Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:18, 15 March 2015

List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush

• Article Re-moved to: List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is fundamentally flawed. It claims that the individuals listed were "members" of an organization, but only one of them is listed on the organization's website as members of the group's board of directors or as staff members. These individuals signed one of two documents produced by the organization. Describing them as "members" of the organization is WP:OR.

This article exists to make a political point. GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note This article has beem moved to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC per issues stated below about ambiguity of 'associated with'. The term 'members' is still questioned by some below. Jbh (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete SYNTH in making a claim that anyone who signs anything at all related to an organization is therefore a "member" of that organization. Uses such wonderful sources as Lewrockwell.com for conspiracy articles making such assertions. Violates WP:BLP by making implications that living persons engaged in a conspiracy. Violates WP:NPOV by failing to include a whit of balancing material about any person. Violates WP:RS by using sources which are clearly not usable for contentious claims about living persons. Uses the classic "guilt by association" fallacy through use of a table "connecting" individuals who are not otherwise "connected." And so on. I believe the proper term here is "POV pushing list making a POINT". To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be "merged" but should be salted thoroughly. A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today. Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, a couple things:

• It has not been established that there is any SYNTH/OR in this article. In fact the current discussion over at BLP/N seems to be leaning the other way, since you have refused or been unable to point out an actual/recognizable piece of SYNTH/OR in this article. You've also failed to make a convincing/intelligible case for this table being SYNTH or OR here, here, here and here.
• There are many reliable, secondary sources cited in the article which both verify and verify the notability of the connections the table draws. Most or all of these sources are reliable, scholarly monographs, and each of them makes the same type of connection between individuals "connected" with PNAC in one way or another, and those same individuals' "connection" to the George W Bush administration. I'd urge everyone to check out the citations in the article (especially the quotes in the footnotes), where you'll find lists much like the one the table represents. See this source, this source, and this source for just a couple of examples. The table summarizes these sources, it does not synthesize them, and those same sources speak to the verifiability and notability of this article's content.
• You'll have to explain where in the article there is any mention of conspiracy theories, any "guilt by association," or any POV pushing. I see none of those things (and neither do most of the people in the discussions I linked above), so I think you need to be a lot more specific.
• I gather you have a problem with the Rockwell source - may I assume since they are mostly peer-reviewed, scholarly books, and since you haven't explained why you deem them unreliable, that the other 15+ citations are OK?

Sorry, but this article/question has been discussed to death in multiple forums/talk pages, and you have not demonstrated that any of the claims you make above are true. Please point to specific evidence of these claims. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Did the nominator read the quoted references in the article, which appear to be multiple books from publishers that are usually RS? How is it possible that OR, which is when one does not have such RS, apply? As for the name of the article, AfD is not for changing article names. Also, did the nominator read the discussion at WP:BLPN which appears by consensus to reject Collect's claims? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  Generally when an editor feels the need to add fifteen citations to one sentence, it's a good sign that something controversial is going on. I am not disputing the fact that these individuals signed these two documents, that is well cited. WP:OR comes into play because the list jumps from "this person signed a letter that the organization put together" to "this person is a member of the organization". GabrielF (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You have not read the sources then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources. Mostly they describe these individuals as signatories.GabrielF (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean as signatories to the principles of the organization? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So, if an organization publishes an open letter to a politician and gathers signatures from individuals and allied groups, that means that those signatories are "members" of the organization? Can we say that 4Chan is a member of the EFF because it signed its letter on surveillance? There are plenty of letters on, say, FCC policy that are signed by groups on both the left and the right. Organization's frequently use letters as a tool to advance a policy position. That doesn't mean that everyone who signs the letter is a member of the organization, only that they agree with what's in the letter.GabrielF (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If multiple high quality RS describe them as such then we do. Is there something in policy that says we do not describe people as RS do? Jbh (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is evident you are hung up on "members" (which as noted below with the sourcing is, at the very least, not far from an ordinary paraphrase of the sources). We don't delete article that have quibbles about singular words. Moreover, not letter - statement of principles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is both a statement of principles and a 1998 letter to Clinton on Iraq. Some people listed signed one, some signed the other, some signed both. The inclusion criteria for the list are (implicitly) signing either the statement of principles or the letter to Clinton. We certainly do delete lists if the inclusion criteria for the list is based on OR or SYNTH.GabrielF (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither OR nor Synth exist when the RS make the list - the inclusion criteria was demonstrably not invented by Wikipedians here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Merge - I changed my !vote to Merge based on the discussion below. Particularly on the need for context and to prevent the formation of a POV Fork. Also see my several comments below. The article is highly referenced with a plethora of high quality sources which use the term members. The signatories of the two "letters" are grouped together in multiple RS. There is no question of OR. Collect claims the sourcing is bad because of lewrockwell. That source is used for nothing and there is discussion on the talk page to delete it. He does not address the multiple sources from highly respected academic presses like Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage, State University of New York Press and Texas A&M University Press. When the "guilty" are "associated" by multiple high quality sources it is not a BLP violation. That is assuming there is even anything to be "guilty of" which I do not concede. As to your aunt's neighbor I am sorry to hear that but such touching anecdotes carry no weight here. They serve only as a rhetorical device to change a rational discussion into an emotional one.

  These very issues are being discussed at BLPN and were discussed in the past here, here, here and here Jbh (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Your assertion that I only find lewrockwell to be a problem is incorrect and inapt, and seems more of an ad hom attack on me than a defense of the article. And I note that you only assert "associated with" and not "membership" here -- and in the 50s anyone "'associated' with the CPUSA" was therefore a "communist" which is precisely where I find this sort of SYNTH leads without a doubt. If you find my distaste for McCarthyism to be "emotional" - damn straight it is emotional for anyone who knew people whose lives were destroyed. "Touching anecdote" is not the case here - and I find such dismissiveness of McCarthyism as "touching anecdotes" to be quite offensive. Tell me when someone makes a "touching anecdote" by destroying someone you know that it is just a mere "touching anecdote." By that argument, Hiroshima is a mere "touching anecdote". If one is willing to destroy others, then such people would not give a damn. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since you only brought up the lewrockwell source and presented it as representative of the sourcing I would say my comment is spot on. If you would care to bring up specific issues with how other sources are used other sources fine. I did not dismiss McCarthyism and your attempt to re-frame my comment is yet another attempt to drive this discussion from policy to emotion. Yes, here on Misplaced Pages, personal accounts are all pretty much "touching anecdotes". As to my my "touching anecdotes" of friends "destroyed" I do not know you well enough to discuss those and I would never cheapen those memories to score points in an on line debate. We are done on that particular topic. Jbh (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • What an interesting form of debate --you first say that "touching anecdotes" mean nothing here - then you say that by honouring those memories I am "cheapening" them! People had their lives utterly destroyed by McCarthyism - but you seem to view that seeking to stop the "guilt by association" argument that I am "cheapening" their memories! Is your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? For myself, I do not regard the belief that "guilt by association" is intrinsically wrong "cheapens" anything at all - indeed, it is what gives value to life itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Here are just a few of the high-quality sources and excerpts of relevant passages.

1. From ‘’US Foreign Policy and the Rogue State Doctrine’’, Alex Miles, Routledge, 2014

   PNAC was a victory for the ‘young Turks’, and its manifesto called for ‘American global leadership’… Included in those who signed up to PNAC and its principles were key officials in the George W. Bush administration, such as Rumsfled, Libby, Wolfowitz, Cheney and John Bolton.
   PNAC members vigorously promoted its agenda for extending US unipolarity by appearing before Congressional Committees, promulgating their message in the media and sending open letters to the Clinton White House.

2. From another peer-reviewed book (Cambridge University Press)Presidential Saber Rattling: Causes and Consequences, B. Dan Wood, 2012

   The 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton was signed by Donald Rumsfled, Paul wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Amitage, Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, John Bolton, Robert Zoellick, Peter Rodman, and Zalmay Khalilzad. In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were signers of he PNAC Statement of Principles issues on June 3, 1997 (Project for New American Century, 1997). Of course, all of these names should be familiar as important foreign policy officials of the Bush administration.

3. From peer-reviewed scholarly paper, “War Programming: The Propaganda Project and the Iraq War” published in The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005):
   

   “The PNAC was very influential in changing U.S. foreign policy as well as promoting favorable news coverage about going to war with Iraq following the attacks of 9/11. The Iraq War was informed by these efforts and the resulting propaganda campaign to convince the American people that attacking Iraq was tantamount to attacking ‘terrorists’ and others who threatened the United States (Armstrong 2002). This organization was closely related to several other prominent think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), with its offices located on the fifth floor of the AEI’s Washington building. Many members of the PNAC joined the Bush administration and became credible claims makers, who constructed the frames for shaping subsequent news reports.

   --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

How about George Packer in The New Yorker:

A commenter I assume to be Gary Schmitt, the former executive director and current senior fellow at the Project for the New American Century, writes to take me to task for my characterization of the organization, saying that PNAC contributed no staff or board members to the Bush Administration. Schmitt is right. I was thinking of the signatories to its statement of principles and its letters on regime change in Iraq—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, John Bolton, Richard Perle, and Richard Armitage—none of whom held formal positions in PNAC. I regret the error.

Packer is, of course, not a fan of either PNAC or the Bush administration. His quote here suggests that one can list signatories of the PNAC documents, but that using the term "members" implies a formal relationship with the organization, which was not the case.GabrielF (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we can cite that as a quoted opinion but it is only one source vs many. Would you care to suggest another term to define this notable confluence of PNAC 'whatevers' Please supply your preferred term and posts in Bush II. This seems to be a naming dispute the list is compliant with WP:LISTPEOPLE and the relationships are notable per RS. Do you have issues other than the use of "members"? We started with "associated with" but it was kind of meh. Jbh (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is that while many serious people make the point that many individuals who had some association with PNAC went on to senior positions in the Bush Administration, that same argument is used by conspiracy theorists to advance fringe beliefs. These include the 9/11 truth movement as well as people who believe that Jews control the government. Given this context, Misplaced Pages should be very careful to accurately describe PNAC and the relationship that it had with the people on this list. This was a very small organization with a small board of directors, a tiny staff and a limited budget (certainly compared with, say, CFR, CSIS, Brookings, WINEP, etc.). It lasted for about a decade. It had the ability to attract big-name signatures on some letters, but signing a statement of principles is different (legally and practically) from serving on an organization's board of directors.

I would argue that, given that the PNAC article already lists the signatories of the statement of principles, a separate list belabors the point. I have no problem with the text of the PNAC article stating that many prominent conservative foreign policy thinkers signed its statement of principles or its letter regarding Iraq. I have no problem saying that many of those signatories went on to prominent positions in the Bush administration. I do have a problem implying that there was a formal relationship between PNAC and these individuals when there was not. GabrielF (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@GabrielF: The 'formal relationship' point is a good one and to an extent I agree. That is why 'associated with' was used. There was a lot of feedback that 'associated with' was too loose a term and it was not the most prevalent term used in RS. I moved the article to a title using 'members'. While I agree the implication of 'format relationship' could be problimatic we are not the ones making that implication as has been shown repeatedly it is the RS that call them 'members'. Overall a MERGE might be a good result because there would be more context. The reason it is not a separate article is because Collect has brought the issue of the information five times in the last month regardless of the consensus reached in any prior discussion. See the fourth paragraph in this discussion for a list of prior discussions in the last 30 days.

As to the 'conspiracy theory' issue, what crackpost think is not a reason to limit content. The conspiracy angle can be addressed and dismissed by RS in the prose or the article or by context if MERGEd into the PNAC article.Jbh (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's easier just to focus on WEIGHT than a one-off, less than clear statement in terms of supporting what the target is, by introducing higher quality sources that represent the overwhelming mainstream view. Here is another academic source.

In an open letter to President Bill Clinton on January 26, 1998, several prominent members of PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage, James Woolsey, Paul Wolofowitz, and William Bennett urged the president to remove “Saddam Hussein’s regime from power” (PNAC, 1998).First Impressions, Second Thoughts: Reflections on the Changing Role of Think Tanks in U.S. Foreign Policy, Abelson, Critical Issues of Our Time, v.8, Center for American Studies, University of Western Ontario, 2011

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GabrielF You are presenting arguments against the reliably published statements found in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Does it need to be specifically pointed out as to which of those matters in terms of content creation policies on Misplaced Pages?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete First, like the WMF is not a membership organization, the PNAC was not a membership organization, and any source claiming that it had "members" is too sloppy to be used by a serious encyclopedia---but apparently with sufficient truthiness to satisfy WP:NotTruth. So, the title and the references are misleading about "membership". Second, the inclusion criteria with Bush are incredibly vague. "Associated with" could include endorsing, opposing, donating money to, making fun of, etc. The parent article on the PNAC has already been plagued by sourcing from conspiracy theorists, who seek to blame a 5-employee letterhead organization for overpowering the Pentagon and CIA and NSA and State Department and all the NGOS in Washington---and in the UK, etc.---for the Bush_2 War with Saddam Hussein. DearODear 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Insofar as the notability and other requirements for a "stand-alone list" article are met, the specific inclusion criteria and naming do not seem to be grounds for asserting deletion. There is already a discussion regarding the name/move.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, consider the hypothetical List of WMF members associated with pornography---although I know of only one WMF Board Member who has been termed a "pornographer" by The Guardian and presumably at least another reliable source. There are plenty of RSes about the WMF Commons and pornography. I suspect that WP would not allow such a list. DearODear 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dear ODear ODear: So you have an issue with the title of the table and the wording used. Are you aware that there's a discussion about altering both the wording and the title underway on the article's talk page right now? You're making an argument that would be helpful over there, rather than an argument for deletion. You also say that the "inclusion criteria" is "incredibly vague" - but there are multiple reliable sources which make the same connections, and their inclusion criteria is quite clear (as the table indicates): the people listed either worked for PNAC, signed its Statement of Principlies or signed a key PNAC policy statement (such as the 1998 letter to Clinton). There are like 15 sources in the article that make the inclusion criteria for drawing such connections crystal clear, and which testify to the notability of those connections. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Breaking this out as a list, by divorcing it from its context, makes it essentially a POV fork of Project for the New American Century. The title isn't a likely search term, so there's no reason to leave a redirect. Tom Harrison 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, it meets the notability and other requirements as a stand-alone list.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tom harrison: Isn't that an argument for merging it into Project for the New American Century rather than for deletion? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete It's repeating the same information in Project for the New American Century without context. the inclusion criteria is also to vague and likely a BLP violation. A defunct organization for 10 years and inclusion criteria being a document signed 20 years ago is not sufficient to support a list. It's not evolving and it's covered in the unchanging pnac article. The points in the document are so vague now and so old that virtually every U.S. politician holds those views. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI DHeyward this table was in the PNAC article until recently, where there is considerably more context and a nuanced discussion of what these connections actually represent/mean. The article was only spun out because of Collect's obstinate refusal to recognize/accept the consensus in numerous discussions that there's no OR/SYNTH here. Personally, I would rather see it merged back into the PNAC article where it can be properly contextualized.

As for inclusion criteria, check the quotes in the sources - multiple reliable sources make their inclusion criteria for the same/similar lists very clear, and the table uses the exact same criteria. Those same sources also testify to the notability of the connections (and the table). Fyddlestix (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, further to mine above that Wikipedians did not create the inclusion criteria:

Jan. 26, 1998 - Hawks Send Open Letter to Clinton

A group of neo-conservatives, who have formed The Project for a New American Century, argue for a much stronger U.S. global leadership exercised through "military strength and moral clarity."

In an open letter to Clinton, the group warns that the policy of containing Iraq is "dangerously inadequate." . . .

The letter's signatories include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle,William Kristol, and other current members of George W. Bush's administration, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.

PBS Frontline The War Behind Closed Doors: Chronology of Evolution of the Bush Doctrine

--Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and/or Merge into Project for the New American Century. I feel that there can be no question as to the table's notability, verifiability and consistency with wikipedia's policies/guidelines:

• The sources are all right there (15 of them), and most/all of those contain a list that is very similar to the one in the table.
• These lists note that many people have been "connected" (in one way or another) to both PNAC and the George W Bush administration, they list some of the individuals so connected (listing the same names that are in the article), and they note the type/basis of connection (which is also noted in the third column of the article).
• The article simply summarizes the 15+ reliable sources that are referenced in the article.

That Said: I feel that the table needs to be properly explained/contextualized, and that this can not happen when it is a stand-alone list article. I believe it should be merged back into the main article on PNAC, where the table can be balanced/countered with a broader discussion of what various academic scholars have said these connections mean and represent.

Look at the last sentence of the second paragraph here to get an idea what I mean. The table itself is fine, well documented, notable, and (contrary to what some argue above) it has not been shown to violate any wikipedia guidelines or policies. But it does need to be paired with a broader discussion to avoid the impression of making an argument (in wikipedia's voice) that the totality of the literature on PNAC does not support. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the article provides ample context, and since the idea was to provide a sublist (not "stand-alone", I was mistaken though it meets the notablity criteria) linked to the article, it should be easy enough to refer to the article for context.

It also seems that the range of opinions is not that diverse, so detailed or broad discussion would be limited by DUE/WEIGHT. Statements to the effect that the influence has been exaggerated are of limited utility, because has been expounded upon. I've seen a couple of other descriptions that they were more mainstream than is thought, but that doesn't hold up with respect to Iraq, which is the topic upon which the vast majority of scrutiny is focused.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential compromise

I suggest the following as a compromise. Create an article titled List of signatories of the PNAC Statement of Principles. For each entry in that list, have one column for the person's position at the time of the writing, and a second column for their subsequent career. Use text in the lede to explain that the document attracted many prominent signatories amongst conservative foreign policy thinkers and that many of these went on to positions of influence in the Bush administration. This has the following advantages:

• The article is framed in a broader way than just "look how many of these guys went into the administration". It establishes the facts without appearing to exist only to make a point.
• It provides relevant context. It shows the total number of signatories, not just the number who went into the administration. The current list includes people who had minor roles in the Bush Administration, but were principally outside of government during those years (e.g. Francis Fukuyama who was on a bioethics panel). By listing all of their subsequent activities we can show readers exactly what people did during these years, and whether their work in government was a small part of their life or a big part.
• By clearly stating the signer's association to the group in the title ("signatory"), it avoids giving the impression that people had a formal relationship with the group when they did not.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. This one, in my opinion, runs into some of the very problems alleged in the article under discussion. I am afraid that OR and SYNTH could be an issue due to tying too many things together. For instance we would be drawing attention to career trajectories that the sources do not. Also the RS do not comment on "whether their work in government was a small part of their life or a big part". That would also be OR and SYNTH.

The list as it stands consists of people who either signed the Statement of Principles or The 1998 Letter to President Clinton on Iraq so the title is problematic. Just using 'Signatories' does not work because there are about a dozen other letters put out by PNAC that RS do not tie to getting a position in the administration. There are also 50+ people who signed those other letters. I suspect that because of how hard it is to concisely specify the group of people who signed the two significant documents RS have settled on 'members'. After addressing the issues I mentioned we end up with the article as it exists plus a much better lead. Which I heartily agree with. How would you address these issues?

Ultimately this article is intended to be linked from the PNAC article where the issue of influence on Bush II Administration and foreign policy is discussed. That is once the complaints about OR and SYNTH which brought us here are addressed. This is intended to be a sub-article of The Project for the New American Century not a POV fork of it as has been suggested in the section above. Again, thank you for helping to find a middle ground. Jbh (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, my proposal would simply state the facts of a person's career. For Francis Fukuyama, it would list his appointments over the relevant time period. I do not see an OR issue. We have many lists that state basic biographical information about people (dates of birth and death, education, occupation, etc). In fact, I see it as far less OR to describe Fukuyama's primary academic job, than to list only his association with a bioethics panel.

I do not see a problem with either two separate articles or two separate tables: one for the statement of principles and one for the Iraq letter. The only issue that I see is that the title becomes unwieldy. I would expect that a lede paragraph would explain the particular historical significance of these two documents.

I think that the advantages of my proposal outweigh the concerns.GabrielF (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that the "List of Signatories" is already in the PNAC article - thus that is an irrelevant remedy. The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. And the "other letters" are, AFAICT, improper bases to assert "membership" of any sort to any person. Collect (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Damn you think I am trying "to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. That is a pretty strong accusation. Back it up or strike it. Jbh (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort about you. I would ask you to look at the massive set BLP violations formerly in the PNAC article. Including the implicit accusations of seeking biological warfare and genocide. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I am the one that created this article from the pre-existing list. You state "The purpose of this article..." that is a direct accusation. I am willing to accept that you 'misspoke' however, you need to strike that as it reads as a direct attack on my personal motives. I simply will not have such an accusation stand, whether intended or not. Thank you for your understanding.

I was part of the consensus to remove the "seeking biological..." material as well as other material that was objectionable. There is no such material in this article. Just because I strongly disagree with you on some things does not mean I disagree with you on everything. Jbh (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I referred to the PNAC article - I had not thought that you created it - nor would I expect you to defend the genocide and biological warfare implications which had been in that article. I, in fact, listed the full "prior state" on a noticeboard to show just how poor an article the PNAC was in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well enough. The state of the PNAC article was indeed terrible a month ago. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

improvement on the original list, and it address my two stated concerns. On the other hand, it seems to have the same problem as List of pornographers who have been officers or employees of the WMF.DearODear 19:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to argue by linking that Dear ODear. Please consult the sources in the article, which clearly establish that lists of people "connected" (however you want to word that) to PNAC and "connected" to the GWB admin appear in multiple reliable sources. This is not a random/nonsensical category that has been invented without basis. Many, many RS compile the same or similar lists. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge with Project for the New American Century. I'm not sure why we need this article, as it seems like an article based on a Venn diagram. The PNAC article discusses the group's connections with the Bush administration, so this can be part of that discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The full salient list of signatories is already in the PNAC article - by "merge" are you suggesting that each person be named at least twice? Collect (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The article has an implicit point of view: that there is a connection between involvement in the PNAC and later membership in the Bush administration. A more reasonable approach would be to list all the people involved in the PNAC, mention their involvement in the Bush administration, then provide sources on whether this information is notable. But all of that would belong in the PNAC article. TFD (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep No substantiated policy reason is given to throw away all this work entirely, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. The OR and SYNTH objections are without merit even to the term "members" given the sourcing and the words the sources use (thus, no BLP issue). The FORK issue, while having perhaps more purchase, is not sustained in the body of the list article where there is no Misplaced Pages POV shown, just a recitation of facts: these people did this and this. In short, these relatively few people notably articulated the governing principles of the group and/or as sourced signed on to a notable piece of lobbying of government by the group, and later were notably in government - in a way the sources draw a direct notable line between. All that is well sourced, and yes both overlapping sets can be discussed and identified by name in the merge candidate or as a sub-list-article, which appears to have been the intent. (Naming issues should be addressed elsewhere). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, a sub-list-article was the intent when this article was created. Jbh (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete There is no freestanding list of Signatories to Statement of Principles, as both the list and the article are sufficiently short that they are contained within the main article. The utility of a freestanding list within a list, when a breakout of the entire list cannot be justified escapes me.

• WP:NPOV and WP:FORK - that several WP:RS exist that allege that PNAC had an outsized influence on Bush administration policy, and they list those signatories that subsequently were appointed is not in dispute. This is mentioned in the article, and the existence of these WP:RS make that justifiable, but WP:NPOV dictates that this be balanced in the article, which it is. The creation of this new list is, in essence, a "do-over" of the WP:NPOV and WP:DUE debate. Further, WP:RS that list the Bush administration appointees that were signatories are also making the argument that there was outsized influence, and those that disagree generally do not think the argument to be valid, and do NOT list the appointees. The list is a proxy for a point of view, and as a standalone list is a WP:FORK.

• Lists are a navigational aid. They are not meant to DIRECT readers to a viewpoint or thesis. The list with wikilinked names contained within the PNAC article, (where it is most useful) is more than sufficient for any legitimate purpose to direct readers to further look up individuals that were signatories. Readers can already effortlessly check if signatories served in any administration or think tank.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is essentially a do over of the previous 4 debates, where there was consensus to have the table and information in the article. (see multiple diffs above for these discussions) The reason for the 'do over' is that a single editor would not accept the consensus of the prior debates and kept removing the table and starting new discussions at BLPN and on the talk page of the PNAC article. As has been repeated ad nauseam, the list passes WP:LISTPEOPLE. It serves an encyclopedic purpose beyond the simple list of directors and Statement of Principles signatories currently in the article. That encyclopedic purpose is verified as notable by multiple reliable sources. I do agree that this list would be better in the article to avoid a POV Fork. Jbh (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither correct nor accurate - as JBH knows, I was not the only one to remove the BLP violations, so accusing me of being the only editor against a vast array of "everyone else" is more than a tad incorrect. And the problem was mainly with an editor who expressly has voiced his position that he would add innumerable other names to this current "list." If we have a list of "members" of an organization who are not members of that organization then we are instantly violating Misplaced Pages policies. Which I had thought was simple logic. And note that consensus can not override policies - the concept that any simple majority can ignore policy is detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, others were removing some BLP. Yes the initial list was bad. Yes there was a poorly sourced list of 'signed one letter or contributed a paper'. All of that was, to my knowledge, removed during the first discussion. The issue is not consensus overriding policy it is consensus overriding your view of policy. That is the whole point of consensus and you are a senior and talented enough editor to know that. Jbh (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Two letters have been the main focus of the sources: Statement of Principles, and PNAC Iraq letter to the Clinton White House. And I have seen two other's mentioned in this context: Rebuilding America's Defenses, and the letter to Clinton on Kosovo.

I don't believe that there was ever an attempt to put people on the list that hadn't signed one of those and served in the Bush administration, and all of those that did so should be included on the list, assuming there is a source to support that.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates