MoodyGroove (talk | contribs) |
MoodyGroove (talk | contribs) →This is not a biography: MoveOn, BLP, and good faith |
||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
:::::ok, so they are similar, and BLP applies to all content in both? Great! MoodyGrove - could you head over the the [[moveon.org]] page and remove the content from the criticism section about anti-semitism there,and note BLP concerns? Thanks!. If you look at the talk page, it was not much of a controversy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MoveOn#Criticism - even less RS than this thing. |
:::::ok, so they are similar, and BLP applies to all content in both? Great! MoodyGrove - could you head over the the [[moveon.org]] page and remove the content from the criticism section about anti-semitism there,and note BLP concerns? Thanks!. If you look at the talk page, it was not much of a controversy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MoveOn#Criticism - even less RS than this thing. |
||
The criticism was not published in any Reliable source as this one was, just a handful of blog entries. Are you up for it Moody? if so, I will believe you are truly,truly in good faith. :) |
The criticism was not published in any Reliable source as this one was, just a handful of blog entries. Are you up for it Moody? if so, I will believe you are truly,truly in good faith. :) |
||
:::::*See this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=prev&oldid=130312488 reply]. It wasn't just a handful of blog entries. I know you're being light hearted here, and I appreciate that, but retracting an ill-considered accusation of bad faith editing should not be contingent on my doing anything. [[User:MoodyGroove|MoodyGroove]] 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove |
|||
::::: Onto the bioweapons thing. This info is not in this wikipage now. The Original research stuff was removed days ago, with my blessing. A letter about the controversy is currently published on the PNAC website, however, which gives some credible information. So I doubt they think that merely mentioning the controversy is somehow libelous. But lets just table the whole question of the [[Austin-American Statesman]] Bioweapons thing. I put up above on talk my humble attempt to make a fair version - as I said before I have no intention of moving this live without a consensus opinion. Since this is off the table - what are the other BLP concerns?--[[User:Boscobiscotti|Boscobiscotti]] 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
::::: Onto the bioweapons thing. This info is not in this wikipage now. The Original research stuff was removed days ago, with my blessing. A letter about the controversy is currently published on the PNAC website, however, which gives some credible information. So I doubt they think that merely mentioning the controversy is somehow libelous. But lets just table the whole question of the [[Austin-American Statesman]] Bioweapons thing. I put up above on talk my humble attempt to make a fair version - as I said before I have no intention of moving this live without a consensus opinion. Since this is off the table - what are the other BLP concerns?--[[User:Boscobiscotti|Boscobiscotti]] 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:37, 12 May 2007
- Talk page archives
- /Archive 1 - up to and including 2004
- /Archive 2 - posts from 2005 and 2006
Question
May I ask a question? References 12 and 13, in the 'Controversy' section, both lead to documents on the 'Springerlink' website about genetic modification of plants, in particular fungi. Are these really a useful link when talking about the PNAC document's discussion of possible future uses in bio-warfare? I'm not an expert in this field, but can't someone find a more appropriate link?--Lopakhin 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
PNAC defunct??
see this BBC article.
From the article:
"The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown."
"The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up. "
"Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."
"Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era."
"Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said."
This article needs to be updated.
Yeago 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Superscript text
Socioeconomic?
What is the socioeconomic vision of PNAC for rest of the world? Known 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Page
With respect to the page number concerning ethnocentric warfare the page number is 60. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guam is good (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
More Info on the group
Most of the sources for this article come from critics of the group and include mainly criticisms of the groups goals, but there seems to be little linking to information about the group itself (the structure, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.118.123 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree. more research is needed in this area. especially what consitutes membership, or who signed letters. more about the financial structure. nuts and bolts stuff.--Boscobiscotti 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Too Much Opinion
In the table entry for Richard Armitage: "Committed treason by disclosing Valerie Plame's identity (Plamegate scandal)."
Treason is a very serious charge to state in an entry when no such charges have been made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megatech (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Amiraqa site gone
are there any archives or backups of this site, as the book itself claims that the list of sources was on the website that seems to now be defunct.
KurtFF8 04:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Source for members?
I think there needs to be a source for the listed members. There is an interview with Bill Kristol on the Colbert Report where he claims that Rumsfeld wasn't a member of the PNAC and that he just signed some of the letters.
If this is the case and the signatories of the letters are the only source for who some of the members were, then the article needs to be revised.
