed that a Pax Americana already existed, and argued that it should be continued or maintained. From Rebuilding America's Defenses:

So the PNAC did not advocate for a Pax Americana for the sake of being dominant in World affairs. A Pax Americana already existed in the wake of WWII, and it appeared to the PNAC to be good for World peace. That's an important difference. MoodyGroove 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Removed from lead

This has been temporarily removed from the lead pending verification that the sources cited correspond to the PNAC and not PNAC members acting as individuals or the opinion of the Weekly Standard:

As early as 1998 [4] [5][6][7] letters and articles authored and promoted by PNAC advocated removal of Saddam Hussien and regime change in Iraq. From 2001 through 2002 PNAC authored documents supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq[8], and promoted[9][10][11] a theory which stated that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."

I realize that Bill Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard, but we have to be careful not to confuse the two groups. Saying "authored and promoted by the PNAC" may be misleading if the PNAC did not explicitly publish the letters. MoodyGroove 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

One way to fix that paragraph would be to add a few words that both differentiate the two groups and point out their relationship. Something like this, maybe:
As early as 1998,[references] letters and articles authored by PNAC co-founder Bill Kristol (as editor of the Weekly Standard) were promoted by PNAC, advocating removal of Saddam Hussein and regime change in Iraq.
I don't know whether that's an accurate statement, but if accurate it's a wording that should properly handle the groups' differences and shared leadership. (Also, "Hussein" is misspelled once in the removed text, and should be corrected if it's restored.) --Steve Schonberger 08:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is almost accurate - the articles in question authored by Bill Kristol, Gary Schmitt (co-founders of the organization) - and others and published in the Weekly Standard - were -re-published on the newamericancentury.org website - sometimes with a memorandum by PNAC staff which pointed out the importance of the article. I think that the paragraph in the lead is overly long. It would be much better if we could insert some kind of summunation as you have - Just state clearly that PNAC advocated as early as 1998 for increased military pressure on Iraq - removal of Saddam Hussein, and "regime change" in Iraq. - It should also, MoodyGrove is right, be placed in the context of a larger "grand vision" which PNAC advocated for: as Bill Kristol said in an interview on PBS

"It's bigger than Iraq, and it's bigger than the Middle East, though the Middle East is an extremely important and dangerous part of the world (discussion of proliferation of nuclear weapons, Pakistan, N Korea)...Obviously, there are exercises of American power that could be unwise, and where we could be too hasty, and we could be hubristic. We're against that. ... But on the biggest question, is the great danger too little an exercise, too mean an exercise of American power, or too great, too forward-leaning an exercise of American power? I think that's an easy question to answer. The danger is American withdrawal, American timidity, American slowness. ... The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/kristol.html so my attempt at a reword would be something like:

A core PNAC belief was the necessity for increased American military intervention in problematic parts of the world, and their concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons in a number of countries. Many letters and articles authored by PNAC co-founders Bill Kristol, Gary Schmitt and others were re-published and promoted on the newamericancentury.org website supporting these views. One component of their views which has recieved much attention was their support as early as 1998 for increased military pressure on Iraq, removal of Saddam Hussein, and "regime change" in Iraq, as well as their advocacy for a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups such as Al-qaeda, as well as an expansion of the focus of anti-terrorism efforts to include groups like Hezbollah."

I dont have a great understanding of the larger context of their views, but have been doing some reading to try to improve my understanding --Boscobiscotti 18:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It also strikes me that this paragraph reads like condemnation of the PNAC, or blaming the PNAC for the war in Iraq, which is a potential neutral point of view problem. At the very least, this requires some context (i.e., an explanation that Iraq was denying access to UN weapons inspectors). It parades the fact that the PNAC advocated regime change, but does not explain why. MoodyGroove 23:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I disagree Moody. I think you are quite wrong to move this extremely NPOV, well sourced section, without previously initiating a discussion on the talk page. . I did careful scrupulous research. please read the intro letters and articles authored and promoted by PNAC - any articles cited there are ones for which PNAC issued a memorandum endorsing and promoting said article. did you take a look at the references before you removed this. it is better sourced than 99.9 percent of wikipedia, and the vast majority of biographies, for that matter. Why do you see the paragraph as a condemnation of PNAC? It simply states that they supported a specific policy, which has a RS secondary source. go ahead and add more of their rationale for supporting this policy - it would be a welcome. I stopped in quoting sources at 4 sources on their website which either supported increasing military pressure on Iraq, or invasion of iraq. there are many, many more. it looks to me like you are trying to minimize a major part of their history, by removing it without any prior discussion here. --Boscobiscotti 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)--Boscobiscotti 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to minimize anything, although I would not call it "extremely NPOV" by any means. This article still reads like a witch hunt. To maintain it in the lead, I think it needs to offer some context. I left in the letter to George W. Bush, and I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest that the article is light on criticism, conspiracy theories, or suggestions that the PNAC is somehow responsible for the War in Iraq. The issue is, the PNAC did have a point. But you wouldn't know that by reading the disputed paragraph. It just indicts the PNAC for supporting regime change, without explaining the rationale. MoodyGroove 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I dont know why you think the PNAC is responsbile for the war in Iraq - that sounds like a strange conspiracy to me- or why you think the article says this. or why you think it indicts them. I think you are reading that in. That said, lets explain more of the rationale of for supporting this position for so long, and so strongly. I plan to take some of the PNAC writings home and see if I can write a good summation for why they held this position. --Boscobiscotti 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention - There is a focus on Iraq, because this was such a prominent and notable part of their plans. I guess that they probably had other ideas, but I wonder where the sources are. do you know of any mainstream or reliable sources which discuss any of their other views?--Boscobiscotti 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In searching for more general information on PNAC, I came across a source within the conservative movement who does, interestingly enough in a number of articles put forth the ideas that:
  • PNAC's post 9/11 major efforts were to link saddam hussein , and war in Iraq with 9/11 and terrorism - it quotes tom donnelly and Gary Schmitt thusly: Their rhetoric—which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months—was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then to lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al-Qaeda.
  • PNAC was a major force in promoting the invasion of Iraq, as early as 1998. are you familiar with The American Conservative "A new war against Iraq was a gleam in the eye of a small but influential group long before 9/11."
It did not help me much with finding any info on other goals, but it does place Iraq in the context of desire for more influence in the middle east as a larger context. American Conservative states:

PNAC’s ambitions go well beyond Saddam’s overthrow. Immediately after 9/11, the group began pushing to expand the war against other Muslim states, calling for the U.S. to target Hezbollah and its sponsors, Iran and Syria. PNAC also wants the U.S. to stop trying to foster a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, advocating withdrawal of the small amount of aid the U.S. gives the Palestinian Authority and granting full support to Israel’s right wing Likud government. These tactical measures are elements within a broader vision of a more militarized U.S. foreign policy, carried out without allies if necessary

--Boscobiscotti 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's Clinton got to do with it?

Moody, in the lead paragraph on PNAC, you have added a reductio al Clintonum argument - Could you add some context to explain Clinton's central involvement or membership in the views this organization ? I think that for context on of PNAC's core beliefs as they relate to iraq we should probably include references to what their larger strategy, goals and beliefs were, and place the Iraq views in that context. I have made a suggestion above along these lines, including sourced statements from William Kristol but hesitate to add it, since I dont want to mischaracterize them. --Boscobiscotti 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is to establish context and vitiate your POV pushing. Your version reads like an indictment. It may be true that the PNAC was calling for regime change in 1998, but by omitting any discussion of the Iraq disarmament crisis, and the fact that nearly everyone believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, you make it look like the PNAC was calling for regime change for the sake of American hegemony or empire. That's completely unfair and shows an obvious bias. As for the alleged Reductio ad Clintonum, that would mean that an idea was not refuted simply because it was held by President Clinton. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that it was Leo Strauss, fountain of neoconservative evil, who coined the phrase Reductio ad Hitlerum. But it doesn't really apply in this case. MoodyGroove 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Nope. Wasn't aware that Leo Strauss coined that phrase. Just synchronicity, I spose. kewl. :) In any event, your "context" is original research. Do you have any sources where PNAC states this was their motivation? So why don't you quote that, not Clinton? until the last few days, I had no frigging idea why PNAC was calling for ousting of saddam hussein in Iraq in 98. I just knew that they were, and that I had heard about it in a number of sources. I read some of William Kristol to try to get an idea. Here is my suggested lead to give context - which of course could be discussed later in a section which explained why PNAC felt that regime change in Iraq was important I think a short summation is necessary in the lead instead of an in-depth discussion- Why dont you modify it to include your sourced views on PNAC view of WMD. If you look above you will see the sources and quote for my info.
A core PNAC belief was the necessity for increased American military intervention in problematic parts of the world, and their concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons in a number of countries. Many letters and articles authored by PNAC co-founders Bill Kristol, Gary Schmitt and others were re-published and promoted on the newamericancentury.org website supporting these views. One component of their views which has recieved much attention was their support as early as 1998 for increased military pressure on Iraq, removal of Saddam Hussein, and "regime change" in Iraq, their advocacy for a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups such as Al-qaeda, as well as an expansion of the focus of anti-terrorism efforts to include groups like Hezbollah." --Boscobiscotti 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
again,my concern with your introduction of facts about clinton's views is found here Wikipedia:No original research, especially WP:SYN - Cite the reliable sources which advance this view, don't do your own synthesis. - secondly I think primary and reliable secondary sources which discuss PNAC prescriptions for other parts of the world would be welcome. As to notability of their Iraq stance - As far as I can see, Iraq was their main notable area of concern. It is the only policy prescription which seems to have garnered any widespread attention in media. Where are sources for anything else they proposed which got much attention? --Boscobiscotti 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that you've discovered Wikipedia's editing guidelines, although I'm not sure I'd confuse the websites you frequent with "widespread media attention" in any meaningful sense. I never said the PNAC's position on Iraq wasn't notable. I had a problem with the way it was portrayed and the total absence of context, especially considering its placement in the lead. MoodyGroove 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
And I am very pleased with the way you removed the WP:SYN and added well-written context in the lead. As someone who does not have as extensive an understanding of the PNAC perspective as you do, it reads more clearly. I added an additional quote from the cited article which explained a little of the strategy they were promoting in 1998 in Iraq. kudos, Moody. And By the way - the main website I frequent these days is newamericancentury.org, :0 --Boscobiscotti 00:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I had ever heard of the PNAC until I found this article, Boscobiscotti. I was certainly familiar with Bill Kristol and several of the signatories to PNAC letters and documents, and I was also aware of the conspiracy theories advanced by left wing websites that attempt to link together Leo Strauss, neoconservatism, American empire, and the War in Iraq. I don't like to see the Wikipedia being used as propaganda or as a podium for politically polarized or minority viewpoits, because in my opinion it makes the Wikipedia less credible as an encyclopedia. What you're calling the "PNAC perspective" is a perfectly legitimate perspective that many people shared in the late 90s and early 00s. It's also a perspective that anyone could glean from reading the references that you have been citing in the lead. If you hadn't properly read them or understood them, then why were you so eager to show that the PNAC advocated removing Saddam from power? Hindsight is 20/20. The Bush administration's failure to properly execute the War in Iraq does not mean the war wasn't justified, and the fact that no substantial WMDs were found in Iraq doesn't mean that anyone had any idea that WMDs would not be found. MoodyGroove 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
A few points of contention here:
  • If the bush administration succeeded in properly executing the war, that wouldn't meant that the war WAS justified. What's you point? The two are completely unconnected and anybody who thinks that they're connected is an idiot. I'm not aware of anyone making the argument that "Bush administration's failure to properly execute the War in Iraq [means] the war wasn't justified", so as far as I'm concerned, that's a straw man logical fallacy.
[Interjected] My point is that the previous lead provided no context and read like an indictment of the PNAC, simply on the basis that they supported regime change in Iraq. The implied argument (there's no need to be coy) is that they are responsible for the foreign policy disaster that *is* Iraq. Let's face it. It's an unpopular war, Bush is an unpopular president, and it's become fashionable to suggest that the U.S. manipulated intelligence to justify a war that had already been planned. Had the war been executed properly, there would be a lot less to criticize. That's not a straw man argument, that's an observation about politics. MoodyGroove 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • That the PNAC advocated removing Saddam from power is interesting, important, relevant to the PNAC, and verifiable, and as such, belongs in the article.
[Interjected] I have not argued otherwise. MoodyGroove 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • The fact that many people knew that iraq had WMD capability means that someone had an idea that WMDs would not be found.
[Interjected] That is a non sequitur. The fact that no WMDs were found does not mean that the Bush administration was acting in bad faith. As I indicated before, President Clinton and the Democrats believed it, too. They had the same intelligence. MoodyGroove 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • "Attempt to link": neoconservatism advocates that america is great and right and it should therefore spread its greatness, using military power, the most recent justification for iraq war (if i got this right) was to spread democracy was to spread democracy and america's greatness. and as i recall the war was primarily planned, advocated, and executed by noeconservatives, from the pnac, a self-avowed neoconservative organization, who had, in the pnac, avocated iraq's invasion. those are the plain facts. There's no "attempt to link" there. that's just how things are. and with the exception of leo strauss (i don't know who he is), the others are just as plainly linked. neoconservativism advocates american empire. if i recall, they even say "Pan-america". It doesn't take any effort. Linking Iraq with 9/11, on the other hand, now that's a whopper!!!
Kevin Baastalk 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So America is not great? And the principles articulated in the Declaration of Indepedence and the U.S. Consititution are not right? And other people in the world should be condemned to live under tyranny? If the goal was to bring democracy to the Middle East, what do you suppose the reasons were? Perhpas it's because you don't see Muslims from democratic countries flying jets into skyscrapers. If you have to hold your nose when you're explaining the position of the PNAC, then you're probably not someone who can do so with a neutral point of view. For the record, the phrase they used was "Pax Americana" or a world peace that resulted in part from American military might post WWII. The PNAC believed that the world benefited (and still benefits) from Pax Americana. I'm not convinced that's the same as advocating American empire for the sake of American empire. Does the world pay taxes to America? Has America plundered the enemies it defeated on the battlefield? It seems to me that America forgives and rebuilds its enemies. America is judged when it intervenes in world affairs and judged when it does not. That's the nature of being the world's superpower because noblesse oblige. Can you show where the PNAC explicitly advocated using the War in Iraq as a means to American empire? Because that is "an attempt to link" and your claim that it is somehow self evident does not make it so. MoodyGroove 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Cleanup: missing full citations; unidentified sources throughout

There are over 30-45 unidentified sources that appear as external links without Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full citations in this article. The tagged notices indicate that there is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problem in this article. Too many of the sources listed only as external links (whether numbered or not--no time left to convert them so one can see how many numbered links there would be) are not clearly following Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is far too much dependence on the organization's (the subject's) own website for information about it. The article reads more like a promotional advertisement for the organization (the subject) than it does like an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia's policies against ads and pushing POVs and the need for following both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in this article (as any other controversial article): Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar [contribs] 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a think tank, NYScholar. Not a business selling widgets (with the article using marketing materials as sources). What better source for determining what a think tank believes than the actual letters, position papers, and statements of the think tank? That's pretty authoritative if you ask me (although I think the controversies section could be more reliably sourced). Speaking of which, considering the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the War in Iraq, and neoconservatism in general, which part of the article reads like a promotion to you? The article can't simply indict the PNAC for supporting the War in Iraq without articulating the group's rationale for supporting it. The PNAC had their reasons, and it's only fair to outline them, especially considering how prominently the PNAC is mentioned in conspiracy theories and smear websites. How else can the article approach the subject from a neutral point of view and with fairness of tone? Regards, MoodyGroove 02:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I have read the above user's comments here and in other articles where he/she has recently been adding support for and other positive comments on this subject (Project for the New American Century) and attempting to delete negative criticism of it documented by reliable and verifiable sources. I refer him to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and earlier users' comments in this talk page and its archives. One needs to avoid pushing the organization's POV throughout the entire article and other articles referring to the organization. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, not advertisements for subjects. Excessive dependence on quotations of the PNAC's points of view from its various online documents hosted on its website is not neutral presentation. See WP:POV-PUSH; cf. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. The sources of the PNAC's own documents are included in the external link to its website (one would be enough!). People can read the documents with full citations (authors, titles, dates of publication, dates accessed) and reliable sources discussing the subject (PNAC). This talk page is not a message board on the subject (see tagged talkheader). It is supposed to be solely for discussion of making improvements to the article as an encyclopedia article (not a position paper). Entirely full citations are required throughout this article; it refers to many living persons and has to abide by Wikipedia's policies in WP:BLP, some of which are Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please visit the links to the guidelines and policies. Please do not engage in an edit war in this and other articles. Thank you. --NYScholar [contribs] 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Care to back any of those accusations up with diffs? Or are you somehow above discussion when you move into a new article? I have not engaged you or anyone else in an edit war. The PNAC is a think tank. It's very purpose is to evaluate foreign policy and come up with explicit recommendations. So please explain, without vague and annoying references to multiple Wikipedia editing guidelines that have no relevance to what I'm saying, how the letters, position papers, and statements of the PNAC are not authoritative references for the PNAC's positions? What would be a better reference? Would you have the article only make reckless accusations about the PNAC's role in encouraging the invasion of Iraq without offering the PNAC the common courtesy of explaining its reasons? MoodyGroove 04:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Incidentally, here's the proof that you're wrong about me deleting well sourced information about the PNAC at the Paul Wolfowitz article. To my knowledge it's the only edit I've made that involves the PNAC (outside of the PNAC article itself). MoodyGroove 04:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I'm referring to comments that the user posted on May 19, 2007 in a section that I had posted in Talk:Paul Wolfowitz#Plagiarism? Sources?[1] and related editing history summary comments from that period of time on (involving more than one user and a period of about 10 days), including the following: [2]; [3]; [4].--NYScholar [contribs] 06:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
After spending as much time as I have spent trying to correct format errors etc. throughout this related article on PNAC, I have no desire to spend any more time on it. I've just started the cleanup. I refer others to the comments on the PNAC in the talk page and editing history of Paul Wolfowitz. I detected a POV in the comment of May 19th that seemed to be favoring the PNAC. The changes that I see the user making throughout this article on the subject seem related to that POV. That's how it appears to me. [Please don't take the comments as personal; they are not about the user; my comments focus on the editing of the article, changes which are introducing users' points of view into it; that was just an example of the problem, as I perceive it. Users can just scrutinize their own changes to the article for evidence of a need to watch out for interjecting their own POVs into the encyclopedia account of this organization.] --NYScholar 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated: --NYScholar 06:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)][Updated after correcting significant typographical and format errors; see editing history summaries: --NYScholar [contribs] 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)]

Insufficiently documented passage moved from article

Critics of the PNAC, writing in such venues as CounterPunch,[12], The New Statesman, American Free Press,[13] Truthout.org, and Scoop, including communications professor Sut Jhally, refer to a line from the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000): "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."[citation needed]

This statement is not documented with specific sources; just general reference to About webpages of the publications is not sufficient; one needs actual articles in the publications where people have referred to, alluded to, and/or quoted the specific line from the PNAC report as the statement claims.--NYScholar [contribs] 10:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I already provided "full citations" for two of the external links given by earlier eds and in doing so realized that the citations do not support the statement. Others can check and verify the numbered e-links and add the necessary citations as they appear to be needed. I've provided examples of how to make citations "full citations" throughout the article. See the editing history summary: a remaining approx. 25-30 still need checking for accuracy of the references and reliability of sources and verification that they are what the article says they are and that they say what the article says they say. I have found a lot of inaccuracies and discrepancies in the process of checking and attempting to verify sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not permit use of blogs or self-published websites in Wikipedia encyclopedia articles relating to living persons (and other subjects) generally (except when they are sites created by the subject of the article (person). I don't currently know how many of the remaining e-links still to be checked might be unreliable or dubious sources. I hope others will do that work. Thank you. --NYScholar [contribs] 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated: As no one else came along to provide the information for the unidentified external links, I provided it and removed the cleanup tag. There are some missing citations still, particularly relating to the history of the organization's "demise" so to speak; I don't know what sources were used for the paragraph marked with the missing citations tags. Perhaps the person or people who created it will return to provide their sources in citations. --NYScholar [contribs] 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated: Looking at the past discussion in this talk page and at some sources already cited by previous editors in the article and in the talk page, I have tried to document the material in the "demise" passage with already-existing citations, adding them where earlier editors appear to have relied on them. I took more time to provide the "full citations" throughout this article than I had originally intended to do. But other editors were not doing the work needed to correct the problems of missing citations throughout this article. Because the errors to such an article on such a controversial subject with such a contentious past editing history seemed pervasive and troublesome (at least to me) and because I know that unsuspecting students and other readers around the world might be coming upon this article (via Google and other search engines), I provided the missing "full citations" and did some related editing of the article. I do not have the time to do any further work here, which appears to me to be generally unappreciated. (Due to other priorities, I'm turning back to my own non-Wikipedia related work.) --NYScholar [contribs] 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[Updated: Just as I was about to log out, I noticed that a significant letter (the one sent by the PNAC on April 3, 2002 [the one mistakenly identified in citations by previous editors as April 30, 2002]) has many more signatories than this article had indicated; I made those corrections, and now am logging out of Wikipedia. --NYScholar [contribs] 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)]

Tommy Thompson a PNAC member?

I had looked at this site once after a PBS show and recall seeing in a previous verson Tommy Thompson listed as a member of PNAC and identified as a TV actor. Around the time that his name came up as possibly running for President, I looked again, and his name had disappeared. Since he is now being positioned as a "conservative Christian-Right Republican" candidate, it would be good to know when his name was removed and why. If he was a member or joined at the hip to PNAC, one could wonder if he was still connected with PNAC and that PNAC power brokers want him as their replacement for Bush. Regarding the removal of other names, could they actually be simply disavowing a relationship with PNAC because they don't want to be affiliated with an unAmerican group that has hurt the U.S.A. so badly? Rats are supposely the first to leave a sinking ship... FlashMcGruder (talk · contribs) 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Always nice to see a new editor ready and willing to help write an encyclopedia article from a neutral point of view, with fairness of tone. The previous version of the article listed George W. Bush as a PNAC member. None of the names on the list were sourced, so they were removed to the talk page by me. They were added back to the article once they were properly sourced, as it should have been from the beginning. I don't recall anyone named Tommy Thompson on the list, but you really should cut back on the Kool-aid. MoodyGroove 01:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Manifest Destiny and the PNAC

I think if someone can find some articles on Manifest Destiny there could be an interesting section on comparing the two schools of thought. It would give the PNAC article some more historical perspective (going back to the 1800s and Monroe's declaration to stay away from the Western hemisphere, etc.). It can't be added to the Manifest Destiny article itself it seems, so any reliable non-primary sources people find would be worthy here.

Primary sources: [The Monroe Doctrine (1823)] ["John L. O'Sullivan on Manifest Destiny, 1839"]

99.245.173.200 10:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Original Research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of essays. GabrielF 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased and verifiable??

An initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization headed by William Kristol a co-conspirator to murder in the 9/11 attacks on the people of the United States of America. He is also a paid government mouth piece for the Bush administration the SPP and the NASCOCORRIDOR which will lead to the destruction of our Constitution and the sovereignty of this Nation. We the People must put an end to this.

I'm wondering how this can pass. Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.22.19 (talk • contribs) 17:44, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

PNAC and Likud

What is the relationship between PNAC and Israel's Likud Party. 67.133.62.42 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

"....advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

Should the admission by PNAC that such methods could be used for political gain be included in the section on controversy?

Mr. N.Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. CT0001 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing PNAC's role in 9-11

I feel that the brief summary of PNAC at the top of the page needs to include the countless, well-supported accusations that PNAC was involved in 9-11 and the Iraq War. Most of the article is spent discussing this. Simply saying that "PNAC was influential in Presidential policy on Iraq" is wishy-washy nonsense. That's the tip of the iceberg to the article; it DOES NOT summarize the points contained therein.

I threw together the a possible addition written below. It's pretty mediocre in terms of writing style. I'm not interested in talking to people who would throw this out because it smacks of "original research." These items are well-documented and 9-11 conspiracies have been published on the web with citations to material printed by the US government and countless international newspapers. This IS NOT original research. Yes, it IS a conspiracy, but it's one that DOES cite its sources.

If anyone could comment on what could be added, I would greatly appreciate hearing your opinion. Here's an amateur suggestion:

"PNAC has been the centerpiece of a number of 9-11 conspiracy theories (1, 2) due to its "call for a new Pearl Harbor (3)" and the involvement of members Donald Rumsfeld to disrupt NORAD defences prior to 9-11, Dick Cheney (via Halliburton) to profit from the Iraq war, and Dick Armitage and Scooter Libby to silence Iraq-war naysayers."

1. cooperativeresearch.org, PNAC Events

2. 911exposed.org, "PNAC Neocons"

3. call for new Pearl Harbor

4. PNAC members within Bush administration

CT0001 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

== New Garret Terrien Initiative? ==Perhaps someone can tell me why the opening paragraph says:

"An initiative of the New Garret Terrien Project, a 501(c)(3) organization headed by William Kristol (Chairman) and Gary Schmitt (President)"

when the reference for that statement says:

"The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt."

I can't find anything on Google other than snapshots of this very Wikipedia page. Looks like deliberate misinformation and cover-up as usual. I have corrected this on the main page, feel free to revert if you have a published citation. CT0001 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Kantany

Stephen Kantany was recently added as a PNAC member by 68.112.243.25, and the reference given was the PNAC SOP. However, his name is not there, and a cursory internet search doesn't show him related to PNAC. Is this a typo? Does anyone know who this person is? For now, I left his name but removed the reference. CT0001 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: A reference has been added! Good! But it's just one from a blog, which isn't convincing. I still can't find anything on the web on this guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CT0001 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

As the stated goal of PNAC is "to promote American global leadership," I propose the second sentence in the lead to be revised as follows: "The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership." This revision requires no citation change. Markjmillan (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the minor edit as shown above. Markjmillan (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that St00pidmonkey72 had made several edits to switch "leadership" to "dominance." PNAC uses leadership to refer to America and dominance when describing American military and space programs in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." St00pidmonkey72, to maintain NPOV, and even factual backing, I would recommend that you leave the existing quotes as "leadership," although you could add military or space quotes to include "dominance," or even use dominance as an English term for describing outside opinions of PNAC.CT0001 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PNAC & 2000 US elections

I added the following passage below, which is fully cited, and it was recently removed by 66.32.96.82 (PS - please sign in with a username). I added it here so that users may post comments rather than just deleting it outright.

Running tally of quality references listed that contradict the assertions that (1) fraud occurred in the 2000 US elections, (2) that fraud via voter-cleansing was perpetrated by PNAC, or (3) that it directly benefitted PNAC as a whole: 0

"Jeb Bush, signator to the PNAC Statement of Principles, then governor of Florida, along with Katherine Harris, his secretary of state, were accused by the US Commission on Civil Rights of "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency," and "gross dereliction [of duty]"[14] with regard to the 2000 United States presidential election in Florida.[15][16][17] The commission found that Governor Bush knew that black voters were 10 times more likely to have their ballots rejected than white voters, often due to outdated voting technology in black and hispanic areas. It was also found that DBT Online (now ChoicePoint), the private company whose list of felons (who cannot vote in Florida[18]) included non-felons and ex-felons, had warned Jeb Bush to check for irregularities prior to using its list in the election. This problem helped swing election results, as 93% of blacks in Florida[17] (and 90% of blacks nationwide[19]) voted for Gore, and while Bush and PNAC signator Cheney's margin of victory in Florida was only 1,725 votes[20], at least 8,000 of the 173,000 people on the felons list had the right to vote, and 54% of the supposed felons were black[17]. Jeb Bush's role in the election fraud was further examined in a BBC report[21] by investigative journalist Greg Palast. The NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a recount study that found that Bush would have won the 2000 election even if the Supreme Court had allowed a recount[22], although the possible votes from blacks, who were barred from filling out a ballot in the first place, were not considered.
"William Rivers Pitt has claimed that Jeb's actions in the election fraud were done deliberately so that his fellow PNAC members would be assured the high-power posts in the Federal government that they received upon Bush and Cheney taking office[23]."

From what I've seen, only citizens of the US are NOT aware that their elections in 2000 & 2004 were fraudulent, mostly due to heavy propaganda from the few major media corporations (FOX, NBC Universal, ABC/Disney, Viacom, & AOL Timewarner/CNN). As there is consensus in the Western world (US - NY Times, UK - BBC, Guardian, NZ - Scoop) that fraud was either highly likely or definitely occurred in the US 2000 election, it seemed reasonable to describe it as fraudulent. To please naysayers, I added references from the American publications The NY Times and Salon.

I think it's absolutely essential to discuss PNAC's role in the election. It's part of the neocon takeover timeline, in which PNAC said, "Clinton, attack Iraq," then Jeb Bush (along with many other Republicans) mobilized to steal the election and carry out warplans publicly announced before, and many PNAC members made huge financial and/or personal gains. Otherwise PNAC looks like a toothless thinktank. CT0001 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is completely undue weight in this article - no relation whatsoever explicitly linking PNAC with Florida in made, only a smear by association. I propose that this section be removed. Skomorokh incite 20:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely not undue weight, as this is the majority opinion held by the English-speaking world, as evidenced by the references from the most major publications in the US, UK, and New Zealand. I believe you have overlooked the connection between PNAC and the presidency, which ties in very clearly with Florida. PNAC wanted war with Iraq and told that to Clinton, then toppled Gore's campaign via fraud and put in its own guy (Bush, brother of Jeb). Then the US goes to war with Iraq, and PNAC gets into the White House. If you don't see the connection between PNAC and the presidency (which they won via Florida), please check the associations with the Bush administration. Additionally, an action by a member of PNAC which strongly benefits PNAC as a whole cannot be taken as an isolated individual action. Furthermore, your edit on 1/21/08 switched "election fraud" to "alleged election fraud." If your issue was that PNAC is unrelated to the 2000 Florida election, then why did you assail the factual basis of that statement without so much as a comment to existing references or a single reference to back the idea that the fraud was "alleged?" If you think this section is deficient for NPOV, just add some referenced statements describing your angle. CT0001 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Skomorokh on this. The sources cited contain little, if anything, that points definitively to fraud having been executed. It appears that there is a desire here to "overconnect" the dots. It is factual that these allegations were made, but I do not know that they, or their logical implications, warrant inclusion here. I agree that this section should be struck. Markjmillan (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you don't agree with Skomorokh - he wanted to remove the passage because of undue weight, and you have made no such argument here. You are assailing the factual basis of the election fraud. You have criticized the sources - did you see the one entitled, "Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud?" The term fraud means a "breach of confidence....to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." Linda Howell's confidence was certainly breached in Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program, which was enacted by Jeb Bush & Katherine Harris, and this gave GW Bush an unfair advantage. Here's my challenge to those who want this struck: (1) if you want to criticize my references, try reading them first. (2) Show me some references which demonstrate (A) that the 2000 Florida election was NOT found to contain fraud, or AT LEAST contradict my references, and (B) that PNAC and PNAC's goals did NOT benefit ENORMOUSLY from Jeb's role in swinging the election via the voter-cleansing program (aka fraud). Anything short of that makes you look like a content-blanking congressional staffer, CIA spook, or simply a facts-deprived Bush supporter. I'm supposed to assume good faith, right? Why don't you match that by doing some research to get the facts and prove your point, rather than just complaining "I don't like it" and demanding that the English-speaking world doesn't have access to quality published information. I'm adding a running tally to keep track of quality criticism and differentiate it from whining. CT0001 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I realize it can be difficult to fathom sometimes, but the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia is verifiability, not truth. Furthermore, while much of the claims in the section are well-referenced, the claims themselves do not say anything directly about PNAC. You can cite a claim that person X is associated with PNAC, and that the same person x was implicated in some scandal or other, but it is an unacceptable synthesis to thus claim that PNAC is associated with the scandal. I suggest you take a hard look at that last look and then re-appraise the paragraph. What I would like to see is a reliable source that contains "PNAC" and "Florida election fraud" in one sentence, without the guilt-by-association that so tarnishes this otherwise quality published information. Regards, скоморохъ 20:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Skomorokh - I appreciate your efforts to take a more balanced approach. I must say that I don't see how any of this does not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiable, which states: "'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Every single statement is backed by a reliable, published source (in some cases more than one), contrary to your statement that merely most of the claims are well-referenced. Also, this is not a case for an unacceptable synthesis, which is defined here: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions..." Already we have a problem - I do not make any conclusions, I merely state facts ala NPOV. I do not say, for example, that "PNAC conspired to steal the election through Jeb." Instead, I say that Jeb did this, and PNAC benefitted, which are both FACTUAL statements backed by reliable, published sources, and are not conclusions. It is left to the reader to interpret the facts. If you read an unacceptable synthesis, you will find that what I did is actually encouraged: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." The meaning is clear - Jeb is a member of PNAC (fact), he engaged in activities described in english as election fraud (fact), and PNAC strongly benefitted (fact). This information, since all of it concerns PNAC, is highly relevant to an article on PNAC. Furthermore, based on what you are saying on trying to eliminate a statement of guilt-by-association, the only change necessitated is to modify the title from "PNAC Role" to "PNAC benefitting strongly from actions of PNAC member." Regardless, a modification of language is one thing, but you and others have proposed to wipe this section in its entirety, and no one has provided a single reference which contradicts any of my statements or references, or shows that they are not relevant to PNAC. Therefore I am forced to conclude that this is attempted content-blanking, as also witnessed by previous attempts to simply delete the section outright without discussion. Your earlier actions indicate that you had a concern with whether or not the fraud was real or alleged, yet you proposed deletion instead of providing a single reference to counter mine. Please demonstrate your good faith to me by explaining how deleting this section would improve its language. CT0001 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, a reference with PNAC and Florida in the same sentence is obtuse and unnecessary; based on your logic, an article on Republican Party malfeasance should not include Tom Delay and his role in the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal. After all, just because Tom Delay is a convicted, felonious Republican and his actions strongly benefitted Republicans in New Hampshire (while he's from Texas), you would propose that this information not be concluded because Delay's Americans for a Republican Majority were the perpetrators rather than the National Republican Party itself. I don't think you can find a single rational thinking individual who would not find this information relevant to an article on Republican Party wrongdoings. Now replace Republican Party with PNAC and Delay with Jeb, and you'll see my point. I think I've provided enough references already, so I'd be very happy to see yours. CT0001 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your passion, and you have made some good points. I'd like to comment that it's entirely unnecessary to provide negative or contradictory refs; what decides which content stays and goes is based on the quality and relevance of the refs in the article. I think I would take your DeLay point entirely if there were no strong refs stating that the Republican Party overtly or tacitly condoned his behavior (I don't know whether this is the case). I don't see a ref saying PNAC benefitted from Florida, excuse my blindspot, but if this is the case, it's still not good enough to justify this section's inclusion, because it simply relies on another guilt-by-association - PNAC benefitted, so therefore it is somehow culpable or responsible for the fraud. Dangerous territory indeed. For example, Obama and Huckabee currently have non-profit groups engaging in attack politics on their behalf without their consent - it would be unfair to tar them with he blame for actions that benefitted them, and PNAC is no different. If you are so convinced that right-thinking people implicate PNAC in Florida, then it should be a simple task tto find an article written by one of these right-thinking people that explicitly fingers PNAC for the crime. Without evidence, this is all just smear, smear, smear, and not even imperialist neocons deserve that on Wikipedia.скоморохъ 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting a new indent here:

Thus far, absolutely no one has been able to contradict that:

  1. This content is completely verifiable, as it includes quality, reliable references.
  2. This content is written in a neutral tone, stating facts without opinion, and especially demonstrates NPOV through the vital component of good research.
  3. This content does not contain original research, as it DOES NOT contain unpublished facts, arguments, or speculation, or express an opinion, but DOES cite sources, which is "inextricably linked...to [demonstrating] that you are not presenting original research."
  4. This content is 100% relevant to the article on PNAC, and complies with the Five Pillars, as well as NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research which are "Jointly [the] policies [that] determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles."

The only issue I can see here is the synthesis subset of no original research, as I can see the argument that the language appears to indicate that PNAC collectively engaged in fraud and did so purposely to benefit. Resolving this might involve switching "PNAC role in fraud" to "PNAC member role in fraud, which allowed huge gains in power for PNAC and the advancement of PNAC goals." The terms "PNAC (collective) role" and "PNAC benefitted" (rather than "PNAC then gained power and achieved goals because of this action") were added by me to summarize that statement; I would not be adverse to adjusting the language.

However, the proposed correction to a language problem has been to wipe the section in its entirety. No attempt has been made to explain why a language error should result in loss of relevant content, and thus I am "not require[d to] continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Rather, I view this as censorship of potentially inflammatory (though publicly known) material, and Wikipedia is not censored.

To briefly rebuff arguments that this information is not relevant:

  1. With regard to DeLay, it is immaterial whether the Republican Party condoned his actions; if he was a member of the Republican Party and his deplorable actions directly benefitted the Republican Party, that fact would absolutely be relevant to an article on the Republican Party.
  2. With regard to Obama and Huckabee, if the non-profit groups were lead by members of Obama's or Huckabee's political campaigns, and the non-profit groups benefitted the political campaigns, then that information would be absolutely relevant to an article on the political campaigns.
  3. To eliminate concerns of smearing all of PNAC, it is merely necessary to mention that a PNAC member perpetrated the fraud, which allowed PNAC to make gains in power & goals (without necessarily plotting to). I used "fraud" (my language) to summarize Jeb's "gross negligence" with regard to knowledge about "voter-cleansing" that was 95% wrong and barred >22,000 black democrats from voting, i.e. to "[examine whether] Jeb...conspired to steal the election for Bush", which are the language of the US Commission on Civil Rights and Greg Palast (who was published & broadcast by Salon & the BBC), respectively. Note that I included my summary language and the original language in the references. All of this material is 100% relevant, as all of it concerns PNAC members and PNAC gains.

The following possible new title for this section completely satisfies NPOV, NOR, and SYN issues, although I prefer the original summary version:

Actions of PNAC member Jeb Bush: "Did Jeb Bush steal [the 2000 election] for [GW Bush]?" and PNAC gains and goals resulting from the GW Bush presidency.

So, why does apparent/suspected smear = deletion? Suggest something for NPOV and let's work with it.

I have to take a break from posting here, but I'll happily address good criticism to the article in a timely manner. CT0001 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh on deletion. I am certainly neither a Congressional staffer nor a CIA spook. As for being facts-deprived, not to mention the classy denouement, I’ll let that slide as I am certain this is supposed to be kept civil. (For the record, I work for a transportation company and nobody else.) I read your references in detail, thanks. I am not denying that PNAC may have benefitted from the outcome in Florida in 2000, and I am not denying that there was fraud – there almost surely has been fraud in every recent election, benefiting both major parties. (This is notwithstanding the conclusions of the National Opinion Research Center, perhaps the most important of which was that Bush would very likely have won a statewide recount.)
I am saying simply that this section stretched the boundaries of relevance and seems to overconnect the dots between X and Y. This is an accusation of guilt by association, and nothing more. I disagree respectfully with your scenario (1) regarding Tom DeLay; I do not believe this would warrant inclusion in an article about the Republican Party, but certainly would be relevant in an article on Tom DeLay. Similarly, the bits here on Ms. Harris and Gov. Bush would fit much more neatly in respective articles on them. So, I do not mean to suggest that this information be "censored out," but perhaps placed elsewhere.
Short of deletion, changes made recently to the content of this section are improvements. Given that we're talking about actions of individuals with no evidence that they were acting in their capacities as PNAC members, another option might be to place them into a new section on the "extracurricular activities" of people who were PNAC members. Short of that, I would happier to see the title to the section adjusted to the following: “Role of PNAC Members in the Presidential Election of 2000,” as well as the following conclusion: “However, the National Media Research Center concluded that George W. Bush would likely have won a state-wide recount, had the US Supreme Court ordered it. This conclusion was the result of a six-month examination of nearly all rejected ballots in all of Florida’s counties.” [Sourced from CNN.] Markjmillan (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for actually taking the time to read the references. I tried to include the suggested edits. The last paragraph was written for you guys anyway, I never liked it. As for overconnecting the dots, I've already explained my disagreement - Cheney was on the ballot, and Jeb screwed with the election. Done and done. There are so many PNAC members in the Bush administration that the two are often relevant to one another. I certainly agree that this info also belongs on the pages for Harris and Jeb, but I simply don't have the time to put it there. Much of the other info on this page could also be added to individuals' pages but it belongs here as well.
I don't like removing the word "fraud" because that term was used by Scoop concerning the election in general and I find that in English language (not legal terms) it is a fair summary statement for what Jeb did. Thanks also to Skomorokh for helping with POV, and additional POV suggestions, as previously mentioned, are welcome.
As for the bit about the recount, the statement must be balanced, because the recount only considered votes cast, not people barred from voting, which was the focus here. Although I personally think the recount study is tangential to this section, I added it so you would feel the section is more NPOV. CT0001 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Information about the activities of individual members of an organization belongs in the articles of those individual people, not in the article about that organization, unless the organization itself was somehow involved. How about "PNAC members at the World Bank", "PNAC members' involvement in book publishing", etc.? Where does the madness end? I'm removing the section again. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it seems to be 2 against and 1 for inclusion, I have added a Request for Comment below so that consensus may be reached.

Btw, Consensus is not majoritarian. In any case, just to please the petty arguments about relevance, I added a reference directly connecting PNAC with the 2000 elections. It was written by an international-bestselling author. So Korny O'Near, you just called William Rivers Pitt irrelevant. Glad to see that you did your homework before wiping the section. CT0001 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're accusing me of not doing my "homework" on a citation that didn't exist when I made my edit? Wow, strong argument there. So basically you found a reference that makes the same wholly circumstantial accusation that you're making. That's fine, it can go in the article; but the whole blow-by-blow of details of Jeb Bush's alleged malfeasance during the Florida 2000 election appears to be strictly original research on your part. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I accused you of not doing your homework because you didn't bother to do any research yourself before you wiped my contribution. It took me ~2min to find that reference, and I see no reason that you couldn't have done the same if you were so intent on deleting. BTW, Jeb's malfeasance isn't alleged - it's published, which is why I put it on Wikipedia. It's not original research, either. I did not personally conduct an investigation in Florida or go talk to Clayton Roberts; Greg Palast did that, and his report appeared on the BBC. "[T]o demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources," and that's precisely what I did. Also, I "Summariz[ed] source material without changing its meaning," so it is not synthesis, either. I am not trying to advance the concept that Jeb stole the 2000 election; that is a concept that has been published internationally. If you have references that address the same issue but say Jeb's actions did not swing the election, rather than simply cite the Supreme Court's decision, you should most certainly include them here to maintain NPOV. CT0001 (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the word "alleged" - it's not the opposite of "published". What was published by the BBC, etc. were allegations. In any case, the original research here isn't stating what did or didn't happen during the Florida 2000 elections - it's stating that every part of what happened relates to PNAC. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeb's actions (voter-cleansing) are not alleged - they are factual and well-documented (see refs). Greg Palast's questioning whether Jeb performed these actions to benefit his brother borders on an allegation. Jeb's actions are relevant to PNAC for reasons described above. I have already rebuffed original research claims in detail, so I won't provide further commentary until anyone can address my comments. CT0001 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, voter-roll cleansing (which happens in every election) does not, per se, equal fraud. But a new issue: where is there a citation that Dick Cheney was involved in the supposed Florida election fraud? Yes, he benefited from winning Florida, but surely that's not by itself an indication that he was actually aware of fraud taking place. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Racially-biased, unfair, voter-roll cleansing that knowingly occurs before an election does not happen in every election, and unless you can provide a published reference to back that statement up, I assume you're aware that it's utterly factless. Cheney's "involvement" is a language issue - one commits a fraud, one benefits, and that makes both "involved" (basing off concerned, not implicated, in the definition of involved). This could be addressed with clarifications as described in the Sub-section below. CT0001 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Sub-section on Jeb vs. PNAC members -

Korny O'Near, you recently changed "PNAC members" involved in fraud to "Jeb Bush." I think this change might be positive, but it runs the risk of making the section opinionated, as was Skomorokh's concern before. Basically, the section could spell out that Jeb engaged in actions which benefitted Cheney on the ballot and then PNAC as a whole (intent not ascribed), and many of the numerical details could be ommitted (they exist to show Jeb's actions were not benign). This could bring the focus back to PNAC instead of details on Jeb. If you think such a revision would be NPOV and positive, please state so. Otherwise, I'll leave it as is. CT0001 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're not saying that to benefit from something constitutes "involvement" - in a sense, everyone who voted for Bush benefited from the Florida outcome, so were 60 million or so people involved in election fraud? It sounds misleading, at best, to use that word in Cheney's case. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I find your extended interpretation of "involvement" to be absurd, although I recognize the importance of clarifying Cheney's role in the matter. I would prefer to move back to the actual language issue, which is whether my section, as written above, wrongly implicates all of PNAC in the election fraud. This appears to be the main cited concern of Skomorokh, Canadian Monkey, and possibly XAdHominemx. To this end, as well as your suggestion to more clearly explicate that it was solely Jeb who perpetrated the fraud, I have prepared a revised section. I would greatly appreciate feedback on the language used and NPOV issues, although clearly, I heavily disagree with unreferenced opinions that the material as a whole is not relevant to the PNAC article and that this constitutes OR, as I have merely reported the published work of others; many seem to think that if you research and write your own paragraph, which is the fundamental process by which a Wikipedia article is written, you have engaged in OR, but that is just ignorance that can be corrected by actually reading the OR section instead of simply trying to silence facts contrary to one's own beliefs. CT0001 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SUGGESTED REVISION: Morph the election fraud paragraph into a history of how PNAC members came to gain great power, and the involvement of various PNAC members along the way.

PNAC’s Rise to Power: Jeb Bush’s Role in 2000 US Presidential Election Fraud in Florida

"In 2000, PNAC signator Dick Cheney and George W. Bush became the Vice President and President of the United States following a landmark Supreme Court decision [24][25] to not perform a recount of the Florida votes in the highly contended [26] U.S. Presidential Election in 2000. With a PNAC member in the number 2 spot in the U.S. Federal Government, who could provide advice to the newly elected President on his White House appointments, many PNAC members were elevated from their nascent thinktank to many of the most powerful positions in the executive office of the United States, including Secretary & Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of State, and multiple additional posts within the Defense and State Department. It is inconclusive whether Cheney’s affiliation with PNAC was related to these appointments, although it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Bush and Cheney had every intent of bringing PNAC’s foreign policy ideas to fruition in their administration[27][28][29][30][31][32][33].

"The close election that brought Bush and Cheney to the White House hinged on the outcome of the Florida’s votes. At this time, the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush, also a PNAC signator. Jeb Bush, along with Katherine Harris, his secretary of state, were accused by the US Commission on Civil Rights of "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency," and "gross dereliction [of duty]"[14] with regard to Florida’s 2000 presidential election, which was riddled with numerous voting fraud issues[15][16][17]. The commission found that Governor Bush knew that black voters were 10 times more likely to have their ballots rejected than white voters, often due to outdated voting technology in black and hispanic areas. It was also found that DBT Online (now ChoicePoint), the private company whose list of felons (who cannot vote in Florida[18]) included non-felons and ex-felons, had warned Jeb Bush to check for irregularities prior to using its list in the election. This problem helped swing election results, as 93% of blacks in Florida[17] (and 90% of blacks nationwide[19]) voted for Gore, and while Bush and PNAC signator Cheney's margin of victory in Florida was only 1,725 votes[20], at least 8,000 of the 173,000 people on the felons list had the right to vote, and 54% of the supposed felons were black[17]. It has been estimated that a total of 22,000 black democrats were barred from voting[21]. Jeb Bush's role in the election fraud was further examined in a BBC report[21] by investigative journalist Greg Palast.

"After the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow a recount in Florida, The NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a recount study that found that Bush won the 2000 election in Florida[22], although the possible votes from blacks, who were barred from filling out a ballot in the first place, were not considered.

"William Rivers Pitt has asserted that Jeb's actions in the election fraud were done deliberately so that his fellow PNAC members would be assured the high-power posts in the Federal government that they received upon Bush and Cheney taking office[23]. Bernard Weiner noted that PNAC expected victory for its candidate, Cheney, in the 2000 election, and hence penned Rebuilding America’s Defenses just two months before the election[34]. This coincidence was also noticed by Steve Brouwer, who further claims that the organization’s very name (coined in 1997) was anticipatory of political takeover in 2000, right at the start of the new century [35]. However, records are scarce regarding whether Jeb’s decision to allow an election biased in favor of a fellow PNAC member to proceed was a purposeful attempt to bring PNAC to power or simply a coincidence."

CT0001 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Revised section added, old section removed. Comments & suggestions welcome. CT0001 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

It is disputed whether the activities of PNAC signatories/members during the 2000 United States Presidential election justifies a section in this article. Please read the discussion above. Thank you, скоморохъ 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be included very briefly, with a link to the main article on the Florida controversy. Even if there was a fiddle in the Florida results, there's nothing to link that would PNAC rather than the GOP more generally. The connection here is Jeb Bush's signature on the statement, but I would argue his family links to George W. are probably the stronger connection! This section should mention Jeb Bush signed the thing, and was governor at the time of the controversy. Nothing more is needed. However, there probably should be more about Cheney getting the VP slot, and the appointments of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.195.137.85.173 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Briefly, this section attempts to connect the dots in a fashion not verified by outside research, and greatly decreases the overall air of objectivity that ought to be maintained in an encyclopedia entry. In a manner that contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia, the partisan agenda of those who wish to include this passage is obvious. I advocate speedy deletion. --XAdHominemx (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with XAdHominemx, classic case of WP:OR. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mentioned because it is OR. The cited sources do not discuss PNAC at all. They discuss the activities of a single member (from a fringe, partisan source, I might add), and attempt to tie it to PNAC - that is not allowable. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to stay on the sidelines while users post comments here, but to me, much of what has been posted strays from the key point at hand. It would be most useful if you could specifically address whether the actions of one member of a group which brought nearly two dozen members of the group to the highest positions of power on the planet is relevant to an article on the group, preferably citing specific examples. Whether the section should reflect Jeb's or PNAC's collective responsibility in fraud is a language issue irrelevant to the relevance of the section to PNAC. CT0001 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not a "Language issue", but a wikipedia policy issue. If the responsibility is Jeb Bush's, acting as an individual, and not as a representative of PNAC, then the section which tries to tie his actions to PNAC is not allowable under WP:OR. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is important not to implicate all of PNAC in the fraud. Perhaps you could review the new section, where I attempted to more clearly spell out the roles of Cheney and Jeb. CT0001 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Still seems pretty OR'ish to me, as well as undue weight. If the paragraph is renamed, and trimmed down to only the last pargaraph, AND iif that paragraph is sourced to better sources (all 3 currently cited are self-published, unreliable sources), it might be ok to keep it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Remarks Section

Recently, Korny O'Near removed the "Remarks" section of Associations with the Bush Administration, which has been around since 2003. If anyone else thinks that discussing the members of an organization is meaningless to the organization's page, I would kindly ask that, before re-deleting the Remarks sections, they first navigate to the page on the Republican Party and delete the section on George W. Bush and his presidency. Thank you. CT0001 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Remarks" column is a pointless collection of random facts about each person, with no relation to PNAC, and unfortunately also lends itself too well to serving as a coatrack for whatever any editor wants to state about any of the people. Your example of the Republican Party page is a good one: note that every fact about George W. Bush in there directly relates to the stated policies of the Republican Party, and his position as its nominal leader. You won't find there any mention that he once managed a baseball team, or that he was governor of Texas. Similarly, this article shouldn't contain random facts like that one person once worked at Halliburton or that another once had a meeting with oil executives. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the section of George W. Bush includes a load of information entirely unrelated to the Republican Party, such as the War on Terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq, WMD's, his congressional support, his political platform, his cabinet, his supreme court appointments, and the Patriot Act, to name a few. So please, show consistency and delete that section as well, else your actions violate WP:NPOV, as you have specifically targeted negative information about members of the current Republican administration (former PNAC). That said, I agree with you that in its current form, the PNAC article, similar to the George W. Bush section, suffers from coatracking. However, this information is actually highly relevant to PNAC, as it concerns the Iraq War and September 11th, which are both heavily tied in with this organization. Please leave the info up until someone (possibly myself) can make a new section on the PNAC page describing the relations between these events. That will turn it from coatracking to a good article. You are welcome to assume this responsibility yourself, but I do ask that you avoid content-wiping until this is done. CT0001 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, these issues are unrelated to the Republican Party? These are all major political issues in the United States, even Supreme Court appointments, and thus they, and any actions that George W. Bush takes on them, since he's the leading member of the party, are extremely relevant to the article. Contrast that with the fact that Donald Rumsfeld once worked for Gilead Sciences - it's not relevant to PNAC at all, not even tangentially. Wouldn't you agree? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
These issues are more closely related to the Presidency of George W. Bush, not the Republican Party or the History of the United States Republican Party, where that info was moved to apparently today. Summarizing and linking to those sections is more appropriate. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars belong on their respective pages, or their connection to the Republican Party in the national defense section. For example, the Afghanistan War was neither a political platform nor running for governor of California. I left the Rumsfeld & Gilead Sciences remark because I thought it was added for NPOV, but I agree that specific remark is unrelated to PNAC. Rumsfeld's actions with regard to 9-11 and Cheney's to the Iraq War are both relevant to PNAC, as PNAC had asked for both. See the "New Pearl Harbor" section, now that it is un-vandalized, as well as the Iraq War section. To make the Remarks section relevant, I have wanted to incorporate the comments into the main article for some time. See Addressing PNAC's role in 9-11. However, it is laborious work to find quality references and simply summarize instead of express opinion. CT0001 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, your outright assertion that PNAC asked for 9/11 (as opposed to simply stating that such a thing would help sway public opinion toward their view of things) indicates that we have very different perspectives on the subject matter, but in the interests of propriety I won't respond to that. Let me just say that it appears that we both agree that this table is not a suitable place for this information. You think it should be kept there until a new section is created for the information, I think it should be removed now regardless of whether a new section is created. Would you agree with that? If so, it seems to me that I have the stronger argument: if it doesn't belong, it doesn't belong. After all, if I wrote a paragraph about, say, Mary Poppins, and added it to this article, other people would be justified in removing it, and it wouldn't be right for me to keep reverting their deletions, saying that the information should stay until I had time to move it to the right place on Wikipedia. The same thing applies here, and maybe this deletion will help encourage you (or others) to create the appropriate new section more quickly. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether we have different perspectives is irrelevant, as the Wikipedia entry should contain NPOV factual content, which is something we can both strive for. Your argument about whether the information stays is moot because it's already in the right article on Wikipedia, but rather needs to be reorganized. Your deletion will have no effect on my timeline for preparing a new section, as that is a product of my own free time. Hence why I would like to have the information available to others so that they might do the job instead of me. I propose a compromise: I suggest that you selectively move ONLY the coatracked "Remarks" to a new section on the Talk page so that people have access to them. If you do so, please make sure the references are readily accessible. The Remarks section also includes other details that would otherwise muck-up a good-looking, legible table. CT0001 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But my point is that I don't think any of the remarks are worth keeping - if readers want more information on the people in question, or the position they held, they can click on the page for either. As for other editors who may want to see the old remarks, here you go - a view of the full table. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My first major suggestion is that you maintain the department categories in the table. The previous table was very easy to read and patterns of PNAC positions became evident, i.e. membership in the State Department. I apologize for being rude, but your version of the table is illegible. You can see the problem already with your addition concerning Elliott Abrams - you cannot quickly tell what position he had; it is buried in with details about his post. That's probably why the Remarks section was created in the first place - you get a quick, easy reference for department and title, and a section for details and other political affiliations.
As for where to keep the remarks for now, I had asked that they be available for other USERS, as well as EDITORS, to see. I'll give you some time to make changes in your own style incorporating my suggestions and requests (and also to respond to them) before editing the table again. CT0001 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the current table is illegible; yes, the Abrams section is long, but that's because he's had three different positions, all with very long titles - I don't know what can be done about that. The last version of the table was, I think, in some cases misleadingly simple. Abrams' entry in that one said that he was "Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs", but when, if ever, did he actually have that title? From 2001 to the present, or some subset of that time? Or maybe he maybe never did? And the entry for Robert Zoellick says that he was in the State Department, but that was only for a year; before that he spent four years in the executive office. Also, what's the difference between "users" and "editors"? Users can't read talk pages? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the new table is very hard to read, and as such, is vastly inferior to the old table. I told you what you could do about excessively long titles - they can be moved to a Remarks or Details section (and abbreviated), while the person's most recent position within the Bush administration should be briefly listed along with the relevant department. The last table was not misleading because it indicated which years the person had that specific title. Elliott Abrams' entry was indeed not complete - but that means you should add the missing information, not dismantle a table that has complete info for most other entries. A table like this needs constant updating as the politics change. In the case of Abrams, I'll provide you the info: Dec. 2002 - Feb. 2005, see this link. If Zoellick was only in the State Dept. for a year, then indicate that in the table; it's still important that he was PNAC-turned Bush administration like so many others.
Users generally read the article and do not play behind the scenes, so they will never have access to the old information if it is hidden on the Talk page. The information you removed, such as the departments, is not coatracking, so I am opposed to removing it from the main page. CT0001 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, the table (which now has two columns) is very hard to read? It's vastly inferior? It's a matter of opinion, of course, but that sounds a little extreme; and I'd find it more convincing if I knew that anyone else was unhappy about the current table. I've already noted two places in which the current version is superior, because the old version gave a summary that was confusing or misleading. By the way, that link you provided doesn't anywhere mention the phrase "Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs". Korny O'Near (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the new table is very hard to read and is vastly inferior. To quantitatively demonstrate this, obtain a timepiece and record how long it takes you to perform the following tasks with your new table and the old table. (1) Count how many PNAC members were appointed to the State Dept. (2) Count how many PNAC members were appointed to the Defense Dept. (3) Record Elliot Abrams' most recent title. (4) Determine the relationship between Randy Scheunemann and Bush's Iraq policy. Please denote the two advantages of your table; I did not find any misleading information in the last table. As for Elliot Abrams' title, the Rep. for Middle Eastern Affairs was, in my estimation, a shortened form of "Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs." You should note that the Middle East also refers to North Africa. CT0001 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Middle East" does not refer to North Africa - it includes some of the countries of North Africa, but not others; and to say that "Middle East" is a synonym for "Near East and North Africa" is off by, I'd guess, about 25 countries. In any case, even if the two were synonymous, it doesn't matter because that's not his title. It's not the job of Wikipedia to change facts around in order to make them more readable; it's to report the actual facts. And I disagree with your last question - the relationship between Randy Scheunemann and Bush's Iraq policy is not something that belongs in this article; if anywhere it belongs in Scheunemann's article, and possibly some others; but if it's not a PNAC initiative in some way, there's no reason to put it here. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Abrams' title should be preserved. I disagree about Scheunemann; Iraq has been a PNAC policy since 1997, and actions of PNAC members related to Iraq are important. You have not answered my question on quantitatively assessing the alleged superiority of the old table. CT0001 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did note that, for one of the tests that you pose, the new table gives correct information, whereas the old table gave incorrect information. As for the Randy Scheunemann test, the only thing the old table said that the new one doesn't is that he founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (not quite true, by the way - a web search reveals that he was just one of several co-founders). Is that a big deal? Did he have any influence on the Bush administration over Iraq policy? That single line doesn't convey any of that; if it's an important-enough piece of information, it belongs in the main article. So that leaves, in my mind, only the number of people who were appointed to the State and Defense departments, which doesn't strike me as a very interesting fact; it's not surprising that appointees brought in for their foreign-policy views would end up divided between those two departments. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The information in the old table was not false; at best, it was misleading. The proper remedy is to correct the information, not the structure of the table, so you should update Abrams' title and change Scheunemann's title to cofounder. The single line on Scheunemann could definitely be expanded, so why are you deleting the information instead of supplementing it? It's a single line because no one else had the time to follow through on it, but by having it in the remarks section, it allows authors like us to follow up on someone else's work. Even if it were in the main section, the table provides a quick reference guide for it. The State & Defense Department info is important as those are the two most powerful departments in the executive branch; it's not like PNAC got appointed to the Dept. of Agriculture or OSHA. Your categorization of the facts as "unsurprising" is baseless and heavily POV; someone with no background on PNAC would have no idea that its members now have so much power. The table showed a pattern of appointments that greatly helps to understand the nature of PNAC. You have made that pattern nearly impossible for others to see. I encourage you to think, "table - quick reference guide," and consider which format is better. CT0001 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Calling my statement "POV" is bizarre, given that we're in the Talk page, which is where people express their opinions. Anyway, you made the case that the new table was "vastly inferior" for several reasons, and I pointed out that some of those reasons were incorrect. As to your desire to list the department of each person in order to convey that PNAC members have a lot of power, I think it's fairly obvious to anyone that PNAC signators among them have/had a lot of authority, given that they include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. You're arguing that the table needs to hold more information in order to tell a story and display a "pattern", and that seems on the verge of coatracking: loading up information in order to convey something more than just the facts. I think we're getting to the heart of your objection to the new table: not that it's hard to read, but rather that it fails to sufficiently impress the reader with how much PNAC has insinuated itself into the corridors of power. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"New Pearl Harbor"

24.253.63.254 wiped the section on David Ray Griffin and 9-11-PNAC connections, which was totally unwarranted as the section was heavily referenced. It was replaced by an extended, unuseful passage of "Rebuilding America's Defenses." That document is already heavily cited in this article, and such a long passage wastes space and does not contribute any meaning to the article. Despite being labeled as "opinion," the original section cited published material, so user opinion was not evident. Additional references providing a counterpoint could be used for NPOV (check William Kristol's The Weekly Standard, maybe?). The existing section, if anything, should be bolstered with information from the Remarks section.CT0001 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Pearl Harbor" reference is often quoted around the internet in isolation from its context. Wikipedia should not make the same error. Otherwise the reader has no clue what "transformation" the reference is talking about. The additional text sets it in context so the reader can see the "transformation" in the text was in context of military procurement policy with respect to technology. The citing of many opinions, and there are very many out there, is unnecessary if the reader is given enough context to see for himself/herself what the meaning is. -From 24.253.63.254
24.253.63.254 - You really need to watch what you're doing here. You wiped my above comments on 2-28-08 and replaced them with your own, removing a history of discussion on your actions. That's a serious breach of Wikipedia conduct. You should also be logged in with a Username.
Back to discussing this - my above comments remain the same. You removed well-cited information claiming it was opinion. If you want to explain the "transformation," then do so, but don't waste space with a long passage from Rebuilding America's Defenses - use selected quotes instead. This is why references were created - if this page included all the referenced materials, it would be unreadable and 400p. long. Pretend you're writing a gradeschool book report and you should be fine. Additionally, there is already a section summarizing the document, so you should only be adding commentary specific to the New Pearl Harbor statement.
Absolutely do not simply remove other's work because you disagree - NPOV is about expressing BOTH sides of an issue, not deleting the side you disagree with, especially if it has published references. CT0001 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the "New Pearl Harbor" section has been removed again. Wow... yet another example of Wikipedia style censorship at it finest! All hail the New World Order... (where is my gun...) 142.46.214.106 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your gun is right next to your medication. Bonewah (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"absent of a catastrophic and catalyzing event..."

The PNAC document/contents, provides some startling and quite chilling information.

Read this line which I have abstracted from part of the original document...

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

An interesting statement to make, 12 months before the events of September 11th 2001.

I say no more. 85.233.177.86

This line and published interpretations of it are usually included in the article when not being wiped by vandals. You should log in with a Username and help maintain the availability of such information to others. CT0001 (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What, specifically, will it take to remove the NPOV message?

As you can see, there is a lot of discussion on this page, but much of it has to do with things unrelated to the NPOV message. Perhaps we could list, specifically, what it would take to remove the message? What sections are the most suspect? What wording is the most controversial? What issues still remain? A concise list would be preferable than having to crawl through this very long talk page to pull out the relevant portions about NPOV. Socratesone (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, to remove the NPOV tag, you merely need to delete the "POV" tag (surrounded by brackets, [who?]) at the top of the page, as described here. The POV tag claims it was added in May 2007. I do not see a discussion on the Talk page near that date, but I did not dig into the archive. I don't see POV evident in the article but would welcome commentary from other users. I vote that if no one has anything specific, we remove the tag in a few weeks. CT0001 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I think the "2000 election fraud" section is the only part of the article that's still a problem, POV-wise; I wouldn't be against removing the tag for the article and adding one just to that section; maybe Template:Content. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur that it would be more appropriate to have section POV tags rather than an article POV tag. Although for the section on the 2000 election fraud, I already put out a request for POV suggestions and only got the one about the recount study, which I added to the section. CT0001 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: NPOV tag removed from Elections section - absolutely no NPOV argument has been made on the Talk Page. Previous NPOV issue addressed. Without new NPOV issue, there is no need to have an NPOV tag. Additionally, the removal of the Relevance/content tag when I updated the section was accidental. CT0001 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - adding my two cents here. I think there are way too many references to opinion pieces and secondary sources here. I've made some mark-up, especially in the bit about the 2000 election. Sources I have a problem with are editorials from the Guardian and the NYT; I could come back with editorials from the WSJ or Washington Times, but I don't think those should be included to begin with. I also have a problem with the allegations of voter fraud; seems like someone has an axe to grind against conservatives here more than stating simple facts that link PNAC to any wrongdoing. I'm sure the 2000 Florida ballot issues have been bled to death in their own article; might be wise to just link to relevant sections there. My other issue; fraud being a crime, before one could really call for fraud in an encyclopedic sense, wouldn't there need to be a conviction? OK, you think Jeb is a crook and a con. You can allege that all you want and still be neutral. I think calling the election a fraud goes too far. You can point to cases of disenfranchisement by ex-felons, blacks, or military personal stationed overseas (lots of evidence on that last, but I've left it out here as it's not relevant); but calling fraud goes too far in my opinion. OK, that's my take: 1) too many opinion pieces as sources. 2) too much made of the 2000 election in Florida. 3) references to fraud where fraud has only been alleged. I hope that's helpful, and sorry if I seem to be counter-revolutionary there.Rodan32 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that this entire section reads like an essay and is a synthesis. Hence, it is original research and in conflict with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. It's not simply a matter of WP:NPOV although it's obvious that POV pushing is happening. I am contesting and removing this section. The burden of evidence is on the editor who restores it to the article. So before restoring it to the article, I would like to see a reliable source that strings these facts together in the manner presented here. In other words, that the PNAC had something to do with the results of the Florida election. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

PNAC’s Rise to Power

In 2000, PNAC signatory Dick Cheney and George W. Bush became the Vice President and President of the United States following a landmark Supreme Court decision [24][25] to not perform a recount of the Florida votes in the highly contended [26] U.S. Presidential Election in 2000. With a PNAC member in the number-two spot in the U.S. Federal Government, who could provide advice to the newly elected President on his White House appointments, many PNAC members were elevated from their nascent thinktank to many of the most powerful positions in the executive office of the United States, including Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of State, and multiple additional posts within the Defense and State Departments. It is inconclusive whether Cheney's affiliation with PNAC was related to these appointments, although it has been repeatedly alleged that Bush and Cheney had every intent of bringing PNAC’s foreign policy ideas to fruition in their administration[27][28][29][30][31][32][33].

The close election that brought Bush and Cheney to the White House hinged on the outcome of the Florida’s votes. At this time, the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush, also a PNAC signatory. Jeb Bush, along with Katherine Harris, his secretary of state, were accused by the US Commission on Civil Rights of "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency," and "gross dereliction [of duty]"[14] with regard to Florida’s 2000 presidential election, which was riddled with numerous voting fraud issues[15][16][17]. The commission found that Governor Bush knew that black voters were 10 times more likely to have their ballots rejected than white voters, often due to outdated voting technology in black and hispanic areas. It was also found that DBT Online (now ChoicePoint), the private company whose list of felons (who cannot vote in Florida[18]) included non-felons and ex-felons, had warned Jeb Bush to check for irregularities prior to using its list in the election. This problem helped swing election results, as 93% of blacks in Florida[17] (and 90% of blacks nationwide[19]) voted for Gore, and while Bush and PNAC signator Cheney's margin of victory in Florida was only 1,725 votes[20], at least 8,000 of the 173,000 people on the felons list had the right to vote, and 54% of the supposed felons were black[17]. It has been estimated that a total of 22,000 black democrats were barred from voting[dubious – discuss][21]. Jeb Bush's role in the alleged election fraud was further examined in a BBC report[21] by investigative journalist Greg Palast.

After the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow a recount in Florida, The NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a recount study that found that Bush won the 2000 election in Florida[22], albeit without counting actual votes. The possible votes from incorrectly identified felons, who were barred from filling out a ballot in the first place, were not considered[citation needed].

William Rivers Pitt has asserted that Jeb's actions in the election fraud were done deliberately so that his fellow PNAC members would be assured the high-power posts in the Federal government that they received upon Bush and Cheney taking office[23]. Bernard Weiner noted that PNAC expected victory for its candidate, Cheney, in the 2000 election, and hence penned Rebuilding America’s Defenses just two months before the election[34]. This coincidence was also noticed by writer Steve Brouwer, who further claims that the organization’s very name (coined in 1997) was anticipatory of political takeover in 2000, right at the start of the new century [35].

The lies that led to war

Here is a CBC Television documentary that may be used as a source to help improve this article. Cheers. -- Reaper X 23:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

misuse of a quote

The article states: "Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2]"

The quote from the site is : "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next." from the statement of principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I believe this is a misuse of the quote.

Eagleeyematt (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

first post :)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "PNACClinton" :
    • [[Elliott Abrams]], et al., [http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to President Bill Clinton], [[January 16]], [[1998]], ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed [[May 28]], [[2007]].
    • [http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm "Open Letter to President Bill Clinton"], [[January 16]], [[1998]], accessed [[May 28]], [[2007]].
  • "PNACSOP" :
    • [[Elliott Abrams]], et al., [http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm "Statement of Principles"], [[June 3]], [[1997]], ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed [[May 28]], [[2007]].
    • [http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm "Statement of Principles,"] ''The Project for the New American Century'', Accessed May 15, 2007.
  • "RAD2000" :
    • ''[http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century]'', 2000, ''Project for the New American Century'', accessed [[May 30]], [[2007]].
    • <ref name="Clinton_kosovo">[http://www.newamericancentury.org/kosovomilosevicsep98.htm Letter to President Clinton on Kosovo and Milosevic], ''The Project for the New American Century'', September 1998, accessed [[May 30]], [[2007]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Web site down

So what's happened to www.newamericancentury.org ? Did they not pay their rent? Har har.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Site's back up


Down again. ....well, it's up, but it redirects to a page that says "account suspended". 1/2/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.95.65 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Site's back up

Check date 4th July 2009. So why is 2006 mentioned at the start of the article for the org 'ending'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.77.172 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen J. Kantany

I removed the name "Stephen J. Kantany" from the list of "Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports" - the only citation for it was a blog post, and I haven't been able to find any other evidence of it online, or even of the existence of this person - the only web hits seem to be mirrors of this article. But if anyone knows anything about this person, please add it here. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section, what makes a critic notable enough to mention here?

A number of sentences in the controversy section seem to be based on the works of not really notable critics. What is (or should be) the criteria for including a critic or criticism in this article? Bonewah (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Any check on their CV will show that - outside the USA - they are well known within their field of understanding. Just because someone is not well known in the USA, is that enough reason to bar them?

92.17.180.137 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S: What is really notable is that this section gives more space to the PNAC co-founder than to critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.137 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disingenuous Use of "Conservative"

PNAC is associated with the neoconservative school of thought. Yet, PNAC's views are repeatedly described as "conservative," even though this disregards the substantial ideological differences between neoconservatives and other conservatives, such as paleoconservatives and libertarians. Wikidave2009 (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "imprecise" is a better word than "disingenuous" - please assume good faith. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://geneva.usmission.gov/humanrights/usdel.html
  2. ^ http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
  3. ^ (2002) "US and the triumph of unilateralism," The Asia Times Online, Accessed May 22, 2007.
  4. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030321070617/www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf
  5. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030212225110/www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm
  6. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
  7. ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
  8. ^ http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0111-Before911.html
  9. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030321070720/www.newamericancentury.org/Schmitt-112000.pdf
  10. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030221100432/www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-080602.htm
  11. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20021219164131/www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-082102.htm
  12. ^ Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, "'We've Got the Right Enemies'", CounterPunch, accessed May 31, 2007.
  13. ^ "About Us: The Media Is the Enemy", American Free Press, accessed May 31, 2007.
  14. ^ a b c "Jeb Bush blamed for unfair Florida election", by Julian Borger in the Guardian Unlimited Cite error: The named reference "GuardianJeb" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  15. ^ a b c "Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud", by Alastair Thompson in Scoop Cite error: The named reference "ScoopDiebold" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  16. ^ a b c "Hack The Vote" by Paul Krugman in the New York Times Cite error: The named reference "NYTimesDiebold" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Florida's flawed 'voter-cleansing' program" by Greg Palast in Salon Cite error: The named reference "SalonFLCleaning" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  18. ^ a b c "Florida Governor Is Hoping to Restore Felon Voting Rights", by Abby Goodnough in the New York Times Cite error: The named reference "TimesFelons" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b c Exit polls of the 2000 US Presidential Election, CNN
  20. ^ a b c Voter Results in Florida, CNN
  21. ^ a b c d e Report by Greg Palast], BBC. Transcript at BBC. Cite error: The named reference "BBCPalastVid" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  22. ^ a b c "Florida Recount Study: Bush still wins," CNN. Cite error: The named reference "CNNrecount" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  23. ^ a b c "Of Gods and Mortals and Empire," by William Rivers Pitt, Truthout Cite error: The named reference "PittPNACElection" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  24. ^ a b Supreme Court of the United States: George W. Bush, et al. PETITIONERS vs. Albert Gore, Jr., et al., December 12, 2000.
  25. ^ a b Paddock, Lisa. “Supreme Court for Dummies,” October 2002. Selected excerpt: Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore.
  26. ^ a b Guardian Staff. US Elections 2000 Timeline, Guardian Unlimited, December 14, 2000.
  27. ^ a b Mackay, Neil. “Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President,” Sunday Herald, September 15, 2002.
  28. ^ a b Koppel, Ted. “Were 1998 Memos a Blueprint for War?”, ABC News’ Nightline, March 5, 2003. Transcript posted on March 10, 2003. Cite error: The named reference "BushCheneyPNAC2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  29. ^ a b Koppel, Ted. “The Plan,” ABC News’ Nightline, March 5, 2003. Cite error: The named reference "BushCheneyPNAC3" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  30. ^ a b [[Bill Moyers|Moyers, Bill]. “Buying the War,” PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal, April 25, 2007. Transcript available. Relevant subsection at Crooks and Liars. Cite error: The named reference "BushCheneyPNAC4" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  31. ^ a b Morgan, John-David. “The Report that Laid Out the Eminence of War,” WatchdogMilwaukee, March 31, 2005.
  32. ^ a b Behan, R.W. “The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War,” Common Dreams, December 3, 2006.
  33. ^ a b Floyd, Chris. “Smells Like Team Spirit: Bush’s B-Boys Replay their Greatest Hits,” CounterPunch, February 9, 2004.
  34. ^ a b Weiner, Bernard. “How We Got Into this Imperial Pickle: a PNAC Primer,” The Crisis Papers, May 26, 2003.
  35. ^ a b Brouwer, Steve. “Robbing Us Blind: The Return of the Bush Gang and the Mugging of America,” June 1, 2003. Relevant excerpt at Third World Traveler. Cite error: The named reference "BrouwerElection" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century/Archive_3&oldid=1191953902"