Misplaced Pages

Talk:Project for the New American Century: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:51, 24 June 2012 editOhiostandard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,699 edits Brattleboro Reformer ref: Strike comment by an obvious sock account, User:Eat memory.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:00, 13 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,808,168 editsm top: blp=otherTag: AWB 
(701 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Mid}}
{{controversy}}
{{WikiProject History |importance=Low}}
{{BLP}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Low}}
{{archivebox|
{{WikiProject Military history |class=B |b1=yes |b2=yes |b3=yes |b4=yes |b5=yes |US=yes |Middle-Eastern=yes |Post-Cold-War=yes}}
] <small>Apr 2003 - Dec 2004</small><br/>
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low |DC=yes |DC-importance=Low}}
] <small> Mar 2005 - May 2007</small><br/>
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
] <small>May 2007 - May 2008</small><br/>
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Iraq |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Kurdistan |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low}}
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|importance=low|global perspective=yes}}
}} }}
{{Controversial}}


{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
== Bot report : Found duplicate references ! ==
In , I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
* "PNACClinton" :
** <nowiki>], et al., , ], ], ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed ], ].</nowiki>
** <nowiki>, ], ], accessed ], ].</nowiki>
* "PNACSOP" :
** <nowiki>], et al., , ], ], ''newamericancentury.org'', accessed ], ].</nowiki>
** <nowiki> ''The Project for the New American Century'', Accessed May 15, 2007.</nowiki>
* "RAD2000" :
** <nowiki>'''', 2000, ''Project for the New American Century'', accessed ], ].</nowiki>
** <nowiki><ref name="Clinton_kosovo">, ''The Project for the New American Century'', September 1998, accessed ], ].</nowiki>
] (]) 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Web site down ==
| algo = old(30d)

| archive = Talk:Project for the New American Century/Archive %(counter)d
So what's happened to www.newamericancentury.org ? Did they not pay their rent? Har har. ]&nbsp;] 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
| counter = 6
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives|search=yes}}


==No more original research==
There's no more original research in this heavily improved section,
so any discussion of the current edit should be under this section
and only refering to the current resources and the wording I've used now. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I agree with the IP contributor from Vienna that the speculation on politically useful genetically targeted biological weapons was among the more egregious and provocative statements within this arrogant war mongering 'study.' It bothered others, as the supplied references show, and should be pointed out as careless and dangerous conjecture on the future of warfare! The art of war indeed! I'm a Vietnam era vet who was advocating for cooperative space development when this paper was published and I showed it to many people as an example of the danger of the military industrial complex influenced by individuals who argued for military solutions with no personal military experience! It is perhaps telling that the principal author of RAD now identifies as a woman-- a bit of overcompensating in the past? ] (]) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort, time and support in showing this example of potential danger to the future of mankind in the form of military "science" for methods of such future warfare to other experts in this field, and I'm glad and it's relieving to know others perceive this
threat as well. I'm a bachelor in cultural and social anthropology with a specialization in medical anthropology and a family background in the military industrial complex and began to develop growing interest in military science and secret services through the interconnections of the Project ARTICHOKE, CHATTER, MIDNIGHT CLIMAX, MKULTRA, STARGATE projects with the redlight milieu and Propaganda Due's Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi, as well as the AAONMS' (International) Royal Order of Jesters the FBI has been investigating, which perfectly fit these economic fields and thematically also fit the oriental focus of PNAC, at least in the form of yet manifested wars. The Moroccan witness Imane Fadil in the Bunga Bunga trial against Berlusconi had probably been (radioactively) poisoned lately and died on March 1st 2019, high levels of metals have been found in her body. Political poisonings have been practiced for millenia, but this proposal to target whole kinds of human beings for political profit with "scientifically" derived (bio)chemical (and genetically operating) warfare methods, is taking it to a (or since the Nazi human "experimentation"/torture and mass murder programs already not so) new level (which have been partially adopted in ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA, after importing Dr. Kurt Blome in OVERCAST/PAPERCLIP). Berlusconi had been active as Propaganda Due's media czar for the right in Italy during the Stay-Behind's (also post-)"Strategy of Tension"-years, dispensing anti-communist propaganda in the same style PNAC produced Anti-Afghanistan, Anti-Iraq, Anti-Iran, Anti-North Korea, Anti-Somalia, Anti-Syria, Anti-Libya, Anti-Venezuela and Anti-Islam propaganda through their Washington Post and Weekly Standard outlets into the political media sphere since 1997, as well as increasingly after their "new Pearl Harbor", that had been described as "absent" in their September 2000 blueprint for "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", became a manifest reality in the following year:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/witness-in-berlusconi-s-bunga-bunga-trial-poisoned-f27h7qd5c
https://fr.wikipedia.org/Dick_Cheney#/media/File:Silvio_Berlusconi_to_a_joint_session_of_Congress.jpg
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/buffalo/press-releases/2010/bffo111910.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20160503154214/http://sandyfrost.newsvine.com:80/_news/2008/12/07/2188846-jester-prostitution-updates-stebick-sentenced http://web.archive.org/web/20170808193030/https://sandyfrost.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/12/1424688-judge-central-figure-in-fbi-probe-the-sobib-and-the-jesters-half-million-dollar-weekend-parties <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have problems with a lot of the sources being used the proposed addition. Mackay's book seems like crankery - I don't think it passes ] or ] to devote an entire section to it. Coldtype don't look like they pas ], either. The Sunday Herald source doesn't mention it the genotype-targeting quote at all. And the other sources (eg. Scoop, which isn't a ''great'' source) only mention PNAC in passing - it's not clear what relevance this has to them beyond the fact that they mentioned it in a paper. The implication you're trying to draw from this quote - that PNAC ''advocated'' using genetic warfare, rather than ''warning'' about it - is ] and requires better sourcing than this. --] (]) 18:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Award-winning authors are not publishing "crankery", but heavily sourced, professional and reliable sources and nowhere is mentioned in my current edit version, that PNAC is promoting genetical warfare, but only that it classifies it as a "politcally useful tool", when these weapons are taken out of the "realm of terrorism", but that it nowhere explicitly mentions their (un)intentional dangers. Both facts that are discussed in the quoted articles, are caused directly by PNAC itself, in their own main strategic blueprint. Everything else, including the only valid argument of original research, had been removed to establish consensus, by quoting the articles and books which discuss PNAC's quote. The Sunday Herald article doesn't mention PNAC "in passing", but it is the central object of analysis of a very short article solely on that matter and I quoted it for the part that "One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks," and not for the PNAC quote itself, but the greater political context of PNAC. There's not a single source quoted yet, which shows that this quote by PNAC doesn't exist and everything else had been corrected yet and the only "argument" here is a distaste for professional articles and books written by award-winning authors, who show the facts on a Republican think tank, especially by an edit-war inducing user who had already been banned from editing other Republican movement (Tea Party) articles and mentions himself being mentioned in an article by the "(far-right) news" on his own user page.
Site's back up


@]: To establish consensus with you, I have no problem with moving it to the "Critics" section as an under-section, but set aside what PNAC did intent when they had called it a "politically useful tool" when biological warfare that is able to target certain genotypes, is "taken out of the realm of terror", it is a dangerous idea on solely scientific grounds, too and these aren't mentioned anywhere in R.A.D., so it seems they don't have thought about the effects on the (un)intentional targets at all, or at least they have thought it wouldn't be good to openly mention them. It has got to be one of these two ways: lack of care for the potential effects, or tactical behaviour to not mention their thoughts on these issues, otherwise there would be a more precise valueing than "politically useful tool" found about these weapons in R.A.D.. I haven't proposed anywhere in the current edit that PNAC ''advocated'' these weapons, but that they don't mention the potential effects on their (un)intentional targets, while PNAC called it "a politically useful tool" in other hands than those of terrorists, not me. That is their own wording, not mine. And these facts are discussed in the referenced articles and books by award-winning authors you try to discredit by obviously not reading their articles before judging them (Sunday Herald/Thomas Hartmann; Hartmann mentions PNAC 3 times in this short article solely analyzing this matter, not in passing), which too have a rigorous referencing policy and quote sources. I haven't seen a quote by a reliable source by you yet, which would show that PNAC's quotes are non-existent in R.A.D., or that these award-winning authors are not referencing facts they rigorously quote. To remove the Scoop association, I'll reference it from Hartmann's own site, or better from CommonDreams.org, where it was posted first, according to Misplaced Pages a "501(c)3 nonprofit U.S.-based progressive news website" that has "never accepted advertisements or special interest money since its inception, sustaining itself through the contributions of its members and readers, with a few foundation grants along the way. This policy was established to assure its independence as a media outlet." You're reading an implication in(to) my edit, I don't even make there, instead they are PNAC R.A.D. quotes discussed in articles especially written about PNAC's main strategic blueprint, their valueing of "biological warfare targeting certain genotypes" as a "politically useful tool", when it is taken from the realm of terrorism and their general policies, calling for multiple wars across our planet. I only cite facts in the current edit and have removed any political implication, or opinion, solely sticking to the scientific facts, as a cultural and social anthropologist with a specialization in medical anthropology.
==Site's back up==
Check date 4th July 2009. So why is 2006 mentioned at the start of the article for the org 'ending'? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019 ==
== Stephen J. Kantany ==


{{edit semi-protected|Project for the New American Century|answered=yes}}
I removed the name "Stephen J. Kantany" from the list of "Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports" - the only citation for it was a blog post, and I haven't been able to find any other evidence of it online, or even of the existence of this person - the only web hits seem to be mirrors of this article. But if anyone knows anything about this person, please add it here. ] (]) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
==Biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes==
On page 60 (72 in the PDF) ''R.A.D.'' includes this statement: „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“
<ref>*{{cite book |last=Mackay |first=Neil |date=2006 |title=War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you |isbn=9781935149989 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5bFdpNNB5IC&q=neil+mackay+war+on+truth+%22and+advanced+forms%22&pg=PA14|accessdate=January 21, 2019}}</ref> <ref>*{{cite book |last=Mackay |first=Neil |date=2006 |title=War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you |publisher=Frontline Noir|page=14}}</ref>
<ref>*{{cite web |last=Meacher |first=Michael |date=September 6, 2003 |title=This war on terrorism is bogus |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq|publisher= The Guardian|accessdate=January 28, 2019}}</ref>
<ref>*{{cite book |last=Parenti |first=Michael |date=2004 |title=Superpatriotism |publisher=City Lights Books |isbn=9780872864337 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i-FohiOd-pQC&q=%22specific+genotypes%22+PNAC&pg=PA138|accessdate=January 28, 2019}}</ref>
One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the ], mentions and analyzes this quote in his 2006 book ''War Against Truth''.<ref name=MacKay2>Neil MacKay, , '']'', Scottish '']'' January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref> <ref>*{{cite book |last=Mackay |first=Neil |date=2006 |title=War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you |publisher=Frontline Noir|page=14}}</ref>
Thomas Hartmann shows that the implications of this quote are an analyzation of the potential political profit of this "''politically useful tool''" which is discussed in ''R.A.D.'', but nowhere are the effects on its' "''targets''" mentioned in PNAC's main strategic blueprint. <ref>*{{cite web |last=Hartmann |first=Thomas |date=September 9, 2003 |title=The Genetically Modified Bomb |url=https://www.commondreams.org/views/2003/09/10/genetically-modified-bomb|publisher= CommonDreams|accessdate=March 21, 2019}}</ref>
<ref>*{{cite web |last=Erlich |first=Reese |date=2003 |title=Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You|url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.04/Essays.04/TARGET.IRAQ.pdf|page=51|publisher=Context Books|accessdate=February 20, 2019}}</ref> ] (]) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
== Controversy section, what makes a critic notable enough to mention here? ==
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ]] 02:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


X=not yet in the article Y=my edit <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
A number of sentences in the controversy section seem to be based on the works of not really notable critics. What is (or should be) the criteria for including a critic or criticism in this article? ] (]) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


== Consensus ==
== Disingenuous Use of "Conservative" ==
The consensus of Bkobres, me and factual reality is, that there's official evidence from PNAC's official main strategic blueprint and those who neglect it, have no arguments, other than their right-wing (Breitbart) opinions, while I present multiple award-winning journalists' sources (instead of "original research"), who explicitly cite thie quote in their reliable sources and discuss it in detail. It's a clear breach of Article III of the UN Biological Weapons Convention, too, if you understand the implications of this quote. If you obviously don't, please keep from censoring it in a fascistoid Stalinist manner, which tries to deny actual reality by keeping officially released sources from the public, to manifest their oppression more easily for(/with) the politically responsible forces' pawns behind it. ] (]) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


:At least one other editor disagrees, so I do not see clear consensus. —''']''' (]) 15:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
PNAC is associated with the neoconservative school of thought. Yet, PNAC's views are repeatedly described as "conservative," even though this disregards the substantial ideological differences between neoconservatives and other conservatives, such as paleoconservatives and libertarians. ] (]) 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Disagrees without any factual evidence, officially documented proof for a source of his disagreement and nothing that would deny the factual, official evidence.
:Maybe "imprecise" is a better word than "disingenuous" - please assume good faith. ] (]) 23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Only because somebody doesn't agree with Einstein's relativity theory, it doesn't enable me to delete it from Misplaced Pages and this is way more proven to be factual
reality, than Einstein's theories, which are still theory. The quote is evidence, not theory. I've even kept the Article III BWC breach out of it, due to that,
although it's clearly obvious, that it at least indirectly "encourages or induces anyone else" to acquire or retain biological weapons.] (]) 16:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


== calls to invade Iraq PRE 9/11 ==


Please sign your edits. I have trouble in seeing differences between your text and C.Fred's text. ] (]) 16:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe that to be correct, this article should mention all of the essays that deal why and how to remove Saddam before 9/11, not just after. It seems that this was their first goal in stabalizing the middle east PRE 9/11, not just after. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019 ==
== Disambiguation page for PNAC? ==


{{edit semi-protected|Project for the New American Century|answered=yes}}
Disambiguation page for PNAC needed?
I want the officially published official quote from the official main strategic paper by PNAC,
which is discussed by award-winning journalists in reliable sources to be included in the article,
which is yet to be included to fulfill Misplaced Pages guidelines of neutrality and diversity of viewpoints:


X=censorship of this official PNAC quote,
See ]:
Y=inclusion of this official PNAC quote
"IEEE 802.1X is an IEEE Standard for port-based Network Access Control (PNAC)." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Please change the on-going censorship of this official PNAC quote:
==Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years==
Something missing here: "For instance, in 1996 Perle formed a that composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East."
Formed a what? Committee? Group? ] (]) 12:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


==Biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes==
==Brattleboro Reformer ref==
On page 60 (72 in the PDF) ''R.A.D.'' includes this statement: „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“
<ref>*{{cite book |last=Mackay |first=Neil |date=2006 |title=War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you |isbn=9781935149989 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5bFdpNNB5IC&q=neil+mackay+war+on+truth+%22and+advanced+forms%22&pg=PA14|accessdate=January 21, 2019}}</ref> <ref>*{{cite book |last=Mackay |first=Neil |date=2006 |title=War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you |publisher=Frontline Noir|page=14}}</ref>
<ref>*{{cite web |last=Meacher |first=Michael |date=September 6, 2003 |title=This war on terrorism is bogus |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq|publisher= The Guardian|accessdate=January 28, 2019}}</ref>
<ref>*{{cite book |last=Parenti |first=Michael |date=2004 |title=Superpatriotism |publisher=City Lights Books |isbn=9780872864337 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i-FohiOd-pQC&q=%22specific+genotypes%22+PNAC&pg=PA138|accessdate=January 28, 2019}}</ref>
One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the ], mentions and analyzes this quote in his 2006 book ''War Against Truth''.<ref name=MacKay2>Neil MacKay, , '']'', Scottish '']'' January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.</ref> <ref>*{{cite book |last=Mackay |first=Neil |date=2006 |title=War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you |publisher=Frontline Noir|page=14}}</ref>
Thomas Hartmann shows that the implications of this quote are an analyzation of the potential political profit of this "''politically useful tool''" which is discussed in ''R.A.D.'', but nowhere are the effects on its' "''targets''" mentioned in PNAC's main strategic blueprint. <ref>*{{cite web |last=Hartmann |first=Thomas |date=September 9, 2003 |title=The Genetically Modified Bomb |url=https://www.commondreams.org/views/2003/09/10/genetically-modified-bomb|publisher= CommonDreams|accessdate=March 21, 2019}}</ref>
<ref>*{{cite web |last=Erlich |first=Reese |date=2003 |title=Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You|url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.04/Essays.04/TARGET.IRAQ.pdf|page=51|publisher=Context Books|accessdate=February 20, 2019}}</ref> ] (]) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) ] (]) 16:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


{{Reflist-talk}}
I've just reinstated a ref cited to this newspaper, which is well-known for its coverage of PNAC, and which unquestionably passes WP:RS standards. I see no legitimate rationale for its having been deleted in the first place. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– ]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 00:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
:<s>It's an op-ed, not suitable for statements of fact. ] (]) 05:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)</s>{{Spaces|2}}<small>''Comment of obvious sock stricken by Ohiostandard at 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)''</small>

Latest revision as of 00:00, 13 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project for the New American Century article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIraq Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKurdistan Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan 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.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArab world Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconCountering systemic bias: Global perspective Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Global perspective task force.
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
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

No more original research

There's no more original research in this heavily improved section, so any discussion of the current edit should be under this section and only refering to the current resources and the wording I've used now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.26.189.18 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the IP contributor from Vienna that the speculation on politically useful genetically targeted biological weapons was among the more egregious and provocative statements within this arrogant war mongering 'study.' It bothered others, as the supplied references show, and should be pointed out as careless and dangerous conjecture on the future of warfare! The art of war indeed! I'm a Vietnam era vet who was advocating for cooperative space development when this paper was published and I showed it to many people as an example of the danger of the military industrial complex influenced by individuals who argued for military solutions with no personal military experience! It is perhaps telling that the principal author of RAD now identifies as a woman-- a bit of overcompensating in the past? Bkobres (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, time and support in showing this example of potential danger to the future of mankind in the form of military "science" for methods of such future warfare to other experts in this field, and I'm glad and it's relieving to know others perceive this threat as well. I'm a bachelor in cultural and social anthropology with a specialization in medical anthropology and a family background in the military industrial complex and began to develop growing interest in military science and secret services through the interconnections of the Project ARTICHOKE, CHATTER, MIDNIGHT CLIMAX, MKULTRA, STARGATE projects with the redlight milieu and Propaganda Due's Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi, as well as the AAONMS' (International) Royal Order of Jesters the FBI has been investigating, which perfectly fit these economic fields and thematically also fit the oriental focus of PNAC, at least in the form of yet manifested wars. The Moroccan witness Imane Fadil in the Bunga Bunga trial against Berlusconi had probably been (radioactively) poisoned lately and died on March 1st 2019, high levels of metals have been found in her body. Political poisonings have been practiced for millenia, but this proposal to target whole kinds of human beings for political profit with "scientifically" derived (bio)chemical (and genetically operating) warfare methods, is taking it to a (or since the Nazi human "experimentation"/torture and mass murder programs already not so) new level (which have been partially adopted in ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA, after importing Dr. Kurt Blome in OVERCAST/PAPERCLIP). Berlusconi had been active as Propaganda Due's media czar for the right in Italy during the Stay-Behind's (also post-)"Strategy of Tension"-years, dispensing anti-communist propaganda in the same style PNAC produced Anti-Afghanistan, Anti-Iraq, Anti-Iran, Anti-North Korea, Anti-Somalia, Anti-Syria, Anti-Libya, Anti-Venezuela and Anti-Islam propaganda through their Washington Post and Weekly Standard outlets into the political media sphere since 1997, as well as increasingly after their "new Pearl Harbor", that had been described as "absent" in their September 2000 blueprint for "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", became a manifest reality in the following year: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/witness-in-berlusconi-s-bunga-bunga-trial-poisoned-f27h7qd5c https://fr.wikipedia.org/Dick_Cheney#/media/File:Silvio_Berlusconi_to_a_joint_session_of_Congress.jpg https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/buffalo/press-releases/2010/bffo111910.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20160503154214/http://sandyfrost.newsvine.com:80/_news/2008/12/07/2188846-jester-prostitution-updates-stebick-sentenced http://web.archive.org/web/20170808193030/https://sandyfrost.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/12/1424688-judge-central-figure-in-fbi-probe-the-sobib-and-the-jesters-half-million-dollar-weekend-parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:50B:1973:89E8:72C1 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have problems with a lot of the sources being used the proposed addition. Mackay's book seems like crankery - I don't think it passes WP:RS or W:DUE to devote an entire section to it. Coldtype don't look like they pas WP:RS, either. The Sunday Herald source doesn't mention it the genotype-targeting quote at all. And the other sources (eg. Scoop, which isn't a great source) only mention PNAC in passing - it's not clear what relevance this has to them beyond the fact that they mentioned it in a paper. The implication you're trying to draw from this quote - that PNAC advocated using genetic warfare, rather than warning about it - is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and requires better sourcing than this. --Aquillion (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Award-winning authors are not publishing "crankery", but heavily sourced, professional and reliable sources and nowhere is mentioned in my current edit version, that PNAC is promoting genetical warfare, but only that it classifies it as a "politcally useful tool", when these weapons are taken out of the "realm of terrorism", but that it nowhere explicitly mentions their (un)intentional dangers. Both facts that are discussed in the quoted articles, are caused directly by PNAC itself, in their own main strategic blueprint. Everything else, including the only valid argument of original research, had been removed to establish consensus, by quoting the articles and books which discuss PNAC's quote. The Sunday Herald article doesn't mention PNAC "in passing", but it is the central object of analysis of a very short article solely on that matter and I quoted it for the part that "One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks," and not for the PNAC quote itself, but the greater political context of PNAC. There's not a single source quoted yet, which shows that this quote by PNAC doesn't exist and everything else had been corrected yet and the only "argument" here is a distaste for professional articles and books written by award-winning authors, who show the facts on a Republican think tank, especially by an edit-war inducing user who had already been banned from editing other Republican movement (Tea Party) articles and mentions himself being mentioned in an article by the "(far-right) news" on his own user page.

@Aquillion: To establish consensus with you, I have no problem with moving it to the "Critics" section as an under-section, but set aside what PNAC did intent when they had called it a "politically useful tool" when biological warfare that is able to target certain genotypes, is "taken out of the realm of terror", it is a dangerous idea on solely scientific grounds, too and these aren't mentioned anywhere in R.A.D., so it seems they don't have thought about the effects on the (un)intentional targets at all, or at least they have thought it wouldn't be good to openly mention them. It has got to be one of these two ways: lack of care for the potential effects, or tactical behaviour to not mention their thoughts on these issues, otherwise there would be a more precise valueing than "politically useful tool" found about these weapons in R.A.D.. I haven't proposed anywhere in the current edit that PNAC advocated these weapons, but that they don't mention the potential effects on their (un)intentional targets, while PNAC called it "a politically useful tool" in other hands than those of terrorists, not me. That is their own wording, not mine. And these facts are discussed in the referenced articles and books by award-winning authors you try to discredit by obviously not reading their articles before judging them (Sunday Herald/Thomas Hartmann; Hartmann mentions PNAC 3 times in this short article solely analyzing this matter, not in passing), which too have a rigorous referencing policy and quote sources. I haven't seen a quote by a reliable source by you yet, which would show that PNAC's quotes are non-existent in R.A.D., or that these award-winning authors are not referencing facts they rigorously quote. To remove the Scoop association, I'll reference it from Hartmann's own site, or better from CommonDreams.org, where it was posted first, according to Misplaced Pages a "501(c)3 nonprofit U.S.-based progressive news website" that has "never accepted advertisements or special interest money since its inception, sustaining itself through the contributions of its members and readers, with a few foundation grants along the way. This policy was established to assure its independence as a media outlet." You're reading an implication in(to) my edit, I don't even make there, instead they are PNAC R.A.D. quotes discussed in articles especially written about PNAC's main strategic blueprint, their valueing of "biological warfare targeting certain genotypes" as a "politically useful tool", when it is taken from the realm of terrorism and their general policies, calling for multiple wars across our planet. I only cite facts in the current edit and have removed any political implication, or opinion, solely sticking to the scientific facts, as a cultural and social anthropologist with a specialization in medical anthropology.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
==Biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes==

On page 60 (72 in the PDF) R.A.D. includes this statement: „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“ One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks, mentions and analyzes this quote in his 2006 book War Against Truth. Thomas Hartmann shows that the implications of this quote are an analyzation of the potential political profit of this "politically useful tool" which is discussed in R.A.D., but nowhere are the effects on its' "targets" mentioned in PNAC's main strategic blueprint. 2A02:8388:1845:7400:A4D6:2DD2:E150:F130 (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. *Mackay, Neil (2006). War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you. ISBN 9781935149989. Retrieved January 21, 2019.
  2. *Mackay, Neil (2006). War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you. Frontline Noir. p. 14.
  3. *Meacher, Michael (September 6, 2003). "This war on terrorism is bogus". The Guardian. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  4. *Parenti, Michael (2004). Superpatriotism. City Lights Books. ISBN 9780872864337. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  5. Neil MacKay, "Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11", The Wisdom Fund, Scottish Sunday Herald January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.
  6. *Mackay, Neil (2006). War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you. Frontline Noir. p. 14.
  7. *Hartmann, Thomas (September 9, 2003). "The Genetically Modified Bomb". CommonDreams. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  8. *Erlich, Reese (2003). "Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You" (PDF). Context Books. p. 51. Retrieved February 20, 2019.
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gangster8192 02:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

X=not yet in the article Y=my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:783A:E550:3360:F225 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

The consensus of Bkobres, me and factual reality is, that there's official evidence from PNAC's official main strategic blueprint and those who neglect it, have no arguments, other than their right-wing (Breitbart) opinions, while I present multiple award-winning journalists' sources (instead of "original research"), who explicitly cite thie quote in their reliable sources and discuss it in detail. It's a clear breach of Article III of the UN Biological Weapons Convention, too, if you understand the implications of this quote. If you obviously don't, please keep from censoring it in a fascistoid Stalinist manner, which tries to deny actual reality by keeping officially released sources from the public, to manifest their oppression more easily for(/with) the politically responsible forces' pawns behind it. 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

At least one other editor disagrees, so I do not see clear consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagrees without any factual evidence, officially documented proof for a source of his disagreement and nothing that would deny the factual, official evidence. Only because somebody doesn't agree with Einstein's relativity theory, it doesn't enable me to delete it from Misplaced Pages and this is way more proven to be factual reality, than Einstein's theories, which are still theory. The quote is evidence, not theory. I've even kept the Article III BWC breach out of it, due to that, although it's clearly obvious, that it at least indirectly "encourages or induces anyone else" to acquire or retain biological weapons.185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Please sign your edits. I have trouble in seeing differences between your text and C.Fred's text. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want the officially published official quote from the official main strategic paper by PNAC, which is discussed by award-winning journalists in reliable sources to be included in the article, which is yet to be included to fulfill Misplaced Pages guidelines of neutrality and diversity of viewpoints:

X=censorship of this official PNAC quote, Y=inclusion of this official PNAC quote

Please change the on-going censorship of this official PNAC quote:

==Biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes==

On page 60 (72 in the PDF) R.A.D. includes this statement: „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“ One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks, mentions and analyzes this quote in his 2006 book War Against Truth. Thomas Hartmann shows that the implications of this quote are an analyzation of the potential political profit of this "politically useful tool" which is discussed in R.A.D., but nowhere are the effects on its' "targets" mentioned in PNAC's main strategic blueprint. 2A02:8388:1845:7400:A4D6:2DD2:E150:F130 (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. *Mackay, Neil (2006). War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you. ISBN 9781935149989. Retrieved January 21, 2019.
  2. *Mackay, Neil (2006). War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you. Frontline Noir. p. 14.
  3. *Meacher, Michael (September 6, 2003). "This war on terrorism is bogus". The Guardian. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  4. *Parenti, Michael (2004). Superpatriotism. City Lights Books. ISBN 9780872864337. Retrieved January 28, 2019.
  5. Neil MacKay, "Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11", The Wisdom Fund, Scottish Sunday Herald January 11, 2004, accessed June 1, 2007.
  6. *Mackay, Neil (2006). War Against Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but your government wouldn't tell you. Frontline Noir. p. 14.
  7. *Hartmann, Thomas (September 9, 2003). "The Genetically Modified Bomb". CommonDreams. Retrieved March 21, 2019.
  8. *Erlich, Reese (2003). "Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You" (PDF). Context Books. p. 51. Retrieved February 20, 2019.
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Levivich 00:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Categories: