Talk:Robert Kagan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

PNAC: Vilified as a Yiddish speaking Trilateral Commission?

I removed this sentence, which is based on deadlinks and an unreliable source:

In 1997, he was listed as one of the co-founders of William Kristol's now-defunct Project for the New American Century.

Pages 5 and 312 give inconsistent lists of the founders of the PNAC, with page 5 ignoring Kagan, so this cannot be a reliable source. It appears to be a collection of informal essays by respected academics, polemics, and curiosities, which is edited by an intellectual at a partisan think tank. Page 5 contains the description of the PNAC in the section subtitle, which suggests obvious concerns about anti-semitism and conspiracy theories in discussions of PNAC and Kagan or both. is a 14:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Irwin Stelzer would use such a description, though I've not currently got access to the source. Are you sure he isn't reporting someone else's words? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the dead links, the relevant pages can be found on Wayback Machine. [1][2] Both pages name Kagan, and the bio page describes him as a co-founder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, so basically more thorough checking of sources is necessary before removal of material with refcites.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC for example also described Kagan as "co-founder in 1997 of the "Project for the New American Century" - and I'm sure that plenty of other sources can be found. [3] Frankly, I am somewhat baffled why Kagan's association with the PNAC should be so controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, me too.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindly re-read the edit history or what I wrote above. The pages give different people as co-founders, with page 5 not mentioning Kagan. An internal contradiction like that makes the source questionable. It is not a collection of referred papers by academics or reporting in a newspaper by professional journalists with editorial control and fact checking. Please restore the tag, along with the updated urls.

Please read the essay beginning before page 5 and review Ubikwit's musings about double loyalties, Jewishness, neoconservatism on this talk page (as well as his history of categorization), for understanding of concerns. is a 17:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to the IPS "rightweb" on "militarists" violates WP:BLP and must be immediately removed. The other changes you restored do not seem to be gross BLP violations, and I would not revert the other changes. is a 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to IPS appears to be redundant, since the quotes are from the Washington Post. And as for the Stelzer book, I have already stated that I don't have access to it. It seems to me though to again be rather beside the point - we have sources that confirm Kagan's association with the PNAC. Accordingly, all that is needed in my opinion is that we cite appropriate verifiable sources. And no, I'm not going to 'review' other contributors 'musings' - I'm not an admin, and have no authority to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm not that familiar with IPS as a source, a simple search of RS/N appears to demonstrate that it is a reliable news source, as per these threads [4][5] and as Andy says, it is quoting Kagan from a WP piece. What does it violate with respect to BLPs?

And how is the Stelzer book a primary source? There are multiple sources regarding the PNAC information, and I don't find the attempts to dismiss these sources convincing in the least.

Sounds like a simple case of WP:IDLI. And beware of casting aspersions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two IPSes in the article history. The Institute for Policy Studies hosts "rightweb" about "militarists seeking to influence US foreign policy", and your re-adding it violated WP:BLP. There has been a lot of discussion about your restoring contested BLP material on the talk pages here and at Victoria Nuland. Please stop restoring contested BLP material without gaining consensus first. The other ISP's tag has a question mark, I believe, suggesting that it need not be a RS and that one shoul strive for a high quality reliable source. is a 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, because there is only one mention of IPS in the material removed, as far as I can tell. But now I have found that you are referring to this Robert Kagan profile on "Right Web", but only because I googled "Right Web and found the description at the top of the page, "IPS".

That is not the source to which me or Andy understood you to be referring, as is readily apparent from the above discussion.

Meanwhile, the assertion that the website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies is an "attack site" seems a little extreme, but I suppose I'll have to look into that. "Partisan" or "biased" would be a characterization I could understand. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• PNAC source, webarchive page of letter quoted by this Mondoweiss piece. Note that both Donald Kagan and Robert Kagan are signatories.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP/N discussion

Here's the link.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly sources characterizing Robert Kagan as a neoconservative

Jeanne Morefield, Associate Professor of Politics, Whitman College, published by Oxford University Press in 2014 states that Frederick and Robert Kagan are "well-known neoconservative activists". The relevant passage is on p. 73
The book is called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Here's another high-quality scholarly source directly characterizing Robert (and Fred) Kagan as "prominent neoconservatives"

The Culture of Immodesty in American Life and Politics: The Modest Republic (2013)[6] edited by professors Michael P. Federici, Richard M Gambl, and Mark T Mitchell, Claes G. Ryn states

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

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I read that source when you presented it before. [7], [8]. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do not read Japanese. Collect (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC) To what "Japanese" do you refer?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Read the link you give to google.co.jp . Collect (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC) I'm reading it, what is the problem? Only a few phrases in that page are in Japanese, and the page of the book is obviously in English, along with the title and name of the author, and I have provided a link to the American Amazon site. What is the point?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Maybe Google is at fault - my first view was entirely in Japanese - really. No pointiness intended - I found a complete page with no English in it at all. Collect (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC) The book has not been issued in Japanese, so I can't imagine what the issue is. The text displayed from those books is not subject to being copied or translated. Were you able to reload and view the English? If not, try a search from your side.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC) The view had not s single English word in it when I first tried. None. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Vedi R. Hadiz? Writes almost exclusively on Indonesia, including claims of it being an "oligarchy" etc. Widely considered an expert on an American political area? Not. Description of book? " This book analyzes the overall effect of American primacy on social and political conflicts in Asia, discussing how the post-Cold War American agenda does not promote democratization in the region, in contradiction to one of the major proclaimed aims of the proponents of the Pax Americana. This team of renowned scholars argue that the US agenda can strengthen anti-democratic impulses in Asian societies, exacerbating and complicating existing domestic conflicts and struggles." Usability here? Minimal - it appears to be primarily polemic in nature. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the USA has supported numerous authoritarian regimes in Asia, including Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, Sung Man Rhee in South Korea, etc., though there has been progress made as well. His views don't sound unreasonable or overly dogmatic, just reflective of a POV that is not that uncommon; namely, thatthe US is out to serve its own economic interests as opposed to altruistic ends. You'll recall that there is a heated debate about oligarchy within America itself at present.

Also, regarding it being polemical, he makes that comment in a footnote, so you would not be wrong in asserting that the Kagan's and neoconservativism in general were a focus of the book, they were pertinent to the topic and he simply characterized a couple of authoritative neocons to which he must have referred in the text.

I think it is one of many sources generally supporting the characterization, and a peer-reviewed academic publication.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you know from personal expertise that the US deliberately supports evil regimes. We probably kill babies for amusement, and the like. That is wonderful, and when you write Ubikwitipedia you can use that knowledge. We are stuck with horrid, nasty policies including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:RS until then. I suggest you read the books you wish to use for their footnotes. Collect (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Another attempt to denigrate a statement reliably published in a peer-reviewed academic journal by a scholar, and shoot the messanger that attempts to situate it and facilitate discussion.

You can't undermine such a work by trying to attack its author or their POV simply because you disagree with the source. ::::Meanwhile, the position you are trying to defend has no support in RS produced thus far. You are running a 100% negative campaign trying to smear me and as well as scholarly sources.

Produce some sources supporting the POV that Kagan is not a neocon, and then we can apply WP:WEIGHT with respect to WP:PUBLICFIGURE to generate an NPOV statement.

Now, please keep it civil and stick to the policy-based arguments.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA I find your iterated personal attacks to be tiresome and tendentious. Your accusation that I am trying to "smear" you is baseless and a violation of policy and guidelines. And note that no editor is required to prove the negative of a claim - it is up to the person adding the claim to show reliable sources for the claim. Asking anyone to prove a negative is a well-known poor debate methodology. I trust this is clear and that you shall cordially refrain from attacks on any editors on Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the misspellings in the heading, but it is so very awful sounding.--FeralOink (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

World Affairs article "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776"

Among other statements in the long article[9], including those returned in a search of "hegemon", the article states:

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.

There is no mention of "economic dominance", however, and I fail to see how that could be a paraphrasing of the gist of the article, but I'm willing to listen to counterarguments. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"belief in America’s exceptional role ", i.e, American exceptionalism. Nobs01 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Robert Kagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120317080931/http://newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm to http://www.newamericancentury.org/robertkaganbio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204044710/http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm to http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert Kagan declares he is no longer a Republican

For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.

2/25/16 Kagan in a Washington Post article Kagan declares three points at end of article.

1. He is no longer Republican 2. He will vote for Clinton 3. The party cannot be saved

Kagan is announcing in plain language that he in no longer Republican, that the party cannot be salvaged and is supporting Clinton.

We are in a two party system A & B, he is no longer in A and A cannot be salvaged, therefore he is B - the party he will be voting for and supporting

Our movement left the Democrats in the 1970s for the Republicans and will return to the Democrats for primarily foreign policy reasons (IMO).

Kagan leads the way back to the Democrats boldly with his declaration to close his article. An edit to show he is no longer Republican supported by his words, reorienting of his party affiliation to Democrat Redtobelieve (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Redtobelieve: I know it's ridiculous sounding since "I'm not A and I'm voting B" suggests he's B, but the person must self-identify as being a member of that party. It's entirely possible he considers himself an Independent or Libertarian now. I understand where you are coming from, but calling him Democrat is WP:SYNTH. Let's let him publicly identify what party he affiliates with now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise for now, I've just blanked that infobox parameter and put a not saying he's on longer Republican, but we don't yet know what he is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: How about changing to "None" - it is a bit ridiculous but I understand your point - he will not declare third party - we left Carter when he went weak, his wife is already with Obama and should have "None" listed as well but she did not write an article saying she left any party - I will leave it to you to make the change but "None" with reference to the WP article seems about as accurate as we can get at this point - people change parties all the time, movements and realignments occur very seldom Redtobelieve (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)