Talk:Robert Kagan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dispute over sourcing of characterization of Kagan as a "leading neo-conservative"

There is a thread at the BLP noticeboard to get input about whether the deletion of this sourced characterization is justified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan Joe Bodacious (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The account of Joe Bodacious (talk · contribs · logs) has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of the banned Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · logs). This contribution has been struck-through per policy, which encourages editors to revert or remove such edits.

Dear0Dear 20:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and having checked the BLP policy on sourcing, there would seem to be absolutely no viable basis in that policy for reverting the material in question, which is sourced to multiple RS, to which I've just added another.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are not sufficient for a BLP. Editorials etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statement seems to be an arbitrary pronouncement on policy without providing an substantiation of your policy-based rationale with reference to specific provisions in the policy against which the sourcing could be evaluated.

To what specific provisions in the BLP sourcing policy are you appealing in making the above assertion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The following addition was removed by Ubikiwit on the grounds that it gave undue weight to fringe sources. I would like to know why the editor thought this was so. The source is Robert Kagan himself:

and is widely regarded as a neoconservative.

Kagan rejects that label, however, now preferring to call himself a realist. In a tongue-in-cheek article published in the neoconservative Weekly Standard, he admitted that some of his best friends were followers of Leo Strauss but maintained that he himself had never been a Straussian, "since I have never understood a word the political philosopher wrote. I mean not a single word. Nor have I been very good at understanding his disciples". Kagan went on:

I can recall, their biggest point of contention was whether Plato was just kidding in The Republic. Bloom said he was just kidding. I later learned that this idea – that the greatest thinkers in history never mean what they say and are always kidding – is a core principle of Straussianism. My friend, the late Al Bernstein, also taught history at Cornell. He used to tell the story about how one day some students of his, coming directly from one of Bloom's classes, reported that Bloom insisted Plato did not mean what he said in The Republic. To which Bernstein replied: "Ah, Professor Bloom wants you to think that's what he believes. What he really believes is that Plato did mean what he said."

Iraq War critic Andrew Bacevich described Kagan someone who:

sounds themes reminiscent of the great American realists Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr. Kagan once professed to believe that "there is something about realism that runs directly counter to the fundamental principles of American society." But now he deploys realist principles to explain the world.

For his part, Kagan describes his foreign-policy views as "deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans".

173.52.253.134 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Does anyone have any ideas of how this can be make more acceptable on the talk page - without summarily deleting it? Say, by omitting the admittedly editorializing epithet "tongue in cheek" -- or explaining that many of the neo-conservatives beginning with the coiner and founder of the term, Irving Kristol, professed themselves disciples of Leo Strauss. Anyone? Crickets? I think the anecdote actually reflects well on Robert Kagan. 173.52.253.134 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Me too, in thinking the anecdote actually reflects well on Kagan. For what it is worth, I am rather impressed at Kagan's foresight, despite the ridicule as a war monger at the time! Hefted from the External Links, Lest We Forget: Neo-conservatives and Republican Foreign Policy, 1976-2000, 6 April 2000:

The arms control process was hijacked, beheaded and left to rot besides the discarded corpse of detente...Infused with the righteousness of the true believer, neo-conservatives are terrifyingly fanciful when it comes to international affairs. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two neo-con architects of GOP policy, recently penned an essay in the conservative National Review entitled "The Present Danger" in which they explicitly held up the Cold War era Reagan model as appropriate for the next president...enhancing America's ability to project force abroad and the pursuance of "regime change," i.e., the invasion of foreign countries and the overthrow of leaders unpalatable to Mr. Kagan and Mr. Kristol. Flagrant disregard for international law and arms racing is to make the world safe for democracy--again.