KurtFF8 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am checking members. I think the section could be changed to: "members and signatories" I removed Karl Rove - since a cursory google search of the pnac site gave no hits.--Boscobiscotti 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing all unsourced, poorly sourced, weasel, or original research comments to talk page
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Critics allege that the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a U.S. dominance in world affairs. Some have argued the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
- What are the weasel words here? "some have argued?" without a citation I do agree that this phrase is weaselish. There is a citation earlier in the article about this, however. but this section is about Controversy not whether what critics have said is true or not. What we need here is not to remove the controversy, but to cite what critics have said vs what PNAC supporters have said. I do agree that 'global domination' is an overly loaded phrase - American Hegemony might be more accurate. --Boscobiscotti 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- on second thought - I have been researching what critics said. So far I have found three sources which call the plans of PNAC "global domination". Do you contest that people characterize their reports that way? or is it that you dont agree with that characterization? Personally I barely find this controversial. If you look a the reports, they seem to clearly make a case for america more agressively becoming a sole superpower. I have edited this section, and added a reference. --Boscobiscotti 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comments on the current revision of this section? what do you think? it has been cut down, and reworked.--Boscobiscotti 00:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- on second thought - I have been researching what critics said. So far I have found three sources which call the plans of PNAC "global domination". Do you contest that people characterize their reports that way? or is it that you dont agree with that characterization? Personally I barely find this controversial. If you look a the reports, they seem to clearly make a case for america more agressively becoming a sole superpower. I have edited this section, and added a reference. --Boscobiscotti 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- What are the weasel words here? "some have argued?" without a citation I do agree that this phrase is weaselish. There is a citation earlier in the article about this, however. but this section is about Controversy not whether what critics have said is true or not. What we need here is not to remove the controversy, but to cite what critics have said vs what PNAC supporters have said. I do agree that 'global domination' is an overly loaded phrase - American Hegemony might be more accurate. --Boscobiscotti 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
*This may be true, but needs a reference.
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.Restored with reference. MoodyGroove 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Stringing these facts together in this manner implies that September 11 was used as an excuse to engage in warfare that was already planned. Hence it is original research:
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"[1] After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds. 2003 invasion of Iraq- Moody- I this part was removed. Your criticism is well taken. I am doing a strikeout on it.
- Weasel words, poorly sourced, original research:
- The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[2][3] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.[4]
- The above section has been reworded, and some sourcing added. please take a look--Boscobiscotti 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[2][3] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.[4]
- Not sourced:
- Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left. [citation needed]
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[5] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[6] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote to support the argument that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
- This section has been sourced. lets take a look and identify weasel words--Boscobiscotti 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[5] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[6] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote to support the argument that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
Other critics make the claim the PNAC conflicts with long held American values and it is in fact, a plan to overthrow the democratic republic of the United States.- striking out - this section has been removed.--Boscobiscotti 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unsourced and by stringing it together in this manner, original research:
Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean [stated on page 60][citation needed]; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype[7], a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.[8][9] Both Israel[10] and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.
- Striking this concern for now, since the text has been removed, and we are discussing it in another area of the talk page.--Boscobiscotti 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Many critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq claim the U.S.' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration.
- Weasel words, unsourced or original research:
- Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",[11] showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' former and current ambassador to the United Nations , respectively.
- This is truly the most shameful POV pushing I have ever seen on the English Wikipedia. Placing it under "Controversy" does not obviate the need to be responsible. Since the Project for the New American Century is composed of notable living persons, the same policy standards should apply to this article that apply to biographies of living persons. As a reminder, "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And yes, the cited source needs to be reliable, verifiable, and substantiate the text it is linked to. Fringe theories in particular should be very well sourced. MoodyGroove 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Hi Moody. so we meet again. you may have some concerns, but in fact 1) this is not a biography of a living person 2) when in doubt, do not do massive deletions, but improve. You have completely removed the entire controversy section. In fact PNAC is a controversial organization. Whitewashing this fact does not make the controversy dissapear. I agree that comments should be sourced and well considered.
PNAC is a historic and influential organization, as well as a controversial one. see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html for a sourced example of how they are considered to be influential.--Boscobiscotti 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree, Boscobiscotti. I found the edits in question quite distasteful, and I feel quite certain that I improved the article and protected the integrity of the Wikipedia by removing them. I was well within my rights to delete the material. Note that I moved it to the talk page as a courtesy. Biography of a living person or not, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores the material. That's not even controversial. But I'd be happy to read the link you provided. Best, MoodyGroove 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Incidentally, it's not my desire to make the controversy disappear. I just wanted it presented in a responsible manner. Best, MoodyGroove 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- I have been reading through your suggestions for removal. I think that some are valid, but in some cases, it would be better to tag with [citation needed] and find citations, because the claim is not outlandish, it is simply that the claim is not cited. for example, we could remove the entire table of members, etc, etc, because little of that is cited. I have been going through that table, and updating with correct information, from the participants wikipedia pages. I looked a bit into the stuff about the biological ethnic weapons, stuff, and found a source for this cricism. I think it should probably be put back in, along with response from PNAC, which is available on their website.
--Boscobiscotti 11:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, here is the link to the PNAC website, where they make response to the ethnic biological weapons claim. Evidently they took this controversy seriously enough to respond. see http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20031125.htm
On November 16, 2003, the Austin-American Statesman ran a book review by Kip Keller that claimed a report by the Project for the New American Century advocated the use of genetically targeted biological weaponry. Mr. Keller further suggested that individuals with ties to PNAC endorsed "genocide."
Subsequently, we asked the Austin-American Statesman to correct the assertion that our report advocates biological warfare or genocide in any way, shape, or form. The Statesman refused to issue a correction, arguing that in the context of the PNAC report as a whole, it is somehow ambiguous whether the sentence in question proposes the use of biological weapons with genocidal potential.
- It was indeed a controversy. we can report the controversy on wikipedia without taking sides.--Boscobiscotti 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. It sounds shocking, speculative, and defamatory to me. I don't know who Kip Keller is, or why a book reviewer was making these sorts of reckless allegations against PNAC, but I would personally need to see more evidence that the controversy is notable in the mainstream media or based on some kind of evidence. That's why I want a fresh set of eyes on our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- sure that's fine. here is my proposed start of a rewrite of the "biological ethnic" weapons controversy. I think that it is enough evidence to point to both the original article, and the response by PNAC. Reporting on a shocking claim does not mean that you endorse the claim. But the editorial board of the paper felt it was plausible enough to refuse to issue a retraction.The fact that PNAC responded with a formal letter, meant that they felt the source was notable. Here is my proposed start to a rewrite of that controversy. I encourage you to look at the PNAC letter to provide the rebuttal from PNAC POV.
"Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America.[1] quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report:
"Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."[12] as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him, he continued "That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment.(here would go PNAC response.)--Boscobiscotti 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- read about the Austin American Statesman it is the major daily newspaper in Austin.
- Ok. here is a proposed rewrite of the "bioweapons" controversy. let me know what you think. I did my best to represent both sides of the controvery. In case you're concerned - I have no intention of putting this on the main page without a discussion of anything found to be POV or unverifiable:
- "Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. [2] quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."[13] as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him. He continued
The Austin-American Statesman refused to issue a correction stating that the quoted sentance was "ambiguous." PNAC responded with a letter > refuting the claim, and explaining that the context of the quote was "methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not ... actions we recommend." and that indeed no recommendation for use of biological weapons was made in the report. The letter went on to state:That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment.
--Boscobiscotti 18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Keller's outlandish accusation ... is both disgusting and utterly false.... [to] selectively use a quotation from the report without providing appropriate context but also then accuse people of supporting "genocide" is truly appalling.
- "Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. [2] quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."[13] as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him. He continued
- That is a huge improvement, but I'm still not satisfied, because you're giving a fringe theory undue weight. When I performed a Google search using the search terms "Project for the New American Century" and "Kip Keller" I got 4 hits. The first is the PNAC response to the book review. The second is a blog calling the Kip Keller review the "hateful attack of the week." The third is a link to the first hit. The last was some kind of porn site. Clearly this "controversy" isn't notable.
- From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In my opinion, every trace of this manufacturered (and de-bunked) "controversy" should be eliminated from the talk page. Clearly it was only inserted into this article to spread misinformation about the PNAC. MoodyGroove 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Hmm. perhaps you are right on that. The angle of minority viewpoint is reasonable. It pains me that my lovely attempt at NPOV prose which I labored over will be consigned to an eternal garbage heap, But so it goes. Lets move bravely onward! I have two questions:
- 1) What other specific BLP violations do you see in the Article so that we may address them? I see some Verifiability and RS questions - But no BLP ones. Please enlighten me so that we may deal with them immediately.
- 2) Are you willing to back me up if I go to moveon.org and challenge a debunked minority viewpoint about their alleged "anti-semitism" (interesting especially in context of founder being Jewish). Per the page see comments: This was certainly not "a major controversy." I just did a Google news search and found only a handful of mentions on weblogs, and none in a major media outlet.? I would appreciate the support, since I am concerned about the possibility of another WikiMaelstrom.--Boscobiscotti 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will look into it tomorrow. MoodyGroove 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- A Google search with the search terms "MoveOn" and "anti-semitic" and "bulletin" or "message" and "board" yeilds 123,000 G-hits. I'm in no way suggesting that MoveOn is anti-semetic, but it would seem to indicate that, unlike the alleged PNAC genocide controversy, the episode involving the MoveOn bulletin board is notable. Sorry, Boscobiscotti. You can remove it (if it's not well sourced) but chances are it's been in the mainstream media. Having said that, it needs to be presented fairly, from a neutral point of view, and show both sides of the controversy. MoodyGroove 12:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- I think you've done a lot to improve the article, and I give you credit for that. I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons by a third party who has not been involved in our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Project for The New American Century is not a living person, its an organization!
- The article contains a list of living persons, and the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons states: editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, "and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia..." (emphasis added). The broader point is, we need to get it right, and we need to cite reliable sources, especially when discussing living persons and controversial organizations made up of identifiable living persons. Regards, MoodyGroove 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Adding the following section from my Talk page to this discussion, since it gives additional history of changes:
I recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, particularly the burden of evidence. You are currently restoring content to the Project for the New American Century without reliable and verifiable references. Jimmy Wales has spoken on this matter personally, which you can read yourself at the link I provided. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, but I will take it to the next level, because the edits you're restoring are completely irresponsible. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
replied on your talk page --Boscobiscotti 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of the lead seems reasonable, but I don't understand why you insist on replacing unsourced content that contains weasel words, particularly since I've made verifiability an issue. Yes, I removed a lot of content, but not as brutishly as you make it sound. I carefully read each item, and placed them in separate bullet points, with explanations for each. If something was referenced, I weighed the reliability of the reference, whether or not it corresponded with the claim that was made (look at the "smoking gun" reference for example), and whether or not the way it was strug together constituted original research. The Controversy section is extremely problematic. I just don't understand why you're defending it in its current form. MoodyGroove 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Brutish? love that word. I suspect no pixels were killed in your edit, and no brutality involved :) However, it is indeed a massive edit. (perhaps heroic, not brutish, who knows?, I dont.) but large, as in: you removed the *entire* controversy section, including references. bingo - wipeout. no controversy. I suggest we work together to improve that section. I am sure we come from differing viewpoints, and together we can fashion a fair representation of the controversy.--Boscobiscotti 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Boscobiscotti. I apologize for bristling. I don't know where you live but it's almost 0200 here on the east coast of the U.S. I need to get some shut eye, but I'll stop back tomorrow and see how it's coming along. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- well I do have a day job. I have started with the first section and tried to remove some POV, and source claims. perhaps you will want to tweak that. as time permits, I will attempt to move through, read and address your comments as time permits in the next couple days.. lets improve and remove specific weaselish words, phrases,etc. --Boscobiscotti 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's an improvement. Keep in mind that some comments have multiple problems. For example, "Some have argued the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.[citation needed]" Problem 1: "Some have argued" is a weasel phrase. Problem 2: No citation. Problem 3: Hence it is original research. It's not a matter of cleaning up a comment like this, so much as removing it from the article pending a reliable source being added that explicitly makes this connection. Here's another example. "The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism." A comment like this needs multiple citations. MoodyGroove 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- I think you've done a lot to improve the article, and I give you credit for that. I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons by a third party who has not been involved in our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
And from your MoodyGrove's talk page:
You removed a large amount of text, some which was sourced, and some not so well sourced. Instead of attempting to improve on the text(not mine, as a matter of fact) you simply removed entire sections. I have worked on, for example one of the first sections which you had a legitimate concern about - that it gave a single POV - I attempted to introduce two views, instead of simply removing the controversy.. take a look.
--Boscobiscotti 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- responded to your comment on my talk page. lets work deliberately through the article to make it better sourced, and less POV, while retaining the details.--Boscobiscotti 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of anything, Boscobiscotti. I think you've done a lot to improve the article. I just want to check my own POV against other Wikipedia editors that were not involved in our content dispute, to help ensure fairness and neutrality, although for the record, we could have worked through my concerns from the talk page, without restoring them while they were under dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- That is fine with me. I didnt think you were. I have no problem with involving other editors. In fact I wish there were a bunch more people working on this article, all from varied points of view, because I do believe this group was obviously quite influential in the Bush administration in general, and more specifically in the move to invade Iraq. I think everyone suffers if the article includes only accusations, with no countering arguments. but also if it only presents talking points put forth by the group itself, without clearly discussing point by point the large controversy which continues to swirl around this group.--Boscobiscotti 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a biography
Why is this article in Biography? check: from the WP:BLP page "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons - PNAC is not a living person the only "biographical" information contained here is the table on appointments of PNAC members and signatories to the Bush administration. I have been going painstakingly through that section and checking it all against wikipedia sources. what biographical material is in question here? --Boscobiscotti 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the Project for the New American Century article section on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Athaenara 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The very fact that we're discussing whether or not PNAC members condone or planned genocide is reason enough to make sure it conforms with Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. MoodyGroove 01:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- You are stretching the facts. there was no discussion of whether genocide in fact was planned. There was a discussion of a controversy where a reporter claimed that PNAC condoned the use of methods which could lead to genocide. eI approved of you removing the previous edit which was inferential. this controversy was not something I had previously heard of, so I did some research. The controversy exists, it is a "real controversy." - Or perhaps should be worded a "real criticism." See above for my rewording. I think the PNAC letter does a good job of supporting their point of view on the criticism let's include it also. Look. the Moveon.org wikipage quotes a criticism thusly "Ads by the NRCC in the 2004 race in support of Gerlach accused MoveOn (and Murphy) of supporting the Taliban and rape of women.[4]" - That is currently on the controversy page now. as well as this "Ads by Jim Gerlach against Lois Murphy ...accuse MoveOn (and Murphy for accepting donations from MoveOn) of being anti-semitic and anti-Catholic." This is reporting on a criticism which was made. Do you think that should not be included because it suggests that Moveon actually supports the Taliban, rape of women etc? In fact on that page, there is no counter argument. I think those quotes should be allowed to stay on the Moveon page, because they document some notable criticisms which were made. They do not attest to the falsity or truth of the claims.
- I know this is a rule somewhere, but I havent been at wikipedia for too long. I will search for it. -- Boscobiscotti 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:MoodyGroove is not stretching the facts. A reading of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy page will help you to understand how and why the policy applies to this article. — Athaenara 05:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I read it. I re-read it. please state the basis. are you suggesting that we should go to the moveon.page and remove those documented criticisms of the organization and a poliitcal candidate they supported because they are outrageous? Is it a biography page as well? What makes these two organizations different? --Boscobiscotti 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:BLP:
- The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
- Nothing makes these two organizations different. They are both subject to the BLP policy. What is different is that the accusations about Moveon represent the views of a substantial number of critics, and the accusations that this group wants to commit genocide represent the views of a tiny minority. Ken Arromdee 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- ok, so they are similar, and BLP applies to all content in both? Great! MoodyGrove - could you head over the the moveon.org page and remove the content from the criticism section about anti-semitism there,and note BLP concerns? Thanks!. If you look at the talk page, it was not much of a controversy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MoveOn#Criticism - even less RS than this thing.
The criticism was not published in any Reliable source as this one was, just a handful of blog entries. Are you up for it Moody? if so, I will believe you are truly,truly in good faith. :)
- See this reply. It wasn't just a handful of blog entries. I know you're being light hearted here, and I appreciate that, but retracting an ill-considered accusation of bad faith editing should not be contingent on my doing anything. MoodyGroove 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Onto the bioweapons thing. This info is not in this wikipage now. The Original research stuff was removed days ago, with my blessing. A letter about the controversy is currently published on the PNAC website, however, which gives some credible information. So I doubt they think that merely mentioning the controversy is somehow libelous. But lets just table the whole question of the Austin-American Statesman Bioweapons thing. I put up above on talk my humble attempt to make a fair version - as I said before I have no intention of moving this live without a consensus opinion. Since this is off the table - what are the other BLP concerns?--Boscobiscotti 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Position on Iraq invasion
Removed the following
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."[14]
Because it made it look as if this was justification for the Iraq war, no source cited for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zx398er (talk • contribs) 02:00, May 9, 2007 (UTC)
Guerrilla mediation request
Template:Guerrilla-mediation-request Problem: Dispute about whether this article is a biography, or subject to Biography article rules. And if so, why. If not, why not? And if it is which rules? and which parts of the article? all of it? People: MoodyGrove, Boscobiscotti Desired Outcome: I would like a few additional opinions on this, along with explanations as to the reasoning. In my opinion this is not a biography, and should not be under this dispute. I looked on the biography dispute page, and this is the only non-biography on the page. --Boscobiscotti 06:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you look in the noticeboard archives, which are listed and linked in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc, you will find quite a few. — Athaenara 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a few. and they cite which particular biographical facts in the article an editor is concerned about
for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_WP:BLP_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D this is a list of people (not an organization) and the editor cites concerns specifically about whether mention of Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity is libelous. this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive16#Ongoing_court_cases_.28January_2007_Birmingham_Raid.29 mentions specific concerns the individual has about claims sourced to a newspaper which quotes an anonymous source. In this article about an organization under BLP rules: it was determined that there were no BLP concerns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive14#Scientology_Finance
- The problem I am having here, is that I *really don't get* what current biographical facts in this article are under contest as libelous, or questionable and without sources. There are still some unsourced criticisms of the political views put forth by the organization but Moody and I have agreed upon removal of what he felt was mischaracterization - but what I dont get is what this has to do with biography. In my opinion, Moody and I were working along, improving the article, addressing his concerns about [Wikipedia:Verifiability], and now there is this whole meta-discussion. I initially supported the idea, because I thought it would bring more editors to the article to work on improvement. but instead we have meta stuff. Could you please explain what biographical facts currently contained in this article are in dispute? I can't seem to get a precise answer to this question. If I could understand Moody's current concerns, then we can address them. The problem I have is with removing sourced, or noncontroversial material along with questionable material--Boscobiscotti 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I noted on the biographies of living persons notice board:
- "...I didn't just delete material, which I had every right to do (and perhaps should have done). Rather, I moved the questionable content to the talk page, with bullet points for each. The "sourced material" you're referring to was part of a connect-the-dots narrative that was original research, in my opinion...it's clear that all material on the Wikipedia needs to be well sourced and accurate. Considering the notability and high profile of the members of PNAC, and the fact that the article lists them by name, I believe that the intent of biographies of living persons applies. Arguing that this article is somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy on the grounds that it's not, strictly speaking, a biography, borders on WikiLawyering. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether or not to include an alleged controversy that implies PNAC members somehow condone genocide, based on a book review in a Texas newspaper. Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Dan Quayle, et al. That is reason enough for the article to be seriously reviewed for compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, including biographies of living persons (for obvious reasons)."
- I can't state it any clearer than that. Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to retract your comment that my edits were in bad faith. MoodyGroove 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- My impression was that you did the edit in bad faith. Perhaps I was wrong! To explain: my first impulse had I been you would have been to act in a more conservative fashion and only remove the original research stuff on the bioweapons - and put [citation needed] tags and a discussion of proposed changes in the rest, because the rest, though missing some sources, is within reason. In fact, since then, many of the parts you were concerned about have been sourced, and a few have been removed. looking at the history of the page, I saw that the controversy section you removed had been worked on in good faith by many editors over many months. thus my concerns about removing the whole thing to the talk page, instead of being more selective. throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Looking at the page now, after so many changes, I wonder what you think is a BLP issue now? I see none.--Boscobiscotti 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, the burden of evidence rests squarely on the shoulders of the editor who adds or restores controversial content to the encyclopedia. I was under no good faith obligation to tag the content as needing a reference. Please know that this is a core principle of the Wikipedia. As a courtesy, I removed the disputed content to the talk page. Why do you find fault with that? You were wrong to restore it while it was under dispute. I'm still not pleased with the quality (or absence) of the references in the Controversy section, (which I think is way too extensive considering the size of the article). I also think the section reads like a conspiracy theory that blames PNAC for the war in Iraq. But I'm glad we've come to terms on the genocide issue. Regards, MoodyGroove 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
References
- ^ http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
- ^ http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000992.php
- ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/shoulders/report011204.pdf
- ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
- ^ Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 51
- ^ Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 50
- ^ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/
- ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/?mode=boolean&k=doi%3a(BF00871954)&sortorder=asc
- ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/gjw86146823005rk/
- ^ "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in". The Sunday Times. 1998-11-15.
{{cite news}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
- ^ Kip Keller, Austin American Statesman, November 16, 2003
- ^ Kip Keller, Austin American Statesman, November 16, 2003
- ^ http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf