Talk:Project for the New American Century/Archive 1

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

text: 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)
replies: text: And thank you for answering my question as to whether you are "a distant observer of this lonesome behavior of mine". VV 01:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.) VV 04:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your very first sentence betrays your failure to assimilate any of the discussion. VV 03:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection requested

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. VV 04:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Defense Policy Guidance

message: *Logic and common sense: 
**"Frequently quoted out of context" is not neutral 
**"Conspiracy theorists" is not neutral 
**"incorrectly claim" is not neutral 
**"partisan and ill-informed debate" is not neutral 
***24.48.153.249 04:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, it's just so easy!  Now, see actual conversation above.  (P.s. The last line is in both versions!) VV 04:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic and common sense 

message: <heavysarcasm>Here are some more examples of NPOV work, along the lines of CK's paragraphs above!:
:In 1870 Sen. Bob Fittleson said that an attack on American soil would provoke a strong counterattack.  Fittleson's detractors argue that Pearl Harbor was just such an attack.
:Prof. Fooblatz writes on p.119, "For instance, if Ankara had a female mayor there would be rioting". His critics suggest that Gov. Jane Janeway (elected two years later) is just such a governor, and that her election was cynically exploited by politicians to crush Kurdish revolts.
:In 1999 the Florida Weather Service announced that a Category 3 hurricane could cause extensive damage to ship docks on Miami Beach.  Critics of the FWS have suggested that Ivan was just such a hurricane.
And of course,
:In 1960 President Kennedy said, "America will put a man on the moon".  His supporters argue that by that he meant that America would put a man on the moon.
:In a particularly controversial statement, de Gaulle said, "France should protect the franc from further devaluation".  Supporters claim that he was merely saying that France should protect the franc from further devaluation.
Isn't this fun?  Let's get to work making this encyclopedia NPOV!</heavysarcasm> VV 08:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has absolutely nothing to do with this survey, and unless someone objects I'm going to move it back out into the main talk: page. Bryan 00:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More examples of NPOV'ing. 

message: This is another thread that developed in response to a proposed question on the survey Bryan 02:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you who are attacking a strawman.  I never refer to "critics of the PNAC" in my version at all.  That is one reason this selection of "questions" is so disingenuous. VV 21:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: In fact it is precisely in deference to the "real critics" of the PNAC that I chose certain wording.  No legitimate critic of the PNAC would want to be associated with this flagrantly dishonest reading of RAD. VV 21:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But Verily, didn't you once say "Speaking of which, if you can point out an instance of me labelling all critics of the report "conspiracy theorists", I will gladly concede the entire debate to you"? CK 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But I did, an offer which notably I was not taken up on.  Now, perhaps you can explain the logical connection of this comment to mine at the same time as the "just such an event" logic. VV 10:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, you said before that you weren't labelling all the critics as conspiracy theorists, but now you're saying something different, right?  Also, if my version is clunky by all means let's improve it.  What bit of the "just such an event" is unclear to you? CK 20:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying anything different. VV 00:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VV, someone has laid out "my" position in question 15 in a much more organised and eloquent way than in my version.  Would you please take a look at it and tell us what you think? CK 00:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at it when it was posted.  The same lapses in logic. VV 00:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The paragraph should mention Iraq, but should not say that critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq.

message: So, shall I unprotect the page or what? The arbitration request has five arbitrators out of nine having cast votes on whether to accept it now, so there may soon be progress on that front. On the other hand, I dislike leaving a version protected that's so widely considered to be POV. Bryan 05:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What "version" do you propose having? VeryVerily 10:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget the versions, there were flaws in both, despite the flaws in the survey, it bought time while the discussions progressed.  The current version is extremely POV, just as in the Clinton letter, it shouldn't be the critics characterization that describes the document, there should be a more objective, documented summary.  "accusations" should not be euphemized as "suggestions", etc.  Unprotect the page.--Silverback 10:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But this particular charge is not a serious "accusation" or "criticism".  It is a tabloid smear based on deceptive quotation.  If it's to be included at all, any formulation that doesn't make its status clear is going to be misleading. VeryVerily 16:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with my rather cursory websearches on this subject, I've found quite a bit of serious discussion of this issue out on the web. I think it deserves more respect than Bat Boy or crashed saucers at Roswell. But I'm not going to argue the point with you any more, I'm going to just try unprotecting the page for a bit and see what happens. If the edit war resumes I'll shut it down again. Bryan 17:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you should recuse yourself from any such action. VeryVerily 17:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What such action, reverting the article? Sure, if you'll recuse yourself as well. :) Bryan 20:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Protecting it, obviously, which would be a gross abuse of admin powers. VeryVerily 22:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it's quite proper to protect it again if the reverting starts up. I'd be reluctant to "choose" which version to protect it in, though, even with the IMO very clear consensus from the survey. Perhaps I could make a specific request to that end on the RfP page and see if someone else will do it. Bryan 20:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Choosing a preferred version is against policy.  And not even by your perverse logic and your fraudulent survey can it be argued that there is "consensus" either way.  If you're serious about ending this impasse, how about doing something productive like proposing ideas for changing it, and if it's to be serious not including trolls like Shorne in the process? VeryVerily 22:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the impass is over and the ArbCom should be saved what may now be obsolete effort.  I don't know how to initiate this however. --Silverback 17:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the page be unprotected? 

message: I question the quote from Bremner, a comedianne.  Is he a universally regarded Will Rogers type?  I'm not unalterably opposed to the use of his quote, but would like to know the justification, it might come in handy in justifying other things elsewhere.--Silverback 20:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what a "Will Rogers type" would entail. Bremner is a satirist, an impressionist and a political comedian. His work is respected for attention to detail and accurate research. For an overview, see this example. Compare Peter Cook and Mark Thomas. If you watch the Bremner monologue (or read the transcript), you'll note that it is the spoken equivalent of a political broadsheet opinion piece, rather than a series of jokes. Kyz 01:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from a commediane? 

message: Without elaboration or qualification, this is misleading because there was a lot of agreement in the international community.  For instance, most would agree that Saddam still was not in compliance and had not been forthcoming, most would agree that inspections would not be going on at all if not for the expensive US troop buildup on the border.  Yes, some thought given more time, inspections might make some more progress, some were willing to accept that the unaccounted for WMD might actually have been destroyed. This part should be at least qualified as "some in the international community" or better yet, more detail given.   The link to the other wikipedia is more supportive of "some" than it is of painting the whole international community with one broad brush.--Silverback 21:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "reservations" in the international community 

message: The context of the criticism is to iterate and address criticism of the PNAC. It is not to randomly discuss PNAC documents.
There is a paragraph which begins "Many critics also claim that the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq, but there is no evidence in the report to back up this assertion; on the subject of Iraq, ...". It follows this logical train of thought. It continues to describe the use of Iraq in the document, in reference to the central premise of the paragraph that critics are incorrect to claim an association between the PNAC's "new Pearl Harbour" quote and the PNAC's justification for attacking Iraq.
If any of the material in that paragraph is irrelevant to that premise, delete it. If cut the first clause from the paragraph and paste it on to the end of the prior paragraph, it becomes an uncorroborated statement followed by a meaningless paragraph.
:The tabloid garbage about the "new Pearl Harbor" line does not deserve two paragraphs.  That subject should be closed quickly so real issues can be covered.  The PNAC's views on Iraq, however, are very important and relevant, and (to borrow a phrase) transcend the issue of the misquotation.  It is not totally out of place to put it in the "Controversy" section, as it is a contentious issue.  Something of a reorganization might be called for, but only introducing the PNAC's views on Iraq in connection with this crackpot attack is not sensible. VeryVerily 04:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's how you feel, then prune that section. Please put the PNAC's views in the "core views and beliefs" section, so they can be distinguished from what the PNAC's critics consider their views to be. If you want to expand on their views of Iraq, here are some sources to start with:  Kyz 10:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time I try to prune that section, it starts an edit war.  Right now it's about the minimum possible without eruption.  So I'm more of a mind just to keep it focused.  Like I say, putting their views on Iraq in the Controversy section is not wholly inappropriate, as it's a big part of their controversialness.  Probably adding a bit about how these views are frowned upon by legitimate critics would make it yet more appropriate. VeryVerily 10:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "on the subject of Iraq" does not start the paragraph.