Not so fanciful, in hindsight! Even more timely, in 2008,

Part 2: International NGOs interfere in domestic politics; international organizations...monitor and pass judgment on elections; international legal experts talk about modifying international law to include such novel concepts as "the responsibility to protect" or a "voluntary sovereignty waiver." In theory, these innovations apply to everyone. In practice, they chiefly provide democratic nations the right to intervene in the affairs of non-democratic nations...The United States, though traditionally jealous of its own sovereignty, has always been ready to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. The nations of Europe, once the great proponents (in theory) of the Westphalian order of inviolable state sovereignty, have now reversed course...
Part 3: Rather than accepting the new principles of diminished sovereignty and weakened international protection for autocrats, Russia and China are promoting an international order that places a high value on national sovereignty and can protect autocratic governments from foreign interference. And they are succeeding. Autocracy is making a comeback...It is a mistake to believe that autocracy has no international appeal. Robert Kagan -The End of the End of History Environment and Energy, The New Republic APRIL 23, 2008

In today's Wall Street Journal, p. A1 via Twitter Leaders of China and Russia drink to their momentous gas deal. Robert Kagan was so prescient, honest, concerned about loss of national sovereignty, that my skin is tingling slightly. It is shocking and original, for something written in 2008.

I would strongly caution against too many references to what Kagan prefers to be labelled, neo-con or otherwise. We don't do that on Wikipedia; rather, we use secondary or tertiary sources. Neo-con, current or former? I don't know. What Robert Kagan is, is right, as in correct, and insightful in the context of 300+ years of Enlightenment and modern geopolitical history and, yes, realpolitik, I suppose.--FeralOink (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Kagan's actions speak for themselves. Clearly, US policy (whatever you call it -- I call it oportunism) is still that of destabilizing and regime change under cover of NGO's (including vaccination campaigns). The results, or lack of them, likewise, speak for themselves, as Kissinger and Bzezinski (self-identified "realists") have pointed out. Nevertheless, I think Kagan's, or really his father's objection to Strauss -ism (a lynch-pin of neoconservatism), as a form of double-talk is useful information for wikipedia readers -- or anyone. 173.77.75.113 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX. Note also that WP:BLP applies to talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got carried away the other day. I am high-strung, but will try not to be so exuberant here, as it isn't appropriate.--FeralOink (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" in lede

Binksternet introduced a new discussion of neoconservatism in the lede, using "neocon" [1]. I copy-edited it.[2] Ubikwit reverted with the claim that he was restoring consensus arrived by talk page discussion,[3] a falsehood. I don't have a problem with a restoration of the pre-Binksternet lede, e.g. Ubikwit's [4],of course, per WP:BRD.

Dear0Dear 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is required for such controversial BOLD edits. Did you mention BRD above?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The source uses the label "neocon"[5] which is why I prepared a summary sentence with the linked term neoconservatism and the label "neocon". (Many, many other sources describe Kagan as a neocon, so this is significant information.) Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is to be a summary of important points found in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and support that edit.

I disagree strongly with all of the other revisions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: You know that it is not just "critics" that describe Kagan as a neoconservative, which is a legitimate academic categorization, so what was your point?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You disagree with normal copyediting - and avoiding the use of the "neocon" word when the subject appears to object to "neoconservative" as well, and quite notably so? Is there some reason for that objection, please? And kindly note that the lead is a summary of any article - your personalized commentary here is ill-suited for this talk page discussion. And if a person disputes a label, then we must note that fact in a neutral manner. Collect (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with most of that, except for the point that "critics" is not neutral.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In most fields, all reviewers may be termed "critics" - what term would you suggest as a substitute? As the subject demurs on the term, would you say "people who do not accept his self-identification as 'liberal'? or the like? The catenation appears to be "Some people call him (word). He does not accept that term." - so how would you term those who demur with his stated position? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, tell me what is non-neutral about the following phrasing: He is considered a leading theorist of neoconservatism, though he rejects the "neocon" label. Contrariwise, your phrasing makes the substantial mistake of "some critics": Some critics have called him a theorist of neoconservatism. He rejects that label. Far more people call Kagan a neocon than just some of his critics. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

He appears to also reject "neoconservative" as well -- no need to restrict his objection to "neocon" only, is there? Broadest apt wording is superior to narrower possibly inapt wording as a rule - but this was basically a copyedit. The term here is "theorist of" which very few people actually call him per sources. "He is considered" is, of course, a claim in Wikipedia's voice in itself, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

He also embraces neoconservatism "with enthusiasm", according to Australian political scientist Christopher J. Fettweis, who says "Although critics have characterized neoconservatism in many ways over the years, the most useful definitions of the world view are supplied by those who have embraced the label with enthusiasm. At its core, according to Robert Kagan, neoconservatism has six main components..." Wikipedia's voice should indeed tell the world that Kagan is considered a leading neocon theorist. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Your source does not say Kagan self-identifies as a "neoconservative" and does not actually say much more than "neoconservatism has few pure members" - which seems rather to temper what you aver it means.

It cites [6] so we should look at what Kagan actually wrote rather than making a massive leap not directly supported by the source you gave.

Kagan wrote:

The conventional wisdom today, likely to be the approved version in the history books, is that a small group of neoconservatives seized the occasion of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to steer the nation into a war that would never have been fought had not this group of ideologues managed somehow to gain control of national policy.

To examine this premise requires first understanding what people mean by “neoconservative,” for the term conjures very different images. For some, it is synonymous with “hawk,” to others, it is an ethnic description, and to still others, it is a term to describe anything evil—I once heard a Cornell professor earnestly define neoconservatism as an ideological commitment to torture and political oppression. But when employed fairly neutrally to describe a foreign policy worldview, as Packer does, neoconservatism usually has a recognizable meaning. It connotes a potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America’s exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy, a belief in the preservation of American primacy and in the exercise of power, including military power, as a tool for defending and advancing moralistic and idealistic causes, as well as a suspicion of international institutions and a tendency toward unilateralism. In the hands of more hostile critics, the neocons are not merely idealistic but absurdly and dangerously hubristic about the unlimited capacity of American power to effect positive change; not merely expansive but imperialistic, seeking not only American pre-eminence but ruthless global dominance; not merely willing to use force, but preferring it to peaceful methods; and not merely tending toward unilateralism but actively spurning alliances in favor of solitary action. Even these deliberately polemical caricatures point to something recognizable, a foreign policy that combines an idealist’s moralism, and even messianism, with a realist’s belief in the importance of power.

Is he "theorizing" here about "neoconservatism" as your source avers - or is he trying to simplify the complex history of war in US political discourse from 1776 on? To me it appears to be the latter. He specifically traces this misnamed "neoconservatism" back to 1776 <g>. So the "source" your source avers makes him a "neocon theorist" appears to do nothing of the sort. What his essay tries to do is say that what some folks call "neocon" has been around since the beginning of the US. His essay ends with:

In fact, the expansive, idealistic, and at times militaristic American approach to foreign policy has produced some accomplishments of world historical importance—the defeat of Nazism, Japanese imperialism, and Soviet Communism—as well as some notable failures and disappointments. But it was not as if the successes were the product of a good America and the failures the product of a bad America. They were all the product of the same America. The achievements, as well as the failures, derived not from innocence or purity of motive, and not because Americans abided by an imagined ideal of conduct in the world, but from the very qualities that often make Americans queasy: their willingness to accumulate and use power, their ambition and sense of honor, their spiritedness in defense of both interests and principles, their dissatisfaction with the status quo and belief in the possibility of change. Are we really interested in abandoning this course?

Which does not comport with the claim that it shows him as being a "neocon theorist" at all, but a fairly liberal historian. Collect (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all very entertaining, but your review of Kagan's own writing does not rise to meet WP:RS. What does meet RS is Australian political scientist Christopher J. Fettweis who introduces Kagan as an enthusiastic neocon to supply the inside view of neoconservatism. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean here on p.66?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as quoted up higher. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Powell material including reference to neoconservativism

The full quote from the Roberts book is, "the PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan sought to explain core differences between Powell and neoconservatives"[7]

Accordingly, this book servers as a valuable source not only as commentary on Kagan's opinion piece, but also as a description by an academic in a peer-reviewed book of Kagan explaining the positions of neoconservatives in contrast to a non-neoconservative, accompanied by quoted text from the article articulating the differences. Maybe this doesn't support "theorist", but "neoconservative pundit" or "neoconservative intellectual", both of which have corroborating sources, many of which are peer-reviewed:

1. "neoconservative pundit"; Duke University Press
2. "neoconservative pundit"; Johns Hopkins University Press
3. "neoconservative pundit"; Johns Hopkins University Press
4. "neoconservative pundit"; Routledge.
5. "neoconservative pundit"
6. "neoconservative intellectual"
7. "a prominent neoconservative intellectual"
8. "a leading neoconservative intellectual"; Wiley-Blackwell
9. "a leading neoconservative intellectual"
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Characterization

I find this to be similar to the Andrew Sullivan article discussion. There are multiple RS refs for Andrew Sullivan being a liberal. He has, in fact, been described by Forbes as one of the most influential liberals. Yet Sullivan describes himself as a conservative. The debate was long and contentious . Ultimately, there is a section in the body that says that Sullivan has been described as a liberal and that he characterizes himself as a conservative. Absent Kagan describing simdelf as a neoconservative, I don't see how we can characterize him such. We can only say that he has been described so. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy to support your suggestion. This is not an issue of the categorization of religion or sexual orientation where Wikipedia honors the wishes of the subject, per WP:BLPCAT. Rather, this is a political issue with many viewpoints, and the reliable sources calling Kagan a neocon far outweigh the any statement from the subject. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was sharing a similar editing (personal ideological characterization by third parties) issue at a similar (prominent public intellectual) article. It was a political issue with many viewpoints, and the reliable sources calling Sullivan a liberal far outweighed the any statement from the subject, in my estimation. In that case, I was the editor who proposed using the categorization. There were a great variety of RS refs for it but... Capitalismojo (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a failure at one article should be promulgated here or elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it was a failure, although my opinion did not carry the day. I was convinced by the other editors that the appropriate approach was to be more nuanced and accurate. Is it more accurate to say "He has been described as a neoconservative but rejects the label.", or is it more accurate to say "He is a neoconservative."? I submit that, given that this is a BLP and "neocon" is a controversial and oft-times perjorative label, the first approach is better. Ultimately that is the consensus approach taken by editors at a variety of BLP articles. (And, yes, I understand "other stuff exists", but we all understand wikipedia relies on consensus over multiple articles.) Capitalismojo (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The subjects of the respective BLPs are only superficially comparable, so let's stick to the sources, please. This page is not a forum for general BLP concerns; that might be the talk page of BLP/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues may be raised on any page - not just WP:BLP/N. Sorry to disillusion you onthat - BLP is one of the two most important policies on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit was correct to suggest that we refrain from general comparisons of this biography with other biographies. The problem with this thread is that Capitalismojo's complaint is not policy-driven. Nothing in our guidelines or policies says that a biography of a living person must be edited in accordance with a local agreement reached at another biography. This thread should be closed as there's nothing actionable here. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Complaint? No complaints, I am suggesting that this is good editing practice, and is expressly so for this article. That, in fact, this is the best way to handle controversial characterizations to remain in accord with both the letter and spirit of BLP policy on wikipedia. I further suggest that stating that we can't suggest or discuss an improvement at this article because BLP policy doesn't explicitly require an "actionable" edit is a non-starter. This isn't a request for "actionable" admin edits, it is a discussion about the article quality. Multiple pages have taken this conservative approach to BLPs, and there are excellent reasons to do so and continue to do so here. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Even the most conservative approach will tell the reader that Kagan is a leading neocon theorist, because of WP:WEIGHT which is part of WP:NPOV. Trying to rid the biography of prominent and signficant published viewpoints is not conservative, it is reactionary. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why that has not been proposed here. I don't see anyone in this thread proposing that (ridding the biography of prominent and signficant published viewpoints) Perhaps I missed something? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't propose something concrete then don't be surprised when others guess at your aim. If there's nothing concrete suggested here, the thread is inutile. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

categorizing Kagan

See [8]

Jacob Heilbrunn appears to quite muddy any simple categorization of Kagan -

Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto.

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

etc. From here, it looks more like Kagan is one of those people for whom any simple label may, in fact, fit poorly. Collect (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it was called freshman disease, the tendency to come to a conclusion based on one source. Let's collect a bunch of sources before trying to throw out the "neocon" label. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So far we have one and only one source for "neoconservative theorist" at all -- the Bacevich article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The twisting of Kagan's words takes my breath away. [9] He does ask the good question of how people can be so ignorant of history to believe in the strawman of neoconservatism. Dear0Dear 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen multiple other sources for "neoconservative theorist" on Kagan. No time to retrieve presently, though.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are dozens of sources for neocon theorist. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple along these lines.

1. [10] "Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, can also be deemed a neocon intellectual."
2. [11] "In the New Republic (for which he is a “contributing editor”), neoconservative intellectual Robert Kagan"

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Um -- you do know that the Eric Black piece is an opinion column? Perhaps his words

" The righty commentariat hated the speech"

might indicate that the source might be one better suited for noting as opinion rather than as "fact"?

And as for the first -- I rather suspect the fact your specific googlesearch was for "neoconservative intellectual Robert Kagan PNAC" is pretty likely to find a result with those words in it. But when finding the quote you diesire, it pays to read the source. In the case at hand, in fact just before the quote you cite, we find:

To assert that some sort of conspiracy or coup occurred which saw neo-con intellectuals assume complete control over the making or executing of US foreign policy is not the intention here; a great deal has been published in the media and elsewhere which presents the neo-cons as some sort of sinister cabal .... It is also important to note that the neocons are not, nor have they ever been, a unitary or homogeneous group. On the contrary, they comprise several different generations, are influenced by many philosophers and thinkers, and have on some occasions disagreed about particular policies or principles.

In short - Hirst specifically and absolutely distances herself from asserting anything monolithic about neocons, or any conspiracy theories about them. In that context, you must then read the sentence so nicely google-mined - Kagan is way down her list, she only says he can be "deemed" a neocon, and she notes Kagan signed the letter to Clinton, and that is the sum total of her writing on Kagan. When asserting a source supports a claim, it is well to read the source and not rely on a single sentence found by Google. I am sure there are better sources - but please read them before asserting that they support a specific claim. I have a horrid habit of looking at the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- and this source[12] specifically says the PNAC report was written by three people - Kristol, Kagan and Donnelly -- precious little room for a host of other authors per this source you kindly provided. Collect (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the passage in the source, but it names Schmidt, not Kristol. It also, however, describes the "participants" as having "endorsed" the paper, which is clearly a mistake, as per the statement on the final page containing their names.

The rest of your comments about Hirst are utterly irrelevant to her specific characterization of Kagan.WP:NOTFORUM--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The part of the paper which does not back your assertion is "clearly a mistake"? Incredible! Um -- when using a source which actually contradicts your assertions as to what it supports, calling that part of the source "clearly a mistake" does not actually impress those who wish reliable sources to actually be something backing up the claim they are attached to! And the horrid fact that I actually read the sources provided does not obviate the problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's clearly an example of inverting the actual state of affairs. The text of the primary sources is clear that they were "participants" in the process of creating the report, not "endorsers", which is a characterization that could more aptly be applied to the PNAC letters. Other sources have them either contributing a paper or participating in a related conference.

I've produced peer-reviewed sources that support a straight forward reading of the text, and you keep trying to dismiss it based on the bias of personal opinion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

more sources for kagan as a "neocon", "neoconservative", etc.

1. Remembering 9/11: Terror, Trauma and Social Theory, Victor Jeleniewski Seidler, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 (peer-reviewed), quoting William Pfaff from an article in the Observer[13]
2. America Through European Eyes: British and French Reflections on the New World from the Eighteenth Century to the Present, Aurelian Craiutu (Editor), Jeffrey C. Isaac (Editor), Penn State University Press, 2012 (peer-reviewed)[14]
3. Bush's Wars, Terry H. Anderson, Oxford University Press, 2013 (peer-reviewed)[15]
4. ABC: Bush’s Neocon Spokesman for Illegal U.S. Occupation of Iraq Slams Russia for Crimea, Juan Cole, TruthDig, 2014[16]
5. Twice As Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power, 2008[17]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it proposed that these opinions or characterizations be used? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer something more along the lines with the text Binksternet had inserted, but have settled on a compromise version in the lead for now. Kagan's reputation as a leading neocon theorist is prominent, but I will gather more sources, such as the following.

• Peer-reviewedsource

[PNAC's] policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000), the writing of which was chaired by leading neocons, William Kristol and Robert Kagan...

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Anything else the article needs, or just a desire on your part to add negativity? Seriously ask yourself what your motivations are for even caring if the man is labeled a neocon. Liberals toss that label around like some kind of epithet. Considering your intent here, I'd say that such an effort is a BLP violation....we should approach all BLP's with neutral compassion, not with malice.--MONGO 03:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks in my comment. I stated an obvious observable fact...your sole effort here is to discredit the subject of this bio. The talk page is filled with little more than various ways you wish to add negativity. That's not writing an encyclopedia...its misusing it in an egregious manner.--MONGO 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to wade into this and I say this with the intention of diffusing a tense situation between two editors I've had positive encounters with in the past. I've only been minimally following this page's discussion, but MONGO your comments are out of the blue and don't seem to be in response to past discussion here. This part of some bad blood between you two? You are focusing on an editors perceived motives instead of the content. And you are making serious accusations, which is part of NPA. If you feel there is something actionable, I recommend an ANI. If you need to disengage for a bit, do so if it will help. Striking comments wouldn't be a bad idea either tbh. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the policy which long ago I helped write part of. My question is serious and I would like an answer as to why anyone is motivated solely to adding only negativity to a BLP subject. I came here only after following the links and am horrified that there is zero discussion about anything other than adding negativity to the BLP. I see Collect and others making every effort to prevent unnecessary negativity added to this BLP and mostly Ubikwit arguing to add nothing but negativity. In the scope of things, that is a BLP violation on Ubikwit's part. I'm not suggesting the article be scrubbed of bad news, but it's a red flag to me if an editor's sole purpose here is what can be easily seen in the discussions for what it appears to be, which is as I have stated. I'm certainly not going to strike my comments because they are based on examining all of the talk page and diffs.--MONGO 06:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you authored the policy, you should know its content. If you have concerns about a particular editor, address them on ANI, the proposed Arbcom case, or with the editor directly. An article talk page is not the appropriate place for it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Authored part of it as I said and well aware of its contents and I disagree with you. Talkpages are misused and the unnecessary discrediting material is just as public as the article page is by simply clicking a tab. I will question the motivations and misuse of a talk page on any and all BLPs when I see they are being used as a place to build BLP violations to the degree they are being built here. It's obvious that Ubikwit is using the talk page to make every effort to villianize this subject and he should be called out on that here first. If it persists, well he's been questioned here first and we have seen the non response.--MONGO 06:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what is the big BLP violation here, what with dozens or even hundreds of sources presenting Kagan as a prominent theorist of neoconservatism. Telling the reader about prominent published opinions is not a BLP violation. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Odd his interest in the subject is not benign. I have yet to see him add a positive....it's all negative and he's been blocked multiple times for all sorts of things just since 2012.--MONGO 08:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If an article is persistently skewed away from neutral then it is correct action to re-introduce material that will return it to a neutral state. In this case, if the article has been persistently stripped of Kagan's widely acknowledged position as a leading theorist of neoconservatism, then whoever brings that back into the article is doing the right thing. Cwobeel should not have to work so hard against resistance to this straightforward quest for proper balance. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Another peer-reviewed source, this one for "Neoconservative writer" on p. 153. That book also is a secondary source for Kagan's statements on Powell, describing how Powell's views differed from those of the neoconservatives p.56, which is also discussed in this book.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the context of this article, and the life and career of the subject, perhaps there's a problem with the formula PNAC = neocon. Nobs01 (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What context would that be? And where did you get that formula?

Although there is no question that PNAC was a neocon think tank (per RS), the point of your comment is somewhat unclear.

There are numerous per-reviewed sources listed here that characterize Kagan as such, are you challenging that characterization?

Please provide sources to support any subsequent challenges of the sort.

• One more citation from 2014 NYT--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

He's on the payroll of a "centrist think tank" per the WP blue link right now. Does the centrist Brookings Institution employ neocons as a Senior Fellow? Nobs01 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not? A member of the Hoover Institute is a fellow and research director there[18].

Brookings is frequently described as conservative.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we're misunderstanding something here. The guy refutes being characterized as neoconservative. Can a citation be provided? Is he denying being a "leading neoconservative"? Can a citation be provided for the Introduction to attest for something this living subject claims that he is not? Is the term, "neoconservative" supposed to be a pejorative, and that's why the question of his credibility of his own characterization of himself is paramount in the opening sentences? Nobs01 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "we"?

The current and past discussions are available on this page, as well as at BLP/N.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The we is me and my demons. Now please answer my question directly related to article content, which is what this page is for. Nobs01 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is unintelligible. Please rephrase it.

Before you do, however, recall that the issue has been thoroughly discussed, and I don't intend to rehash that, so it is necessary to become familiarized with the previous discussions and related sourcing.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well.

• "characterized as a leading theorist ". By whom?
• "he rejects the characterization". Is a citation available? Secondly, what does he reject, characterization as a neoconservative, or being a leading theorist?

Nobs01 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The "leading theorist" description is a summary (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) perferred by Binksternet and supported by me.

Kagan rejects the "neoconservative" characterization, but he is almost alone in that endeavor. I don't recall the source, but have seen at least one. It's probably here somewhere.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

break

Plenty of sources describe Robert Kagan as a leading theorist of neoconservatism.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] I don't see why some people here are so bent on knocking down that description. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all very good. Now the citation on his denial? Nobs01 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it in main space (The Guardian). He doesn't deny it, it says he's "uncomfortable" with it. I'm gonna BE BOLD and make a few mainspace edits and hopefully clear up some stuff. Thanks. Nobs01 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian piece is a "profile", not an "interview". The gist of the statement was also somewhat misrepresented, so I corrected that. The use of "progressive" in the lead is UNDUE, and unduly self-serving, particularly without the mention that it is something that Kagan himself "insists" on, but not a characterization that a single other source applies to him. Meanwhile, there are multiple sources mention the "liberal interventionist" self-characterization from the 2014 NYT interview.

There was also no mention of the changes you added regarding "economic dominance", and hegemony and unilateralism are common descriptions applied to neocon policy, including that promoted by Kagan[31][32][33][34][35][36], as per the added source. By the way, the Guardian piece also describes that stance, in some detail.

It was these years that would shape Kagan's political thinking which he would define in a seminal essay, written with William Kristol and published in the influential journal Foreign Affairs in 1996, calling for a neo-Reaganite foreign policy. Writing in the middle of the Clinton presidency, they argued that US conservatives were adrift...
Their answer was this: 'Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire", the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of US foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests and standing up for its principles around the world.'

In the future, please discuss such controversial edits here, first, in the stream of the already ongoing conversation before making such "BOLD" edits.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:28, 10:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Adviser to presidential candidates

The Intro reads adviser to "several" presidential candidates, but the text cites only one. Can this be clarified?

This leads to a second question, Is an "adviser" to a candidate one who is paid, or an expert who is only cited by a candidate in a public statement, or one who offered free advice in a phone call or at a cocktail party? Nobs01 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good question, Nobs01 but difficult to answer. Is (was) Sidney Blumenthal paid by Hillary Clinton? He was certainly her top adviser during her 2008 campaign and more recently too. Was he paid with monetary remuneration or otherwise, e.g. a promised a position on her staff? I don't know what standard is used for advisers, nor can I find any that is robust.--FeralOink (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)