Talk:Project for the New American Century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project for the New American Century article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 Apr 2003 - Dec 2004
Archive 2 Mar 2005 - May 2007
Archive 3 May - Dec 2007


Contents

[edit] PNAC & 2000 US elections

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

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

"Jeb Bush, signator to the PNAC Statement of Principles, then governor of Florida, along with Katherine Harris, his secretary of state, were accused by the US Commission on Civil Rights of "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency," and "gross dereliction [of duty]"[1] with regard to the 2000 United States presidential election in Florida.[2][3][4] The commission found that Governor Bush knew that black voters were 10 times more likely to have their ballots rejected than white voters, often due to outdated voting technology in black and hispanic areas. It was also found that DBT Online (now ChoicePoint), the private company whose list of felons (who cannot vote in Florida[5]) included non-felons and ex-felons, had warned Jeb Bush to check for irregularities prior to using its list in the election. This problem helped swing election results, as 93% of blacks in Florida[4] (and 90% of blacks nationwide[6]) voted for Gore, and while Bush and PNAC signator Cheney's margin of victory in Florida was only 1,725 votes[7], at least 8,000 of the 173,000 people on the felons list had the right to vote, and 54% of the supposed felons were black[4]. Jeb Bush's role in the election fraud was further examined in a BBC report[8] by investigative journalist Greg Palast. The NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a recount study that found that Bush would have won the 2000 election even if the Supreme Court had allowed a recount[9], although the possible votes from blacks, who were barred from filling out a ballot in the first place, were not considered.
"William Rivers Pitt has claimed that Jeb's actions in the election fraud were done deliberately so that his fellow PNAC members would be assured the high-power posts in the Federal government that they received upon Bush and Cheney taking office[10]."

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

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

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

I'm starting a new indent here:

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

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

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

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

To briefly rebuff arguments that this information is not relevant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sub-section on Jeb vs. PNAC members -

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

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

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

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

"In 2000, PNAC signator Dick Cheney and George W. Bush became the Vice President and President of the United States following a landmark Supreme Court decision [11][12] to not perform a recount of the Florida votes in the highly contended [13] U.S. Presidential Election in 2000. With a PNAC member in the number 2 spot in the U.S. Federal Government, who could provide advice to the newly elected President on his White House appointments, many PNAC members were elevated from their nascent thinktank to many of the most powerful positions in the executive office of the United States, including Secretary & Deputy Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of State, and multiple additional posts within the Defense and State Department. It is inconclusive whether Cheney’s affiliation with PNAC was related to these appointments, although it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Bush and Cheney had every intent of bringing PNAC’s foreign policy ideas to fruition in their administration[14][15][16][17][18][19][20].

"The close election that brought Bush and Cheney to the White House hinged on the outcome of the Florida’s votes. At this time, the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush, also a PNAC signator. Jeb Bush, along with Katherine Harris, his secretary of state, were accused by the US Commission on Civil Rights of "injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency," and "gross dereliction [of duty]"[1] with regard to Florida’s 2000 presidential election, which was riddled with numerous voting fraud issues[2][3][4]. The commission found that Governor Bush knew that black voters were 10 times more likely to have their ballots rejected than white voters, often due to outdated voting technology in black and hispanic areas. It was also found that DBT Online (now ChoicePoint), the private company whose list of felons (who cannot vote in Florida[5]) included non-felons and ex-felons, had warned Jeb Bush to check for irregularities prior to using its list in the election. This problem helped swing election results, as 93% of blacks in Florida[4] (and 90% of blacks nationwide[6]) voted for Gore, and while Bush and PNAC signator Cheney's margin of victory in Florida was only 1,725 votes[7], at least 8,000 of the 173,000 people on the felons list had the right to vote, and 54% of the supposed felons were black[4]. It has been estimated that a total of 22,000 black democrats were barred from voting[8]. Jeb Bush's role in the election fraud was further examined in a BBC report[8] by investigative journalist Greg Palast.

"After the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow a recount in Florida, The NORC at the University of Chicago conducted a recount study that found that Bush won the 2000 election in Florida[9], although the possible votes from blacks, who were barred from filling out a ballot in the first place, were not considered.

"William Rivers Pitt has asserted that Jeb's actions in the election fraud were done deliberately so that his fellow PNAC members would be assured the high-power posts in the Federal government that they received upon Bush and Cheney taking office[10]. Bernard Weiner noted that PNAC expected victory for its candidate, Cheney, in the 2000 election, and hence penned Rebuilding America’s Defenses just two months before the election[21]. This coincidence was also noticed by Steve Brouwer, who further claims that the organization’s very name (coined in 1997) was anticipatory of political takeover in 2000, right at the start of the new century [22]. However, records are scarce regarding whether Jeb’s decision to allow an election biased in favor of a fellow PNAC member to proceed was a purposeful attempt to bring PNAC to power or simply a coincidence."

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

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

[edit] Request for comment

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

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

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

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

[edit] Remarks Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "New Pearl Harbor"

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

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

[edit] "absent of a catastrophic and catalyzing event..."

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

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

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

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

I say no more. 85.233.177.86

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

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

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

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

[edit] The lies that led to war

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

[edit] misuse of a quote

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

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

I believe this is a misuse of the quote.

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

first post :)