Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 9 February 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 1 Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 2 Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 3 (2004) Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 4 (Jan-June 2005) Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 5 (July-December 2005) Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 6 (2006) Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 7 (2012-present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hillary Clinton

Today's Cato Daily Podcast highlighted the similarities of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.

Here is the link: Cato Daily Podcast July, 30 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)

Post-Neoconservative era

Political monitors throughout the early 21st century have been preparing for a post-Neoconservative American era.

References

1. "After Neoconservatism", FRANCIS FUKUYAMA. New York Times. February 19, 2006. Accessed June 8, 2011
2. "A Post Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy", Don McKinnon. Commonwealth Secretariat. June 19, 2007. Accessed June 8, 2011

Victoria Nuland

from https://en.wikipedia.org/Victoria_Nuland: ``A former colleague said of her: 'I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table.' hardly "disputed" then, nu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.115 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. You need a serious source for this label. is a 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with past discussion related to the issue, and do not disrupt Misplaced Pages. The following are two paragraphs from the above-linked reliable source by Geoff Dyer.

In an administration so eager to correct the perceived errors of its predecessor, it might be surprising that Ms Nuland has emerged as its point person for dealing with Russia. She was Mr Cheney’s deputy national security adviser before moving to be ambassador to Nato. She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.

“I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table,” says a former colleague in the Obama administration state department. “But she is also one of the most talented people I have worked with in government.”

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No actual person says Nuland is a neocon-- an anonymous person says she is more of a neocon that her husband, but he now rejects that label so most people are more neocon than her husband. Anonymous people are not reliable sources--Especially as in this case when they are making up hypothetical situations about an imaginary family dinner. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Take your assertions to the relevant notice board. There is nothing prima facie unreliable about a Financial Times article written by a notable journalist and author, even if he doesn't quote the name of the "former colleague in the Obama administration" whom he quotes. I would be interested to see the developments in such a discussion.

Meanwhile, Robert Kagan was also removed from the list, and there are many sources characterizing him as a neocon. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another potential source Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the lists, because there is not clear definition or membership criteria. But the fact someone calls someone a neoconservative is certainly inadequate unless it is a serious book about neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There aren't many "serious books" on neoconservatism, which happens to be an active movement.

The criteria, I would imagine, follow Misplaced Pages's sourcing criteria, so it depends on whether the person calling someone a neocon is a reliable source. Right?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of serious books about neoconservatism. Generally one should use academic writing for classification of ideologies, because the press is often imprecise. The other major issue is balancing aspects. How important is Nuland to neoconservatism? And normally people are not reliable sources, written works are. If a prominent psychiatrist shouts at someone that they are an idiot, we don't put down that their IQ is below 25. And we need to distinguish between opinions and facts expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are only a couple of books published recently, but I don't know if they cover the Ukraine crisis, which is the event with respect to which news media sources are referring to her as a neoconservative.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The source for the FT piece is described as a "former State Department colleague in the Obama administration". Notable journalists generally protect official sources.

Meanwhile, the other piece includes this about Nuland, among other material

Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves.”
The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan “surge” strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that “an important way station in my ‘pilgrim’s progress’ from skepticism to support of more troops was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
“I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam’s palaces in Baghdad.”
Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more “regime change.”

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

no one states she is a neocon--(this quote is about her husband & his brother). Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Kagan & Robert Kagan

I have found another reference on p. 73 to Frederick Kagan as a "neoconservative activist" in a book published by an academic, Jeanne Morefield, on Oxford University Press called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon
It seems to be an irrefutable reliable source for adding Fred Kagan to the list, so I intend to re-add Kagan soon, but I have started a thread on BLP/N, and would like to hear comments here or there.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I neglected to mention that the sentence referred to above describes both Frederick and Robert Kagan as "well-known neoconservative activists". --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussed at BLP/N. Fail. Collect (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true, that is merely a unilateral pronouncement by you trying to curtail the discussion. Consensus has by no means been established, and you are not necessarily in the majority of the thread that has been open for only a couple of hours.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the posts from the other editors. I find your apparent desire ti simply disparage anyone who disagrees with you to be outré. Collect (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

the cite is a one sentence unsourced rumor that gives no evidence and fails the RS test for Frederick Kagan. Calling FK "a well-known neoconservative activist" is false on its face--is "well-known" were true there would be many cites of actual activism. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!.

I'm not impressed.

You may not disparage the publication of an academic by a world-class academic press without good reason. And yet, you have provided none. You attack her assertion of "well-known", but there are numerous sources that discuss Frederick (not to mention Robert) Kagan in relation to the topic of neoconservatism, and they are likely to increase.

You characterize Morefield's statement as a "one sentence unfounded rumor", and that is, frankly, somewhat astonishing, for someone that used to be, in the past, at an Ivy league institution. Morefield doesn't answer to you.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a former professor at Yale (I was a Harvard professor) and I have published with Oxford U Press. There is ONE half sentence on Frederick as neocon in ONE book. It gives no evidence in terms of footnotes, speeches, writings. It's not a RELIABLE source on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I assume, that since you have published through Oxford University Press, that you can verify that the scholarly books they publish are peer reviewed. My understanding of such sources according to WP:IRS.

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

Thanks.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources, and the topic itself seems to be gaining more attention in light of the role the neocons are seen as playing by numerous observers in promoting policies that foment conflict and strife.

Since I've learned a little more about searching out sources on google books, here are a couple links. On page one of these results of 186 hits, in addition to the Gunter book, there is this book

The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, Sydney Blumenthal,

for example, which characterizes Frederick Kagan as "a neoconservative", and as "the neoconservative instigator of the surge", in no uncertain terms.

Striking this source as controversialThere is this book,The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East,

which characterizes Robert Kagan as neoconservative and Frederick as part of the movement on p.31, and characterizes Frederick Kagan as a neoconservative associated with AEI on the first page of Chapter 16, "On to Iran".

So there are two more books from the first page of 10 of 186 books returned as a results of the search. And they all present the same context of the ideological development of the movement and the policies its proponents have promoted.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Transparent Cabal? TFD (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The author is notable and you can check the reviews on the Amazon.com page here. Is that title taboo on Misplaced Pages?

OK, we're moving on to page two of 186 hits, and here is a summary of findings from the first three relevant books, all by notable authors, including a Pulitzer winner, a former diplomat and academic, and four current or former professors:

1. In The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War p.233, Fred Kaplan, recipient of the Pulitzer prize states,

   Fred Kagan …was now ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington’s most prominent neocon think tank… Now it would be through Kagan that AEI emerged as the nexus joining the neocon movement and COIN.

2. In The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End p.232 Peter W. Galbraith states,

   In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy was the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who had never been to Iraq.

3. In The Culture of Immodesty in American Life and Politics: The Modest Republic (2013) edited by professors Michael P. Federici, Richard M Gambl, and Mark T Mitchell, Claes G. Ryn states

   The more prominent neoconservatives include… Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan…

   --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote mining fails as essentially all the other editors here agree. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong, and the majority is right on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no quote mining involved, insofar as "quote mining" involves taking statements out of context. Every one of those statements means exactly what it appears to mean as shown above.

To what majority are you referring in your edit summary? Are you claiming that consensus has been established?

This is the second time you have attempted to cut off the process here, first by claiming that a thread at BLP/N which had been open for a couple of hours had been closed, when it had just gotten under way.

I don't want to have to spend any more time and effort responding to such pointy antics.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

List the editors who back what you are prescient on. List those who demur. Tell us the count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the author of The Transparent Cabal is notable, as are the people providing reviews on Amazon. The book is notable for attracting claims of promoting conspiracy theories and subtle anti-semitism. The title of the book should be a good hint and it even spends the first chapter explaining that it is not conspiracist or anti-Semitic.

You are merely googling the subject and neoconservatism and copying whatever you find in walls of text.

TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You address the easiest source to attack, and ignore those with which you can't find fault.

Yes, I'm googling for books containing "neoconservatism" and one of the subjects at issue, but I am only posting short, relevant quotes not toaken out of context from the books. What walls of text?

Meanwhile, you post one review from a relatively unknown publication by a relatively unknown author and attempt to authoritatively dismiss the source. Well, you're not an authority, you cited one source and make comments about anti-semitism that are reflected in the review, which is fine, but represent only one view of the book. At least the review admits as much, where you don't

The antisemitism in The Transparent Cabal is quite subtle – so much so that many readers probably won’t see it, and will likely dismiss criticism of it as yet another attempt by the Likud lobby to silence its foes.

The reviews posted from mainstream media outlets on Amazon differ.

Meanwhile, while I have little time to go through the list of 186 books, I doubt you'll like this.

Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World Nir Rosen p.229

…two outsiders played a crucial role in the push for more troops. Fred Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane are controversial figures: the former is a neoconservative military historian with no experience or specialization in the Middle East…

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I do "address the easiest source to attack" because they jump out. I do not ignore those with which I can find no fault but do not even look at them, because if you introduce obviously unreliable sources, you destroy your credibility, and waste editors time by asking them to search through countless sources to see if any of them are good. The "reviews on Amazon" are wholly unimpressive - they are just comments by people who hold similar views. While I appreciate that you, like "many readers", may not understand why the theory that a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel could be seen as anti-Semitic, it does not make such a theory mainstream. TFD (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I did not say any of what you just implied--perhaps--that I said.

I didn't read the book, but the reviews on Amazon do not indicate anything along the lines of what you assert regarding a conspiracy theory, and the author of the non-mainstream review you linked to indirectly acknowledges that while simultaneously arguing that it is based on an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

For Misplaced Pages sourcing policies, it seems to be reliable, the statement I quoted from the googlebooks site is reliably sourced, until specifically refuted. I don't think you've managed to do that, yet. Since I haven't read the book, I have no more to say about it.

Meanwhile, remember that it was you who suggested that I google for books, I just modified the search parameters slightly, and got 186 hits for that search.

So far, two of the sources are impeccable scholarly sources that characterize both Frederick and Robert Kagan in no uncertain terms as neocons.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The reviews on Amazon are cherry-picked by the author. TFD (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more sources, one academic published by Routledge.

1. Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motivesp. 61 Avner Falk states

   Before the “surge” in the U.S. war in Iraq, American neoconservatives such as…the “military analyst” Frederick Kagan had been pushing for a surge for years…

2. Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia Note no. 3 Associate professor Vedi R. Hadiz states

   …another leading neoconservative, Robert Kagan, is a leading scholar of the Roman Empire at Yale University. His brother, Frederick, is also regarded as a leading neoconservative historian.

   --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Transparent Cabal" commentary from various sources for purposes of discussion

PublicEye.org

Sniegoski aims to show that U.S. neoconservatives masterminded the Iraq war in the service of Israeli hegemony, a proposition that has plenty of truth to it. In doing so, though, he veers back and forth over the often-fuzzy line separating harsh but legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism from paranoid conspiracy mongering. His book is an almost textbook illustration of the way far Left anti-Zionism and far Right antisemitism can bend towards each other and begin to overlap.

CultureWars.com

The whole of the second chapter is given over to showing that the war-for-Israel claim is widely shared by those not plausibly regarded as anti-semites including Jewish journalists and politicians, and documenting the campaign of anti-semitism accusations made against those supporting such a claim. Indeed he quotes Jewish sources decrying this devaluation of anti-Semitism...

JewKnowledge.Weebly.com

Its drawback? It can bring charges of anti-Semitism because it deals critically with a largely though not exclusively Jewish group. But Sniegoski is at pains to distinguish the neoconservatives from the greater Jewish community that is generally more averse to war than other Americans

The book appears to be controversial in its linking of Jewish religious identity to political action, and thus may be problematic in the sense that its positions and claims about Jews may be seen as anti-Semitic rightly or wrongly.

Adding to the problem is the author's own views http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_vachon.htm]

I make no effort here to try to placate professional "anti-anti-Semites," who would likely claim that an apparently evenhanded presentation of the neoconservatives' leading role in the war on Iraq is a far more sinister form of "anti-Semitism" than Vachon's — because the former is a more sophisticated cover for "hate."

The neocons, as well as Ariel Sharon, act within the range of what is possible. The neocons in the Bush administration push the envelope to achieve their goals, but they act with enough caution so as not to get into trouble. Since they are protected by the "criticism-equals-anti-Semitism" shield, they simply can get away with a lot without being called on it. They undoubtedly want regime change in Syria and Iran, but they are going about it in a very cautious and manipulative manner. That does not seem to be the approach that pathological people hell-bent on exterminating their enemies would take.

Just to present added general information from all sides. Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that is useful. I'm just going through a list of books returned and posting those not appearing to be admissible.

For the sake of efficiency, I will strike through that entry just so we don't waste any more time on it. There are ample uncontroversial reliable sources for supporting these claims.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, if you know nothing about the origins of neoconservatism, the conspiracy theories about it, or the literature, how can you know what is important enough to put into this article? TFD (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You state above that you don't agree with this list, but the list exists on Misplaced Pages and is policy compliant.

You state that "Generally one should use academic writing for classification of ideologies", yet when presented with peer-reviewed books by scholars published by academic presses you pretend not to notice, because you don't agree with the sources..

This thread is about the reliably published statements characterizing Fredrick Kagan and Robert Kagan as neocons.

You again seem to be casting aspersion about my competence.

Here, what the preponderance of reliably published statements state in this case is definitively that Frederick and Robert Kagan are "well-known", "prominent" neocons, making it the mainstream view. Furthermore, apparently only Robert Kagan has publicly shunned the characterization. In that regard, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Ubikwit (talk · contribs) has filed a complaint about my editing at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Is_not_a is a 18:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Neocons and "divided loyalties" / "dual loyalties"

Should the article have a subsection on this topic? The Dual loyalty article contains a paragraph with three sources, but there are more.

• Source discussing the "divided loyalties" issue with respect to neoconservatives.

  Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, "They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel."

• Another source, this one written by former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Kathleen Christison.
• PNAC source, webarchive page of letter quoted by this Mondoweiss piece. Note that both Donald Kagan and Robert Kagan are signatories.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nope Second one first:

Frying pan to fryer? CounterPunch will not pass the "RS for facts" test. It is self-described as "muckraking with a radical attitude" and described by just about everyone as left-wing.

Probably the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

the extremely hawkish, right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place its members inside conservative U.S. administrations

Both JINSA and Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving Moskowitz, a right-wing American Zionist, California business magnate

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the Middle East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and may be the principal reason for his near obsession with the effort,

Even profiles that downplay his attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust, in which several of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source inside the administration has described him frankly as "over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel." Although this probably accurately describes most of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is guilty at least by association

In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel’s causes may be just that — zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that still leaves room for primary loyalty to the United States — and affection for Israel is not in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and emotion — and, as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate attachment to any country — have no place in foreign policy formulation, and it is mere hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to another country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment, and emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.

the paranoid belief that any peace involving territorial compromise will spell the annihilation of Israel, will also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry produces blindness: the zealous effort to pursue Israel’s right-wing agenda has blinded the dual loyalists in the administration to the true face of Israel as occupier, to any concern for justice or equity and any consideration that interests other than Israel’s are involved, and indeed to any pragmatic consideration that continued unquestioning accommodation of Israel, far from bringing an end to violence, will actually lead to its tragic escalation and to increased terrorism against both the United States and Israel.

a bevy of aggressive right-wing neo-con hawks who have long backed the Jewish fundamentalists of Israel’s own right wing

These crazed fundamentalists see Israel’s domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel’s domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other’s policies in administration councils.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East

Thank you so much for suggesting we use this interesting source. Alas, I find it to be over-the-top is assailing people as being extremist fundamentalists who wish to create a Greater Israel." And quite unlikely to be usable for any "claims of fact" per WP:RS.

Joe Klein:

Looking at your source: Joe Klein was quoted as saying Jewish neoconservatives have "divided loyalties" The source you just gave here states: "He stands by his criticism of Jewish neoconservatives, and explains Iran's nuclear ambitions this way: 'Given the level of threats that they've been getting from the United States, and from Israel, it's a logical thing for Iran to want nuclear weapons as a deterrent.'" I fear that many people would find the view that Iran should have nuclear weapons is a "fringe view" in the US.

Klein also says: "They pick Ahmadinejad specifically because he's the guy making the wildest antisemitic statements. I think that's being done for political purposes, to scare the shit out of my parents." Which may also not be a mainstream view in the US.

An interesting interview with a person who appears to hold quite unusual views in the US. I fear, alas, that accusing a substantial number of Jews of having divided loyalties (favouring Israeli interests while claiming to favour US interests) could very easily be misinterpreted, unfortunately rather like the person who avers "Some of my best friends are Jews". (originally posted at Talk:Robert Kagan but clearly identically applicable here.)

Signed the same letter: Oh My G-D! Proof of nefarious dual loyalties! Not. Third source is not even remotely usable for the claim you wish to impute to it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep your G-D! to yourself, because I certainly don't care what your religion is, and neither does Misplaced Pages, as far as I know. Moreover, I take your comment as an insult imputing that I am assuming the authority of a god or something along those lines, and that is a personal attack. Don't bother apologizing, and don't make another unsubstantiated statement about me imputing anything to a source unless you spell out your assertions concretely with respect to my statements and the statements of the sources. Do not misrepresent what I say or what the sources say.

I'm going to ask you ask once to justify your removal of mainstream sources indicating that there have been multiple statements from both the right and the left (not to mention the center) about dual/divided loyalties of the neoconservatives.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK -- I do not care about anyone's religion either - but there is an idiomatic expression involved which does not require such in any event. (See wikt:OMG It is in no way intended as a personal insult to you whatsoever. And all you need do is cite actual WP:RS secondary reliable sources for the claims you wish in the article. That is all you need. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable response.

It is not up to us to make judgment decision about the dual loyalties issues, just describe what the sources say in an NPOV manner. So what is it that you find problematic about this ABC News source that states.

Critics of U.S. Iraq policy, on the right and the left, have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism for asserting that certain members of Bush's administration (namely Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy) have dual loyalty — interests in both the United States and Israel.

There are three points that are obvious from that source: one, there have been allegations of dual loyalties leveled agains noecons (unless you want to argue that they are not); two, the accusations have been leveled from multiple sectors of the political spectrum; and three, those allegations have resulted in a backlash of accusations of anti-Semitism. It should also be pointed out that the ABC source itself specifically documents multiple critical POVs that had been published about the neocons, the citation of which should aid the NPOV presentation on NPOV. Finally, it should be noted that this material was posted in the Criticism section, so obviously it is not stating anything in Misplaced Pages's voice.

If there were a section or other standard practice for presenting the objections to the dual-loyalties allegations, that would obviously belong in the article as well.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the whole article - where Mickey Kaus is specifically noted: which, Slate columnist Mickey Kaus points out, is the same thing as anti-Semitism. Now we look at the piece you cite in context:

Critics of U.S. Iraq policy, on the right and the left, have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism for asserting that certain members of Bush's administration (namely Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy) have dual loyalty — interests in both the United States and Israel. Many of the pro-war members of Bush's administration, like these, were in fact advisers to the administration of Benyamin Netanyahu, a member of the Likud Party, when he was prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999. As Mickey Kaus has mentioned in his column, the issue first gained attention in early February when Robert Kaiser wrote a front-page Washington Post article that noted, "For the first time, a U.S. administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies."

Noting that the same Mickey Kaus is integral to that claim. What you can have is

Mickey Kaus of Slate stated that the accusations of dual loyalties to Jewish members of the Bush administration were the same as "anti-Semitism."

ascribing the term to the person credited with actually using it in the article.

In The Weekly Standard, Brooks wondered if this focus on the Jewish, pro-Israel hawks in the administration constitutes anti-Semitism.

