Talk:Project for the New American Century

I changed the wording since I think its supporters would agree (and in fact be flattered) by the term right-wing think tank.

I have serious problems with this -

"The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks were said in a PNAC report to provide the new Pearl Harbor, described as the opportunity of ages [3] in order to justify the Iraq attack plans and US global domination to the public."

Firstly, the ZMag article that is linked to doesn't actually say this. It says they'd found a document two years ago (the article was written on December 12, 2002) saying :

What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

Obviously, if this document was written two years before 2002, they can't have described 9/11 as this event. Secondly, ZMag is hardly the most reliable source of NPOV information on American foreign policy. I note that there is no reference to where this document they claim to have might be accessed, although I have e-mailed them requesting further information.

I believe I've seen this on the PNAC website itself. I don't know if they have remove it, though. If one can find it, one should replace the links to the zmag website.

I'm not confident enough around here yet to edit it myself, but if someone could let me know if I should that'd be cool. I must admit to not being entirely neutral on this subject myself, but I believe I have uncovered a factual inaccuracy here. Thanks - Noung 23:14 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

well, as it is, it isn't NPOV, b/c it makes a conclusion based on information, rather than simply supplying that infomation. Feel free to try to make it NPOV, just don't go overboard. Be critical of your changes. MB 02:00 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say simply deleting the references to PNAC would be better than leaving them as is... or at least some comment about there being much debate and partisan disagreement about the matter. Under those terms, I think mentioning the PNAC would be appropriate and informative. As written, it's at best partisan rhetoric... at worst it is simply inacurrate and has no place in an Encyclopedia. DO - June 11, 2003

If there is a plan for the war in Iraq, a better reference is needed. The NPAC Rebuilding document doesn't have a war plan. Is having two bases in the area a war plan? --SEWilco 08:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the relationship between PNAC and other organizations needs to be a little more specific than being in the same building. SEWilco 15:37, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also in the same building:

Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation
American Fiber Manufacturers Association
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
New Citizenship Project
The Churchill Center

Jones lists JEB as a PNAC founder, that's signif if true. Kwantus

No, the "Pearl Harbour" statement from PNAC's report doesn't "prove" complicity. But ask yourself this - why was that statement in the report? Was the author just letting his mind wander? Daydreaming? Everything gets written for a reason, so what was the author trying to communicate with that statement? Personally, I think that statement is extremely suspect. ManWithoutAName.

Why was the statement in the report? Simple. The authors saw a threat that was not being taken a seriously as it should had been. They saw threats to the United States going largely unchecked and unchallenged, becoming more sophisticated and more entrenched with each passing year.

It did not take genius to see that without virtually any proactive steps being taken to counter this threat, it was only a matter of time until a worse case scenario took place right under our noses. TDC 15:48, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Rebuilding [sic America's Defences [sic] is a derivative of an earlier Wolfowitz US-uber-alles document, Defense Planning Guidance, leaked to the New York Times in March 1992, causing a minor ruckus.[1][2]

PNAC probably named itself from Luce's 1941 essay "The American Century" advocating US participation in WWII. There are similar the-world-needs-American-values-imposed-on-it tones. Even without that, there's some agreement that Luce invented the term.[3]

Previous user said that George W. Bush is a member. Haven't been able to find anything explicitly stating this.. Anybody? Rhymeless 20:20, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bush, Iraq and PNAC

There are changes going on that would delete the mentioning of the strong links of the Bush government to the PNAC, would call into question the obvious support of the PNAC for the war in Iraq, and would downplay the criticism of the PNAC by singling out "leftist" and "isolationist" critics. Please suggest a solution to these problems. Get-back-world-respect 02:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(a) I suppose this sentence is not enough for you - With the election of George W. Bush, many of PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration. Or the fact that an entire section of the article is about this very topic? No, it has to be included in sentences even where it makes absolutely no sense. (b) If RAD supports the war in Iraq, show me a quote. I looked through the entire report and verified there is no such advice. I suspect you have not. (c) "Singles out", you mean saying "particularly"? Are you disputing this? In reality, this understates the case. VV[[]] 02:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

a) The strong links to the Bush government are a substantial part of the criticism. b) It is obvious by all PNAC member statements that its policies were supportive of the war. If you disagree with this common knowledge show a quote. c) "Particularly" is ridiculous when practically everyone who is not on the extreme right criticizes. What about "a large percentage of the US population and an estimated 95% of all foreigners who know what PNAC is"? Get-back-world-respect 02:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(a) What was said made no sense; a criticism of policy goals can not be that they are being implemented. (b) That's not what the sentence you are pushing says. (c) Your breakdown of the political spectrum is ridiculous - the PNAC "extreme right"? I noted groups most vocal, which is useful information. Stop just reverting everything I work on. VV[[]] 03:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

a) A criticism of a thinktank can include that a particular non-elected group has too much influence on the government b) I am not pushing any sentence, but the version you want makes it seem as if the PNAC did not support the war c) Groups most vocal in the US are isolationist and extreme-left? Is that a joke? Foreigners are not vocal because you do not listen to them? So are you an isolationist? I do not revert any useful changes you make. Get-back-world-respect 03:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(a) Then write that, instead of reinserting gibberish. (b) You are pushing by reverting; my edit is factual, something you seem to care nothing about. (c) They are good examples of political positions with most vocal anti-PNAC adherents. VV[[]] 03:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not write any of this, just oppose tendentious editing of it. If you think information is slightly inaccurate correcting rather than removing it would be helpful. Get-back-world-respect 03:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are pushing this version with your reverts. That is not productive. Stop stalking me; I am improving the article, you are trying to wreck it. VV[[]] 03:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am improving the article, you are trying to wreck it. is about as productive as "You are either with us or without us". At least we are without edit wars for a while now. Get-back-world-respect 03:31, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protection requested

This page was asked to be protected because of VeryVerily's ignorance of the three revert rule and his refusal to back his actions with valuable argumentation, not even in edit summaries. Get-back-world-respect 00:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see, and you are a distant observer of this lonesome behavior of mine? V V 00:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I explained my edits when I made them, back before you reverted them for the twentieth time. V V 00:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You do not explain your reverts, you even restart revert wars that had led to protection last time at Anti-American sentiment and you refused discussion in the meantime, that is why you already made it twice to Requests for comment. But go ahead, explain us why "critics are leftist isolationists" is neutral. Get-back-world-respect 01:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By "restart[ing] revert wars", you mean reinstating my edits that you had erased so many times it led to protection? Really, protection is not an endorsement of a particular version, so the fact that your version was protected does not mean it "wins" and that I will not repair your damage when protection is off. (And again you portray yourself as having nothing to do with the revert war.) If you have specific grievances with the text, you should focus on them instead of going revert-crazy. I already tried to adapt to your concerns by making alterations, but it did not stop your flurry of reverts, so I hope you'll understand that I have little incentive to try anymore. V V 01:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so convincingly to my question why "critics are leftist isolationists" is neutral. Get-back-world-respect 01:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And thank you for answering my question as to whether you are "a distant observer of this lonesome behavior of mine". V V 01:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I already told you elsewhere, unlike you, I have a habit of explaining my edits, and I ask for protection rather than revert ad nauseam. Do you think it is clever to evade a question by asking a stupid one yourself? Get-back-world-respect 01:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As characterizing critics as "leftist isolationists" is clearly not neutral I insist the page must be protected from known abusers who ignore the three revert rule, refuse to discuss and rather personally attack others. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 Get-back-world-respect 02:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have made this, well, not entirely intelligent comment repeatedly, with no justification. Nowhere in the text is there mention of "leftist isolationists", nor any of the other variations on this you have invented. I can only guess, since you appear to be literate, at why you failed to notice the and between the two words. To add to this, critics were not characterized as leftist or isolationist, but rather the text stated that these groups were particularly prone to be opposed to the PNAC's agenda, and indeed I think it's a good sampling of the most vocal opposition. Again, I am mystified at why you would say it's "characterizing critics as 'leftist isolationists'", since you appear to be fluent in English. (I haven't bothered to respond to this point till now because your claim is so absurd.) V V 04:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The version you support is an obvious attempt to downplay and ridicule criticism of the PNAC by linking it to "leftist isolationists". It is also completely americentrist as outside the US next to everyone is highly skeptical of a "New American Century". Get-back-world-respect 11:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your very first sentence betrays your failure to assimilate any of the discussion. V V 03:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Defense Policy Guidance

For unknown reasons, two dubious users repeatedly removed the following paragraph:

Another issue pointed to in support of the critics' position stems back to March of 1992 when an internal Pentagon report entitled Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) was leaked to The New York Times. The authors of that document -- Pentagon national security consultants at the time -- both went on to be members of the PNAC and key figures in the present Bush Administration: Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby. When the document was leaked, there was a massive outcry, and it was soon denounced by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden as a blueprint for ";literally a Pax Americana". (see Barton Gellman, “Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower,” The Washington Post, 11 March 1992, p. 1.)

Please discuss this here. Get-back-world-respect 03:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, one dubious user, I don't know why that paragraph was removed, since it was done by TDC, not me. I was largely staying out of that fray. Since you were just reverting on sight, however, I included TDC's edits when I restored my own. But it's not hard to see the problem with that paragraph: it is tangential to the topic, relating to only two members of the PNAC and not its official positions or actions. If anywhere, it belongs on the pages of the individuals in question. V V 04:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So you just prove yourself you were "reverting on sight". I check others' edits before I act on them, plus I tend to summarize my edits such that others get an idea of what I do. As the document is clearly connected to PNAC ideas I think it is worht mentioning. You would not delete the origins of the ANC from that article either just because some things that led to the creation of the ANC of course happened before it was founded. Get-back-world-respect 11:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

POV/NPOV dispute

Let's compare, shall we...

version 1

"Critics of the PNAC dispute the premise that American world leadership is desirable for the world or even for America. Supporters of the PNAC argue that the project's advocated policies are not fundamentally different than what have been long been proposed by other conservative foreign policy analyists, and that the PNAC is the target of unfair conspiracy theories.

The PNAC's harshest critics argue that it represents a broad, borderline imperial agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Supporters reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different than what have been long been proposed by other conservative foreign policy analysts, and that the PNAC is the target of unfair conspiracy theories.

Much of the basis for its critics' arguments is derived from the text of Rebuilding America's Defenses. PNAC critics suggest that portions of the document call into question the true motives behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Supporters argue that there are no direct policy recommendations about Iraq in the document.

Another issue pointed to in support of the critics' position stems back to March of 1992 when an internal Pentagon report entitled Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) was leaked to The New York Times. The authors of that document -- Pentagon national security consultants at the time -- both went on to be members of the PNAC and key figures in the present Bush Administration: Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby. When the document was leaked, there was a massive outcry, and it was soon denounced by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden as a blueprint for "literally a Pax Americana". (see Barton Gellman, “Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower,” The Washington Post, 11 March 1992, p. 1.)"

version 2

"Many, particularly those on the left and isolationists, dispute the premise that American world leadership is desirable for the world or even for America. The PNAC's harshest critics argue that it represents a broad, borderline imperial agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Supporters reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different than what have been long been proposed by other conservative foreign policy analysts, and that the PNAC is the target of unfair conspiracy theories.

Much of the basis for its critics' arguments is derived from the text of Rebuilding America's Defenses. PNAC critics suggest that portions of the document call into question the true motives behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq; however, contrary to many reports, the document contained no policy recommendations about Iraq."

Comparison

Well, first thing to notice is that version 2 is much shorter - version one is four paragraphs, version two is two. What information is ommited in the second paragraph? Is it factual, relevant, interesting, and important? well the first paragraph of v.2 is a combination of the first two in v.1 no ommisions, fine. the information in the fourth paragraph of v.1, however, is missing from v.2. this is an ommision. Is it factual, relevant, interesting, & important? It's factual. It's certainly relevant because it directly involves the PNAC. A leaked pentagon report? Sounds pretty interesting to me. Anyone dispute this? Important... A leaked pentagon report, pretty important, something controversial written by PNAC. hmm.. let's add two more qualifications here, because it looks like our test was too easy. Significant? yes. indicative? yes. Well then. This ommision is P.O.V. But that's not the end of it! By ommiting it, it appears that criticism is based on only one document, which is definitely dimunitive of the criticism, but, this, ofcourse, is untrue.

Now, let's look at the differences in the shared content. v.2 adds "particularly those on the left and isolationists," "particularly" - an interesting choice of words. particularly does not mean some of them are. it is stronger than the word especially. literally, it means that the critics are those and only those who are in the given category. bad word choice. not neccessarily intentional. we'll let that slide. but why are we making such generalizations? Can they be backed up? I'm a critic of the PNAC and an internationalist. Many conservatives, republicans, and conservative republicans, including those in congress, are critics of the PNAC. They certainly aren't leftists. This is fairly unusual. usual the two parties are split quite discretely in their views. Criticism is much more bipartisian on this issue than most issues. It is more significant that this criticism is as bipartisan as it is than it being purportedly stronger on one side of the aisle. This part of the sentence is misleading in a clear direction. P.O.V.

Now, let's look at the last significant difference:

v.1 states: "Supporters argue that there are no direct policy recommendations about Iraq in the document."
v.2 states: "however, contrary to many reports, the document contained no policy recommendations about Iraq."

v.1 is clearly N.P.O.V. it's factual, interesting, important, significant, & indicative. Furthermore, it's straightforward, and adds balance.

v.2 is false; not factual: there are no reports that the document contains policy recommendations about iraq. P.O.V.

Conclusion

In conclusion, after examining all of the differences between the two versions, we have encountered,

in v.1: no P.O.V. edits We have encountered,
in v.2: 3 P.O.V. edits: an ommission of factual, relevant, interesting, important, significant, and indicative information; a demographically misleading addition; & a false statement.

So, which is more NPOV? Kevin Baas | talk 23:38, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

discussion about POV edit number 3

All one has to do is read the damn document to see that there are no policy recomendations with regaurd to Iraq. This is a pretty black and white issue. TDC 00:12, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "the document contained (sic) no policy recommendations about Iraq". This is not disputed. What is disputed is whether "many", if indeed any report claims that there are "policy recommendations about Iraq" in the document, as alleged by the clause "contrary to many reports", which misleads the reader into thinking that the critics' criticism is that the document contains policy recommendations about iraq, which is a blatent politically motivated distortion that is simply not true. Kevin Baas | talk 00:56, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

The fact is that vast numbers of conspiracy theorists have claimed that RAD promotes invading Iraq, and quote the "new Pearl Harbor" line out of context to link this goal to 9/11. (I don't even know where "opportunity of ages" comes from.) Look at the (absurd) zmag articles which used to be listed. Next up, you don't seem to know what the word particularly means. Another thing you should do is separate the wording in the earlier paragraphs from the question of the appopriateness of the "Pentagon" paragraph, as these are separate issues. I have argued, and TDC might explain his reasoning, that this is not relevant to the PNAC. Its only link is that this document was written by two people now involved in the PNAC, not much of a connection. One should stick to PNAC's official positions, which can be easily explained and criticized on their own. Of course, I made this point already, as I did about the "particularly" part. Anyway, if you're trying to defend GBWR's revert war against me, you haven't: the versions you note were not the two in the fight. V V 04:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "the document contained (sic) no policy recommendations about Iraq". This is not disputed. What is disputed is whether "many", if indeed any report claims that there are "policy recommendations about Iraq" in the document, as alleged by the clause "contrary to many reports", which misleads the reader into thinking that the critics' criticism is that the document contains policy recommendations about iraq, which is a blatent politically motivated distortion that is simply not true. Kevin Baas | talk 14:53, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the critics pieces again, because I have no idea how anyone could write what you just wrote. TDC 22:49, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "portions of the document call into question the true motives behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq". I also agree that "the document contained (sic) no policy recommendations about Iraq". I can do this, because there is no contradiction here. However, I am not familiar with any reports that claim, explicitly or implicitly, that "the document contains policy recommendations about Iraq", and highly doubt that any exist. Please read carefully, as the distinction is subtle, but important. Kevin Baas | talk 00:59, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Poll: which is more NPOV, version 1, or 2? (above)

Version 1

Version 2

I listed this page on RfC, for the poll. Kevin Baas | talk 19:53, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Sorry, but a poll does not trump accurate entries. TDC 20:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

When we put together everyone's views on what is more "accurate", rather than just having you dictate to everyone what is the most "accurate", we come up with something which is statistically more likely to be "accurate", as we have greater information channel redundancy. Kevin Baas | talk 17:12, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, as I noted, (a) there are two separate issues at work here (well, more than two really), which your proposed poll lumps together, (b) the two versions are not the alternatives under dispute. Also, it bears repeating that GBWR's objection to the "particularly" claim is, to put it bluntly, illiterate. V V 21:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When we put together everyone's views on what is more "accurate", rather than just having you dictate to everyone what is the most "accurate", we come up with something which is statistically more likely to be "accurate", as we have greater information channel redundancy. Kevin Baas | talk 17:12, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

In point of fact, your grievance concerning literature lies with the [dictionary], and the facts, which have been pointed out by both me and GBWR.

Regarding "a poll does not trump accurate entries", your personal and not-so-humble opinion does not trump the combined knowledge and intelligence of all contributers, which statististically is bound to be more accurate. Indeed, I have specifically elaborated the inaccuracies in your entry. Regardless of how you react to this, your obstinacy will never trump reason and the facts.

If you cannot learn to cooperate with others, your time on Wikipedia will be short-lived. (and your time on this earth will be abject) That's not a threat, that's a common-sense logical consequence that you should well be aware of. Please review the policies and guidelines, and etiquette. Kevin Baas | talk 22:49, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, it goes without saying that your definition of particularly does not match GBWR's argument, and anyway that's not what I was referring to, which was GBWR's strawman mutation of "leftists and isolationists" to "leftist isolationists", which he doesn't stop doing despite (a) clear English and (b) me spelling it out for him. V V 02:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In point of fact, your grievance concerning literature lies with the [dictionary], and the facts, which have been pointed out by both me and GBWR.

Regarding "a poll does not trump accurate entries", your personal and not-so-humble opinion does not trump the combined knowledge and intelligence of all contributers, which statististically is bound to be more accurate. Indeed, I have specifically elaborated the inaccuracies in your entry. Regardless of how you react to this, your obstinacy will never trump reason and the facts.

If you cannot learn to cooperate with others, your time on Wikipedia will be short-lived. (and your time on this earth will be abject) That's not a threat, that's a common-sense logical consequence that you should well be aware of. Please review the policies and guidelines, etiquette, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Kevin Baas | talk 22:49, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

I cooperate with non-assholes. I have a great deal of respect for those who have differing perspectives on subjects but who are honest enough to see through bullshit and collaborate on controversial articles. Threatening me by kicking me off of wikipedia is not going to get you very far. TDC 02:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not use profanity, nor implicit personal attacks. Many of us are certainly "honest enough to see through B.S.", and are not afraid to point it out matter-of-factly. None of us have been sarcastic or derogatory to you, nor treated you with less good faith and decency than we would have done on ourselves. We have all been civil and reasonable with you, and have given you the benefit of the doubt, though it may be difficult for you to see this right now. Many of your actions have been percieved by many contributors to be beyond the scope of reserve and beneath the level of receptivity that is neccesary, on the part of every user, for a multi-contributor forum such as this to function.

Let me reiterate that that was not a threat, but a notification of a natural consequence, which neither I, nor anyone else for that matter, have any control over. Kevin Baas | talk 05:57, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

It is probably obvious to you how your "actions" have been "perceived" by certain contributors, how much "receptivity" you have displayed, and how "civil and reasonable" you are seen as being. So why talk like this? V V 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is evident to me how my "actions" have been and are being "percieved" by the majority of contributors, and all the other stuff too. It is also evident to me how your "actions" have been and are being "percieved" by the majority of contributors, and all the other stuff. This is why I "talk like this". Kevin Baas | talk 17:12, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

I see you have no interest in dialogue or civility. I guess the fight will continue. (It might have been classier to update the timestamp when you reduplicated your "response", but who am I to judge?) V V 22:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reduplicated it because it addressed the points in your second argument as well as it did the first. It was also a hint that you might want to take into account my argument, before making arguments that are already refuted by it, so that the debate can progress. Kevin Baas | talk 17:12, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Your smugness impresses only yourself. V V 18:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My intent was not to impress, nor to appear smug. Rather, I was trying to make progress with the discussion. Kevin Baas | talk 21:01, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Unprotected

I am unprotecting this page, as well as a few others that this or a similar group of users are edit warring over. Please do not make me or any other admin reprotect these pages. I suggest one last time that, if you are having repeated conflicts, you should go to the mediation committee. Barring this, if there are further problems with this page, or other pages, I will carefully review the history of the pages, I will identify where these problems are stemming from, and I will bring users to the arbitration committee. This is unlikely to be found satisfying by anyone, so I strongly reccomend that someone take the first step and request mediation. Snowspinner 16:06, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

The term "right wing" is POV, and should not be included. After all if Moveon.org is a "progressive" organization, then a similar euphamism should be appied to PNAC. "Hegemony" is also a POV term used by PNAC's critics, it does not belong in the opening paragraph. TDC 00:19, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

"hegemony" is not, cannot be, pov, for it does not pass judgement. A lot of people think this is a good thing. People can thing that global leadership is a good think or a bad thing. That's fine. But in any case, the categorical, neutral, and historical word for it is hegemony. It is not pov. it is straightforward and factual. Read the article on hegemony. It is categorically accurate. it is the word used in political science and history; it is academic terminology, and it is perfectly appropriate here.

In the context of this article, hegemony is used as a prejorative and is most definately POV. I do not object to it bieng used in the article in a clearly defined POV manner, but not in the intro. TDC 02:55, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

"right wing" is not POV. they are republicans, and are, indeed, much more right-wing than your average republican. rihgt-wing is accurate, significant, representative, relevant, proportional, etc. Kevin Baas | talk 18:54, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Right wing is POV because it is subjective. I do not believe that any of PNAC's members would describe either themselves or the organizations as "right wing". Conservative is much more appropriate.TDC 02:55, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I would argue for "neo-conservative", as traditional conservatives have drasticly different political views than the members of PNAC and their reports. Kevin Baas | talk 16:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Whoever disputes the intro, please objectively compare and contrast the articles on conservativism & neoconservatism, hegemony & PNAC, and interventionism & PNAC. Kevin Baas | talk 21:20, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

It seems as your poll results contradicts you. VV, you and myself were the only three who were involved in the poll, therefore it seems as is the current version is the one that was agreed upon. TDC 17:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

That is not or accurate. Noone was involved in the poll at the time of your above statement. And if only three people were involved in it, it would not be valid. Also, if only the disputing parties voted, it would not be valid. But right now there are no votes. Kevin Baas | talk 17:41, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Then why, exatly, did you bring it up? Fair warning, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we allow through concensus the PNAC to be labeled an ultra-right-wing organization, dont be suprised when the ideological classification of many other groups/organizations/people change accordingly as well. This is, needles to say, not a threat, but rather a signal that the collective wisdom has deemed it appropriate to place such labels on organizations when there is stark disagrement. TDC 17:56, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

This should rightly be a new topic, but what should we title it? Well, I was thinking "how should we label the political orientation of PNAC?", but then I realized that this isn't discussed in the above paragraph. Perhaps that discussion thread belongs on the policy pages. Kevin Baas | talk 18:01, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

"Why did I bring it up?" -What?!?! Who brought it up? If I recall correctly, if I can see what is written here on this talk page, I think you brought it up. do you recall at all saying "It seems as your poll results contradicts you. VV, you and myself were the only three who were involved in the poll, therefore it seems as is the current version is the one that was agreed upon. TDC 17:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)"? I think I remember hearing it. Kevin Baas | talk 18:08, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

how should we label the political orientation of PNAC?

What criteria should we use to measure?

Their purported views and issue positions, compared against those of the respective classifications of political orientation.

The political orientation of their members.
Whatever placates criticism most effectively.
Other

By measure of this criteria, what political orientation are they?

more right-wing than the norm of right-wing, such that a lot of right-wing people consider them to be in a different class.
right-wing
centrist
left-wing
ultra-left wing
The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" do not give information about political orientation, but are means of defamation/stigmatization, and are thus pov.

neoconservative

very conservative
conservative
only somewhat conservative
moderate
only somewhat liberal
liberal
very liberal

Is "right-wing" pov, or a socially accepted label for a political orientation?

I would say that "right-wing" is no more or less pov than "left-wing", and that they are both commonly used and socially accepted nomenclature with unambigiuos, objective, non-pejorative meanings. Kevin Baas | talk 20:57, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

All I know is whenever I try to call an organization so far out it would make Marx blush left-wing or liberal or far left, self-appointed defenders of NPOV jump all over me. The PNAC is not obviously very right-wing, anyway. V V 23:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is my rule: When a characterization refers to the political orientation of the subject of the article, when the article is a specific political organization, it is appropriate to state their political orientation using standard terminology. When it is a diverse population not affiliated with an organization, then it is not appropriate - it is prejudicing those people and oversimplifying a large and complex array of different views and opinion, different trains of reasoning, different experiences, etc. It invites partisian prejudice, which obstructs the communication of information. Perhaps this is their rule, as well? It may, in a similiar fashion, have something to do with the context.

If not; if these instances are all in the former context, than ya, you have a valid argument, in that we should be consistent.

(As I side note - and I don't mean to be flamebaiting here - I don't know of any organization more right-wing than the PNAC.) Kevin Baas | talk 00:48, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Accuracy and NPOV dispute

(This page has been listed on RfC)

Regarding this diff: [4]. (Also see the above poll, and discuss with your vote.) Kevin Baas | talk 17:41, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

== VV, why did you revert? He had a valid point. == Kevin Baas | talk 20:13, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Because all he did was revert my edit, which was a marked improvement. And no there is no debate as to what transformation meant in that context, as it is completely obvious to anyone who reads it. V V 20:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am refering to his removal of " particularly those on the left and American isolationists, ", and his reasoning that "i don't think the american left are representative of, say, the german right who all would take that opinion. this is an international encyclopedia, right?". I think this is a good point. Do you not think so? Kevin Baas | talk 20:51, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

We have covered this ground before. The text makes it clear that there are many objectors, the particularly portion specifies who the most vocal are, which are clearly the left-wing. I don't doubt there are Bulgarian nationalists who feel the same, but it's mostly out of the left that the harshest words originate. As I explained to GBWR, particularly does not mean exclusively. V V 23:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Exclusively" is in fact one of the three meanings of the word, as evidenced by this dictionary reference. It may very well be that it is not the one that was intended by the author, but it is the one that a great many people are, evidently, interpretating it as when they read it. Regardless of the intent of the author, the important aspect of the text, in concerns the reader, is what is conveyed. It appears, by what you say, that the way it is currently worded, it is being frequently misread. Perhaps there is a different way to write it that is less open to misinterpretation. If so, I think that would resolve the dispute. (Though there's a risk that people will dispute the accuracy of this clarified interpretation.) Perhaps something like "Those on the Noth American left are particularly vocal."? (I don't think that people who are against overt military dominance are neccessarily against civil internationalism, though I find it plausible that people in america who are for military dominance are more often right-wing.) Kevin Baas | talk 00:11, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

I see nothing in that dictionary link to support this "interpretation" of this elementary English word. Again. V V 00:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2: specifically or especially distinguished from others; "loves Bach, particularly his partitas"; "recommended one book in particular"; "trace major population movements for the Pueblo groups in particular" [syn: in particular]

and especially, 3: uniquely or characteristically; "these peculiarly cinematic elements"; "a peculiarly French phenomenon"; "everyone has a moment in history which belongs particularly to him"- John Knowles

from Worldnet - Princton University, further down the page. Kevin Baas | talk 22:19, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Especially does not mean exclusively. Particularly != peculiarly. This conversation is absurd, unless English is not your first language. V V 23:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Uniquely or characteristicly" is quite suited to the point being made. "everyone has a moment in history which belongs particularly to him"- John Knowles I agree that this conversation is absurd, although English is my first language. Do you recognize that it is evident that pretty much everyone but you is interpreting this as the third, bordering on the second, and definitely not the first, meaning? No one approves of this appeal to prejudice, with the exception of, perhaps, the likewise opionated TDC. Kevin Baas | talk 19:07, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

We should just go back to edit warring. I have nothing more to say to you if you still insist that a simple English word means something it manifestly does not. Arm your phantom supporters. V V 04:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The way it's written at the moment implies that most of the opposition to the concept of US world domination comes from the US left, which seems a bit ridiculous to me. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "everyone in the world except the US right thinks this is a bad idea"?

listen, guys, this encyclopaedia article is not the place to win or even fight the debates about these issues. our job is simply to state the fact that there is a debate and summarise the important positions. verily, it may seem obvious *to you* that the transformation referred to in that PNAC document strictly relates to information technology; i and many others draw a different conclusion, however, and the fact that we disagree on the interpretation means it's improper to take a certain editorial tone. you don't see me deleting your interpretations, do you? hence i'm reverting back to the neutral version and if we can't come to some sort of compromise my next step will be to ask for mediation. <ck>

Did you read it? It's simply not possible to have any other interpretation. V V 06:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well...VV...surely the fact that I clearly do have another interpretation proves that it is in fact *possible* to draw a different meaning from the text than the one that you did. i really think my version is much more NPOV because it presents both sides: if you'd rather rephrase the "pro" side of the debate please do so, but I really think it's bad form to present the issue as resolved in favour of one side when that is clearly not the case.<ck>

What is your "interpretation" then? That the authors were writing in Maori, in which that sentence means, "We want to conquer the world"? V V 22:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

verily: you'll probably understand my position, because it's quite similar to yours on another issue. where you argue that the pearl harbor line is taken out of the context of a broader debate, i believe that the "information technologies" interpretation is taken out of the context of a discussion on, well, the section title speaks for itself ("creating tomorrow's dominant force").

now, i don't believe arguing to this level of detail is productive or necessary for an encyclopaedia entry; but the very fact you and I are discussing this is surely proof that your POV on this issue is not the only one, and therefore I believe it's inappropriate to present just one interpretation of the discussion. reverted to the NPOV version.

The fact that this discussion is taking place is not proof of anything. Anyone can waltz onto this wiki and claim an "interpretation" that the line "Judge not that ye be judged" is an expression of Jesus' love of Oreo cookies. What's more, you are reverting an entire rewrite, not just some "POV" phrasing. V V 23:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

verily, i don't really understand your point. are you saying that in fact i *don't* have the interpretation i claim to have? the version you keep trying to push is blatantly POV.<ck>

As this is just another of Veriverily's legendary edit wars, why do we not just jointly complain about him to make him see rules are there for him as well? I do not see this guy ever come to his senses, he is obsessed with wasting our time. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily2 Get-back-world-respect 13:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, this sounds like someone else I know. TDC 17:23, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, VV, let's put 2 and 2 (and 2) together here: 2 - You have conceded that the particular interpretation in question is not true, 2 - You shoud be well aware by now, as it has been repeated to you numerous times in numerous ways by numerous people, that a significant number of people are, in fact, interpreting the language in question that way, 2 - you want the language in question to remain as is. 2+2+2=6 - You want people to be falsely informed. Can you understand how this conclusion follows simply and directly from the facts, and how it is a completely reasonable conclusion to come to? Do you understand why we consider this disruptive; why we consider this to be antagonistic to the goals of wikipedia, which is the exact opposite: to truthfully inform people. This is the raison d'etre for the ongoing discussion, besides the fact that you are trying to use an appeal to prejudice to persuade people to your POV, against the fierce objections of numerous contributors, not to mention established wikipedia policy. Kevin Baas | talk 19:32, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

VV, I'm sure this is not intentional, but your version also comes across as a bit of a "strawman" to me - yours says:

"Conspiracy theorists argue this is suspiciously prescient of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with some going so far as to suggest complicity of the PNAC in the attacks. Many also incorrectly claim that this "new Pearl Harbor" is stated to be needed to justify war on Iraq..."

Your version basically says there are two types of people who criticise the Pearl Harbor thing - conspiracy theorists who think the PNAC did it, and people who haven't read the report. In fact the most heavyweight criticism I've encountered (in the mainstream UK media and other places) - and which I tried to distil in my version - is that the PNAC members who now run the USA cynically exploited the events to accelerate their programme of US world "leadership". This statement is seen by such critics to be a declaration of their intent. So if you're going to make another change I ask you to bear this in mind.<ck>

But the interpretation that that sentence is a declaration of intent to use the "new Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to begin aggressive foreign policy is simply wholly inconsistent with what the report actually says. This is not a point of obfuscation or ambiguity; no statement even close to this is ever made. The words have simply been ripped out of context, in a style reminiscent of Michael Moore. (Indeed, it is downright absurd that they would publish this devious plan of theirs in one of their public reports.) And, yes, there are several who have written directly or by insinuation that this line "proves" that the PNAC staged 9/11. V V 23:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Verily. I think I explained my understanding that the "transformation" referred to is a broader one than the information technologies you understand it to refer to. I have to respectfully point out that I'm not alone in this interpretation, which has been proposed in mainstream media sources (for example the UK press). If I dig out a source or two, will you let this interpretation stand?

I agree that some conspiracy theorists believe Mohammed Attah et al were working for the PNAC, which is why I kept that information in my version.

Verily, I understand you disagree with my interpretation - maybe even think it's silly. That's your prerogative, but please will you stop deleting POVs simply because they're not the same as yours, particularly when they're being presented neutrally? CK 23:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are not exactly creating a spirit of good will by reverting me constantly. V V 00:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Further comments follow. V V 04:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV, just re-read what you wrote and I think I now understand your objection. Obviously my version isn't expressing clearly what I mean to say and maybe we can work together to make it more explicit.

"...intent to use the "new Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to begin aggressive foreign policy..."

is not what I'm trying to say. The criticism is:

1). PNAC report says: we want to achieve US world leadership 2). and (arguably): achieving this will take a new Pearl Harbor 3). then 9/11 comes along - the "new pearl harbor" 4). PNAC - now in power - seize the chance to accelerate their plans to achieve US world leadership

Does that make sense? CK 23:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(2) is indefensible from the primary source. (4) is a POV and is unconnected to the subject of RAD. Furthermore, there's nothing damning in any case. If someone were to argue that 9/11 were being cynically exploited, they can work directly from the facts, rather than try to build a much weaker (to put it mildly) case around the text of RAD, which is not relevant. V V 00:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the grounds that Verily is just reverting without even discussing the points any more I think we should request mediation. What does everyone else think?CK 00:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requesting is your decision and not anyone else's. I would probably decline however given the present state of the discussion here. V V 00:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

have requested mediation. VV, let's let a disinterested party decide what's useful, i think you and i have gotten too entrenched in our positions here. CK 01:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is worth adding that I have never reverted CK except to revert a revert of me. V V 04:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

verily, it seems to me that you started the reverts at 04:44 on the 25th of september. CK 12:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. Check the edit history. If you're too lazy to do that, here is the relevant diff [5]. That was an attempt to incorporate your text, for all the good it did. V V 22:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Verily, that link is to a change between two of your own versions. Anyway, if by incorporating my text you mean you included an unrelated line at the bottom while systematically deleting and belittling any ideas that might threaten your own position, then you've incorporated my text.

For an example of a good faith edit, however, maybe you should check out my edit of 01.56 on Sept 25 - a version that presents your POV, in your own words, as one half of a debate. CK 02:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct. The diff link witnesses that it was not a revert. I rewrote the section attempting to adapt some of your ideas, such as the twofold split in critics, as well as a bit of your text. But I made it a more appropriate size, though even in my version this ridiculous point dominates this section, and is unduly weighty in the article, especially for a fringe claim having no basis in serious studies (or even serious criticism) of the PNAC. V V 02:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A fringe claim made by The Guardian (daily circ. 400,000) among many others. CK 02:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider the Guardian particularly credible, either, but if you have a cite it might make a good xlink here. V V 02:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your version doesn't incorporate "my" ideas at all - rather it sets up a strawman for your highly biased POV to attack. CK 02:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what the Talk page is for, if you have objections still (which don't however sound very sincere or NPOV-oriented). But if you just revert me I guarantee you I will simply revert back. V V 02:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

":(2) is indefensible from the primary source. (4) is a POV and is unconnected to the subject of RAD. Furthermore, there's nothing damning in any case. If someone were to argue that 9/11 were being cynically exploited, they can work directly from the facts, rather than try to build a much weaker (to put it mildly) case around the text of RAD, which is not relevant. V V 00:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

(2) is only indefensible from the primary source in your opinion, which is worth no more than anyone elses, whatever you think. (4) is not unconnected to the controversy over the statement, it's the cause of the controversy. and FYI, just because you think it's a weak argument does not mean it *is* a weak argument. i'm really getting sick of this. CK 12:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The text is written in plain English. It says various events could cause a faster upgrade of technology. A simple statement of cause and effect. Any informed observer would probably agree that this effect would indeed follow from that cause. V V 23:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VeriVerily abuses wikipedia for his propaganda about leftist isolationists ever since I found out about the project, this being his umpteenth edit war. He is not interested in neutral articles - unless you define neutral as his view of things - or the wiki principle of how to find consensus. Just stop trying to reason with him, many others have failed already, page protections, requests for comments, attempts to persuade him to accept a mediation. I cannot see how he could be stopped without being kicked out of here. At least he does not insult others as TDC does. Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yada yada yada. I have many times challenged GBWR to cite any reference by me to "leftist isolationists", and both he and Kevin baas have always just changed the subject, because I have never said any such thing. V V 22:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV: my version contains both sides of the debate, yours contains only your own and your strawman. I have belatedly realised you have no respect for truth and POV. reverted and will continue to do so until someone puts a stop to your selfish antics. CK 01:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yawn. Well that could be a while. I think the New Imperialism edit war went on for a year and a half. V V 01:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well, i hope you find subverting an encyclopaedia a rewarding way to spend your next year and a half. CK 02:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be doing other things all the while, besides subverting truth and neutrality. V V 02:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article protected

I'm completely uninvolved in this matter, but I can tell an edit war when I look at one. Article's temporarily protected. Bryan 02:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Now, let's see if we can't sort this out. The edit war is between two versions.

Version 1: A section of the document that has proved particularly controversial can be found in Section V, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" (page 53):

"Further, the process of transformation...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Critics of the PNAC have suggested that the September 11, 2001 attacks were just such an event, which were then cynically exploited by the Bush administration to enable it to aggressively pursue the PNAC's agenda. (Some conspiracy theorists see this passage as evidence of complicity in the attacks.)

Supporters of the PNAC say the quote is taken out of the context of a discussion specifically about military use of information technologies, and the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly.

The quote is a source of much spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed - debate, and readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly than to rely on third party interpretations.

Version 2: A line frequently quoted out of context from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). Conspiracy theorists argue this is suspiciously prescient of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with some going so far as to suggest complicity of the PNAC in the attacks. Many also incorrectly claim that this "new Pearl Harbor" is stated to be needed to justify war on Iraq. In fact, however, the quote is part of a discussion about military use of information technologies, where the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly. Despite the easy availability of the whole document, the quote provokes spirited - and often partisan and ill-informed - debate.

I would love to see some outside opinions on which of these versions is more suitable. CK 02:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just looking at the two versions you quote here and knowing nothing about the actual source material myself, it looks like version 1 is much more NPOV than version 2. Version 2 goes out of its way to interpret everything from just one side of the issue, using 'incorrectly claim' and 'conspiracy theorists' and such when describing the other side's position. Version 1, on the other hand, presents Version 2's side just as well without using such judgemental language. Bryan 02:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way to state a claim is incorrect other than saying incorrectly claim? Imagine these paragraphs were about the belief that a Zionist cabal runs the world, and used an out-of-context quote by (whoever) to argue it. You can fill in the details of the analogy. V V 02:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't be stating that the claim is incorrect at all, IMO. Just state that that's what the one group claims, and point out that the other group disagrees. This doesn't look as clear-cut as you are trying to make it out to be. Bryan 03:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is clear-cut. There is no recommmendation to invade Iraq or to carry out any foreign policy action in all of RAD, let alone in the quoted text. V V 07:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not what the text says, but what the critics say. Bryan 00:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can state what the critics say, while also saying they are wrong. Again, I challenge you to cite a reference in this document. You can do a full-text search of it for the word Iraq. I did that a year ago to confirm there is nothing about an invasion anywhere in the text. V V 00:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you believe the claim that RAD speaks of justifying war on Iraq is not "incorrect", then give me a page number. RAD is xlink'ed in the article. The quote is on page 51. War on Iraq is not. V V 03:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To review for those just tuning in: This minor issue is already overly long in an article on the PNAC, where even the short version weighs down the "Criticisms" section; several paragraphs coverage of this would be ridiculous, especially in light of the serious criticism and analysis which exists out there. This quote is mostly used by fringe groups who hope nobody bothers to check the context; if the quote is to be included at all, which it wasn't for a while, the facts should be related plainly. The document is easily available, and claims that the PNAC is stating plans to use the "new Pearl Harbor" for their schemes may be refuted by reading it, indeed, by reading a page and a half of it. Claims that 9/11 were cynically exploited can be made elsewhere; there's nothing about the PNAC's simple observation about possible cause-and-effect in an offhand comment in this long document that would connect to such supposed exploitation. V V 02:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is a discussion of the meaning of a document that was produced by the PNAC, and as such it seems like it's likely on-topic for this page. The article doesn't look all that overly-long to me. Bryan 03:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How much of the article Zionism would you want devoted to the theory that Zionists are secretly running the world? That theory has more going for it than these "discussions" about "meaning", because at least it can't be refuted by reading a handful of paragraphs. I agree discussion of RAD would not be out of place, but going off on these out-of-context lines sheds no light on the document whatsoever and belong in tabloids not an encyclopedia. V V 00:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Verily is - presumably deliberately - misrepresenting one side of the issue. The so-called "fringe" criticism (which has appeared in several mainstream media sources) does not claim that RAD specifically calls for invasion of Iraq (although even this is arguable, considering passages like "...while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein..."). Rather, it says that RAD is a blueprint for achieving American world "leadership" as laid out by PNAC - the senior members of whom are now running America - and in it, they lament that the process of "transformation" will be long and difficult unless some Pearl Harbor-like event should occur. (The precise nature of said "transformation" is apparently a matter of some debate.)

It's my opinion that version 1 is an attempt at balance and summary - version 2 presents one side of the argument and a strawman version of the other, falsely representing the argument as closed in favour of the author's preferred side. This is at best extremely biased, and at worst deliberately misleading, and given Veryverily's stated willingness to conduct an edit war for a "year and a half" in defence of version 2 I believe arbitration is the only solution here. CK 10:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the other frequently quoted out-of-context line from RAD surfaces! Of course, this too is not a policy recommendation, but a statement abou present intentions, and in fact that quote specifically says it is not Iraq it is referring to. RAD is about upgrading the military; statements about how this might come about are on topic. You have provided no evidence this is a "lamentation". There is nothing to connect this statement to any policy choices made by the people supposedly "running America". V V 11:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This ongoing discussion clearly illustrates the matter has not been resolved, and the article should reflect that.

To address VV's specific points:

I contend that the quote is in fact a policy recommendation (the PNAC are recommending that a substantial American force remains in the Gulf).
I don't understand what he means about the quote (which mentions Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence) not "specifically referring to Iraq".
RAD is about upgrading the military so it can preserve and enhance US world "leadership".
Lamentation = express regretfully, the reader can decide whether my usage of it *in talk* is justifiable, I would certainly not use it in the Wikipedia entry.
Rumsfeld, Cheney et al do not "supposedly" run America.
Whereas you see nothing to connect such statements to their subsequent policy choices, many others believe the connections are plain.

This encyclopaedia is not a place for you or I to push our own subjective interpretations of such on others. It seems that you've been here much longer than I - I shouldn't have to be lecturing you on the importance of NPOV to this project. CK 11:57, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am obviously thoroughly familiar with NPOV policy, and have been enforcing it on Wikipedia's most controversial articles for more than a year, to many POV pushers' displeasure. It does not mean we have to include absurd viewpoints, such as that "Judge not that ye be judged" is in reference to Oreo cookies, or (to take a real example) theories in George W. Bush that he is a reptilian humanoid. Point 1: The quote is a statement of fact that military deployment in the Middle East is not solely related to Iraq. Point 2: It's referring to Iraq only to say it's not just because of Iraq that a presence has been necessary. Point 3: You are confusing the PNAC's overarching goals with the intent of this specific document. Point 4: You have no evidence of lamentation. Point 5: This is debatable; Cheney's degree of influence over Bush is a contended point. Point 6: There is simply no connection; if I were to have said in 1999 that "a terrorist attack would bring a strong reaction from the United States", is this "proof" that I want an attack to occur so that I can implement a certain set of policies, or a garden-variety prediction which uses simple common sense? The question answers itself. If you want to argue 9/11 is being exploited, do so, but relating it to a quote stating an obvious prediction is nonsense and says more about you than anyone else. V V 00:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VeriVerily, even if you do not agree with the interpretations of what PNAC wrote you cannot deny that they are possible. You can write that PNAC denies ever having recommended to invade Iraq or that it denies influencing the government or that it denies to exist at all if you give us a source but you cannot write that your or PNAC's opinion is truth. Get-back-world-respect 14:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can state what is clearly the truth. You would flip if I put in this article that "some argue the PNAC exists, but others disagree", so obviously not all viewpoints are within the bounds of reason. V V 00:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you can find a significant group of people who argued that the PNAC didn't exist, then by all means they should be mentioned at some point in the article. It would still be wrong to describe either side in POV terms, however. Bryan 00:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests conducting a survey at this point. Skimming over this extremely long talk: page and reviewing article history back to May it seems to me that VeryVerily is unlikely to back down if the consensus goes against him, but we should probably cross that T before diving straight into a request for arbitration. Who knows, it might even work. Bryan 00:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A survey would be absurd. The PNAC is wildly unpopular on this forum, and very, very few people involved in these articles actually care about accuracy. V V 00:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd be willing to consider the possibility that what appears as "very few people caring about accuracy" to you might actually be "people care about accuracy but you're wrong about what 'accuracy' is in this particular case?" They'd both look very similar from your perspective. In any event, seeing as you've also declined mediation on this subject (Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_10#VeryVerily_and_CK), it looks like that leaves nothing from the dispute resolution list to try but arbitration (which I now see has already been requested). Bryan 00:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. CK proposing reasonable alternatives instead of reverting me constantly never occured to anyone. Anyway, I'm curious what your present role in this is. You stepped in as a neutral admin, but with loaded questions such as "I don't suppose you'd be willing..." coming from you, etc., I suspect your role has expanded somewhat. Again, if you are actually interested in this issue, I urge you to take the steps I recommend above to see what the text of RAD says in plain English. V V 00:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To answer said question, yes, there are many contributors here who just don't care about accuracy but want to smear somebody. I know this from having worked on Wikipedia's most controversial articles for a long time. V V 00:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)