The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:55, 15 March; 12:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(Note This article has now had at least four distinct names in a period of only four days. Possibly thirty names before this AfD is closed at this rate. This might be deemed an eensy bit excessive. Collect (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(Note: Others requested that "members" not be used and now it has been removed, an amenable and collegial response to community concerns by the article editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

Note This topic has been the subject of canvassing or whatever you want to call it at Jimbo's talk page by Collect. He did not notify the editors whose edits and behavior he was discussing and misrepresenting. This AfD is the direct result of that discussion.

Submit it at WP:AFD. I would support deletion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 2:45 pm, 13 March 2015, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this...[big quote removed] "So here I stand. I can do no other." Collect (talk) 9:36 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)
... I have created an AFD nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. GabrielF (talk) 10:40 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react. Collect (talk) 10:46 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

The two "drama board" discussions referred to above are: The first BLPN thread opened by Collect on 7 Feb and the most recent BLPN thread opened by Collect on 13 March. Jbh (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accusation makes no sense; consult WP:ATTACK Check the timeline. Conversation on the Talk page PRECEDED the opening of this AfD. In point of fact, the suggestion and opening of this AfD was generated on the Talk page. Canvassing would be pinging or selective notification of editors that an AfD is open or will open. Editor in question did neither, and expressed doubt an AfD would work. Utterly baseless accusation, and disruptive of debate here. As is renaming list. Cut it out.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck canvass however the issue still stands. Jbh (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?!?!? Issue??? What "issue"? Beyond the baseless and nonsensical ad hominem of "Canvassing", which has a meaning and is a WP policy, you are accusing Collect of ... let me be precise... of "whatevering". I am fairly confident that "whatevering" is not a WP guideline, nor a WP policy, nor even "sensical" to an speaker of English. Absent the now struck "canvassing", there is no "there" in "whatever".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you want me to be specific I accuse him of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning of the issues he has with this article when he opened two simultaneous discussions without notifying any of the involved parties. I did not and have not said he canvassed for the AfD. The canvassing was going on before and during the AfD. The AfD was a direct result of his non-neutral presentation at Jimbo's UT. Jbh (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)The discussion on Jimbo's page was opened nine minuted before the discussion at BLPN. Neither presented the topic in a neutral way and none of the concerned parties were notified. I did not find the discussion on Jimbo's page until I posted notice of it. There is no good faith that needs to be assumed on this. That discussion was going on for 73 hrs before I happened on it. Collect was cut/paste quoting me as well as discussing other editors here in relation to this topic that entire time. Jbh (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change your comments AFTER they have been rebutted and/or commented on by other editors. Please consult WP pages on refactoring. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought underlining inserted comments was the proper way to do it. The edit summary said (mod cm w underlined textt) I did forget to add the additional signature and have corrected that. To make everything perfectly clear I added a note below Collect's reply to refer to the modified text. I should have done that before. Jbh (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- I posted on UT Jimbo. I did not start this AfD in any way, and your apparent accusation that I managed using tachyon technology(?) to cause its creation is ... interesting. Collect (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I modified my text above with underlined text to make what I was saying more clear. Per Anonymous209.6's note above. Jbh (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anonymous209.6: A huge number of comments below are discussion of a proper name for the list. Calling edits to improve an article 'disruptive' is questionable at best. Jbh (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple name changes in a short period of time is a priori proof the changes were poorly thought through. While name changes can be done without proper notification and consultation in cases that are UNcontroversial, there can hardly be a non-risible argument that this article is one of those cases. Could you point me to your RfC on any of these? --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous209.6 To what is it that you refer as "proper notification"? Are you claiming that none was provided? Or that we didn't follow the proper procedure?
Where is the policy that states that an RfC is necessary to move and article during an AfD? Or that "consultation" is required? Can you pplease provide a link to that policy?
Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page "If you believe the move might be controversial then you should follow the advice in the section "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves" in Wikipedia:Requested moves", which redirects to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. Sorry, but this is REALLY basic WP:ETIQUETTE.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name changes, which were initiated in response to concerns raised in the course of this discussion and were discussed with Alanscottwalker, an editor that is more familiar with this process than JBH or myself, were carried out in good faith.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You have not read the sources then? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the sources. Mostly they describe these individuals as signatories.GabrielF (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean as signatories to the principles of the organization? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is way off topic now. If the problems in the article are as clear-cut as you claim, Collect, you should be able to point to specific information in the article that you have a problem with, and to specific wikipedia guidelines/policies which that material violates. Please do so, rather than trying to bring in unrelated personal anecdotes or trying to compare this discussion to McCarthyism (which, as a defender of the article, I am inclined to take as both uncivil and a personal attack). It's certainly a spurious analogy, as Alanscottwalker has already clearly explained to you below. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collect Use your memories as you will. I did not and would not suggest otherwise. I merely point out that your life experiences and worldview are nothing more than a POV as far as editing Wikipedia is concerned. This is now the third time you have questioned my personal motives on this page. You really need to stop doing that, it is becoming an issue. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed George Santayana's statement which comes to mind here - yes -- remembering the past is a mere "worldview" of no value to any editor on Wikipedia. We should allow people to push editing concepts which were abandoned in the 50s because -- no one cares. I am not questioning your "personal motives" at all, nor have I questioned your personal motives or the personal motives of others. I do question those who are proud of not remembering what we collectively learned in the past, of those who feel any majority has the ability to override Wikipedia non-negotiable policy, such as "we can now use any connection at all to link people as "members" of groups, even though that has been shown to be one of the world's worst concepts in the past. In fact, you are welcome to assert that ignoring the past is a wonderful concept philosophically - I know many who feel that way. I don't. Collect (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Collect: Enough with the innuendo. Who exactly are you accusing of "pushing editing concepts which were abandoned in the 50s" (ie, comparing to McCarthy?). Either be specific, or stop making statements that can be construed as completely unwarranted, malicious attacks on the people you've been arguing with. And get off your high horse, please, this debate is in no way comparable to McCarthyism. Trying to make that connection/comparison just makes it all the more clear that you've lost perspective, and are not thinking clearly about the topic at hand. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being opposed to "guilt by association" is a pretty good "high horse." Collect (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: Please point out exactly what "guilt" this table imparts, and where. And you didn't answer my question: who are you referring to? You need to either back up your accusations (and state specifically who you are accusing), or remove them. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accused no one. That you take umbrage at my position is unfortunate, indeed. See [1] "Guilt by association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an appeal to misleading Authority, which argues in favor of an idea based upon associating a favored person or group with the idea, whereas guilt by association argues against an idea based upon associating it with a disfavored person or group." If I listed some Muslim members of a prayer group in Washington D.C., and then connected the prayer group with (say) an extreme group which had two "members" in that prayer group, even if their connection was absolutely de minimis, I would be using "guilt by association." Is the meaning of "guilt by association" clear? We saw its effects in the past - I am unwilling to have it be a principle accepted on Wikipedia - for anyone of any religion, political or religious belief, gender status etc. whatsoever. Cheers. I trust this elucidates my stance. Collect (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The table does not say, or indicate anywhere, that the people listed supported all of PNAC's ideas or actions. In fact, it clearly notes which PNAC statements and policy positions the individuals listed signed. Or is pointing out that someone signed a document (indicating their approval of what it said) now also "Guilt by Association?" Fyddlestix (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need guys to respond to this. I am sure you who created this article are not Macarthyite's And Collect having made your analogy to McCathyism that others find absurd or offensive, it is done. We are not here to prove to you that we don't like McCarthyism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  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 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.[2]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

(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 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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[3] 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
As has been pointed out above, it meets the notability and other requirements as a stand-alone list.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. [4]

PBS Frontline The War Behind Closed Doors: Chronology of Evolution of the Bush Doctrine --Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential compromise[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I doubt that will happen unless the person doing the merge has WP:COMPETENCE issues. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@DHeyward: Please use quotes rather than simply duplicating my comments. PROD says an article can be improved and the reason for the move was noted as a response to feedback here. Your comment is rude. Jbh (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are seeing as rude. It wasn't intended so I apologize for any offense. Article moves are discouraged but allowed. The guideline for moving an article during deletion discussion is to put the notice at the top and bottom. I don't know why quote marks are important but I don't mind them. The only relevant pieces are the name of the new article and the date stamp so the reviewing admin can gauge the comments relative to the move date. --DHeyward (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My error and I apologize. I have struck my comment and restored the 'Note"
DHeyward The move may have been a little hasty, but it's easy to move again to one of the other two options that were under discussion. I've re-moved the article to List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush, per earlier Talk discussion. Someone else can restore Cheney to the list.
Davewild All you have to do is look at the sources to see that the List passes the notability critieria of a stand-alone list, even if it is to serve as a sublist linked to the main article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: As has been mentioned above already - there's an ongoing discussion underway about renaming the article. Do you see any reason for deleting the article other than the name? Cause the name can (and probably will) be altered, or (as I advocate) folded back into the PNAC article (with a different, more accurate title) if the article survives this AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative. Why is this list about only a subset of signatories? It makes no sense to me. You could have a list of only those signatories who have more than three children, and I'd !vote to delete that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fyd: The editors of this article can change the name, right now, it's obvious there are objections to it, your choice see, WP:SOFIXIT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Anythingyouwant: Fair enough. I would point out, however, that there aren't a lot of reliable sources making lists of signatories who have three children, whereas there are a significant number of reliable sources making lists of people who were associated in one way or another with both PNAC and the GWB admin. It's not like this is an arbitrary category or was pulled out of thin air - there are multiple RS that make the same connections. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources that point out Bugs Bunny smirked,[5] but I don't think we need a Wikipedia list of animated smirkers. I just think this list is very unnecessary, aside from the bad title. The info can go in the PNAC article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you suggesting that such a list of characters would be notable in the first place based on a single news media article? Are you questioning the notability of the PNAC list?
The reason that its a subset is two-fold and straightforward: first, only some of the signatories were hired by Bush (and only one other was his running mate); and second, those are the PNAC people that the RS are discussing in relation to their respective roles in the Bush administration.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other animated smirkers include the Grinch and Daffy Duck. One can cobble together all kinds of odd lists, for all kinds of odd reasons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the point is that "animated smirkers" should be an article? And that such an article would be analogous to the PNAC list? Sorry, but that is an odd list, and not at all a congruent analogy.
This list is about a group of notable public figures including academics, public intellectuals and former government officials that promulgated a specific set of policy recommendations, subsequently became public officials (again, in many cases) in the GW Bush administration, where they worked to facilitate the implementation of those policies. That is why there is a shelf full of peer-reviewed sources detailing the significance of the connection of these individuals to both PNAC and the GW Bush administration.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list). Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the 'list of shades of colors of apple sauce', be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." A list can be based on reliable sources yet still be unsuitable on a stand-alone basis. The fact that a minority (or majority) of statement signers went on to serve in the White House can be expressed by a single sentence in the main article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

example[edit]

Signing a letter no more makes a person a "member" of an organization than it can make a horse's tail into a leg.

[6] "The other ‘‘listed’’ groups cited in the report were International Workers Order (Goldberg was alleged to be one of the group’s ‘‘representatives’’ in Chicago), the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (he reportedly ‘‘led the discussion on the anti-alien bills’’ at a 1940 conference), American Youth Congress (his name appeared on a mailing list), United Spanish Aid Committee (his name appeared on a list found in the group’s files), the National Emergency Conference (he allegedly signed ‘‘the call’’ for this 1939 conference held ‘‘in protest of legislation’’ believed to threaten ‘‘the civil rights and liberties not only of aliens but of native and naturalized Americans’’), International Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions (he reportedly made reservations at the Continental Hotel for 20 persons ‘‘expected to attend’’ the group’s 1946 convention), Russian War Relief (an unknown source charged he was ‘‘a signer of the Chicago Committee of Russian War Relief’’), and National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (an informant said his name was on ‘‘a list of sponsors’’ of a ‘‘national conference of all civil rights groups to be held in Washington in June, 1940’’ to establish the organization).


I trust you can see just why being listed on a "letter" does not make a person a "member" of any group. AFAICT, we do not list those "memberships" for Arthur Goldberg on Wikipedia. I think this is about as clear an example of why we must follow WP:BLP as absolute policy which no consensus can contradict ever. Unless, of course, you feel Goldberg should be listed as a "member" of Communist Front organizations? I,however, strongly demur). (And yes - Goldberg is now dead - but the issue is whether we should follow in McCarthy's footsteps as to what "membership" is). I am sure there may be "evil Jews with dual loyalties who would use biological weapons to commit genocide and who would order the US to stand down when under attack on 9/11 in order to make the US an Imperial Power" in this world - but under no circumstances and in no manner should we contribute any such implications or inferences about living persons here or in any article. Collect (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does make them a member of the group that signs the organization's document. Wikipedia:Article titles is how we change the titles of of articles, not deletion; or we merge the well sourced information into the other article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However one editor insists that even being listed as a person who may not agree at all with a report makes such persons "members" of an organization. I grant that signing anything which starts off with saying the first goal should be to capture or kill Bin Laden (the notorious letter to Bush) is absolutely a member of PNAC (not), and we should add Obama's name to all the lists :). I find "it does make them a member of the group" to be worthy of Kafka, indeed. And Goldberg by that rule was a member of the Communist Party. :( By the way, your definition of "member" does not comport with any dictionary I can find - might you provide me with a reliable source for your interesting usage? Or are you saying "if anyone can place you in any sort of connection with any other person, you are a 'member' of that Venn Diagram 'group' which is all we need to state that you are a 'member' of an organization in Wikipedia's voice." Collect (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your example is inapposite. None of those things are like the documents here, or the circumstances here (we have a statement of principles of the group, by prominent people, and prominent peice of lobbying by the group, by prominent people). There is nothing kafka about them being members of the group that sign the organization documents -- that is what these people, in fact, did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Let me quote WP:POVNAMING In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. emphisis mine. Also I see nothing in BLP that says following what RS say is a violation. All it says in multiple reliable sources are needed for contentious claims so even if we follow BLP as an "absolute policy" we have done so. So what part if BLP is being violated. Cite please. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The part about actually being conservative with claims - else we should, by the standards being abused for the list, have hadArthur Goldberg listed under Communism while living. Cheers. 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If Goldberg had 15+ high quality reliable sources saying he was a Communist then Wikipedia would call him a Communist. As there are not we do not. Being conservative with claims does not mean do not make the claim unless everyone in the world agrees on it. It means do not claims that can not be verified by multiple good sources and do not repeat claims that poorly sourced or sensationalistic. Beyond that comparing this discussion to McCarthyism is simply hyperbole. Those caught up in the HCUA were citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights to change government policy through the political process and were persecuted for it. The PNAC 'members' are public figures who worked to change US policy by publicly lending the weight of their name to documents published and presented in such a way as to draw attention and publicity to the issues because of their signature.

Is there a more direct parallel you would like to draw between these cases or is the word 'members' all there is? A good analogy really needs more than one point of congruence to serve an accurate illustrative purpose. I submit this is a bad analogy that makes an appeal to emotion rather than reason or more important here policy. Jbh (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your stance. I demur. Any source which relies on "guilt by association" in the first place can never claim a higher status than the original improper claim - no matter who copies it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No 'guilt by association', here, so there is no reason to continue this. Although, you appear to argue rather inquisitorially with these article creators about their association with this article, and their true-blue denunciation of McCarthysim (one takes it they seem to you, not as pure as your stances) .Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

end of "example" subsection[edit]

OK, well, I picked three of the many quotes that have been posted/cited.
There is a strong possibility that there are other sources/quotes to address any specific concerns you have, so please state them, in specific terms, if possible. Are you objecting to the term "members", for example? Ot maybe the connection drawn between signatories and the administration? Are you disagreeing with those in general, or just saying that I have chosen quotes that aren't representative?
The metaphor used by the peer-reviewed source is something that has been vetted by the academic community. It should be noted that the first sentence refers to the "Statement of Principles", a specific PNAC document--the first document establishing the think tank. Only Bolton didn't sign that in 1997, but he signed the more famous letter to Clinton on Iraq in 1998.
The second quote demonstrates a more thorough correspondence between more prominent members of the Bush adminstration and PNAC, and differentiates between signatories of two separate documents.
The third quote examines a specific aspect of activities in which PNAC members were engaged in relation to their role in the Bush administration.
Ken Arromdee in case you missed this quote, it adds another dimension.

"The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state - displaying 115 such connections: 27 with the Department of Defense, 13 with State, 12 with the White House, 10 with the National Security Council, and 23 with Congress.(Parmar)"

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:44, 15 March; 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you please specify what those SYNTH, NPOV and BLP issues are. It is not possible to address issues if they are not made clear. As far as I can tell SYNTH and BLP have been addressed but maybe there is something else. I believe NPOV requires reflecting what the sources say. Is there a place where that was not done properly which concerns you? Or is there a point of view which has been under represented? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the POV issue above: "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." That is why when one googles "Jewish criminals", the first page of hits includes Jew Watch, Radio Islam and the websites of Ernst Zündel and David Duke.[7] The authors of those sites believe that Jews are inherently criminal and list Jewish criminals in order to prove the point. Of course there may be a connection between the PNAC and the Bush administration and we are free to report what various authors say about it. However we should not take it as a given and present one view as if it were accepted fact. TFD (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the relevance of the your "Jewish criminals" thing, but even if the rest of what you say is the the case (although the connection the sources draw is advocacy of similar positions with PNAC outside government and then those same issues inside government) then the perceived POV problem is addressed by merge, not delete especially where the editors working on it just did it to have a daughter article list for the main PNAC article. Why throw it all away? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the "Jewish criminals" thing is that having an article about members of A who are also members of B implies that A and B are related. It is a technique frequently used by biased writers. It is called the association fallacy. You happen to believe that members of the PNAC took over foreign policy of the U.S. under the Bush Administration. The article is an attempt to prove the connection, while ignoring any contrary arguments. But Wikipedia articles are not supposed to prove anything. TFD (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no I don't have any belief in that regard, so the rest of your comment does not follow. (Nor do I have a belief in that regard after reading this list artcile - perhaps it's too implicit for me but there is no all foreign policy takeover claim in the body of the artcle.) But you did not answer my question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that it is a plethora of peer-reviewed scholarly publications that make the "association", wherefore as far as Wikipedia is concerned that association is not a "fallacy". Trying to claim that it is would be tantamount to attempting to dismiss such sources based on editor opinion, not policy.
Have you read the sources cited on the article, where many quotes are presented in the footnotes.
Once the "association fallacy" basis for making the claim of a POV fork is addressed, there appears to be only one point remaining to be examined. That is, if the status as a sub-list tied to the PNAC article for context--with only minimal context provided in the list article itself, is deemed to represent a POV fork (because there isn't enough context in terms of pro/con), then we are back to the question as to whether a list of 21 PNAC members/participants (or whatever you want to call them) whose employment in the Bush administration has been a topic receiving substantial coverage in scholarly literature (and appears to be garnering increased scrutiny with 4-5 books being released in 2014), we are back at square one in terms of whether the list is too big for the article (it has been suggested that the article could be substantially expanded to balance that), and if the answer to that is "maybe", then the evaluation as to notability as a stand-alone list comes to the fore. As a stand-alone list the context regarding scholarly consensus of the significance of the employment of more than 20 PNAC participants in the Bush administration can be presented in full and perhaps to a greater extent than would be permissible in the main article, eliminating the concern pertaining to "POV fork".
While I agree that a merge takes care of the POV fork claim as well, I think that we then arrive at a scenario in which UNDUE or the like may be raised in the main article. My assessment of the sources and policy is that the list satisfies the notability criteria for stand-alone status. The criteria for inclusion would be left for fine tuning.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a "plethora of peer-reviewed scholarly publications that make the "association"" {I assume you mean that figuratively) is not sufficient. It violates neutrality to come down on one side of an issue, we must follow weight and present differing views. Alanscottwalker, I not only answered your question, but explained by answer. If you have trouble understanding it, I suggest you read it again. Otherwise I fear that however well it is explained, it will make no difference for you. TFD (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "... we must follow weight and present differing views." without specifying what views you think are not represented and addressing the WEIGHT of the view presented is pretty much a null argument. In Wikipedia we say what the sources say. When the list was part of the PNAC article there was nuance and that can be placed in this article or better the list can be placed in the PNAC article. I have not seen any scholarly articles saying the fact of these people, who were 'from' PNAC and got posts in the GWB administration is not important. This is a legitimate concern but not made clear enough by your comment to know if/how to correct it. If you would care to point some out they can be addressed per WEIGHT it would help improve the article. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, Sorry I missed it, I guess I would say then you did not answer it directly, but regardless, thanks. In history, it is usual and ordinary to note: 'people did this and then they did this.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that the scope of the list is to broad or too narrow?
The more relevant policy seems to be the following entry on that page, WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states

・The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
・The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the term "associated" has been removed from the article title ("genesis"?), so your point would seem to have been mute before it was made; however, I'll provide a few quotes from peer-reviewed RS using the term in this context. They aren't using the term as a euphemism for "supporters": the sources say what is printed there on the page for anyone to see.
The incongruent analogy is somewhat unintelligible. Maybe you could clarify what you meant by that analogy?
Which editors are the personal attacks directed against?
  1. scholarly source

    The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.

  2. scholarly source

    Conservative writers associated with PNAC continue to issue warnings about a rising China, although they went largely unheeded during the George W. Bush administration, in part because the US military was fully engaged elsewhere."

  3. scholarly source

    It is evident that the neoconservatives associated with PNAC planned to remove Saddam Hussein from power long before George W. Bush was elected president.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the quote I posted above that starts with "The PNAC's 33 leaders were highly connected with the American state. The list contains 21 individuals at present, which is a substantial number and includes prominent members of the Bush administration. I don't even know who the "33 leaders" to whom Pramar refers are, but that might mean that there are yet names to be added to the list. New sources are being posted on a daily basis, including those describing the significance of the association in terms of influence on foreign policy and public opinion, for example, and those discussing specific individuals with respect to the significance of the coincidence of their association with PNAC and role in the Bush administration.
It should be noted that the lead, as it stands, makes no assertions regarding the significance of the connection. Most of the RS coverage is clear in asserting the importance of the association, while a couple say that the significance of the association has been exaggerated, but non denies its importance, let alone asserts that the claims of importance are based on "guilt by association". --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquy removed from head of AfD page[edit]

(Re to Note: Others, including Collect, requested that "members" not be used and now it has been removed, an amenable and collegial response to community concerns by the article editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

My note, which made no personal reference to any editor, indicated that the article name has undergone daily changes. The personal attack above is unwarranted, and only serves to make a mockery of this AfD which quite looks headed to a "strong delete" close on both a !vote basis and on a policy basis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack to note you made a request but reference to you removed now per your objection. AfD's go for at least seven days and in that time editing is done to articles in response. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would, moreover, note that AfDs are absolutely not restricted to "seven days" but that "seven days" is the usual minimum time allowed, and that I have seen many go on for much longer. In the case at hand, where the likely outcome is strong delete, it may well be closed at that point. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hayrettin_Karaoğuz ran for just over a month (7 Feb to 8 Mar) - which is not a record by any means. I have not, alas, found any article in the past which had four names in four days. And since you say there was no need to mention my name, I suggest that there was no need at all to mention my name, begging the question as to why my name was used in that manner. Collect (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It does not have to go for that period, it can go longer and editing done. Your name was used because you started a section on your objection to "member" in this afd (you thought it policy breaching or some other breach), and the editors acceded to remove that title objection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stated a number of objections - and you deal with precisely one of them. Did you read the list of problems about this "list" where I specifically invoked a number of policies involved not just the use of "member" which was a specific and clear violation of WP:BLP ab initio? Collect (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you only started a whole sub-section of this afd on "member". No reason to discuss anything else there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some merit to the suggestion, but don't see any relevance to THIS list or THIS AfD. PNAC Statement of Principles is the foundational document, and thus should (and is) included in the PNAC article, as is the list of signatories. The idea that Letter to President Clinton on Iraq deserves its own article, where I agree, some of the issues of matters ignored by the Clinton admin or overemphasized by the Bush admin might be more appropriately handled in a balanced way, is worth discussing. Still, there is no argument in your statement that there should be a list of a subset of those (Clinton letter) signatories, just an argument for a list of ALL signatories, and a separate article. At least that is what I take from your suggestion.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Went there -- tried to bring it into NPOV and BLP compliance - but since other "groups" then used a similar name, it is hard to delete per se. Removed "list" as being problematic - the Curtis ref seems pertinent due to lawsuit. Sorry I did not run across this before though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the Group of 88 article is in an awful state. The problem there, perhaps as here, is the de-emphasis of the actual statement, in order that the talking heads who want to make it say whatever they have in mind don't have any competition. I firmly believe that the primary source is a sovereign cure for BLP bias, and so I've just made this edit to make it apparent how moderately worded the actual text really was. It's hard to make out the faculty as a lynch mob for this case when they say repeatedly that no matter what the outcome of the investigation is, the problem didn't start on the day of the alleged rape and won't end with that, but is a "social disaster" and they are "listening" to students. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the clarifications from the group - personally I feel adding in the entire advert gives a lot too much weight to what some might see as unfortunate language - NPOV is better served as a result by simply including the reasonably accurate clarifications proffered by the people involved. Others may differ, but I fear that the ad itself will balance the article in the opposite way one would expect. Collect (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not a topic for another venue like Talk: Group of 88? Jbh (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussions on !votes[edit]

While many can be interesting, at this point, the "rebuttals" to !votes are a tad unlikely to cause any changes in such !votes, and may be obscuring the purpose of any AfD discussion - to determine if deletion is supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In the case at hand, it appears the "rebuttals" are not serving any added useful purposes here, as one may find the same basic language several times on the single talk page at this point. Unfortunately, "iteration" does not appear to be one of the core Wikipedia values, policies or guidelines. Might we cease the use of "rebuttal arguments to !votes" at this point, please? Collect (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I assume, the article editors, me included, want to know what the objection is so it can be addressed. I note that in particular a better name for the article and way of referring to the people on the list was found in response to specific objections to 'members' and 'associated with'. The POV Fork issue was brought up and is being addressed either with tighter integration with the PNAC article or with a MERGE result. WEIGHT/UNDUE (something you will note I brought up when I first addressed this topic in response to the BLPN you opened) is also being looked into. The repetitive responses to SYNTH and BLP should be stopped unless a new issue comes up.
While you may see this as a nose count a considered close looks at cogent policy arguments and if objections have been addressed. Whether an editor comes back to change their !vote or not is immaterial to this. Jbh (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heck if a good argument comes up for addressing the information contained in this article directly in the PNAC article, with or without the table I am all for it and will change my !vote to delete. I would love a simple outcome that results in the improvement of the encyclopedia but the toxic environment at PNAC and later over this sub-article-list makes me despair. This article would not exist if the environment at PNAC were not so bad. I am, however, grateful that we have so many editors commenting. Jbh (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your perspective. I must say that many of the "rebuttals" come across as WP:BLUDGEON and not in the way you note. I, too, wish rebuttals were moved to a section below the !votes, rather than in-line. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the !votes in favor of deleting make any sort of policy-based argument, and policy is what admins are supposed to consider in assessing the weight of !votes. Is taking the time to point out similar mistakes made by multiple voters "blugeoning"?
Editors can vote their politics, but their politics isn't policy here.
When multiple peer-reviewed RS make the list reflected in this article, it meets all policy requirements. The POV fork issue is a legitimate concern, but deleting the article is not the solution to that.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing it out once, in a comment to the closer may be appropriate. Pointing it out 40 times is indeed WP:BLUDGEON. You assert an argument is incorrect/invalid. You may be correct. You may also be incorrect. The same person, repeating the same argument over and over again adds nothing to the discussion. On the other hand, multiple different people, who all make the same argument, may indicate that the argument may carry some water. That is of course up to the closer(s) and DRV to determine. But you giving the same rebuttal to everyone doesn't add much, and makes it a chore to close. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeSperrazza: Yes, I do see where you are coming from. For a while there I guess everything started to look like a nail. I do apologize for that. I have adjusted my !vote to its final state and intend to comment only when addressed or if some truly novel issue comes up. I have had my say, and then some More than some if truth be told. Thanks to you and all who have participated/will participate. I think a lot of good work has been done to address the concerns that can be. Whatever the result I have learned quite a bit about the concerns editors have about independent lists. Jbh (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, I certainly did make a policy based argument for deletion - it fails neutrality, even if you do not understand my position. Apparently other editors do and have made the same point. TFD (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I specifically addressed your concerns, following those voiced by Tom harrison, and even modified my !vote.
It is disingenuous of you to imply otherwise by asserting that I "don't understand your position".
There have been a succession of !votes that are related but have a different nuance, and I have addressed each nuance as I saw appropriate, adding quotes, etc., along the way.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute: Could you please articulate the "POV" that you see being "pushed" by this article?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Request to Closer[edit]

Regardless of outcome would you please address whether the information presented in the list per se is a violation of BLP, SYNTH or is 'guilt by association'. These questions are the intractable locus of dispute which started at the PNAC page. This will allow the editors of the PNAC article to put a pin in the discussion and move on. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jbh (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's asking a lot. That is outside the scope of an Afd in most cases. One wonders why anyone that understands the undue weight clause of NPOV would want to defend a wretched and worthless article like this one.--MONGO 06:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MONGO. The criteria for deletion is strength of argument to help to determine consensus. Additional determinations would likely only create fodder for a deletion review for any outcome. This isn't a speedy delete so the determinations you ask for are not necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it is my hope that an opinion on these issues will be given by the closing admin, as a neutral third party, please note that it is a request. I do not doubt that if the closing admin feels this request inappropriate they simply will not honor it notwithstanding anything any of us have to say about it.

@MONGO: to answer your question I thought the size of the table in relation to the PNAC article gave it UNDUE weight in the article. After discussion here the concerns about it becoming a POV Fork and inherent NPOV framing issues made me reconsider and therefore !vote to MERGE. I do not support delete because I see no BLP, SYNTH or 'guilt by association' and most importantly the material is notable, encyclopedic and essential to understanding how people see/saw PNAC, its real/perceived effects on US policy making and PNAC's overall history. No matter ones political stance PNAC has a large place in the political history of a very important time in US history. Many peer-reviewed and academic sources discuss PNAC, this group of people and their collective participation in the GWB administration and it is impossible to document the political-history of that time without talking about those connections. The debate over the effects is ongoing and notable. So that is how someone who understands NPOV/WEIGHT/BLP and SYNTH can defend this material - because I have spent more than a little time considering the policies, and the subject matter is important to the history of my country. Jbh (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if this subject is mentioned in brief in the PNAC article but it does not need a standalone coatrack like this one.--MONGO 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the outcome you are agreed - as Jbh is supporting merge - the listing, however, is directly taken from the reliable sources, as is the inclusion criteria for the list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Start an RFC for tha. AFD cannot do it. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JzG OK thanks, noted. I have not run into a dispute here that could not be worked out with good faith discussion before. After the fourth time this issue came up in a month I guess I was more frustrated than I was thinking. I am frankly amazed at the shitstorm this article created but I guess that is what happens when a partisan editor uses Jimbo's talk page as his own personal pulpit without letting the other editors know. Oh well. Live and learn.

I think I am going to run if terror from the issue if it gets to that point again. Someone else can kick off an RFC. This started from answering a pretty straight forward question at BLPN and then spiraled into this circus. I can see why there are few moderates editing in this partisan pit of acrimony. Although I do snicker when I get called a radical or liberal. Jbh (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has gotten a tad full - I suggest using Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush for additional colloquy. Collect (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is ongoing, and an AN/I thread is ongoing, this has been filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect. "May we live in interesting times" - but the primary bone of contention appears to be whether the material in this list violates WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, or any of the other reasons presented above which, at this point, I daresay agrees with my basic stance. As it is thus intimately connected to this precise AfD, it seems proper to tell folks here about it. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD shouldn't and by policy can't settle what is suitable to include in articles, but I find some of the rationales expressed against inclusion to be invalid. To begin with "COATRACK" is an all-purpose deletion buzzword that really is out of place when describing the list of signers of one or more of an organization's most notable documents. It's not like someone just randomly hung the list somewhere; it's physically part of the document of interest, which is a defining aspect of the organization. BLP certainly can't be invoked - when someone is a signer of a major, well-publicized historical document, and there's no dispute about that, I don't even see where you'd start. I get the feeling - correct me if I'm wrong - that somebody thinks that the people who signed ought to feel embarrassed that they signed, so we should protect them from that embarrassment by hiding that... which would be absurd, since after all they were going on the record about something they cared about, and it was a notable achievement. And SYNTH, well... it's not synth if all the signers are covered equally, to the extent we are able to do so; if we somehow subcategorize them according to idiosyncratic criteria, maybe. Basically, I see no reason why this text needs to be scrapped; it just needs to be organized into its proper place. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt I agree with that insightful and incisive statement word for word.
I would strike my Keep !vote if I were certain that: 1) a stand-alone list isn't the best option for this substantial amount of (cross-referenced) data; and 2) that editors !voting "delete" wouldn't claim the text UNDUE after it was merged into the main article, etc., achieving its deletion in a step-wise manner.
I'm not sure about that, so I will maintain my Keep !vote in case the stand-alone option is deemed most appropriate.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Wnt's statement, while measured and having merit, is clearly NOT describing the Article in question, but a theoretical article where "all the signers are covered equally", which in this case would be a list of ALL singers of either document. Wnt is absolutely correct that there would be few problems with such a list, unfortunately, the issues stem from the clear fact that this article is NOT that article. I also agree that if (and basically only if - I, in my first comment noted that there had not been such interest to date) a complete list were to be suggested, it really should be within an article ON the letter, in this case the letter to Clinton.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that would be a much better article. More nuance, less potential POV, all in all a great idea. Jbh (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read Talk:Group of 88 and note that I oppose "listing" signers of adverts and open letters sans a very solid rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the approach at Group of 88, where there is an External Link if you want to look up the signers is the correct one, with one caveat; the 88 signers aren't WP:NOTABLE, so the utility of a list to provide wikilink navigational aids does not exist.
Group of 88 analogy while Wnt makes good arguments for some way for WP to direct readers to ALL signers, as is done on the Go88 article, there is no support, nor should there be, for a list, for instance, of Group of 88 Signers who have been active in Democrat Party politics. It is the latter sort of list we are debating.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous209.6, where my honest confusion comes in is there is a huge body of peer-reviewed papers and quality news reports which say the relationship between these PNAC 'signers' and there positions is significant. To my knowledge an analogous amount of peer-reviewed RS on the political participation of the Group of 88 does not exist.

The issue that led to this situation is that one side wanted all mention of this association out of the article and others thought it was important to document because of the huge number of times this association is mentioned. I agree NPOV might be more of an issue with the stand alone list than I thought and I think making sub-articles about the major policy documents and who signed them could be a good way to go. What I am opposed to is the whitewashing and NPOV violation that not noting the who these people are and where they served would be. My understanding is that Wikipedia reflects what RS say and RS say this is a significant relationship. I can understand and even, to an extent agree with, arguments like UNDUE and NPOV and there is a solution to be had through discussion and compromise on those issues. What I do not understand is what, exactly, the SYNTH and BLP violations in the material are. I had hoped it would be clearly articulated by some of the people who used it as the basis for their Delete vote but I am as unenlightened now as I was at the start of this. Maybe someone will take pity on me and explain to me on my talk page how those policies are being violated by the table. This has been a learning experience, just not in the way I had hoped. Jbh (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of signers of the Statement of Principles were and are in the PNAC article. No one suggested their removal. The issue was whether Wikipedia articles should include lists of "signers" of any letter associated in any way with the group, and whether there should be a table explicitly associating specific signers with the "Bush administration" as a table. George W. Bush and his administration are currently mentioned 16 times in the body of the PNAC article - one would think that quite enough for readers to see that name a few times ... it is difficult to miss the 16 uses of "Bush" in the body of the article, and its use an additional 14 times in the references list of the PNAC article. Did you think that 30 times is insufficient by any chance when you accuse others of wanting all mention of Bush removed? I find thirty times as a rule to be generally sufficient, but YMMV. Collect (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where I did this: "when you accuse others of wanting all mention of Bush removed?". This statement you made is called a 'mis-characterization'. Please stop mis-characterizing my comments. Jbh (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbh; I believe the quote of yours Collect is referring to is "one side wanted all mention of this association out of the article", which you directly state not more than a few lines above where Collect accuses you of claiming "one side wanted all mention of this association out of the article", and which Collect, of course rebuts as being false.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the context would be clear since we have been talking about this particular issue. I was talking about this particular association, the one the that is the subject of this whole AfD. In that context a raw count of the number of times "Bush" is mentioned in the PNAC article to rebut a supposed claim of "wanting to remove all mention of Bush" seems non-responsive to me because the issue is the association which was not mentioned once in Collect's reply. The statement "The list of Signers of the Statement of Principles... no one suggested their removal" above again is non-responsive because whether the Statement signers are mentioned or not is was not the issue. That list, in the PNAC article, does not talk about the association I was speaking of nor does it address the 1998 Iraq Letter. Further the response provides nothing new about the question I was asking, the specific BLP and SYNTH issues that this list brings up instead it addresses a side issue to successfully derail the question.

I re-state the heart of my post above "Where my honest confusion comes in is there is a huge body of peer-reviewed papers and quality news reports which say the relationship between these PNAC 'signers' and there positions is significant... My understanding is that Wikipedia reflects what RS say and RS say this is a significant relationship. I can understand and even, to an extent agree with, arguments like UNDUE and NPOV and there is a solution to be had through discussion and compromise on those issues. What I do not understand is what, exactly, the SYNTH and BLP violations in the material are. I had hoped it would be clearly articulated by some of the people who used it as the basis for their Delete vote but I am as unenlightened now as I was at the start of this. Maybe someone will take pity on me and explain to me on my talk page how those policies are being violated by the table." Jbh (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior problem, and why it is disruptive, abuse of process, and contrary to WP policies has been mentioned several times already.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming is perfectly acceptable. In this case it directly addresses some of the reasons given for deletion (as I have remarked elsewhere, article name should never be given as a reason for deletion, alas it often is) - clearly those reasons should be discounted by the closer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC).
There should be no problem with defining "neo-conservative"... I think we have an article on that already, just link to it. There should be no problem with finding sufficient notable and reasonably even-handed sources (New York Times, &c.) on record as calling this person or that person "neo-conservative" (and if there isn't, remove them from the list). "Neo-conservative" is in no wise pejorative and is close to how these people would describe themselve (they would say "conservative" rather than "new conservative" but enh, little difference).
No reasonable person disputes that persons named were, indeed, government officials in the Bush administration, or that they held "neo-conservative" views (as commonly understood) to a fair degree, and that this represented a group in the administration sufficient for historians to take notice of. The only dispute is over whether these views are right, wrong, or somewhere between, and that we can leave for the reader to decide, I think. Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that list a couple of people along with the PNAC members, such as members of AEI, so that could be done to be more comprehensive. ZFootnote #20 on the article includes William J. Luti[8] and David Wurmser (AEI), for example, who weren't PNAC members.
A couple of the documents produced by PNAC are notable enough for their own articles, as JBH points out above and as I have also mentioned on the PNAC talk page with respect to the report Rebuilding America's Defenses.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem titling the something like Neo-conservative officials of the George W. Bush administration although I am sure there will be objections to 1 - Definition of Neo-conservative, 2 - Calling particular people Neo-conservative, 3 - Whether people who did not start as liberals are 'true' Neo-conservatives. Since all of those complaints have come up in this area.

Also, I had no idea renaming was not OK during the AfD. The name was an issue and I assumed that dealing with that issue was part of "improving the article" since I do not believe 'Article Name' is a delete criteria. This idea was particularly re-enforced by having an un-involved editor come to my talk page and say we should be re-naming it. Guess I was wrong. Live and learn. Jbh (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an article during an AfD discussion is certainly allowed in general - but doing it with a list, where the title effectively defines the inclusion criteria, is more or less bound to be controversial. (and BTW, for the record, former Trostkyists, as some NeoCons were alleged to 'start as', weren't 'liberal' by any definition that belongs in an encyclopaedia, no matter how confused the American right is over the meaning of the term.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand what you are saying. In fact that is why the article was renamed. There was a discussion about how the terms used in the name were affecting the inclusion criteria etc. The renames were an attempt to address that in response to feedback here. I do see how it could cause confusion but I do not see how the concerns could be addressed without doing so.

Yes, I agree about the political terminology. My main point is that someone will complain about any definition we use. One editor spent quite a lot of text trying to redefine PNAC as neo-liberal. I think a lot of editors might see the liberal-conservative and left-right continua to be fully congruent without regard to the rest of the world, history or nuance.

Thanks for the input. It helps. Jbh (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

In 50 words or less, how is the association of the signatories of (presumably right wing) documents with a (widely considered right wing) administration considered to be a slur? Is it a slur on the PNAC, because the Bush Administration is assumed to be evil, or vice versa? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

It's the repetitive nature of highlighting tentative association's multiple times. Where does it end? Should we put asterisks next to names that support rendition or water boarding? We can create lists of people that received money from John Huang or any other list. The fact is that the PNAC article sufficiently and completely already encompasses this information and nearly every person has a bio and this list becomes negative by nature of association. --DHeyward (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno where it ends... I guess it ends when it's no probably no longer helpful to some reasonably sized subset of reasonable readers... We have a lot of people here doing a lot of different kinds of research, so I'm not sure that a list like this might not be useful to at least some small percentage of them. And yeah, it might be a service to some readers to put an asterisk next to names of important officials who supported rendition or waterboarding and were in a position to influence policy, provided we have notable fair-minded sources giving quotes showing this. How could this not be a service to at least some interested readers and researchers?
I don't get the idea that repeating something too much makes it automatically pejorative. If we put that some person is a Nobel Prize winner in his bio, but also include him in List of Nobel Prize Winners and List of Nobel Prize Winners in Chemistry and List of Nobel Prize Winners from Germany and yadda yadda, is this now become deprecatory by repetition?
After all, maybe the people on this list are heroes, who knows? I don't know and neither do you, but I do know that the people on this list stand by their beliefs and are proud of them and these beliefs are very popular in America. So I'm not seeing the problem. Herostratus (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of Nobel Prize Winners in chemistry who ever signed any petition supportive of capitalism? I just think the current list's inclusion criteria are connected too tenuously, whatever the motive for connecting them may be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RS make the connections, and they are by no means tenuous. In fact, one reason that there are repetitions is because of the manifold notable connections addressed in each respective context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I can say is that the manual of style frowns upon tenuously-connected list criteria even if they are supported by reliable sources. I quoted the manual above. There could be a reliable treatise about the various colors of Apple sauce, or about one-eyed horse thieves from Montana, but that does not mean the corresponding lists are really appropriate in an encyclopedia, especially if the info can be much more briefly summarized in a pertinent Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're talkin' apples(auce) and oranges here, to put it mildly. The analogies are not congruous, and making them is somewhat dismissive of the peer-reviewed sources upon which the article is primarily based.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: I once suggested List of Jewish Nobel laureates opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming as an article. It was intended to be satire. Evidently, I underestimated Wikipedia, and people will concoct arbitrary inclusion criteria for lists whenever they can get away with it. The individuals concerned are clearly notable. So is the PNAC. So unfortunately was the Bush administration. I have no admiration for either of the latter, and I suspect if I knew more about the former my opinion would be much the same. But that isn't a legitimate reason to engage in this finger-pointing exercise. As an example of POV-pushing it is rather ineffective anyway, as it is about as subtle as a pat on the back from an express train, and will do precisely nothing to change anyone's opinion about anything. Sadly, WP:FAILEDPOVPUSHING appears not to have been written yet, and I don't think I'd better write it, as people might take it as instructions on how to do it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Straw man argument[edit]

Again, setting up a straw man (several editors have done this before and it has been answered before) that unless the categories are "perjorative", they are OK. This isn't the point at all, and a reading of the AfD and/or article pages should have answered that. The most recent analogous example, "Group of 88 Signers who have been active in Democrat Party politics" is similarly unacceptable, though no delimiters are perjorative. The AfD list is unacceptable as it seeks to create a list, not to aid navigation or produce clearer reading of WP, but produce a source to other articles, of a POV that cannot be balanced as would have been required in a proper article. In this case the point of view (and no-one is making the argument that no WP:RS are also making this argument, to deal with the other straw man) that a small cabal hijacked the Bush administration on Iraq.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy is not even in the minor league ballpark.
Let's stick to the sources, please.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what can be gained by discussing this further here. Since the result of this AFD is pretty clear, isn't this all moot unless/until someone tries to re-incorporate the content back into the PNAC article? I for one have no plans to do that, at least not as a table like this one. I do hope that some of the sources we found/used for the table can be used/added to the main article though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More