Would support "Brooks writing in The Weekly Standard asked if this focus on Jewish hawks ..."

and "For that matter," he wrote in the Washington Post op-ed, "a cursory review of the literature opposing war in Iraq reveals that the charge of 'Jewish-American hysteria' could just as easily apply to opponents of an invasion

Would support: Kaplan stated that the attention paid to "Jewish-American hysteria" could apply to both sides of the issues.

Do you see the value in ascribing the opinions as opinions to the ones holding them? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, there are a lot of claims being made, and I don't mind covering as many of them as is deemed necessary to achieve NPOV. I was not trying to misrepresent the ABC source, just use its statement that there had been a variety of statements and a reaction as a point of departure to examine the various POVs. Stating Klauss's individual views in addition to his framing of the scenario is not a problem per se, but there is a problem with integrating Kaus' view in that his views are not a criticism of neoconservatives, but in effect a critical response to those criticizing the neoconservatives. I will have to read the article more carefully instead of scanning it, but that would seem to be the issue you are pointing out.

Ascribing opinions is not a problem, and I believe that I did attribute the opinions of Klein and Buchanan that I noted.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The claim that neoconservatives have dual loyalties is a matter of opinion and therefore before presenting the opinion we need to assess its acceptance in reliable sources. As the proponents of the view concede, it has no acceptance in the mainstream and is seen as a conspiracy theory, even anti-Semitic. That is already covered in "Allegations of antisemitism", although that section could probably be better written. There are of course serious criticisms of neo-conservatism, but they do not concentrate on the Jewish connection. TFD (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Don't put words in my mouth or misrepresent the sources, of which there are many. I have stated that there is obviously no problem in attributing what people have said.

Joe Klein is a mainstream journalist and author, and what he says is not a conspiracy theory and he specifically denies your claim of antisemitism. Buchanan says the same thing. You are insinuating that both them and me, by extension, are anitsemitic conspiracy theorists. That is a personal attack and a BLP violation.

Retract your comment and don't make those claims again unless you are addressing specific claims made by specific reliably published sources. You can say, "Abe Foxman said Klein was an anitsemite", but you can't make the assertion yourself, or imply that I am an antisemite because I want to use Klein's reliably published statements in the article.

This has nothing to do with the antisemitism section, unless that is where you want to integrate some of the responses to the allegations of dual loyalties.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- TFD did not say what you appear to assert he said, nor did he remotely say or imply that you are an "anti-Semite" in any way at all. I think you might well use a cup of tea and listen a bit more than you write, for your accusations about what TFD said are not congruent with what I read in his post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is necessary that contentious material like this deals with the sources first and foremost. TFD's statement,

"before presenting the opinion we need to assess its acceptance in reliable sources"

is not a Misplaced Pages content policy, and his assertion that

As the proponents of the view concede, it has no acceptance in the mainstream and is seen as a conspiracy theory, even anti-Semitic

is nothing less than misrepresenting what I said, even if he didn't understand it. It seems fairly clear that he is referring to me as the "proponent". And, again, his subjective editorial pontificating about "acceptance" is irrelevant.

I now see that the "Allegations of antisemitism" goes so far as to quote Klein, but TFD doesn't seem to notice that, because he apparently only wants to represent Klein as being an antisemite, and not present the well-covered statements he made that resulted in his being accused of antisemitism. That would seem to be an odd section indeed, somewhat inverted in light of the fact that the charges of anitsemitism are being made against critics of the neocons.

The last point I'm going to address now is that you misrepresented the ABC piece's first mention of Kaus to make it say the opposite of what the quote is used for. The quote is

Kaplan explained that it's an important question, but one that is often addressed in illegitimate ways (and anti-Semitic ways — though he doesn't use the word "anti-Semitism"). He quoted Paul Schroeder, writing in Pat Buchanan's revived American Conservative magazine, that a plan for invasion of Iraq "is being promoted in the interests of Israel." Kaplan wrote that this "socialism of fools" (which, Slate columnist Mickey Kaus points out, is the same thing as anti-Semitism) has also invaded the anti-war left.

Obviously, Kaus is simply indicating that Kaplan was using a euphemism "socialism of fools" to accuse Schroeder of antisemitism. The only oddity is that Kaplan finishes his sentence with "has also invaded the anti-war left", while Schroeder would appear to be on the right, so apparently he is attempting to cover the allegations coming from both the right and left, labeling them antisemitic.

1. Buchanan on Kaus

   What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”
   And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
   And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
   “If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

2. Greenwald on Klein, Kauss

   Regarding the ADL’s condemnation of Klein, Kaus wrote:
   Note to Foxman: I worked at The New Republic! The magazine supported the war. I consider it’s editor, Martin Peretz, to be a friend and mentor. But if you think Marty’s views are uninfluenced by his affinity for Israel — and that the views of many of the eminent neocons who visited our offices were uninfluenced by “matters of faith” and/or religious identity — then you don’t know Marty and you don’t know The New Republic. In fact, you’re more than a bit clueless. But you are not clueless…As I’ve documented previously, the very same right-wing advocates who scream “anti-semitism” at anyone, such as Klein, who raises the issue of devotion to Israel themselves constantly argue that American Jews do — and should — cast their votes in American elections based upon what is best for Israel. They nakedly trot out the “dual loyalty” argument in order to manipulate American Jews to vote Republican in U.S. elections (e.g.: “the GOP supports Israel and Obama doesn’t; therefore, American Jews shouldn’t vote for Obama”), while screaming “anti-semitism” the minute the premise is used by their political opponents.

Klein’s comments
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You write, ""before presenting the opinion we need to assess its acceptance in reliable sources" is not a Misplaced Pages content policy." See "Due and undue weight": "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Also I do not "want to represent Klein as being an antisemite", I am merely describing how his opinions were received.

So far you present walls of text, misrepresent what other editors say and make personal attacks. You show both a lack of knowledge of the subject and editing policies. You have failed to get any editors on your side. Time to abandon your suggestion and move on.

TFD (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You were (and continue to be) dismissing sources arbitrarily based on your personal criteria. Klein was called an antisemite by Foxman and others, not by all of the sources by a long shot. In fact, there are probably as many (if not more) RS statements criticizing those calling Klein an antisemite than there are RS statements calling him an antisemite. So apparently you weren't paying attention to the sources, or simply didn't like what you saw in the sources. The statements posted are all reliably sourced, DUE applies to assigning them appropriate weight, and has nothing to do with your personal opinion of "acceptance", whether you like the POVs found in the reliably published statements or not. And incidentally, nowhere in the "Allegations of antisemitism" is Klein described as even being called an antisemite, so where did you see that?

You again challenge my competence, when it is you, apparently, that can't be bothered to take the time to read the sources your pointy statements require in response. Remeber, you don't have to participate if this is over your head.

I suggest you cease and desist with the tiresome attempts at dissimulation.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"DUE applies to assigning them appropriate weight, and has nothing to do with your personal opinion of "acceptance",,,," Exactly! I have not provided my personal opinions and find reliable sources assign your sources no weight. As for being over one's head, you know nothing about the subject except that lots of neoconservatives are/were Jewish. TFD (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you reverted citing "Undue weight", Id like to see you collaboratively figure out a way to include this material as well as restructuring the article so that the "Anti-Semitism section" is redirected as a response to the manifold claims of claims of dual/divided loyalty.

Note that, though you claim undue weight, I've included primarily centrist sources only, with one source that could be considered to be on the "right" in Buchanan, but have not included sources considered to be on the "left", except for the statements defending Klein, which might be considered to be on the left, but are not necessarily so.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You begin your section, "Dual loyalty", by saying, "In the run up to the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of dual loyalty were levelled against the neoconservatives from various sectors." But the source does not mention the neoconservatives. Incidentally, it does not matter whether comments come from left. right or center, just whether they have prominence in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a summary introducing all of the sources. The ABC article introduced far more sources than I have dared include, in light of DUE and WEIGHT, but those sources include the Buchanan piece, and Kaus. The ABC piece directly mentions the widespread nature of the controversy, which in and of itself should be a signal that it is DUE.

One could try to summarize the controversy and some of the more poignant statements instead of using blockquotes, but it is somewhat complicated. The debate starts in 2003 and has not gone away. Moreover, the ABC article (2003) predates Klein's engagement with the topic in 2008.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Allegations of antisemitism" section

This entire section is like a predicate without a subject.
There are only three conservative (and Jewish? "Likudniks"?) authors represented in the subject, with almost none of the background of the "allegations", which were in fact counter accusations that have been presented here in an ahistorical manner, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. While most of the statements on this topic that have been presented have been published by Jews, only those of the ilk supporting Likud--a point at issue--are represented, to the exclusion of all others... Meanwhile, the point Kaus makes about Chris Matthews is relevant here as well.

The statements of conservatives, like Buchanan, have not been mentioned (though Buchanan is named), yet the lead sentence (sourced to Lieber) of the section states,
"...the term has been adopted by independents and the political left to stigmatize endorsement of Israel".
The statements of Buchanan directly refute the allegation made by Lieber, and Buchanan is a "traditional conservative".

There is no description of "independents" or "the political left", not to mention centrists.

Lieber describes all of the criticism in a totalizing manner as a "conspiracy theory", an accusation vigorously denied by many reliable sources.
And the allegations that "neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew" is also not supported by any statements outside of those made by the three authors cited. The source for Lieber, a somewhat sensationalist ("sinister mythology") article in The Chronicle of Higher Education can is not a mainstream source on political matters, and though Lieber is an academic, it is not a scholarly or peer reviewed publication, but a campus oriented newspaper. Are there no other reliably published statements by Lieber on the topic? Furthermore, Lieber is not mentioned in any of the other sources.

Meanwhile, Klein specifically addresses "Jewish neoconservatives", and Buchanan denies that Jewishness per se has anything to do with his criticism of the policies promoted by the neocons, rather "dual loyalty". Numerous liberal writers have weighed in on the controversy, but none of their statements are covered whatsoever.

All of the statements represent only the early stages of the controversy and date to 2003. None relates to Iran and the controversy surrounding Joe Klein, though he was quoted in the section in a manner not representative of his role or indicative of the controversy occurring anew pertaining directly to his statements of 2008, and which continues to receive coverage.

Not even in the WP:NPOV ballpark.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 09:26, 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jewishness

@Collect: Jewishness is important where it is important, not where it isn't. I'm not going to replace the material on the historical development of certain intellectual aspects of the movement, but that is unrelated to Buchanan declaring in 2003 that he wan't criticizing the neocons clamoring for war with Iraq because they were Jewish.
Numerous commentators have also differentiated between those promoting war int he interests of their alignment with Likud as opposed to the benefit of Israel per se. Questions related to the significance of Jewishness/Israel have to be addressed in the context of the sources on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alas - I find that position incomprehensible -- that we mention Jewishness and anti-Semitism maybe in one place, or maybe remove it,, that we not mention Jewishness in another, but maybe we do mention it in connection with New York, and so on depending on what precisely? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to comprehend how you fail to understand the question of context.

As I said, I'm not particularly concerned about the NY detail, as it is in the obscure and distant past of the movement, and bears little import to most people that will be accessing the article. The allegations of dual loyalty, counter accusations of antisemitism, etc., are all fairly context intensive issues. That does make the creation of NPOV content about them complicated, but not impossible.

I think it will be a challenge to whittle the mass of material down into a couple of subsections that focus the POVs raised by the allegations, counter-accusations, responses, etc. Sometimes we will just have to list names, like Kaus does, and only quote a single representative statement.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we simply all avoid the whole Jewish megillah here. Collect (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up, rebuilding

There's a lot of unsourced, somewhat gossipy ungrounded quotes and other undue material, much with "dubious" tags, and a redundant and superfluous section or two, etc., that I've cleaned up, rebuilding using the material where possible.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics