Talk:Henry Jackson Society

message: Does the society self define as neo-con or not? If not what is wrong with being a neo-con? Thomas.neumark 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read a few of their journals now. None of their voices are calling for forced democracy or the other signature doctrines of neo-con thinking of the  80s and 90s. Conservative liberalism perhaps. Even some national conservative thought. But neo-con is long gone from this grouping. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm looking at this whole article now and it's clear the piece needs revision. It currently says that the group promotes military intervention to promote human rights, but there's no documentation I've read that suggests that. In fact, in conversation with The Guardian its official spokesperson says precisely the opposite. The article calls the think tank "neoconservative" when its namesake identified as a classical liberal. I propose to use the  Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle process to make the appropriate revisions. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My only involvement with this article was to format the refs so I can't really help in the larger discussion. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo-cons? 

message: Is the HJS really a think tank? Evidence would be things like: publishing significant pamphlets or reports under its own name, employing or at least funding researchers, or holding major conferences. Can anyone point to evidence like that? From what I see "Society" is the right term - it holds meetings of like minded people and publishes short articles (sometimes reprints from elsewhere) in an (electronic) newsletter, and is run by an "Organising Committee" of members. Rwendland 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty reasonable sources, so I accept it's OK for the article. Though, from what I know of it's activities, it doesn't really match the definition very well.  Thanks. Rwendland 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Guardian describes it as an "intellectual project" and a "non-profit organisation". The other link is dead. Itself describes it as "cross-partisan". Wakari07 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Think tank?

message: This really needs proper external references - at the moment it is full of unverified boosterish claims and sounds like biased original research. Please provide references or this section will have to go Bwithh 16:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political influence section

message: This is sloppy at best and needs updating to the Nth degree - should it even be included?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.82.187 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they date back to before the current standard of inline citing about 2007. The section was called "External links" once, and the convention then was to list online cites in this section.  I agree they need reviewing, and most deleted. The better of them (proper news articles in good newspapers) perhaps should be turned into inline cites; the article is under-cited by present standards. Rwendland (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Further to that, most of the links are dead. I'm rolling the remaining articles into inline cites and binning this section EardleyC (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Section 

message: The opening of the article says that the HJS is a "non-partisan association".  What is the objective evidence for this?  The reader of its publications would be excused for thinking that it is a pro-Zionist, anti-Palestinian association.  There should be evidence provided for this opening statement.  Also, the links to articles in the Guardian should be reviewed: the main one was published in 2005, when the present nature of the HJS could not be known.  Gordoncph (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-partisan? 

message: What the hell does that mean? "Less than 3 cheers" = not full support? Or "more than 1 cheer" = strong support. Stupid phrase, massively ambiguous, highly conversational language. Please correct forthwith.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.182.190 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Cheers for Capitalism 

message: Is there any source that could support the claim that one of types of this organization is "Human rights". The problem is that other sources are clearly against this.Ferakp (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights 

message: 86.184.182.216 - You edits are not proper here. The Society's general political leanings are well-documented:
* BBC News: "a right-wing think tank"
* Paul Dixon (2013). Timothy J. White, ed. "The Victory and Defeat of the IRA? Neoconservative Interpretations of the Northern Ireland Peace Process" in Lessons from the Northern Ireland Peace Process. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 119. "the founding members of the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society (2005), which takes a hawkish view on military intervention..."
* Matthew Goodwin & Caitlin Milazzo (2015). UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 175. "the right-wing Henry Jackson Society"
* Tom Griffin, Hilary Aked, David Miller & Sarah Marusek (June 2015). "The Henry Jackson Society and the Degeneration of British Neoconservatism: Liberal interventionism, Islamophobia and the 'War on Terror'" (PDF). Cordoba Foundation/SpinWatch, p. 39: "the society’s rightward drift"
* Ahmed, Nafeez (7 May 2014). Think tank behind Tory foreign policy promotes Arab world fossil fuel hegemony, The Guardian. London: "the Society's list of international patrons reads like a 'Who's Who' of American right-wing hawks"
* Gordon, Tom (4 January 2015). Scottish Labour leader urged to cut links with right-wing think tank The Herald. Glasgow: "the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society"
So we have multiple news articles, plus two academic-press-published articles and one report. That is firm sourcing. Now, if you have the articles that show the contrary, feel free to present them and we can talk. But you're not going to be able to filibuster this. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm reverting anon's edits.VR talk 19:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the above discussion about the criticism section. It is fair.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.182.216 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  86.184.182.216 edits 

message: I do not believe it's appropriate to use any source associated with Anas Altikrit or the Cordoba Foundation he founded or the news articles that depend on the credibility of either. The latter is listed as a terror group, even by Arab nations, such as the UAE and has been since 2014.  Likewise, Spinwatch can not be considered a credible source as it is funded by Muslim Brotherhood, an antisemitic, pro-terror organisation; for which I refer people to the text "Unity and Diversity in Contemporary Antisemitism: The Bristol–Sheffield Hallam Colloquium on Contemporary Antisemitism published by Academic Studies Press in 2019. Now there's been enough time for the connections to become clear all the sources need to be removed. For these reasons, any source that is informed by Cordoba Foundation or its associates are not consistent with the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and move they are removed.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to 86.184.182.216 edits other matters to do with [[Reliable sources]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Jackson Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620061805/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/pcfs/all-party-groups/guide-to-the-rules-on-apgs.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/pcfs/all-party-groups/guide-to-the-rules-on-apgs.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Now I'm looking at this article, I'm seeing lots of issues. The section that begins with claim that the society "mostly" looks at Islamic extremism simply doesn't stack up. Of its 12 most recent publications, one of them is about political islam. The rest are about threats to democracy from China, Russia and right wing extremism. Either this article is badly out of date or simply uninformed. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content 

message: I believe that   mistakenly removed [File:Boris Johnson speaking at Henry Jackson Society IPU Room Palace of Westminster 11 February 2019 - seated behind l-r James Rogers Bob Seely MP and Alan Mendoza.jpg] from this article. The reason given at that time was "No OTRS permission given for 30 days." However as I look at  I can see that Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2020062510010198. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard.The Little Platoon (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring shot of Boris Johnson at Henry Jackson Society.