Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Shouldn't neocon redirect Neoconservatism instead Neoconservatism (disambiguation)

Shouldn't neocon redirect Neoconservatism instead Neoconservatism (disambiguation) Kasaalan (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Felix Rohatyn

The wiki article on Felix Rohatyn says nothing of him being neo-conservative, and the discussion shows that the page has been modified several times with the "criticism" section removed because of lack of reliable citations. Here it says "future neo-conservatives.... Felix Rohatyn... -- Pashute (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd need a source saying he was a neoconservative. He actually helped Scoop Jackson in his 1976 campaign[1] but so did a lot of other people in NY without turning into neoconservatives. I will tag his name in this article for a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has provided a source, I have now removed the name. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material

As of today, I have tagged some of the more controversial unsourced claims with "citation needed" tags, because they are both unsourced and generally defamatory toward neoconservatism. If sources for those claims are not found within 1 month, I will delete them. Danny. 146.74.230.104 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked through them and they can all go without damaging the article. (Maybe look at the Horowitz reference about neoconservatism having lost all meaning since it is followed by a quote from him.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New comment

I do not believe that this article describes neoconservatives as they really are. I don't know where some of the information has come from as referenced in the need for further references. I am a neocon who became a conservative because of the fact that I took a course in college on the Constitution, and I saw that my liberal/socialist views just didn't measure up. I am pro-America, hawkish, and call myself neocon just because I am a former liberal who appreciates that I was on the wrong path. There are many neocons who believe as I do. I don't think it is covered but vaguely in this piece. It needs some work and I believe that all the contributors from this page should be working on it including me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.103.214 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two articles now, so there must be two talk files. See Talk:Neoconservatism (United States) for some issues that really belong here.

Mild update. It would be quite useful to review http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=neo-conservative which contains many international linkages not mentioned here, which should be.

There are also US-Israel, US-Canada, US-UK, US-Australia commonalities, each of which needs its own mentions, along with the Israel-Canada-UK cross-linkages. For instance, Conrad Black, a Canadian who hates Canada and lives in London, owns the Jerusalem Post, which calls for assassination of Yasser Arafat. And Izzy Asper, a Canadian who supports Israel unconditionally, owns Global TV which was the only Canadian TV network to send an "embedded reporter" to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Australians and US cooperate almost automatically in the War on Terrorism (just like the Vietnam War) and now seem to share an interventionist foreign policy, which Canada and the UK do not seem to share to the same degree (despite Anthony Blair, who is taking major heat for it that Bush and Howard aren't taking).

---

Its extremely good practice to disambig articles like this one where the words have tottaly different meanings in different areas.

{{subst: TheHypnotist}}

There is a mistake in the article. The Bush Doctrine uses "preventive" warfare (illegal according to IR scholars) rather than preemptive warfare. Pandawa 219 (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete Orwell material?

I would recommend deleting the material on Orwell. Although Orwell obviously helped shape the intellectual/political climate in the post-war period, he did not have a dramatic impact on the thinkers who would later be identified as the founders of neoconservatism (by the time Orwell became a well-known figure, Kristol and the others had long since come to oppose Stalinism and reject Marxism in general). Moreover, the lengthy discussion of whether Orwell was or was not a forerunner of neoconservatism is of tangential relevance to an article aimed at a general readership.

It is, to say the least, surprising to find that the first picture in the article is of George Orwell and that so much is written about him here. For much of his life he was a revolutionary socialist. He fought with anarchists and Trotskyists in the Spanish Civil War. He wanted to turn the Home Guard into a revolutionary army. He was a member of the Independent Labour Party. He was a fierce oponent of colonialism. All these make him different from any neo-conservative alive today and they weigh heavily against the futile speculation that, were he alive today, he himself would be a neo-conservative.

Any reader coming to the article for information about what neo-conservatism is will be seriously misled by the prominence given to Orwell.

I recommend the removal of Orwell's photo and the demotion of the Orwell material to the bottom of the article.

Discussion, please. Marshall46 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Orwell material is given undue prominence in the article for someone who is not actually directly connected to the topic at hand. I agree the pic should be removed, the material moved down (perhaps with a sentence summary where it is now). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

List of neoconservatives

Where did the list of neoconservatives come from and how was it decided upon? How is Buckley a neoconservative, given his history of rejecting their position on their main issue, foreign policy? He worked with neoconservatives for the sake of unity and common goals.

I agree with the above comment. Buckley was not a neoconservative. Perhaps that designation is based on the "new right" movement associate with Buckley, which, despite the similarity of labels, is not the same thing as neoconservatism as defined in this article. Erowe1 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And where is this list of neoconservatives anyway? Now that I've added my two cents to the discussion, I can't find it. Erowe1 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy

Quote from the article: "She (Margaret Tatcher) also had a very neoconservative foreign policy – favouring strong actions and favouring democracy – she dispatched a fleet and overthrew Gen. Galtieri in Argentina[citation needed] when he invaded the Falkland Islands,[25]"

This is wrong. Tatcher dispatched a fleet to retake the control of the Falkland Islands, succesfully so, and that certainly was one of the main reasons why the Junta in Argentina lost public acceptance, but in no way were the British directly involved in restoring democracy to the country, nor at any point were their intention to. Checking the source for this claim (note number 25) I got redirected to a news article where the only mention to the conflict in Falklands is that Argentina was defeated before the collapse of the regime, though by the way it is worded, I see how it was misunderstood. To put it simply, Tatcher didn't overthrow Galtieri. 190.31.2.173 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Although Thatcher was sometimes called neo-conservative at the time, it was before the usage of the term had acquired its current meaning. Ironically the neo-conservatives favored the Argentinian side. Thatcher's actions are best understood as defending a British Overseas Territory from external aggression, and of course she did not overthrow Galtieri and the war was limited to the islands. I will remove the paragraph. TFD (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that was quick. Thank you, it's good to know once again that the wikipedia community is so swift in correcting its inaccuracies. As for neo-conservatives supporting the Argentinian side, and this is just good old speculation on my side (feel free to correct me), I imagine it had more to do with a perceived imperialistic attitude in holding overseas territories so far away, more than the debate of dictatorship vs. democracy. I don't see otherwise how they'd support a military junta bent on persecution and genocide. 190.230.181.67 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical usage

The opening sentence of this article prior to december 25 was rather absurd, and one can not envision it being written prior to the Bush administration and the recent adoption of the term "neoconservatism" by certain groups on the left to define that administration's foreign policy. Should terms contained within a serious encyclopedia be defined by partisans in a manner that is utterly indifferent to historical usages? The sources given are NOT authoritative they are arbitrary, and all very recent, coincidentally from near the last leg of the Bush administration.

The definition and sources I have provided are from the thinking of the man who is the widely acknowledged "Godfather of Neoconservatism", Irving Kristol (referred to as such even in Wikipedia's own article on the man). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.90.251 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The most recent version of this article, may 25 2007, says that Carl Schmitt and other Germans were referred to as neo-conservative in the 1930s, and cites a recent English-language book in support of the assertion. One wonders when and in what language they were described with this term ... in the English language in the 1930s? Then better to cite the original source rather than this later book. In some other language? Then the example has no point; the point is to trace the evolution of the phrase.

Neo-Conservatism Using Liberalism as a guise?

I dont know if this is the place to have this conversation. But it doesnt appear that anybody has given thought to the fact that Neo-conservatives may be using Liberalism as a guise to further their deeply held Realist goals. ie The War in Iraq

"several countries regarded Iraq as an important trading partner and expressed concern before the war that their national interests might be compromised if a newly-established Iraqi government is primarily sympathetic to U.S. interests. These countries were concerned about lost trade and possible loss of investment opportunities in Iraq’s oil sector." - Congressional Research Service http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32025.pdf pg 14

Maybe this type of info could be included in a new section in the article, possibly a section on criticisms of neo-conservatism.

But the quote doesn't support the hypothesis. The other countries refered to by it, not neoconservatives, are concerned with "realist" goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.22.21.16 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.150.183 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 5 October 2009

POV tag

Some anonymous reader added a POV tag without explanation. There is no such POV indicated on this talk page so the tag will be removed unless he steps forward with an explanation. Rjensen (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

POV in the lede with no citations

In the lede it says critics on the right attack neocons for involving wars in the Middle East except liberals criticized that way before the right ever did. It then states critics on the left only criticize Neocons because of "american exceptionalism". These 2 statements are POV with no citations. 69.137.143.166 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. TFD (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

80s history? not accurate at all

quoted from article: "As the 1980s wore on, younger second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliott Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators, who were at that time increasingly engaged in human rights abuses worldwide.[24] This debate led to a policy shift in 1986, when the Reagan administration demanded Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos to step down flew him to the U.S. Abrams also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Augusto Pinochet's eventual removal from office.[25] Through the National Endowment for Democracy, led by another neoconservative, Carl Gershman, funds were directed to the anti-Pinochet opposition in order to ensure a fair election.[26]"

Neoconservatives supported policy in the 1980s that resulted in many human rights abuses, such as in El Salvador (under military rule) and also with the Contras. Not to mention the Kirkpatrick doctrine's explicit support for "authoritarian" governments such as Somoza or Pinochet (given the multiplicy of ex National Guardsmen of the Somoza dictatorship among the Contra ranks, and the human rights violations of the Contras, and of the Salvadorean/Guatemalan governments (both US client-states under military rule) it's hard to consider the Reagan administration to have been so distanced from "dictators" and "human rights abusers"). Especially since much of Reagan's policy in these areas was so informed by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, herself being ideologically canonical for neoconservatism, this side of the story certainly warrants more attention in the article than the current paragraph quoted above, which only shows one side of the story and obscures much. 96.246.39.61 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad first line

To start off by identifying neoconservatism as "a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy" is hugely problematic, and is misleading to casual readers. For one thing, although the main focus ON neoconservatism by the media etc in recent years has been on its foreign policy (probably because this stands out, in contrast with its domestic policy, which is more easily confused with centrist, left-liberal, classicla liberal, or traditional conservative policy by casual observers), neoconservatism does not actually "focus" on foreign policy. And it's certainly not as if neoconservatism appeared when a group of American conservatives branched off to focus on foreign policy, which the sentence doesn't actually state but strongly implies to a reader who doesn't know better. And, the footnoted (famous) article does not support the "focuses on foreign policy" claim, since it doesn't say this, and spends considerable time on domestic policy before getting around to foreign policy. The opening paragraph needs a re-write to align better with the rest of the article, which correctly identifies foreign policy as just one aspect of neoconservatism. Reader335 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph: "It is notable for its support for Israel and its deep interest in the Middle East." Really? That's what it, as opposed to other political movements, is notable for? I disagree that this is a distinguishing characteristic of them. 68.7.66.85 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reader335 makes some good points and I revised the lede to cover them. As for very strong support for Israel, indeed all the RS make that point. (You can see it play out in May 2015 as Neocon's criticize Obama's proposals for 1966 boundaries for Israel).Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Subjective and definately not written in a Neutral point of view.

It rejected the goal of ever-expanding welfare state and government regulation of the economy. This is certainly subjective and debateble. It is argued often that the movement is hypocritical on the issue of the "welfare state" and "government regulation." Not only that, but I like many others reject that out-right, that we were ever on an "ever-expanding" path to welfare. This should be either deleted, or the article be challenged if not corrected; especially since it's not sourced. Jascar (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jascar is unclear. does he think the statement is not true, or does he think that it needs a footnote? Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed BLP violations

I removed a lot of BLP violations and OR, and rewrote what was salvageable. Similar cutting should be done on the second half of this article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

be careful about removing too much. "BLP violations" and OR allegations should be discussed on talk page first to get more of a consensus on a contentious topic. BLP for example is a matter of inadequate citation (it is not a matter of negative statements). Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to review the BLP policy. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be reviewed immediately, and anything contentious that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be immediately removed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Strauss

I removed this because it lacks any reference stating that Strauss was a major influence on neoconservatism. Most of the sources are from Strauss's right wing students. There is no discussion of Strauss's objection to being called "conservative", or any discussion of his left wing students. For example, George Anastaplo reported Strauss's letter claiming his conversion to "the liberal" position on race:

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The disciples of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899-1973) comprised one major group. Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939-49) and the University of Chicago (1949-1958). Strauss asserted that "the crisis of the West consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose." Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss's work. Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition. O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss's influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism. Strauss influenced many people including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork; former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State and GOP politician Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; political philosopher Allan Bloom; editor John Podhoretz; educator John Agresto; politial scientist Harry V. Jaffa; and Nobel Prize winning novelist Saul Bellow.

WP policy prefers sources that are less devotional than Strauss's students. At minimum, we need a source linking Strauss to neoconservatism. It is highly desirable to shorten this section and to find reliable secondary sources that are independent of Strauss's school.

Why mention all these influenced people? Which of them call themselves neoconservatives? This might be a fine addition to the article on Strauss.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with the revised version. Thanks, RJensen.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Elliot Abrams

My edit summaries warned that this material was OR, with citations only tangentially related to what was reported.

1980s

As the 1980s wore on, younger second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliott Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators, who were at that time increasingly engaged in human rights abuses worldwide. This debate led to a policy shift in 1986, when the Reagan administration, demanding Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos step down, flew him to the U.S.

Chile

Abrams also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Augusto Pinochet's eventual removal from office. The National Endowment for Democracy provided funds for the anti-Pinochet opposition. The NED was then headed by a social democrat, Carl Gershman.

Earlier, the National Review had supported Pinochet in the 1970s and defended his government. Some neoconservatives continued to support his regime well into the 1980s, according to New York columnist Jim Sleeper. In the 21st century, Jonah Goldberg stated Iraq needed a Pinochet.

Fenton does not attribute the policy to Abrams, but rather first discusses Reagan administration policy and then mentions Abrams very briefly. Golberg is not called a neoconservative by the source, as I noted: however, the Jewish name makes him tempting to add.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Strauss?

Strauss is important--the RS all say--because of the influence of his students and disciples. 1) "This book explicates the deepest philosophic principles of neoconservatism, traces the intellectual relationship between the political philosopher Leo Strauss and contemporary neoconservative political actors...." [C. Bradley Thompson & Yaron Brook, Neoconservatism - 2010]; 2) "Neoconservatism's origins can be traced, if not exclusively to Leo Strauss..." [Murray, Neoconservatism (2006) p 2]; 3) "There were many outside voices that influenced the beliefs of this group of international relation theorists, most notably Leo Strauss." [Rhoades, Neoconservatism (2008) p 4]; 4) "Irving Kristol mentions the importance of Leo Strauss" [Petrie, Ideas have consequences: The rhetoric of neoconservatism (2006) p 7]; 5) An American agenda: Leo Strauss, Nietzsche and neoconservatism by Darryl Naranjit - 2008; 6) "Much of this chapter focuses on key thinkers in the neoconservative tradition: Leo Strauss and his protege Allan Bloom...etc" [Macdonald, Thinking history, fighting evil: neoconservatives... (2009) p 67]; 7) "A protégé of the influential German-born academic Leo Strauss, who is often said to be the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism" [Unger, American Armageddon (2008) p 42] 00:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I did not say that these claims are false, only that the article had failed to make the connection between neoconservatism and Strauss, and that it was citing Strauss's students excessively (and the Straussians are often thought to be more homogeneous and extreme than other "schools", I'll add).

Could you restore a shorter version, please, for example, only listing neoconservative students of Strauss? (Justice Thomas, in his confirmation hearings, noted that he read Strauss, while searching for foundations, but such reading does not make him a Straussian.)

It may be useful to note that Harry Jaffa was associated with Barry Goldwater rather than social/Christian conservatism or neo-conservatism or Know-Nothingism.

I also think it useful to note that Strauss and his students are not "conservatives" or "neo-conservatives", but more Platonists who dislike modernity and contemporary labels.

Strauss is considered a major influence on the neocons, and the cited sources make that explicit--they mention Clarence Thomas for example. So let's go with the RS, as published and easily available on ggogle books for cross-checking. Harry Jaffa is most closely associated with Abe Lincoln; he was a student of Strauss at the New School in 1944 and he emphasizes Strauss's influence on him (Harry Jaffa, "The Legacy of Leo Strauss Defended," Claremont Review of Books 4 (1985): 20+). (also see this passage on Jaffa & Strauss) Rjensen (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(It is bizarre that Jews/neoconservatives are being attacked for believing in the Declaration of Independence, in our barbaric times.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stick to people relevant to this article. Clarence Thomas is rarely called a neoconservative. I already noted that he had read Strauss, as noted in his confirmation hearings. Jaffa was a staffer for Barry Goldwater, who is not usually considered Neoconservative, as I said before.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-encyclopediac and Fringe

There are several rants from right-wing editorials, blaming Jews for the Bush foreign policy. Again, why is an encyclopedia citing such shit? Neo-conservatism justifies torture/aggressive Zionism?

There is no shortage of academic sources on this topic and criticizing Bush's foreign policy. Why are we quoting extremists who sometimes appear as editorial voices, but never in coverage by reliable sources?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

According to columnist Gerard Baker,

It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet—that the United States should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world—as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture, and promoted aggressive Zionism.

This puffs up the General, before featuring his quote from In These Times:

Retired general William Odom, who had once served as NSA Chief under Ronald Reagan, was openly critical of Neoconservative influence in the decision to go to war, having said, "It's pretty hard to imagine us going into Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC and the neocons, who think they know what's good for Israel more than Israel knows."

Again, why are we quoting extremist statements rather than the most reliable sources?

(Also, the logic of blaming Jews/neoconservatives for War is flawed, as Organski pointed out long ago. Jewish support for Israel has been relatively constant since the 50s. How does one explain a change, e.g., the Nixon administration's support of Israel, by a constant? I note that Organski's criticism also applies here.)

Paul Berman

Berman's Jewishness makes him a neoconservative in the eyes of at least one editor. Does anybody serious understand why this is quoted?

Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."

I don't see similar quotations of German Christian ministers (When they came for the communists, I did nothing ...) or John Donne (No man is an island).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

List of neoconservative characteristics

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East
• an us versus them mentality".

Why are we quoting this kind of opinion here, rather than reliable sources?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarke is a leading expert and his work on neocons has been widely praised. That makes him a RS whether an editor agrees with him or not. Here are auotes about his book with Halper on America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order: 1) "[Halper and Clarke's] thoughtful, insightful work spans ideological and partisan differences, a rare phenomenon in these times..the argument never has been put together so persuasively, so conclusively and so effectively." Washington Post; 2) "Halper and Clarke document in detail the origins, history, near disappearance, and recent ascension of the neoconservative 'interest group' in dominating the decisions and discourse surrounding US foreign policy decision-making since the 9-11 terrorist attacks." E.A. Turpen, Henry L. Stimson Center, in CHOICE; 3) "[The authors] have done the near-impossible...they offer convincing, powerful, new insights on a crucial and widely-discussed development in America's relations with the world. The book is fair-minded...fascinating...full of valuable guidance for the next phase in U.S. foreign policy. Its analysis is the more trenchant for coming from two bona fide conservatives." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly. They validate Clarke's credentials, as does his status at a leading think tank. Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonacademic sources can be quote as representing the point of view of a community. There should be a concern with due weight, POV, fringe, RS, etc.

Why not cite that book instead of epherma?

Has the good General published anything in an academic journal, or from a university press?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're mixing him up with General Clark, who ran for president. Sloppy research like that undermines an editor's credibility. allegations of antisemitism call for immediate deletion using BLP rules.Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not mix them up. I noted a similar problem with Clark.

You should read the article before putting words in my mouth. "General" refers to Odom. It would easy to compare my WP articles against the scholarship of your (21 was it?) textbooks, Jensen, if you keep it up.Okay, it was clear in my mind, but very badly expressed, so your comment is understandable. However, our tone could use improvement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My credibility has been established by years of writing articles that don't cite shit (particularly the troglodyte sources of Know-Nothingism and of Trotskyist sects) and don't misuse sources, and that are mildly literate. This abomination should make any serious editor shudder in horror.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that Wikipedia editors and readers agree with my judgment. This article has the worst ratings I have ever seen. Straight 1's (with 11 reviews)!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

credibility drains away fast when you accuse people with antisemitism without evidence. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This latest and the previous cliched Wikispeak would be passive aggressive if it had the courage of its conviction. Explain why Paul Berman was cited, please!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Human Events

This needs a reliable source, not Human Events.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Neoconservative writers were critical of the post–Cold War foreign policy of both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, which they criticized for reducing military expenditures and lacking a sense of idealism in the promotion of American interests. They accused these Administrations of lacking both moral clarity and the conviction to pursue unilaterally America's international strategic interests.

Vdare: Antisemitism

This article used to refer to several articles from a source called Vdare. If you want to understand the anti-semitism underlying much of this article, please see Thinking about neoconservatism, which also has a list of personality traits of neoconservatives Jews, similar to this article's.

How is it that a WP article could cite such a journal?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources and BLP problems

9 thousand K of fantastic bullshit has been restored, without any response to the criticisms I made. For example, -the statements about Elliot Abrams were WP:BLP violations and mis-use of sources. -As I stated in my edit summary, Podhoretz's "Neoconservatism" does not contain the word "Shachtman" according to Google or Amazon. But an edit warring editor restored this material, which was subject to an RfC banning another editor.

There are academic books on neoconservatism, but instead this article looks like a minimum rewriting of far-right websights. Why are people quoting opinion pieces by minor rightwingers rather than citing reliable sources like academic presses and academic journals?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Shachtman

I removed this, because of the misuse of sources. Please verify the citations before restoring it.

In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cited a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:

For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.

William Kristol defends his father by noting that the criticism of an instrumental view of politics misses the point. When the context is a discussion of religion in the public sphere in a secular nation, religion is inevitably dealt with instrumentally. Apart from that, it should be borne in mind that the majority of neoconservatives believe in the truth, as well as the utility, of religion.

According to Google Scholar or Amazon, Kristol's Neoconservatism does not contain the string "Shachtman".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lipset

I think that Lipset has a very good article on neoconservatism, through 1987, which could be the basis for an expansion of this article.

In general, I would prefer that this article be based on academic articles like Lipset's rather than opinion pieces (particularly opinion pieces in partisan journals).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Lipset and I were personal friends--he published my first articles back in the 1960s. But he is only one of many historians of the neocon movement. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Lipset was to the liberal-center of SDUSA but had some kind of friendship or at least respect for Harrington: Some political associations are non-convex!

I don't detect an obvious bias in his article: He even mentions David McReynolds's SPUSA. (His article does have a few mistakes, but I think it's basically sound---and has the advantage of being available in Sweden.)

When I met Lipset, who was not on the speakers' list of a conference, I said "wait a moment" and pulled out of my backpack Complex Analysis by Serge Lang (of The File notoriety) and asked for his autograph.

It took him a few awkward seconds to understand that I was kidding him.

Lipset said, "You know, the incidence of mental illness is unusually high among mathematicians."

I said, "You don't know the half of it!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that (I have a degree in math & my first book was Historians Guide to Statistics (1971). :) Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lang later was at Yale. He may have been at Columbia or Berkeley/Stanford when you were in New Haven.

You owe yourself a look at Serge Lang's The File: You will find yourself recapitulating Shelley Duvall's dumbstruck terror at seeing "All work and no play makes Johnny a dull boy" (The Shining (film)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alas, Lipset seems wrong when he discusses Harrington's behavior. Harrington never mentions the SDUSA people; Steinfels does. Harrington's forgettable essay, apparently reprinted in the painful Twilight of Capitalism that providence put in the 25 SEK table outside a used book shop today, discusses Moynahan, Bell, and Kristol. (Lipset gives not sources for his assertation about Harrington's intentions.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But see the first issue of Harrington's Newsletter of the Democratic Left (listed as a link at DSOC, thanks to Carrite), which better exemplifies Lipset's assertions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentences

The introductory section, which does not seem to be accessible for editing, needs at the very least a bit of judicious modification. It now reads: "Since 2001, neoconservatism has been associated with democracy promotion, that is with assisting movements for democracy, in some cases by economic sanctions or military action.[citation needed]" That little "citation needed" is the only clue that some (probably the vast majority of) informed readers would regard this as less than objective.

Let's put this in perspective. It's worth noting that "assisting movements for democracy" was generally the way Reagan-era proto-neocons described their funding of Nicaraguan contras, Salvadoran death squads, apartheid-funded rebels such as UNITA in Angola, and Islamic fundamentalists fighting in Afghanistan. None of these groups was actually associated with anything remotely resembling "democracy" as the word is generally understood. On the other hand, those same crusading "democracy promoters" (such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick, mentioned more than once in the next part of introductory section) not only tolerated but generally supported violent and oppressive military dictatorships, such as those ruling Argentina, Chile, and Guatemala at the time. It was National Security Advisor Colin Powell (hardly a card-carrying neocon, judging from his problems while later serving as Secretary of State under Bush) who finally convinced Reagan to call for elections in Nicaragua instead of continuing with the bloody and vicious Contra strategy. Presumably the success of this shift (the Marxist Sandinistas were defeated in free and fair elections, and later voted back into office with more moderate policies) taught the neocons that elections can be a very useful weapon their arsenal as they pursue their strategic goals; this is not at all the same thing as promoting democracy itself as a strategic goal for its own sake, as a universal ideal (which is what the opening sentence is clearly implying). This is shown by the neocon-dominated Bush Administration's policies after 2001 in Venezuela (sponsoring a failed coup against a popular elected leader) and in Haiti (removing President Aristide from office and banning his large and legitimate party from participating in subsequent elections). Does "democracy" includes the right of a more powerful nation to remove legitimately elected leaders it finds troublesome? It's as if Great Britain could arrange the removal of dangerous radicals like Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson while claiming to support American democracy. (With friends like that, democracy wouldn't need enemies.)

While the neocons wanted long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote to be the public face of their occupation of Iraq, it was the photos from the occupiers' own torture chambers in Baghdad that made a more lasting impression. Both images were in fact true. But this graphically demonstrates that the truth is hardly simple or straightforward. The same neocons' ways of "promoting democracy" in America itself were also controversial, to put it mildly, since Constitutional guarantees of liberty were regarded as irrelevant to what they called "freedom".

The opening as it stands is simply absurd — just about as simplistic and misleading as to open an article on Bolshevism with words about "promoting equality and guaranteeing the basic human rights to food, housing, medical care and education for all" or on National Socialism with "preserving the culture and heritage of the Nordic nations". Those would not be untrue; they're just so far from the whole truth as to be obvious propaganda concocted by members of those movements to promote their own ideologies.

Why not open with words about preserving America's global economic and military supremacy by any means necessary, including democratic, legal and diplomatic means when they serve the purpose? I don't know enough about Neoconservatives to know whether they mean the word "America" to include the country as whole or just an elite class within America (competing against the elites of Europe and Asia for control of markets and resources around the world). To give credit where credit is due, I suspect they are (like "Scoop" Jackson) motivated by genuine patriotism or at least nationalism (not quite the same thing) - and that this is a major defining point worth working into the opening. It's relevant, since they seem to have offered a militant alternative to the elite's tendency (as in the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.) to conceive of the global capitalist elite as one big happy family united in their pursuit of wealth and power regardless of their national origins, and regardless of their own citizens' divergent interests. The neocon Bush Administration, especially in early 2003, was in open conflict with the elites of Europe; this would have been unthinkable had they been guided by the ideology of the "globalizing" movement (as personified by Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Kissinger, etc.). Since this is probably the most significant aspect of the Neoconservative movement, at the heart of its historical significance, it should probably be incorporated into the opening section somehow, by someone who knows the subject better than I do. All I really know is the present opening is a disgrace. It's a complicated subject, but even a simple and straightforward opening could give a more sensible idea of what it's really about.

173.69.30.47 (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You should keep your comments brief. The intro which begins, "Since 2001, neoconservatism has been associated with democracy promotion..." is poor. Feel free to re-write it. TFD (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the opening sentence sucks. To be honest most of the article sucks. That said, your immediate and aggressive assertion of a POV makes me worry about your ability to objectively edit this article. Please bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:SYN and WP:RS when moving forward with any editing here. Feel free to solicit input on the talk page from other editors at any time. Also, for what it's worth, I'll add that Kirkpatrick's paper Dictatorships and Double Standards (which is what I assume you're referencing) is chronically misunderstood. The paper actually made the opposite assertion of what you suggest here and she went out of her way to clarify that after it was published. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Democracy promotion"

RJensen found a reliable source for the "democracy promotion" phrase. Since 1991/2001, "democracy promotion" has been criticized by paleo-conservatives and usually endorsed by non-paleoconservatives, including neoconservatives and the Clinton & Bush & Obama Administrations (or current Secretary of State Clinton). Paleos and neos agree on one thing, that "democracy promotion" is a central & emotionally charged issue.

I share the concerns of the IP editor (particularly about the concerns that "democracy promotion" has greater NPOV hazards for the 1980s).

Before I expanded on the 1970s and 1980s, the article was mainly focused on Neoconservatism beginning with the 41st Presidency, of George H.W. Bush. "Democracy promotion" was my best effort to try to find a NPOV phrase, especially for the 1988-2011 time. Perhaps the lede should also explain that 1980s neoconservative "democracy promotion" included support for movements and regimes with authoritarian tainting that were fighting Communist totalitarianism? Apparently, the neocons supported democratization (political liberalization) in Chile, after the mid 1980s, according to OR/synthesis I removed from this article (about Elliot Abrams). I assume that this was made easier after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain better. The neoconservatives claimed they were promoting democracy and some writers may disagree. It is not up to us to decide who was right. TFD (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mind your tone a bit better, please.

RJensen found a RS for "democracy promotion", which seems to be a widely used and relatively NPOV term for post-1990s policy discussions, not only in the US (but also in Sweden).

If you can find a high quality most reliable source with a better term, then please suggest it on this talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

An editor disputes whether Leo Strauss should be included as an academic who influenced neo-conservatism. Considering that he contributed to neoconservative thought, taught numerous neoconservatives including noted academics and collaborated with other neoconservative academics assures him a place. Whether or not his influence has been overstated, it certainly existed. TFD (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Strauss never "contributed" to neoconservatism. It hardly existed when he was alive and he didn't know anyone involved. He did not teach anyone on that list, except for Wolfowitz who took only 2 grad courses with him and was a student of Wohlstetter. Kagan wrote as essay called "Why I'm not a Straussian" in which he stated that he never understood Strauss. Fukuyama studied with Huntington, not Strauss. Mansfield studied with a student of Strauss, but so what. Strauss didn't collaborate with anyone. He was a liberal who voted for Adlai Stevenson. He was a critic of National Review. James Mann can write what he likes, but that doesn't make it true. The burden is on you now. I sticking with my delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoiia1154 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is what the RS say; Dkoiia1154's position is that X, Y and Z were not students of Leo Strauss. Influence comes from ideas. 1) Drolet says his influence came in the "long-drawn efforts of neoconservative intellectuals to foment the political and sociocultural conditions that have facilitated the "re-nationalization" of America and its incremental departure from the socioeconomic and geopolitical pacts of the postwar period since the 1970's." [Jean-François Drolet, "The cryptic cold war realism of Leo Strauss," International Politics, Jan 2009]. 2) George says, "Intrinsic to this understanding and commitment, for some of the most significant of contemporary neoconservatives, is the work and legacy of political philosopher Leo Strauss." [George, "Leo Strauss, Neoconservatism and US Foreign Policy," International Politics, June 2005]. 3) Trutnau says "important visionary neonconservative theoreticians came from the University of Chicago; Leo Strauss..." [Trutnau. A One-Man Show? (2005) p 24]; 4) Chaudet says, "the neoconservatives believed they had found an authority in Leo Strauss" [Chaudet, When empire meets nationalism (2009) p 23]; 5) Kielmansegg says Strauss, "laid foundations for the neoconservative reading" [Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss (1997) pp 135-7]; 6) Melanie Phillips says Strauss "influenced some of neoconservatism's founding fathers," [The World Turned Upside Down (2010) p 123]; 7) Nathan Glazer writes, "Irving Kristol at one point wrote that the two chief influences on his thinking were Lionel Trilling and Leo Strauss" [The neoconservative imagination (1995) p 8]; 8) Kristol himself wrote, "From the cultural conservatives and the political philosopher Leo Strauss it has learned to appreciate the significance of precapitalist moral and philosophical traditions. In this regard, neoconservatism is a syncretistic intellectual movement." [Reflections of a neoconservative (1983) p xii]; -- the statements by 8 scholars make it clear that linking Strauss and the neocons is a common endeavor among scholars (although there are other influences and some neocons were not influenced by Strauss). Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Barring any unforeseeable insights I'd say RJensen has made a convincing argument for Strauss' assertion. Yes? TomPointTwo (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"[T]he statements by 8 scholars make it clear that linking Strauss and the neocons is a common endeavor among scholars". I have never denied that some scholars have made linking Strauss to neo-conservatism their common endeavor, but it remains only that. Moreover, if Irv Kristol had told Nat Glazer even, "After reading Strauss, I decided to champion Reagan", that would not make Strauss one of the "public figures identified as personally a neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisors"--as everyone else on our list so plainly is. If so tenuous a "connection" were the standard, we would be obliged to include scores of names, which would render the list nearly useless. Retaining Leo Strauss on a list of neo-conservatives (to which I have added rather more than I have deleted) no matter how anachronistic it is, worries me. And I can hope only that it does not suggest a political sensibility unsuitable to us as editors: We should reflect on this. This peculiar insistence demands absolute explanation before I can desist in my objection. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dkoiia1154 now takes a strange new position that Strauss does not count because he never directly influenced big name politicians. Indeed he avoided Washington and never consulted. As the cites make clear it was Strauss's IDEAS --rather abstract philosophical ideas--that influenced many neocons. It seems Dkoiia1154 is uninterested in ideas unless the idea man directly worked for the government. Furthermore, it is false to say as he does that we must "include scores of names"; that is a bad argument to start with (we have lots of space for links) but it's hard to think of many people besides Strauss who had that level of intellectual influence on some neocons according to the RS. The bottom line is that Dkoiia1154 has an offbeat view of what influence he accepts; he suggests that ideas propounded by a shy professor in Chicago who never was a Washington insider do not much count. Furthermore he seems to say the opinions of the cited RS don't much count either. Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you guys want to continue to list (and worse to discuss at length) Leo Strauss and neo-conservatism, you certainly have enough putatively high quality sources to do so. (But just listen to what these sources sound like! "Kristol himself wrote, 'From the cultural conservatives and the political philosopher Leo Strauss it has learned to appreciate the significance of precapitalist moral and philosophical traditions. In this regard, neoconservatism is a syncretistic intellectual movement.' ['Reflections of a neoconservative' (1983) p xii]" .... Strauss "taught" neocons to take Jerusalem and Athens and ... 1700s British alchemists seriously! Cheese and crackers! I urge maximum restraint ....)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

it's true that Socrates, Plato, Hobbes, John Locke and Adam Smith are pretty old fashioned, but it's amazing what political philosophers spend their time reading. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, people often refer to Strauss as an academic in joke, writing something so absurd that knowledgeable persons must nod their heads and comment, "Yeah, I get it---Persecution and the Art of Writing. Hardy, Haar, Haar. Seriously, can you imagine Kristol writing that sentence with a straight face!?!?!!!

As usual, we should go to the highest quality, most reliable sources and follow them. Do the best academic treatments of neoconservatism feature Strauss (to the extent our article does)? If so, fine! If not, then we should restrain ourselves from hunting out R.S.'s that link neoconservatism to Strauss (of which many exist).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

well I've been studying (and publishing) on the U of Chicago political science department since 1969, and people there take him very seriously indeed. He reversed the main thrust of the department from behavioralism to political philosophy. Rjensen (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognize only one Straussian Nathan Tarcov and several others with interests similar to Straussians (Patchen Markell, John P. McCormick, Sankar Muthu); maybe the "Strauss" brand has been good for fund raising. ;)

I would guess that Przeworski and Michigan students (and former historians, like Suny and Sewell) have been more influential. I was surprised to see West's student there. The Committee on Social Thought and other Hutchins legacies make Chicago the best place for anybody interested in the classics, e.g. Nussbaum.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Strauss made his impact 60 years ago. The Hutchins influence quickly disappeared when he left. Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I so misinformed about the Committee on Social Thought, the 4 faculties of the college (and the core curriculum)? When I looked at the college in high school, I was surprised by the the attention given to Aristotle and especially St. Thomas in the humanities and social sciences. Tempus fugit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Albert Wohlstetter and Allan Bloom were also in the political science department, and Bloom was certainly influenced by Strauss. TFD (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting Hegel back on his head and emphasize marginal academics with even less influence than the typical academic political-scientist----promoting the Straussian legend is a strange development in the pathological literature on neo-conservatism, which seems to recycle and play-telephone with itself more than any literature known to me. I am waiting for this article to have a section on the influence of The Report from Iron Mountain.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Let us start an attempt to come to some agreement about the facts. Maybe we can include Strauss on the list but only with several caveats. 1) We must note that he was a liberal. 2) We must note that neo-cons disagree about whether he influenced neoconservatism. Based on these considerations, I propose the following wording or something like it, “Leo Strauss, liberal professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago. Some neoconservatives (Kristol) contend that Strauss influenced neoconservatism; others (Mansfield) contend that Strauss did not.” What do you think? Dkoiia1154 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My memory (more than a decade old) is that Strauss and particularly his students objected to being called "conservative". (Bloom particularly used quotation marks to signal his amusement.) Strauss's "natural right" "teaching" is pre-Modern, while the liberal/conservative dichotomy arose with the secular struggle against absolutism and against religion-charged conflicts.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Strauss a liberal (using American terminology)???? We all agree he's in the conservative camp, the issue is the influence of his ideas on some neocons. Mansfield is a Straussian like Bloom, Jaffa and Prangle. There is a good discussion of claims and counter-claims in the full-scale biography Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher (2006) by Eugene Sheppard pp 1-3 which you can read online at amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 November 2011

Dkoiia1154, do you have any sources that support your views? TFD (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The first three footnotes in Sheppard’s book, read carefully and with an open mind, rather support my contention. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the first three footnotes (p. 133). I do not see that support a claim that Strauss was a liberal or that he did not influence neo-conservatism. TFD (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The most prominent line in the pages cited is “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.” The footnote I drew the editors’ attention to states: “The most recent book on this subject . . . openly confesses not to approach the subject of Strauss himself.” The other line is “the administration of George W. Bush has been seen by several leading international newspapers and magazines as a hotbed of Straussian influence…” The footnote states: “Most of the pieces point to central broad themes of Strauss’s American writings without ever touching a nuanced and accurate portrait of Strauss’s core intellectual concerns and theories.”

Mark Lilla in the two New York Review of Books articles mentioned in the footnote after that wrote: “In the lead-up to the recent Iraq war the attention of the press concentrated frantically on the neoconservative foreign policy establishment in Washington in hopes of finding its intellectual roots. As seems to happen whenever the mainstream press finally pays attention to conservative intellectuals, old pictures of the diminutive Strauss were extracted from the archives to accompany articles exposing him as the master thinker. Journalists who had never read him trawled his dense commentaries on ancient, medieval, and modern political thought looking for incriminating evidence. Finding none . . .” and “While it is true that Strauss was opposed to communism, spoke of virtue, and was concerned with educational excellence, there is not a word in his works about such topics as welfare, affirmative action, feminism, and the like.”

Strauss’s daughter introduced her New York Times essay about this issue with: “Recent news articles have portrayed my father, Leo Strauss, as the mastermind behind the neoconservative ideologues who control United States foreign policy. He reaches out from his 30-year-old grave, we are told, to direct a “cabal” (a word with distinct anti-Semitic overtones) of Bush administration figures hoping to subject the American people to rule by a ruthless elite. I do not recognize the Leo Strauss presented in these articles.” She concluded: “He began where good teachers should begin, from his students' received opinions, in order to scrutinize their foundation. At that time, as is still true today, academia leaned to the left; hence such questioning required an examination of the left's tenets. Had the prevailing beliefs been different, they too would have been subject to his skeptical inquiry.”

These quotations should suffice in response to TFD and to Rjensen.

I reiterate: Strauss was not one of the “public figures identified as personally a neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisors” -- as everyone else on the list so plainly is. Retaining Leo Strauss on a list of neo-conservatives is mistaken and misleading. I continue to object to his inclusion on this list, and I shall resist any attempt to do so. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No doubt Strauss' influence on neoconservatism has been exaggerated, as in The Power of Nightmares. But he had an influence on many neoconservative writers. TFD (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dkoiia1154 is misreading the article -- the issue is not whether Strauss was an activist (he was not) or officeholder (he was not) -- it's whether his ideas were influential or not. The perfectly accurate statement is "Strauss is sometimes called 'the intellectual godfather" of neoconservatism" [citing Craig Unger, American Armageddon (2008) p 42 and Thomas F. Farr, World of faith and freedom (2008) p 73], while Sheppard notes that, "Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism." [Eugene R. Sheppard, Leo Strauss and the politics of exile: the making of a political philosopher (2005) p 1."] An important, powerful influence is to be discarded unless he was a deputy assistant secretary of something ???? that's not how intellectual forces work, and most of the neocons were quite intellectual and influenced by deep thinkers, rather than just Congressional aides.Rjensen (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Leo Strauss and his Students

I am separating this dispute from the previous Talk. (The former dealt with the question of whether to include Leo Strauss himself on a list of neoconservatives. Having discussed it exhaustively, the sources do not support that.) Here we are discussing a different question:

I am asserting that a particular source is untrustworthy. The book is titled American Armageddon: How the Delusions of the Neoconservatives and the Christian Right Triggered the Descent of America--and Still Imperil Our Future. That does not sound as if it were an unbiased source.

Let us consider its reputation. It was not reviewed by any periodical of note, which is worth considering because the author's earlier books were. From the New York Times review of his House of Bush, House of Saud (2004): “conspiracymongering, which borders on self-parody at times”. From the New York Times review of his The Fall of the House of Bush (2007): “a sprawling hodgepodge of the persuasive and the speculative, the well researched and the hastily assembled, the original and the highly derivative . . . resorts at times to innuendo and speculation and hyperbolic language . . . occasionally hypes his material and extrapolates from the documented facts”. After that, the Times seems to have given up on our source, and not bothered to review the work I am disputing.

The other source, Thomas F. Farr's World of Faith and Freedom cites George Packer's The Assassin's Gate as the source for that quote. Regarding Packer, Farr writes: "Packer mounts a scathing attack on the neoconservative plans to employ U.S. military force against Iraq. He claims that the influence of Leo Strauss led to a "Strauss cult," a form of neoconservative Gnostic Puritanism that fed war fever." (p. 326) Whatever that may mean, it does not seem to be an unbiased source.

I invite my fellow editors discuss this very serious problem. Till my concern is allayed, I am sticking with my delete. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not have to be neutral and in fact rarely are. We should of course use academic sources but the publisher of this book (Sribner) is reputable. Bear in mind that facts and opinions are separate things. That Leo Strauss influenced neoconservatism is a fact, that that influence was for good or bad is an opinion. TFD (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD -- "unbiased" is a rare event dealing with highly controversial recent history. The statement in question is Strauss is often called the godfather/major influence/words-to-that-effect on some neocons. Both pro-Strauss and anti-Strauss authors make that point, so it's neutral. Rjensen (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your contention. A book that no one took seriously enough to review is not a good source for anything. We have an obligation as editors to be more judicious than the letter of the law. We should examine every source and criticize it fairly. The "godfather" quote is baseless. It's also insulting. It should stay down. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

the "godfather" metaphor is widespread: a) "Strauss is widely regarded today as a founding father, perhaps the Godfather, of neo-conservatism" says Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: politics, philosophy, Judaism (2006) p 3; B) "Of late, scholars have come to recognize that Leo Strauss was a good deal more than the godfather of American neo-conservatism," says David N. Myers, Resisting history: historicism and its discontents (2003) P. 115; c) "the intellectual godfather of many of the neocons, Leo Strauss" says Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated (2010) p 118; d) "philosopher Leo Strauss — a godfather of sorts to the neocon intellectuals" says Lloyd C. Gardner, The Long Road to Baghdad: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy (2010) p 99; e) "of Leo Strauss, Chicago godfather of the neo-cons" says Christopher Hitchens, Unacknowledged legislation: writers in the public sphere (2002) p 270; f) "The godfather of the latter [neocon] movement is allegedly Leo Strauss" says Calvin Hayes, Popper, Hayek and the open society (2009) p 34. g) "Leo Strauss, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, served as an intellectual godfather to the [neocon] new dissenters." says Donald T. Critchlow, The conservative ascendancy: how the GOP right made political history (2007) p 104; h) "Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of neoconservativism." says David Gabbard, Knowledge & power in the global economy (2008) p 80. etc etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to limit my response for now to addressing your first source, Steven Smith’s book, because I should be surprised if the others will fare better as evidence when given a closer look. I find that, once again, your quoting is selective and misleading. This must have been an oversight.

The paragraph you quote from ends: “The association of Strauss with neo-conservativism has been repeated so many times that it leaves the mistaken impression that there is a line of influence leading directly from Strauss’s readings of Plato and Maimonides to the most recent directives of the Defense Department. Nothing could be more inimical to Strauss’s teaching”. On the previous page, Smith wrote: “Others regard [Straussianism] as a political movement, often allied with “neo-conservatism,” with a range of prescribed positions and ties to conservative think tanks and policy centers. . . . None of these beliefs could be further from my own understanding.”

Friendly Editors, I myself am undecided about Strauss’s influence on neoconservatism. For now, it seems to me to be very close to nothing. The sources that argue for Straussian influence read like conspiracy theories in the bad sense of the term. If they are, we ought not to accord them any status in this entry--except perhaps to note that some “conspiracy theorists” believe this. But I am keeping an open mind, and I am sure you will too. Thus far, I have demonstrated that the godfather quote is baseless. Moreover, calling someone a criminal mastermind is at best a joke in poor taste and at worst defamation. We cannot indulge that in Wikipedia. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that the influence of Leo Strauss has been exaggerated, but it is real, sources say it is real and your objections are not persuasive. TFD (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Myers: footnote does not support “godfather”; it has to do with Strauss as a Jewish thinker, specifically a Weimar-era German Jewish thinker.

Wolin: footnote does not support “godfather”; it is about which 20th century philosophers Strauss thought well of.

Gardner: “Khalilzad . . . held a PhD from the University of Chicago, where many of the neocons (including Wolfowitz) had studied with philosopher Leo Strauss -- a godfather of sorts to neocon intellectuals.” No citation given.

Hitchens: “Leo Strauss, Chicago godfather of the neocons’ that really imputes sinister mafia-qualities.” Again, no citation whatsoever. And yet he continues: “mentor of Bloom, Fukuyama, and many others”. Fukuyama studied with Samuel Huntington at Harvard.

Hayes: Again, no citation. And note the “allegedly”.

Critchlow: No citation given. And what’s more: “Strauss was . . . far removed from contemporary partisan politics. . .” That’s why we removed Strauss from the list of actual neoconservatives.

Gabbard: “Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism. His political philosophy stressed . . . the aggressive use of political power in foreign affairs.” This is not ignorance: it is a lie. But then he writes on p. 275: “none other than the godfather of the neoconservative movement Irving Kristol”. So who really was the capo di tutti capi?

Let us not waste our time any more with a deluge of unverified sources. Let us respect our readers by checking our sources before we publish them. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

False: all the quotes are cited to book and page number. Anybody can read them on books.google.com in 15 seconds--but Dkoiia1154 wasted our time by failing to do his simple homework. The point is that the godfather theme is widely used. The problem here Dkoiia1154 rejects the idea that anyone can be am intellectual godfather because only officeholders count in his narrow view. The article is about (mostly) intellectuals and ideas do count. Weaver Ideas have Consequences is a book he needs to read. Rjensen (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate a clear connection between Strauss and neoconservatism, please do so already. Otherwise, let us agree to delete the entire section--or else explain to the readers that several scholars and journalists are mistaken (and maybe some are conspiracy theorists). Regardless, I must insist that you maintain a decorous tone in our discussions. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

we rely ion the RS: "Leo Strauss, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, served as an intellectual godfather to the [neocon] new dissenters." says Donald T. Critchlow, The conservative ascendancy: how the GOP right made political history (2007) p 104; "Leo Strauss is the intellectual godfather of neoconservativism." says David Gabbard, Knowledge & power in the global economy (2008) p 80. "Two important visionary neonconservative theoreticians came from the University of Chicago; Leo Strauss" says John-Paul Trutnau. A One-Man Show?: The Construction and Decontruction of a Patriarchal Image (2005) p 24; "The main intellectual influence on the neoconservatives has been the philosopher Leo Strauss." says Alfred S. Regnery, Upstream: the ascendance of American conservatism (2008) p 260; "His [Strauss] work became inspirational to American neoconservatives after his death." says Naomi Zack, The Handy Philosophy Answer Book (2010) online Dkoiia1154 rejects all this because he insists ideas by themselves do not count--he seems unable to find any sources that support that peculiar view. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I rejected the earlier batch as sources because they are the opinion of authors who provide no evidence. Therefore, they are mere baseless assertions.

Your new batch:

Trutnau clearly has not read Strauss: "Strauss . . . noted for his . . . prescription that democratic leaders should tell "noble lies" . . ." No citation; no surprise.

Regnery, however, denies your point without qualification and with citation. Please read the rest of pp. 260-261 and footnotes 9 & 10. Thank you for vindicating me!

Zack: no-name press, no citations, factual errors: William Kristol did not study with Strauss. He went to Harvard not U. of C. or St. Johns.

Can you prove that Strauss was a neoconservative or that many neoconservatives were his close students or precisely what his influence was on which neoconsertives -- or can't you? Either prove these points with straightforward solid sources or agree to delete the section.

(Incidentally, there's a whole book called Straussophobia that documents all of this sloppy work and muddled thinking about Strauss's influence. But I do not have to prove that something is not the case: You have to prove that something is. So far, you have not done so.)

I ask again that you please find some reliable sources, read them responsibly, and discuss them with us. Please provide actual proof or else please agree to delete the references to Strauss. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dkoiia1154 is now merely disruptive -- He has no ideas about Strauss, knows no RS about Strauss, and he simply does not accept the Wiki rules about reliable sources Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir: None of your accusations is true, but I have not the time currently to refute you at length. Therefore, if you consider yourself compelled to restore the “godfather” passage despite its dastardly insinuation of criminality, you may do so without argument for now. If you must, I suggest that you quote Packer as he seems to be the source used most often by the others (when they were responsible enough to cite anyone) and he asserts that contemptible opinion as his own, whereas Sheppard indicates in his footnotes that it is not his opinion but others’.

Strauss must not, however, be restored to the list of neoconservatives. He does not belong on it, because he was not one of the “public figures identified as personally a neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisors” -- as everyone else on the list indisputably is. His inclusion was mistaken and misleading. I purposely separated that disagreement from this Talk, because that was a grave distortion. I would consider myself obligated to object again if that change is reverted. Dkoiia1154 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Give up all hope, ye who edit here

This article exemplifies the problems of editing on popular/vital topics. Improving and defending this article will make you a bitter, bitter person.

If you prize your emotional health, it is more prudent to edit articles on notable collections of navel lint.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC),

Unacceptable exclusive focus on US neoconservatism

The exclusive focus on US neoconservatism is unacceptable. For example, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party government in the United Kingdom was the first neoconservative government. Neoconservatism is strong in Canada as well - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a known neoconservative, as was Premier of Ontario Mike Harris and other Canadian political figures. There is neoconservatism in Germany (see here: [2], [3]). In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia is identified as being neoconservative (see here: [4]). Thus this article needs to be made universal for all neoconservatism - and not just that in the United States.--R-41 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to dissuade this line of thinking but most neoconservative labeling outside the the United States has been retroactive and of dubious academic legitimacy. Even within the United States the term is quite loaded and fraught with controversy. I'm unaware of a single contemporary of Thatcher's to refer to her as a neoconservative. A review of your links doesn't much change that notion. If you were able to point to a substantial body of citable work on extra-American neoconservatism then I'd say we should most definatly look at that. Otherwise, I have to say that such a revisionism probably won't cut the mustard. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

At one time this article was named ConservatismNeoconservatism in the United States. I suspect since no "Neoconservatism" article exists, the article was moved to this title. Anyway the solution is not to change the scope of this article, but to convert Neoconservatism (disambiguation) into an article and expand that. Then move this article back to Neo in the US. I'm going to remove the tag. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States still very much exists and this article is called Neoconservatism. I'm entirely lost. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. The best course of action is still to: (1) convert the disamb to an article and give it a worldwide focus and (2) move this article to "Neoconservatism in the US" – Lionel ^(talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Neoconservative has a very narrow meaning and refers to the political trend associated with Irving Horowitz et al - Thatcher, Harris and Harper are not neoconservatives. (I think you are referring to neoliberalism.) TFD (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What's with the random anti-semetic quote in there? No context, no source credited in-article.... can we nab that out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.224.164 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To what are you referring? TFD (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Weren't Thatcher and her government considered part of the New Right? Which, as I understand it is a mix of neoliberal (esp. economic) and neoconservative (esp. social) ideas. Coatgal (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

She was sometimes called neoconservative because some observers thought she wanted to return to an older version of conservatism. However as Ian Gilmour pointed out, it was actually an earlier version of liberalism, hence the term neoliberal became more widely used. TFD (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism Section

This section is so poorly done. Chopped quotes that intentionally mislead the reader and it also sources material that borders on victomological conspiracy. Though that is sometimes common when referencing accusations of racism in defense of an ideology. As it is now it amounts to someone just saying "you're a racist" with no real substantive supporting material. The section should provide information and then provide source material. Conversely the section could deal with "accusations of anti-semitism" (which would be a much more appropriate header) and list claims made by the referenced authors. I Will propose a rewrite here soon unless someone else wants to tackle it first.Percelle (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit prone for bias but my initial reaction this accusation is that yes, the claim does seem like most accusations of racism nowadays; shallow, juvenile, contrived, petty, insulting, heavily presumptuous and probably false. Perhaps that is becoming a trained reaction in me, however. Politically accusations of harboring racism is become like a martial arts kiai yell. It's an informal catchall that serves to both seek out, initiate, build up courage toward, fight, and declare end to argumental sparring matches akin to various grunts of sparing deer in rut. Baseless means of debate.

I would be inclined to assume someone as being dishonest to claim either that neoconservatism or criticism toward it is based on racial aspects. I reject the notion putting no credit toward it. Still, is there more evidence for other prominent people legitimately claiming this in good faith? I say so because anybody can state any claim, particularly this claiming of words as code euphemisms for something else. I would presume again, that most would agree an accusation of being racially biased much less toward/of an entire ideology should have a number of various citations to back the claim. Perhaps more citation than three people alone.

Do enough people actually assume so and provide acceptable reasoning for the assumption they've arrive to, so that this addition can make it past the bar of fringe/undue, or are these some cherry picked quotations from a relatively very few people who hold the opinion? If enough noteworthy people feel so, I think it could possibly be fleshed out a little more if the information is there, and stay as having worth and being an informative contribution. I still find the claim as silly.

75.216.254.96 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Neocon vs. Neoconservative

It seems to me that non-mainstream libertarian news sources (Alex Jones, et al) use "neocon" to refer to something completely different than "neoconservative". Although I can't find a standard definition, "neocon" is usually contrasted with its' idealogical opposite, "true conservative" which refers to the followers of Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater or other right-wing idealogues espousing libertarian ideals. 72.135.229.242 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Neocon is just a slang short form for neoconservative. TFD (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Conservative" is an umbrella term, it encompasses a lot of ideological real estate. As TFD said, "neocon" is simply a colloquial abbreviation of the full word, neoconservative. It also has a rather lazy, pejorative undertone; I'd speculate that your experiences with hearing people use it in a way that doesn't really mesh with the actual meaning of the term has more to do with the hostility and/or alarmism of the speaker than any actual variation in meaning. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't uderstand this

"Irving Kristol states that neocons are more relaxed about budget deficits and tend to reject the Hayekian notion that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is 'the road to serfdom'.[72] Indeed, to safeguard democracy, government intervention and budget deficits may sometimes be necessary, Kristol argues." Hayek actually did state the government intervention is sometimes needed: He stated that too much government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom". He wrote "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." How does that contradict neoconservatism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.227.2 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism Section

This section is so poorly done. Chopped quotes that intentionally mislead the reader and it also sources material that borders on victomological conspiracy. Though that is sometimes common when referencing accusations of racism in defense of an ideology. As it is now it amounts to someone just saying "you're a racist" with no real substantive supporting material. The section should provide information and then provide source material. Conversely the section could deal with "accusations of anti-semitism" (which would be a much more appropriate header) and list claims made by the referenced authors. I Will propose a rewrite here soon unless someone else wants to tackle it first.Percelle (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit prone for bias but my initial reaction this accusation is that yes, the claim does seem like most accusations of racism nowadays; shallow, juvenile, contrived, petty, insulting, heavily presumptuous and probably false. Perhaps that is becoming a trained reaction in me, however. Politically accusations of harboring racism is become like a martial arts kiai yell. It's an informal catchall that serves to both seek out, initiate, build up courage toward, fight, and declare end to argumental sparring matches akin to various grunts of sparing deer in rut. Baseless means of debate.

I would be inclined to assume someone as being dishonest to claim either that neoconservatism or criticism toward it is based on racial aspects. I reject the notion putting no credit toward it. Still, is there more evidence for other prominent people legitimately claiming this in good faith? I say so because anybody can state any claim, particularly this claiming of words as code euphemisms for something else. I would presume again, that most would agree an accusation of being racially biased much less toward/of an entire ideology should have a number of various citations to back the claim. Perhaps more citation than three people alone.

Do enough people actually assume so and provide acceptable reasoning for the assumption they've arrive to, so that this addition can make it past the bar of fringe/undue, or are these some cherry picked quotations from a relatively very few people who hold the opinion? If enough noteworthy people feel so, I think it could possibly be fleshed out a little more if the information is there, and stay as having worth and being an informative contribution. I still find the claim as silly. 75.216.254.96 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've revived this section as it seems to have barely gotten started. Looking for more input. Percelle (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no section about anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Antisemitism Yes, there is. Percelle (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Wikipedia:

Neoconservatives have been especially influential in the formulation of foreign and military policy, particularly in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Source:

Neoconservatives have been especially influential in the formulation of foreign and military policy, particularly in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Wikipedia:

In the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials of the Departments of Defense and State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War.

Source:

In the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials in the Pentagon and the Department of State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War (2003).

Differences are marked in bold, similarities are normal font. See a problem? I'm going to check elsewhere.--v/r - TP 20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

have you seen any difficulty besides these two sentences? If this is all there is, it would be simplest to just rewrite them. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also found problems in the lead from the same source. I tracked it down to a single user and checked his other contribs on this article. I tried to go through the first 15 sources as well and I didn't see much other close paraphrasing.--v/r - TP 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No Original Research and BLP concerns

Huge synth and BLP concerns for the section "Notable people associated with neoconservatism". Deeply lacking in resources and some of the individuals deemed as associated with neoconservatism may find that to be defamatory. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also a dangerous conflation between supporters of the Iraq War and neo-conservatives. It cannot be said that every supporter of the Iraq War was a neo-con, as this page seems to indicate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

the people named have often been linked to neoconservatism. Is there anyone in specific who is problematic? As for "defamatory" that suggestions seems disconnected with anybody. Rjensen (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Linked where? By whom? There is no source to show the link as Plot Spoiler has pointed out.--v/r - TP 22:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Plot Spoiler and TParis. The term should be used conservatively (no pun intended). Regular conservative individuals and institutions should not be put in this list. I had to take Daniel Pipes out; he explicitly rejected the monicker/philosophy at: http://www.danielpipes.org/2447/a-neo-conservatives-caution. I question a number of these. Heritage Foundation? Really? With Jim DeMint there, I think we can safely take that out of the list. Also, historical individuals are being treated as neoconservatives despite not having expressed any cardinal elements of Straussian or wider neoconservative thought. Perhaps it would be better to have a separate category of people whose foreign policy was influenced by them in some way but are not themselves neoconservatives, e.g., Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, etc. We shouldn't use Wikipedia for demonization but rather for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.136.71 (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Bush Administration in lede

We have plenty of sourced material in the article discussing the connection between neoconservative ideology and the Bush Administration and so I added a summary of that material to the lede noting that the ideology was considered influential in shaping Bush's foreign policy after 9/11. It was removed on the basis that this shouldn't be in the lede, but I do not think that is correct. Even years after the Bush Administration this is still noted in sources discussing neoconservatism: [5] [6]. Most people associate neoconservatism with the Bush foreign policy and it is what brought the term into the common lexicon. I feel the lede is not fully reflecting the source of the subject's notability by neglecting to mention its association with the Bush Administration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the addition, but only on the premise that the comment in your edit summary is correct: "and is relevant to this ideology's notability." If you have a source for that, that the Bush Administration's war in Iraq contributed to it's notability, and you can work it in this manner then I think it is relevant to the lead. Basically, your same sentence with "...and this has played in role in the historical significance of Neoconservatism." I don't know, not entirely excited about that line but if you can't think of anything better.--v/r - TP 17:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

yes it belongs-- many critics and supporters have emphasized its role in terms of Bush policies. Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not prominent enough and it's too complex to ascribe Bush post-9/11 policies as neoconservative. Neoconservatives have criticized it because it isn't neoconservative. Also, elements of the policy exist today and it is no longer called "neoconservative." The label was used as a talking point critique but lacks any real in-depth attribution. The talking point was that any intervention by the Bush administration anywhere in the world was called "neoconservative". By that definition, support of the so-called "Arab Spring" and intervention in Libya would have been critiqued as "neoconservative" if it had happened under the bush administration. In reality, the Bush administration is criticized by neconservatives for taking on nationbuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as squandering the sole super-power authority by allowing China to expand its role and wealth through trade. This was in the same source used in the lede to support the one-sided conclusion. Don't confuse the ideology (what this article is about) and talking-point labels used to box in politicians (which at the time was PNAC and "neocon" often used as an epithet). There are dozens of political philosophies held by many politicians in every administration. Keeping it in the lede would be like adding the Obama administration to articles on socialism, communism, nationalist, protectionist, environmentalist, etc, etc. It's easy to find someone that labels an action, but it's not particularly encyclopedic to note these opinions and observations in the lede of articles about the ideology especially when the ideology is much broader than the single event being assigned to it. It's an undo-weighting issue as well as needing a much broader explanation than can be done in the lede of an ideology. --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly dubious argument. Nowhere does the source say the policies were criticized as not being neoconservative, nor does it suggest that neoconservatives as a group criticized the Bush Administration's policies. It mentions that some neoconservatives criticized specific aspects of those policies as not incorporating the lessons of neoconservatism, but that is hardly the same as what you are saying. Your comments about China do not appear to be in the text either. What you say about the policies continuing are not really relevant to this point, but if sourced could be used as a basis for adding more info to the lede. What you say about articles on ideology is dubious on several fronts. The various other ideologies you describe have a broad, international appeal and were widely known since well before the Obama Administration. Specific governments and specific leaders are also noted as ascribing to ideologies when they have played a prominent role in shaping them. See the article on socialist market economy for an example. Neoconservatism is a specifically American ideology and it is mostly known for its association with the Bush Administration, even if that may displease you. While the ideology and its proponents may retain influence, this ideology is not widely associated with the Obama Administration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Neoconservatives are for nation-building, not against, and they still are. While we must be cautious about labeling individuals in the Bush administration as neoconservative, it is a fair statement to say that Bush's foreign policy was neoconservative. Neoconservatives had a tremendous amount of influence on actions taken and the justification for them, despite having few actual adherents to their philosophy in the administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.136.71 (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Public Intellectuals

Updated to reflect the deaths of Irving Kristol and Oriana Fallachi, and to remove the request for cite on her entry. The request isn't consistent with others in the same section. Also updated role of Norman Podhoretz as Editor-at-Large, a position he assumed in 1995. Fallachi's bio is amply covered in her own page. She lived in the U.S. but maintained a residence in Italy as well and is buried there. Activist (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing tag

Hi. Resolution of this is long past due at WP:CP, but it is difficult to evaluate when there is no indication in the tag or on the talk page as to what sources or sections are problematic. Can anyone shed light on this to help facilitate closure of this issue? Do close paraphrasing concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

History Commons ref not Reliable Source

This is a "open source journalism" blog. It rarely updates. At least one of it's articles smacks of 9/11 truth. This is a notable subject, it doesn't need fourth rate sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

That Schmitt was a nazi or not is irrelevant and I didn't write that. The fact that he brought the legal apparatus of Third Reich is too well known, like he rec. Strauss also, so please don't remove sourced material. Thanks. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 09:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much point in the Schmitt story. Schmitt wrote a standard letter of rec for Strauss in 1931. Strauss got the award and left Germany permanently. he wrote a thank you note to Schmitt but it was never acknowledged. In 1933 Schmitt became a Nazi and cut all ties with Strauss. The fact that professor A writes a letter of rec for a student B in 1931 does not imply that B agrees with A's views in 1933 or at any time, or that B transmitted A's views to B's students in the 1950s. Strauss probably did agree with Schmitt about Thomas Hobbes (which is what the letter of rec was about), but Hobbes is not a major figure in Neoconservatism. Strauss did not pick up Schmitt's anti-semitism, for example. Strausss never praised Mussolini or Hitler as Schmitt did. The article is about neocons who emerge after 1970. There is zero evidence of Schmitt's influence on any neocons. Rjensen (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on your TP, and contrary to what you said in a summary, Schmitt did adhere to Nazi Party on May, 1, 1933 (Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, p 58.); you didn't move that part on your TP here. When one describes an author, we mention all his refs and peers. Schmitt is only mentioned here as a collaborator of Strauss. The most interesting point is however to determine the theoretical apparatus of Strauss, which is not devoid on some influences Schmitt adhered to. I don't call them "nazi" or anything, but you can't remove facts. You write: "The article is about neocons who emerge after 1970". No. The article is about neoconservatism, what it is, where it comes from, what is this ideology, its references, author names, their thoughts etc. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

The old argument that Strauss was the godfather of neoconservatism is highly dubious. Even if one accepts that argument, however, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Strauss supported a 'a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West'. In fact, Strauss is fairly clear throughout his corpus such a restoration is impossible. What Strauss is calling for is sustained reflection on the past, to teach us lessons about the present. Strauss writes: "But however this may be, whatever may be the final result of our studying Plato and Aristotle, whether or how far we can adhere ultimately to their analyses in all respects or not what is decisively important is that we first learn to grasp their intention and then that their results be discussed." (Heinrich Meiner, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, pg. 137) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Electric Eel (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I will try to look at some earlier version of the articles intro and redeem them by simply rewriting them.Pgarret (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to it. Comments? --Pgarret (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Neoconservatives do not endorse individualism. They oppose it. The entry cited for that claim is not a reliable one, and at any rate, it only claimed that neocons "combine features" of it, not that they endorse it. The reference is vague and presents no evidence; not up to professional standards. The Thompson reference proves neoconservatives are committed collectivists who are opposed to individualism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.163.90 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blaming Jews

Working "Jewish" twice in the first sentences does show dedication, as does the promotion of "Leo Strauss" (JEW!) as the leader. Strange that the article mentions former social-democrats first, including Irish Catholics like Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The tenuous connection to Leo Strauss appears later in the article, with later references. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Blaming them for?

Leo Strauss is not tenuously connected to Neoconservatism, his philosophy is the primary influence behind it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.28.157 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the bloc quote from the introduction. It did seem slightly anti-semetic but more than anything it just didn't add anything by being there.Wareditor2013 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of Material by Halper and Clarke, from America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order

I‘d like to welcome Wareditor2013 to Wikipedia and thank him for his contributions. I am reinserting an introduction to neoconservative ideas that had been in place for several months and was then removed about a month ago. Wareditor2013 questioned its length, suitability, and whether it was “slightly” anti-Semitic.

I have shortened the introduction a bit, but this introductory material is essential to a reader who has no idea what neoconservatives believe. Without it, the current article merely says “Neoconservatives frequently advocate the ‘assertive’ promotion of democracy and promotion of “American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force,” but it’s rather unclear what that means, or what else they believe. The block quote I added provides much-needed concrete detail.

Suppose we paraphrased or summarized the block quote. Then we could well be accused of WP:Synthesis, but more important, we cannot express what the authors have so well expressed in such a concise and eloquent way.

I don’t believe the material that I added is in any way anti-Semitic, as all it says regarding that area is that they focus on the Middle East and global Islam, which is true (e.g., dictators and genocide in Africa are much less important). We could add clarification: that neoconservatives view Israel as a key ally, their only democratic partner in the Middle East, and wish to encourage the spread of democracy in the Middle East. That’s fine.

But this introductory material is essential as it is so eloquently expressed and does such a good job of characterizing the neoconservative movement. I have shortened it where I could, and invite anyone else to provide clarifications about the neoconservative support of Israel as a Mideast democracy.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Harper and Clarke are bitter enemies of the neocons and they write not as academic analysts but as polemicists in trying to defeat the Neocons, as they admit in their book p 8. Clarke is funded by the libertarian CATO organization.Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rjensen. On page 8 they say, "We do not question the good faith of its acolytes and devotees. We know them well...we have joined them on radio and TV programs and shared platforms with them in conservative think-tanks." But I am not familiar with how they are viewed now by neoconservatives. I think the book does provide a fairly good academic analysis of the movement. I still think it holds up well in the introduction, and I like your new lead into the description, with "Many conservatives oppose neoconservative policies and have sharply negative views on it. For example, Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke (a libertarian based at CATO),..." which provides very good context. What I've done now is just delete the introduction of a new section Attacks, as I still feel it is better placed within the introductory material and reads better without being an entirely new section. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

let's put it under criticism. It's not a good definition. For example, they have 3 points (p 11) & the first criteria is about religion. It is very misleading for they almost completely ignore the point & indeed deny it when they admit (p 55) that the neocons are hostile toward the Fundamentalists/religious right (even tho it is their ally regarding Israel.). read p 7 of the into--they see their book as a manifesto to help moderate conservatives to reject neocons. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your solution of placing it as a new section under Criticisms works well. I don't think the current introduction to the article will help readers unfamiliar with neoconservatism very much, but I'll leave that to someone else to improve. Thanks for your help and have a Happy New Year. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by BD2412. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

American neoconservatism → Neoconservatism – It is what it is normally called. TFD (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Move An editor moved this page here and has edited the Neoconservatism page, so this page cannot be moved back without administrative tools. The basis for the move was "article only deals with US topics."[7] However that is because neoconservatism is a U.S. movement. TFD (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • See Neoconservatism (disambiguation). The movement has expanded beyond the US, and the term is even applicable to movements completely unrelated to the US one. Hendrick 99 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • See "Is there a primary topic?", which is part of the "Disambiguation" guideline. Where there is a primary topic, that is where the term should lead. If there is no primary topic, the term should lead to the disambiguation page. Obviously this article is the primary topic. The UK and Czech Republic explain that neoconservatism is an American political movement, and write about its influence in those countries. I don't know what the Japanese article is about - it is unsourced. The two other articles aren't even called neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Just because neoconservatism started in the US, doesn't make American neoconservatism any more notable than British neoconservatism for example. Hendrick 99 (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia articles that focus on specific regions when there are other areas that need equal coverage shouldn't purport to be main articles of any kind. 200.35.150.83 (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I assume by your response that you have not read the other articles, or this one for that matter. Neoconservatism is an American ideology that has some adherents in other countries. It's like saying that the article French nationalism should be renamed "French nationalism in France" because it is mostly about French nationalism in France and there happen to be French nationalists living outside France. TFD (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • • Read British neoconservatism. Even though it came after the US version, it is equally as important, as is Czech neoconservatism. Saying that an article titled 'neoconservatism' should focus entirely on the US is like saying that the Democracy article should only talk about Greece. Hendrick 99 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

vandalism

The entry was vandalized in this edit and the previous one, and has been kept since. Please remove the "Trotskyist" claims, that are simply in line with the antisemitic edits referred to on this talk page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Rjensen! But why did you leave the "anti stalinist" sentence. The whole sentence:

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism. -

has nothing to do with defining the neoconservatives. It could perhaps be a claim (contested by several, and pointed to others) in the same way as the Trotskyist allegations, and in fact preserves the allegation, as anti-Stalinists are not completely anti-Communists, only against Stalin (presumably of course, because he was against the Jews, and specifically against "Trotsky"). In the name of the MILLIONS OF NON-JEWISH simply HUMAN BEINGS murdered by "Stalin" and his (sometimes Jewish but many times not) helpers, please erase the whole sentence. I'm hoping there will be others that will agree with me, therefore I'm not removing it myself. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"anti-Stalinist" I think is accurate, since many were in fact socialists and what they focused on was Stalin's totalitarianism. See especially Gertrude Himmelfarb (2011). The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009. p. 140, last line and p 141. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets say its correct. (I don't think so, but cannot go in depth on this right now. I'm into some other more interesting things.

But why is this in the definition of neo-conservatism? The definition was ok, until some anonymous vandalist added this opening phrase, OBVIOUSLY AS VANDALISM... and then we are fixing a word or two here and there...

Do you have any reservations if I just remove it completely, and restore the definition to its original wording?

The topic of migration and origination of the members of the neocon group, is definitely discussed at length in other sections.

And another thing: Lately another vandalist 122.106.103.89 or perhaps the same guy from before added a sentence mocking neocons, and then removed it shortly afterwards, so the entry and its cancelation are left in our records for eternity. (Can those two edits be completely taken off since they were clearly vandalism? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of the term neoconservative is new to conservatism. It was supposedly coined by Michael Harrington to describe Socialists who chose to support Richard Nixon in 1972. None of these Socialists had had any connection to Trotskyism since 1940. Many of course had no connection with socialism, but had been supporters of FDR, Truman, Humphrey, Moynahan or Jackson. I appreciate btw that there are anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about them which we should in no way advance. TFD (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this sentence works fine for the led: The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism." It follows Gertrude Himmelfarb (2011). The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009. p. 140, last line and p 141. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. TFD (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Irving Kristol's article written in 2003

Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neoconservatism was a former Trotskyist and a Jew. But the following from the WP article on him, shows that even then, that was not the DEFINITION even being derogatory, it never claimed the movement of anti Stalinists, but rather the movement of... well let me quote the original and emphasize:

>In 1973, Michael Harrington coined the term "neo-conservatism" to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism. (ref: Lind, Michael, "A Tragedy of Errors") Intended by Harrington as a pejorative term, it was accepted by Kristol as an apt description of the ideas and policies exemplified by The Public Interest. Unlike liberals, for example, neo-conservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson; and unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the more limited welfare state instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

>In February 1979, Kristol was featured on the cover of Esquire. The caption identified him as "the godfather of the most powerful new political force in America -- Neo-conservatism".(ref to outdated magazine link) That year also saw the publication of the book The Neo-conservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics. Like Harrington, the author, Peter Steinfels, was critical of neo-conservatism, but he was impressed by its growing political and intellectual influence. Kristol's response appeared under the title "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed -- Perhaps the Only -- 'Neo-conservative'".(ref: Goldberg, Jonah, "The Neo-conservative Invention")

>Neo-conservatism, Kristol maintains, is not an ideology but a "persuasion," a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms.(ref: Reflections of a Neo-conservative, p.79) It is classical rather than romantic in temperament, and practical and anti-Utopian in policy. One of Kristol's most celebrated quips defines a neo-conservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

>As a former Trotskyist, Irving was indeed himself mugged by the "reality" of conservative philosophy and enfolded leftist policies such as a lack of objection to welfare programs, international "revolution" through nation-building, "revolution" through militarily imposed "democracy" and application of Fabian Socialism / Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint. These concepts lie at the core of neo-conservative philosophy to this day.(ref. Blumenthal, Sidney, "Mugged by reality")

Just restating the prevalence of antisemitism inside the mostly correct anti-neocon rhetoric, using a quote which is remarked (and therefore hidden from view) in the article: quote not used here: |quote=When people say that the selection of Paul Wolfowitz... marks the triumph of neocons... they are generally not indicating pleasure. Cynics say they are indicating anti-Semitism: A neocon is a Jewish intellectual you disagree with.

Since the Neocon movement transcended Kristol and moved on to a different era, in particular under Reagan and Bush I, I'm moving it to the end of the section, as a fact rather than a definition, and changing the wording to reflect the sources correctly. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think your analysis is accurate. Lind did not say that say that Harrington coined the term to describe disaffected liberals, he merely said he coined the term. In fact Harrington used the term to describe Socialists who had decided to back Nixon. Jonah Goldberg has no credentials and his writings in NR should not be used as a source. TFD (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Pashute is wrong on numerous counts...for example he is incorrect to state that "neo-conservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson" (no, they supported them...which ones opposed the Great Society??. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

a. Its not my analysis. I quoted. Opposing the great society is part of a quote from Kristol himself, HERE IN THE DISCUSSION ONLY and not part of my edit.

b. I quoted word for word from the Kristol article including refs, as opposed to the current opening sentence, which is a non sourced entry that was entered by a vandalist, and which is contested in the article itself.

c. The next section in the article (discussed here) is Neoconservatism#Terminology which reads: The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States during 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's.[7] The first two were never defined as anti Stalinists (nor Trotzkyists as far as we know). Harrington, who opposed neocons and coined the name, was, and so was Kristol, the last name in the list, but the first in the media's eyes.

This assertion is repeated throughout the article several times, and also in each of the members discussed, as well as under Leo Strauss, So do you need to change the whole article and several others to fit this theory. I'm sure you did not intend that. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pashute complains about "a non sourced entry that was entered by a vandalist,". There was no vandal. It had a remark about Trotskyites which I deleted, and I added a source (Himmelfarb) that is quite explicit. I can't see why pashute still has a problem. As for Harrington, he did coin the term but he did not have much to day about the group. The Himmelfarb cite is about the history of the same group of people. Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave a link to the anonymous vandalist. Clearly a vandalist.

Not "a remark" from the vandalist, but a full opening sentence to the section, which changes its whole tone. (Here's the link again, this time to the Diff)

Neoconservatives refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist (largely Trotsky) Left to the camp of American conservatism.

I claim two things:

a. You agree with me that Harington who coined the term "did not have much to say about the group". So the term is NOT defined by their origins, but by its content. The sentence, accordingly, should be moved to the end, or removed completely.

b. and I contest the "former Anti-Stalinist (largely Trotsky)" phrase.

Quoting Gertrude Himmelfarb on this issue cannot be used as a definite source, when further down those claims are contested. Also, could you please give here the exact quote in its context?

It is true that there is a wealth of sources showing that anti-Stalinist style was re-used in the neocon rhetoric (see for example The Neocon take on the "New Class" on the US History blog), but not that the neocons themselves originated from anti-Stalinists, except Kristol who was a former Trotskyist. And you agree that determining the neocons as defined by coming from "former Trotskyists" is false.

In fact a whole section later in our WP article contests the anti-Stalinist claim itself, contesting alleged Leninism and Trotskyism, so what's "left"? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited my previous response making it clearer. I hope to convince you. And thanks for your time in any case. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no support for keeping the term "Trotskyist", there is no need to discuss that term further. The fact remains that most of the original neoconservatives had origins in the Left, and the term neoconservative means that they were new to conservatism. What motivated the change was their views on foreign and military, not domestic, policy. While that is less true today, many of today's leading neconservatives were children or students of earlier neoconservatives. TFD (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to Rjensen who did the edit.

But why are you, TFD, all for the anti Stalinist allegation? It too is pointing to one person: Irving Kristol! What is the difference between that and the Trotskyist claim? Leninism and Trotskyism claims are specifically contested and disproved later in the article. Who's "left" in the "anti-Stalinist" camp?

And even if the etymology is so important that it cannot wait till the next paragraph, why erase a non-contested and well sourced terminology, copied from two other accepted wikipedia articles, with the words: "...to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism. ? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing includes Socialist. TFD (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But "journey from the anti-Stalinist Left" does not. And who is talking about socialists. Were talking about American Democrats.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Socialists in the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition

This article does a horrible job at describing what a neoconservative actually is. The begining of this article describes a neocon as someone who frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force. This can easily be applied to liberals, democrats, and conservatives, and is by no means unique to "neocons". Using military force to achieve a democratic pro-western regime is what the Obama regime did in Ukraine. Although U.S. troops did not formally enter the Ukraine, you have many western military advisors running the show within the Ukrainian military, and by the Obama regime's own admission, the U.S. regime has spent billions to overthrow the original Ukranian government. You can read through half the article and still not get a clear definition. There seem to be more references to socialists, and Stalin than there are to what a neoconservative is. Half the article talks about who made up the term, rather than what neoconservatism actually is. I seriously doubt anyone looking up the term neocon really cares who came up with the term. Finally, half way down this article, you begin to see something that looks like a definition. It says that neocons' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Ok, that is great, but how is that any different from what Obama, or Clinton is, or was doing? Is invading Serbia, or Libya any better than invading Iraq? While some "liberals" are critical of the Iraq war, they are by no means against the general idea of sabotaging, or destabilising new rivals. Case, and point, Obama's pivot to Asia. Many political commentators are even saying that Obama has more militarily aggressive policies than Bush. "Neoconservatism generally endorses free markets and capitalism, favoring supply-side economics". Again, how is that any different than Obama, Clinton, or "European socialism"? The main criticism should be, what is the point of the neocon term? Because it sums up politics in Australia, Canada, Europe (minus Belarus), and the U.S.A. People who generally use the term neocon act as if there was some kind of difference between Obama, Clinton, and Bush, Romney. But still, we have a self proclaimed socialist in France named Hollande who also qualifies as a neocon under the definitions provided in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA908098098 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it is mostly about who makes them up and their history, just as an article about Hollande's Socialist Party would be mostly about who makes them up and their history. And if the article about the Socialist Party says that they pursue neoliberalism, then you can't say so does the French Right, so they must be Socialists too. TFD (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hollande's socialist party is a political party, however, neoconservatism is a ideology, and most people look up terms from an encyclopedia to find out what the ideology means, rather than who made it up or who qualifies as one. While it is ok to include information on who made it up, the article should get straight to the point of a description. Even if you want to flood the article with irrelevant data, it still would be nice to present a clear definition for readers somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA908098098 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This article defines it as a movement. A person could believe everything that the typical neoconservative does - I imagine millions in the U.S. do - yet not be one if one has no personal connection with the people who make up the movement. TFD (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the previous discussion about vandalism. A few versions back it in fact did give a good definition. Until several authors vandalized it, and, sadly, now we have some legitimate authors following suit. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the initial poster, this page as it sits now is still vandalized by people of extremely left leaning political ideologies. The very root of the word Neo means New or Modified, yet this article completely misses the point that neoconservatism actually has little to do with true American Conservatives, yet is thrown around as if it encompasses all people with conservative values. True American Conservatism is typically Christian or monotheistic, conservation minded (minimal impact to the environment through real, safe, practiced and proven methods with regards to every day life and industry), promotes true freedom and liberty as outlined in the Constitution, conservative economics when it comes to government (low taxes, low spending, small minimal government), and typically likes to keep things that work properly going (like Open Carry of firearms which has proven real impacts on minimizing crime according to every scientific study that did not use invalid cherry picked data), while trying to stop the typical liberal aspects that would never work properly or is subject to excessive abuse (like social security, welfare, minority based programs giving certain groups special treatment, excessive property taxes, any income taxes, etc). True conservatives believe military force is only needed when American interests or economy are or will be directly impacted, or if requested from a trusted ally such as the British during WWII. So based on this realistic definition, many things in this article need to be modified to paint a much clearer picture. For example both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were true conservatives, not a neoconservative, versus Dick Cheney had more neoconservative actions. The Bush son only approved military action after proof of WMDs had been proven and the potential for loss of life on American soil was very real. Even then, it still took a divided Congress, where a majority of those on the left side of political ideology approved military action, so this was not some neoconservative group trying to find a way to go to war, it was a unified agreement from all sides that something needed to be done in order to prevent further loss of American life, even if it meant a few deaths of soldiers. If Bush was a real neoconservative, then when Saddam offered oil at $1 per barrel as long as he remained in power, Bush would have taken that offer, instead of going on the recommendations of the bipartisan groups that helped approve military action in Iraq.

Neo- at its origins means "modified", so neoconservative is "modified conservative" or "new conservative" values, which at its base is not truly conservative in most cases. Today it means either the centrist/left leaning RINOs (Republican in Name Only) who are not true conservatives, or the other side such as extremist "Christian" groups like Westboro who are trying to bring back the Crusades to rid this country of people who do not follow their extremist religious perspective, just like Muslims. NeoNazi means modified Nazi beliefs, based on the original beliefs but modified to suit their own modern agenda (hatred of anyone not a part of their little group).

The problem is that the neoconservative term has become a political buzzword within the modern media to improperly include true conservatives that refuse to bow down to liberal ideology and are actually working to restore the Republic of this nation as it was designed over 200 years ago, instead of using that term to appropriately refer to the centrist or "extremist right wing" people that are not true conservatives. Talikarni (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Neo" means "new." While "neo" could imply a modification of an earlier ideology, in this case it referred to people who were new to conservatism, having previously been liberal Democrats or socialists. Whatever U.S. conservatism actually means is irrelevant. See Etymological fallacy, "a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." TFD (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Nuland

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland: ``A former colleague said of her: 'I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table.' hardly "disputed" then, nu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.115 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. You need a serious source for this label. is a 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with past discussion related to the issue, and do not disrupt Wikipedia. The following are two paragraphs from the above-linked reliable source by Geoff Dyer.

In an administration so eager to correct the perceived errors of its predecessor, it might be surprising that Ms Nuland has emerged as its point person for dealing with Russia. She was Mr Cheney’s deputy national security adviser before moving to be ambassador to Nato. She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.

“I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table,” says a former colleague in the Obama administration state department. “But she is also one of the most talented people I have worked with in government.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No actual person says Nuland is a neocon-- an anonymous person says she is more of a neocon that her husband, but he now rejects that label so most people are more neocon than her husband. Anonymous people are not reliable sources--Especially as in this case when they are making up hypothetical situations about an imaginary family dinner. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Take your assertions to the relevant notice board. There is nothing prima facie unreliable about a Financial Times article written by a notable journalist and author, even if he doesn't quote the name of the "former colleague in the Obama administration" whom he quotes. I would be interested to see the developments in such a discussion.

Meanwhile, Robert Kagan was also removed from the list, and there are many sources characterizing him as a neocon. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another potential source Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the lists, because there is not clear definition or membership criteria. But the fact someone calls someone a neoconservative is certainly inadequate unless it is a serious book about neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There aren't many "serious books" on neoconservatism, which happens to be an active movement.

The criteria, I would imagine, follow Wikipedia's sourcing criteria, so it depends on whether the person calling someone a neocon is a reliable source. Right?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of serious books about neoconservatism.[8] Generally one should use academic writing for classification of ideologies, because the press is often imprecise. The other major issue is balancing aspects. How important is Nuland to neoconservatism? And normally people are not reliable sources, written works are. If a prominent psychiatrist shouts at someone that they are an idiot, we don't put down that their IQ is below 25. And we need to distinguish between opinions and facts expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are only a couple of books published recently, but I don't know if they cover the Ukraine crisis, which is the event with respect to which news media sources are referring to her as a neoconservative.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The source for the FT piece is described as a "former State Department colleague in the Obama administration". Notable journalists generally protect official sources.

Meanwhile, the other piece includes this about Nuland, among other material

Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves.”
The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan “surge” strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that “an important way station in my ‘pilgrim’s progress’ from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
“I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam’s palaces in Baghdad.”
Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more “regime change.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

no one states she is a neocon--(this quote is about her husband & his brother). Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Kagan & Robert Kagan

I have found another reference on p. 73 to Frederick Kagan as a "neoconservative activist" in a book published by an academic, Jeanne Morefield, on Oxford University Press called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon
It seems to be an irrefutable reliable source for adding Fred Kagan to the list, so I intend to re-add Kagan soon, but I have started a thread on BLP/N, and would like to hear comments here or there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I neglected to mention that the sentence referred to above describes both Frederick and Robert Kagan as "well-known neoconservative activists". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussed at BLP/N. Fail. Collect (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true, that is merely a unilateral pronouncement by you trying to curtail the discussion. Consensus has by no means been established, and you are not necessarily in the majority of the thread that has been open for only a couple of hours.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the posts from the other editors. I find your apparent desire ti simply disparage anyone who disagrees with you to be outré. Collect (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

the cite is a one sentence unsourced rumor that gives no evidence and fails the RS test for Frederick Kagan. Calling FK "a well-known neoconservative activist" is false on its face--is "well-known" were true there would be many cites of actual activism. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!.

I'm not impressed.

You may not disparage the publication of an academic by a world-class academic press without good reason. And yet, you have provided none. You attack her assertion of "well-known", but there are numerous sources that discuss Frederick (not to mention Robert) Kagan in relation to the topic of neoconservatism, and they are likely to increase.

You characterize Morefield's statement as a "one sentence unfounded rumor", and that is, frankly, somewhat astonishing, for someone that used to be, in the past, at an Ivy league institution. Morefield doesn't answer to you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a former professor at Yale (I was a Harvard professor) and I have published with Oxford U Press. There is ONE half sentence on Frederick as neocon in ONE book. It gives no evidence in terms of footnotes, speeches, writings. It's not a RELIABLE source on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I assume, that since you have published through Oxford University Press, that you can verify that the scholarly books they publish are peer reviewed. My understanding of such sources according to WP:IRS.

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources, and the topic itself seems to be gaining more attention in light of the role the neocons are seen as playing by numerous observers in promoting policies that foment conflict and strife.

Since I've learned a little more about searching out sources on google books, here are a couple links. On page one of these results of 186 hits, in addition to the Gunter book, there is this book

The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, Sydney Blumenthal,

for example, which characterizes Frederick Kagan as "a neoconservative", and as "the neoconservative instigator of the surge", in no uncertain terms.

Striking this source as controversialThere is this book,The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East,

which characterizes Robert Kagan as neoconservative and Frederick as part of the movement on p.31, and characterizes Frederick Kagan as a neoconservative associated with AEI on the first page of Chapter 16, "On to Iran".

So there are two more books from the first page of 10 of 186 books returned as a results of the search. And they all present the same context of the ideological development of the movement and the policies its proponents have promoted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Transparent Cabal? TFD (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The author is notable and you can check the reviews on the Amazon.com page here. Is that title taboo on Wikipedia?

OK, we're moving on to page two of 186 hits, and here is a summary of findings from the first three relevant books, all by notable authors, including a Pulitzer winner, a former diplomat and academic, and four current or former professors:

1. In The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War p.233, Fred Kaplan, recipient of the Pulitzer prize states,

   Fred Kagan …was now ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington’s most prominent neocon think tank… Now it would be through Kagan that AEI emerged as the nexus joining the neocon movement and COIN.

2. In The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End p.232 Peter W. Galbraith states,

   In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy was the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who had never been to Iraq.

3. In The Culture of Immodesty in American Life and Politics: The Modest Republic (2013)[9] 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} 10:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote mining fails as essentially all the other editors here agree. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong, and the majority is right on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no quote mining involved, insofar as "quote mining" involves taking statements out of context. Every one of those statements means exactly what it appears to mean as shown above.

To what majority are you referring in your edit summary? Are you claiming that consensus has been established?

This is the second time you have attempted to cut off the process here, first by claiming that a thread at BLP/N which had been open for a couple of hours had been closed, when it had just gotten under way.

I don't want to have to spend any more time and effort responding to such pointy antics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

List the editors who back what you are prescient on. List those who demur. Tell us the count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the author of The Transparent Cabal is notable, as are the people providing reviews on Amazon. The book is notable for attracting claims of promoting conspiracy theories and subtle anti-semitism.[10] The title of the book should be a good hint and it even spends the first chapter explaining that it is not conspiracist or anti-Semitic.

You are merely googling the subject and neoconservatism and copying whatever you find in walls of text.

TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You address the easiest source to attack, and ignore those with which you can't find fault.

Yes, I'm googling for books containing "neoconservatism" and one of the subjects at issue, but I am only posting short, relevant quotes not toaken out of context from the books. What walls of text?

Meanwhile, you post one review from a relatively unknown publication by a relatively unknown author and attempt to authoritatively dismiss the source. Well, you're not an authority, you cited one source and make comments about anti-semitism that are reflected in the review, which is fine, but represent only one view of the book. At least the review admits as much, where you don't

The antisemitism in The Transparent Cabal is quite subtle – so much so that many readers probably won’t see it, and will likely dismiss criticism of it as yet another attempt by the Likud lobby to silence its foes.

The reviews posted from mainstream media outlets on Amazon differ.

Meanwhile, while I have little time to go through the list of 186 books, I doubt you'll like this.

Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World Nir Rosen p.229

…two outsiders played a crucial role in the push for more troops. Fred Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane are controversial figures: the former is a neoconservative military historian with no experience or specialization in the Middle East…

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I do "address the easiest source to attack" because they jump out. I do not ignore those with which I can find no fault but do not even look at them, because if you introduce obviously unreliable sources, you destroy your credibility, and waste editors time by asking them to search through countless sources to see if any of them are good. The "reviews on Amazon" are wholly unimpressive - they are just comments by people who hold similar views. While I appreciate that you, like "many readers", may not understand why the theory that a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel could be seen as anti-Semitic, it does not make such a theory mainstream. TFD (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I did not say any of what you just implied--perhaps--that I said.

I didn't read the book, but the reviews on Amazon do not indicate anything along the lines of what you assert regarding a conspiracy theory, and the author of the non-mainstream review you linked to indirectly acknowledges that while simultaneously arguing that it is based on an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

For Wikipedia sourcing policies, it seems to be reliable, the statement I quoted from the googlebooks site is reliably sourced, until specifically refuted. I don't think you've managed to do that, yet. Since I haven't read the book, I have no more to say about it.

Meanwhile, remember that it was you who suggested that I google for books, I just modified the search parameters slightly, and got 186 hits for that search.

So far, two of the sources are impeccable scholarly sources that characterize both Frederick and Robert Kagan in no uncertain terms as neocons.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The reviews on Amazon are cherry-picked by the author. TFD (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Two more sources, one academic published by Routledge.

1. Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motivesp. 61 Avner Falk states

   Before the “surge” in the U.S. war in Iraq, American neoconservatives such as…the “military analyst” Frederick Kagan had been pushing for a surge for years…

2. 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} 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Transparent Cabal" commentary from various sources for purposes of discussion

[11] PublicEye.org

Sniegoski aims to show that U.S. neoconservatives masterminded the Iraq war in the service of Israeli hegemony, a proposition that has plenty of truth to it. In doing so, though, he veers back and forth over the often-fuzzy line separating harsh but legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism from paranoid conspiracy mongering. His book is an almost textbook illustration of the way far Left anti-Zionism and far Right antisemitism can bend towards each other and begin to overlap.

[12] CultureWars.com

The whole of the second chapter is given over to showing that the war-for-Israel claim is widely shared by those not plausibly regarded as anti-semites including Jewish journalists and politicians, and documenting the campaign of anti-semitism accusations made against those supporting such a claim. Indeed he quotes Jewish sources decrying this devaluation of anti-Semitism...

[13] JewKnowledge.Weebly.com

Its drawback? It can bring charges of anti-Semitism because it deals critically with a largely though not exclusively Jewish group. But Sniegoski is at pains to distinguish the neoconservatives from the greater Jewish community that is generally more averse to war than other Americans

The book appears to be controversial in its linking of Jewish religious identity to political action, and thus may be problematic in the sense that its positions and claims about Jews may be seen as anti-Semitic rightly or wrongly.

Adding to the problem is the author's own views http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_vachon.htm]

I make no effort here to try to placate professional "anti-anti-Semites," who would likely claim that an apparently evenhanded presentation of the neoconservatives' leading role in the war on Iraq is a far more sinister form of "anti-Semitism" than Vachon's — because the former is a more sophisticated cover for "hate."

The neocons, as well as Ariel Sharon, act within the range of what is possible. The neocons in the Bush administration push the envelope to achieve their goals, but they act with enough caution so as not to get into trouble. Since they are protected by the "criticism-equals-anti-Semitism" shield, they simply can get away with a lot without being called on it. They undoubtedly want regime change in Syria and Iran, but they are going about it in a very cautious and manipulative manner. That does not seem to be the approach that pathological people hell-bent on exterminating their enemies would take.

Just to present added general information from all sides. Collect (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that is useful. I'm just going through a list of books returned and posting those not appearing to be admissible.

For the sake of efficiency, I will strike through that entry just so we don't waste any more time on it. There are ample uncontroversial reliable sources for supporting these claims.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, if you know nothing about the origins of neoconservatism, the conspiracy theories about it, or the literature, how can you know what is important enough to put into this article? TFD (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You state above that you don't agree with this list, but the list exists on Wikipedia and is policy compliant.

You state that "Generally one should use academic writing for classification of ideologies"[14], yet when presented with peer-reviewed books by scholars published by academic presses you pretend not to notice, because you don't agree with the sources..

This thread is about the reliably published statements characterizing Fredrick Kagan and Robert Kagan as neocons.

You again seem to be casting aspersion about my competence.

Here, what the preponderance of reliably published statements state in this case is definitively that Frederick and Robert Kagan are "well-known", "prominent" neocons, making it the mainstream view. Furthermore, apparently only Robert Kagan has publicly shunned the characterization. In that regard, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Ubikwit (talk · contribs) has filed a complaint about my editing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Is_not_a is a 18:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Neocons and "divided loyalties" / "dual loyalties"

Should the article have a subsection on this topic? The Dual loyalty article contains a paragraph with three sources, but there are more.

• Source discussing the "divided loyalties" issue with respect to neoconservatives.

  Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, "They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel."[15]

• Another source, this one written by former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Kathleen Christison. [16]
• 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} 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nope Second one first:

Frying pan to fryer? CounterPunch will not pass the "RS for facts" test. It is self-described as "muckraking with a radical attitude" and described by just about everyone as left-wing.

Probably the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

the extremely hawkish, right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place its members inside conservative U.S. administrations

Both JINSA and Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving Moskowitz, a right-wing American Zionist, California business magnate

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the Middle East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and may be the principal reason for his near obsession with the effort,

Even profiles that downplay his attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust, in which several of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source inside the administration has described him frankly as "over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel." Although this probably accurately describes most of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is guilty at least by association

In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel’s causes may be just that — zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that still leaves room for primary loyalty to the United States — and affection for Israel is not in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and emotion — and, as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate attachment to any country — have no place in foreign policy formulation, and it is mere hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to another country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment, and emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.

the paranoid belief that any peace involving territorial compromise will spell the annihilation of Israel, will also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry produces blindness: the zealous effort to pursue Israel’s right-wing agenda has blinded the dual loyalists in the administration to the true face of Israel as occupier, to any concern for justice or equity and any consideration that interests other than Israel’s are involved, and indeed to any pragmatic consideration that continued unquestioning accommodation of Israel, far from bringing an end to violence, will actually lead to its tragic escalation and to increased terrorism against both the United States and Israel.

a bevy of aggressive right-wing neo-con hawks who have long backed the Jewish fundamentalists of Israel’s own right wing

These crazed fundamentalists see Israel’s domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel’s domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other’s policies in administration councils.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East

Thank you so much for suggesting we use this interesting source. Alas, I find it to be over-the-top is assailing people as being extremist fundamentalists who wish to create a Greater Israel." And quite unlikely to be usable for any "claims of fact" per WP:RS.

Joe Klein:

Looking at your source: Joe Klein was quoted as saying Jewish neoconservatives have "divided loyalties" The source you just gave here states: "He stands by his criticism of Jewish neoconservatives, and explains Iran's nuclear ambitions this way: 'Given the level of threats that they've been getting from the United States, and from Israel, it's a logical thing for Iran to want nuclear weapons as a deterrent.'" I fear that many people would find the view that Iran should have nuclear weapons is a "fringe view" in the US.

Klein also says: "They pick Ahmadinejad specifically because he's the guy making the wildest antisemitic statements. I think that's being done for political purposes, to scare the shit out of my parents." Which may also not be a mainstream view in the US.

An interesting interview with a person who appears to hold quite unusual views in the US. I fear, alas, that accusing a substantial number of Jews of having divided loyalties (favouring Israeli interests while claiming to favour US interests) could very easily be misinterpreted, unfortunately rather like the person who avers "Some of my best friends are Jews". (originally posted at Talk:Robert Kagan but clearly identically applicable here.)

Signed the same letter: Oh My G-D! Proof of nefarious dual loyalties! Not. Third source is not even remotely usable for the claim you wish to impute to it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep your G-D! to yourself, because I certainly don't care what your religion is, and neither does Wikipedia, as far as I know. Moreover, I take your comment as an insult imputing that I am assuming the authority of a god or something along those lines, and that is a personal attack. Don't bother apologizing, and don't make another unsubstantiated statement about me imputing anything to a source unless you spell out your assertions concretely with respect to my statements and the statements of the sources. Do not misrepresent what I say or what the sources say.

I'm going to ask you ask once to justify your removal of mainstream sources indicating that there have been multiple statements from both the right and the left (not to mention the center) about dual/divided loyalties of the neoconservatives.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK -- I do not care about anyone's religion either - but there is an idiomatic expression involved which does not require such in any event. (See wikt:OMG It is in no way intended as a personal insult to you whatsoever. And all you need do is cite actual WP:RS secondary reliable sources for the claims you wish in the article. That is all you need. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable response.

It is not up to us to make judgment decision about the dual loyalties issues, just describe what the sources say in an NPOV manner. So what is it that you find problematic about this ABC News source that states.

Critics of U.S. Iraq policy, on the right and the left, have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism for asserting that certain members of Bush's administration (namely Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy) have dual loyalty — interests in both the United States and Israel.[17]

There are three points that are obvious from that source: one, there have been allegations of dual loyalties leveled agains noecons (unless you want to argue that they are not); two, the accusations have been leveled from multiple sectors of the political spectrum; and three, those allegations have resulted in a backlash of accusations of anti-Semitism. It should also be pointed out that the ABC source itself specifically documents multiple critical POVs that had been published about the neocons, the citation of which should aid the NPOV presentation on NPOV. Finally, it should be noted that this material was posted in the Criticism section, so obviously it is not stating anything in Wikipedia's voice.

If there were a section or other standard practice for presenting the objections to the dual-loyalties allegations, that would obviously belong in the article as well.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the whole article - where Mickey Kaus is specifically noted: which, Slate columnist Mickey Kaus points out, is the same thing as anti-Semitism. Now we look at the piece you cite in context:

Critics of U.S. Iraq policy, on the right and the left, have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism for asserting that certain members of Bush's administration (namely Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy) have dual loyalty — interests in both the United States and Israel. Many of the pro-war members of Bush's administration, like these, were in fact advisers to the administration of Benyamin Netanyahu, a member of the Likud Party, when he was prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999. As Mickey Kaus has mentioned in his column, the issue first gained attention in early February when Robert Kaiser wrote a front-page Washington Post article that noted, "For the first time, a U.S. administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies."

Noting that the same Mickey Kaus is integral to that claim. What you can have is

Mickey Kaus of Slate stated that the accusations of dual loyalties to Jewish members of the Bush administration were the same as "anti-Semitism."

ascribing the term to the person credited with actually using it in the article.

In The Weekly Standard, Brooks wondered if this focus on the Jewish, pro-Israel hawks in the administration constitutes anti-Semitism.

Would support "Brooks writing in The Weekly Standard asked if this focus on Jewish hawks ..."

and "For that matter," he wrote in the Washington Post op-ed, "a cursory review of the literature opposing war in Iraq reveals that the charge of 'Jewish-American hysteria' could just as easily apply to opponents of an invasion

Would support: Kaplan stated that the attention paid to "Jewish-American hysteria" could apply to both sides of the issues.

Do you see the value in ascribing the opinions as opinions to the ones holding them? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, there are a lot of claims being made, and I don't mind covering as many of them as is deemed necessary to achieve NPOV. I was not trying to misrepresent the ABC source, just use its statement that there had been a variety of statements and a reaction as a point of departure to examine the various POVs. Stating Klauss's individual views in addition to his framing of the scenario is not a problem per se, but there is a problem with integrating Kaus' view in that his views are not a criticism of neoconservatives, but in effect a critical response to those criticizing the neoconservatives. I will have to read the article more carefully instead of scanning it, but that would seem to be the issue you are pointing out.

Ascribing opinions is not a problem, and I believe that I did attribute the opinions of Klein and Buchanan that I noted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The claim that neoconservatives have dual loyalties is a matter of opinion and therefore before presenting the opinion we need to assess its acceptance in reliable sources. As the proponents of the view concede, it has no acceptance in the mainstream and is seen as a conspiracy theory, even anti-Semitic. That is already covered in "Allegations of antisemitism", although that section could probably be better written. There are of course serious criticisms of neo-conservatism, but they do not concentrate on the Jewish connection. TFD (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Don't put words in my mouth or misrepresent the sources, of which there are many. I have stated that there is obviously no problem in attributing what people have said.

Joe Klein is a mainstream journalist and author, and what he says is not a conspiracy theory and he specifically denies your claim of antisemitism. Buchanan says the same thing. You are insinuating that both them and me, by extension, are anitsemitic conspiracy theorists. That is a personal attack and a BLP violation.

Retract your comment and don't make those claims again unless you are addressing specific claims made by specific reliably published sources. You can say, "Abe Foxman said Klein was an anitsemite", but you can't make the assertion yourself, or imply that I am an antisemite because I want to use Klein's reliably published statements in the article.

This has nothing to do with the antisemitism section, unless that is where you want to integrate some of the responses to the allegations of dual loyalties.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- TFD did not say what you appear to assert he said, nor did he remotely say or imply that you are an "anti-Semite" in any way at all. I think you might well use a cup of tea and listen a bit more than you write, for your accusations about what TFD said are not congruent with what I read in his post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is necessary that contentious material like this deals with the sources first and foremost. TFD's statement,

"before presenting the opinion we need to assess its acceptance in reliable sources"

is not a Wikipedia content policy, and his assertion that

As the proponents of the view concede, it has no acceptance in the mainstream and is seen as a conspiracy theory, even anti-Semitic

is nothing less than misrepresenting what I said, even if he didn't understand it. It seems fairly clear that he is referring to me as the "proponent". And, again, his subjective editorial pontificating about "acceptance" is irrelevant.

I now see that the "Allegations of antisemitism" goes so far as to quote Klein, but TFD doesn't seem to notice that, because he apparently only wants to represent Klein as being an antisemite, and not present the well-covered statements he made that resulted in his being accused of antisemitism. That would seem to be an odd section indeed, somewhat inverted in light of the fact that the charges of anitsemitism are being made against critics of the neocons.

The last point I'm going to address now is that you misrepresented the ABC piece's first mention of Kaus to make it say the opposite of what the quote is used for. The quote is

Kaplan explained that it's an important question, but one that is often addressed in illegitimate ways (and anti-Semitic ways — though he doesn't use the word "anti-Semitism"). He quoted Paul Schroeder, writing in Pat Buchanan's revived American Conservative magazine, that a plan for invasion of Iraq "is being promoted in the interests of Israel." Kaplan wrote that this "socialism of fools" (which, Slate columnist Mickey Kaus points out, is the same thing as anti-Semitism) has also invaded the anti-war left.

Obviously, Kaus is simply indicating that Kaplan was using a euphemism "socialism of fools" to accuse Schroeder of antisemitism. The only oddity is that Kaplan finishes his sentence with "has also invaded the anti-war left", while Schroeder would appear to be on the right, so apparently he is attempting to cover the allegations coming from both the right and left, labeling them antisemitic.

1. Buchanan on Kaus

   What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: “Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card.”
   And this time the boys have cried “wolf” once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus:
   And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
   “If Stanley Hoffman can say this,” asks Kaus, “why can’t Chris Matthews?” Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party.

2. Greenwald on Klein, Kauss

   Regarding the ADL’s condemnation of Klein, Kaus wrote:
   Note to [ADL's Abraham] Foxman: I worked at The New Republic! The magazine supported the war. I consider it’s [sic] editor, Martin Peretz, to be a friend and mentor. But if you think Marty’s views are uninfluenced by his affinity for Israel — and that the views of many of the eminent neocons who visited our offices were uninfluenced by “matters of faith” and/or religious identity — then you don’t know Marty and you don’t know The New Republic. In fact, you’re more than a bit clueless. But you are not clueless…As I’ve documented previously, the very same right-wing advocates who scream “anti-semitism” at anyone, such as Klein, who raises the issue of devotion to Israel themselves constantly argue that American Jews do — and should — cast their votes in American elections based upon what is best for Israel. They nakedly trot out the “dual loyalty” argument in order to manipulate American Jews to vote Republican in U.S. elections (e.g.: “the GOP supports Israel and Obama doesn’t; therefore, American Jews shouldn’t vote for Obama”), while screaming “anti-semitism” the minute the premise is used by their political opponents.

Klein’s comments
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You write, ""before presenting the opinion we need to assess its acceptance in reliable sources" is not a Wikipedia content policy." See "Due and undue weight": "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Also I do not "want[] to represent Klein as being an antisemite", I am merely describing how his opinions were received.

So far you present walls of text, misrepresent what other editors say and make personal attacks. You show both a lack of knowledge of the subject and editing policies. You have failed to get any editors on your side. Time to abandon your suggestion and move on.

TFD (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You were (and continue to be) dismissing sources arbitrarily based on your personal criteria. Klein was called an antisemite by Foxman and others, not by all of the sources by a long shot. In fact, there are probably as many (if not more) RS statements criticizing those calling Klein an antisemite than there are RS statements calling him an antisemite. So apparently you weren't paying attention to the sources, or simply didn't like what you saw in the sources. The statements posted are all reliably sourced, DUE applies to assigning them appropriate weight, and has nothing to do with your personal opinion of "acceptance", whether you like the POVs found in the reliably published statements or not. And incidentally, nowhere in the "Allegations of antisemitism" is Klein described as even being called an antisemite, so where did you see that?

You again challenge my competence, when it is you, apparently, that can't be bothered to take the time to read the sources your pointy statements require in response. Remeber, you don't have to participate if this is over your head.

I suggest you cease and desist with the tiresome attempts at dissimulation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"DUE applies to assigning them appropriate weight, and has nothing to do with your personal opinion of "acceptance",,,," Exactly! I have not provided my personal opinions and find reliable sources assign your sources no weight. As for being over one's head, you know nothing about the subject except that lots of neoconservatives are/were Jewish. TFD (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you reverted citing "Undue weight", Id like to see you collaboratively figure out a way to include this material as well as restructuring the article so that the "Anti-Semitism section" is redirected as a response to the manifold claims of claims of dual/divided loyalty.

Note that, though you claim undue weight, I've included primarily centrist sources only, with one source that could be considered to be on the "right" in Buchanan, but have not included sources considered to be on the "left", except for the statements defending Klein, which might be considered to be on the left, but are not necessarily so.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You begin your section, "Dual loyalty", by saying, "In the run up to the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of dual loyalty were levelled against the neoconservatives from various sectors." But the source does not mention the neoconservatives. Incidentally, it does not matter whether comments come from left. right or center, just whether they have prominence in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a summary introducing all of the sources. The ABC article introduced far more sources than I have dared include, in light of DUE and WEIGHT, but those sources include the Buchanan piece, and Kaus. The ABC piece directly mentions the widespread nature of the controversy, which in and of itself should be a signal that it is DUE.

One could try to summarize the controversy and some of the more poignant statements instead of using blockquotes, but it is somewhat complicated. The debate starts in 2003 and has not gone away. Moreover, the ABC article (2003) predates Klein's engagement with the topic in 2008.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Allegations of antisemitism" section

This entire section is like a predicate without a subject.
There are only three conservative (and Jewish? "Likudniks"?) authors represented in the subject, with almost none of the background of the "allegations", which were in fact counter accusations that have been presented here in an ahistorical manner, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. While most of the statements on this topic that have been presented have been published by Jews, only those of the ilk supporting Likud--a point at issue--are represented, to the exclusion of all others... Meanwhile, the point Kaus makes about Chris Matthews is relevant here as well.

The statements of conservatives, like Buchanan, have not been mentioned (though Buchanan is named), yet the lead sentence (sourced to Lieber) of the section states,
"...the term [neoconservative] has been adopted by independents and the political left to stigmatize endorsement of Israel".
The statements of Buchanan directly refute the allegation made by Lieber, and Buchanan is a "traditional conservative".

There is no description of "independents" or "the political left", not to mention centrists.

Lieber describes all of the criticism in a totalizing manner as a "conspiracy theory", an accusation vigorously denied by many reliable sources.
And the allegations that "neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew" is also not supported by any statements outside of those made by the three authors cited. The source for Lieber, a somewhat sensationalist ("sinister mythology") article in The Chronicle of Higher Education can is not a mainstream source on political matters, and though Lieber is an academic, it is not a scholarly or peer reviewed publication, but a campus oriented newspaper. Are there no other reliably published statements by Lieber on the topic? Furthermore, Lieber is not mentioned in any of the other sources.

Meanwhile, Klein specifically addresses "Jewish neoconservatives", and Buchanan denies that Jewishness per se has anything to do with his criticism of the policies promoted by the neocons, rather "dual loyalty". Numerous liberal writers have weighed in on the controversy, but none of their statements are covered whatsoever.

All of the statements represent only the early stages of the controversy and date to 2003. None relates to Iran and the controversy surrounding Joe Klein, though he was quoted in the section in a manner not representative of his role or indicative of the controversy occurring anew pertaining directly to his statements of 2008, and which continues to receive coverage.

Not even in the WP:NPOV ballpark.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:26, 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jewishness

@Collect: Jewishness is important where it is important, not where it isn't. I'm not going to replace the material on the historical development of certain intellectual aspects of the movement, but that is unrelated to Buchanan declaring in 2003 that he wan't criticizing the neocons clamoring for war with Iraq because they were Jewish.
Numerous commentators have also differentiated between those promoting war int he interests of their alignment with Likud as opposed to the benefit of Israel per se. Questions related to the significance of Jewishness/Israel have to be addressed in the context of the sources on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alas - I find that position incomprehensible -- that we mention Jewishness and anti-Semitism maybe in one place, or maybe remove it,, that we not mention Jewishness in another, but maybe we do mention it in connection with New York, and so on depending on what precisely? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to comprehend how you fail to understand the question of context.

As I said, I'm not particularly concerned about the NY detail, as it is in the obscure and distant past of the movement, and bears little import to most people that will be accessing the article. The allegations of dual loyalty, counter accusations of antisemitism, etc., are all fairly context intensive issues. That does make the creation of NPOV content about them complicated, but not impossible.

I think it will be a challenge to whittle the mass of material down into a couple of subsections that focus the POVs raised by the allegations, counter-accusations, responses, etc. Sometimes we will just have to list names, like Kaus does, and only quote a single representative statement.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we simply all avoid the whole Jewish megillah here. Collect (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have an emotional connection to the topical matter that impedes your ability to edit in accordance with content policies, you should recuse from the article, pre WP:COI.

It is clear from the reliable sources that the issue at hand represents the most significant controversy surrounding the neoconservatives in the past ten years. In fact, has there ever been a larger controversy related to neoconservatives?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I have zero "conflict of interest" and I would note that trying to imply an editor has such is considered a personal attack. 2. Daniel Levy's blog on HuffPo is how important to you? It appears, at most, to be his personal opinion, and not something Wikipedia should state in its voice at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack? I've mentioned religion here already, and this thread is about "Jewishness"; meanwhile, you send me a link to some Hebrew disambiguation page. What is that supposed to mean? I didn't imply anything, just suggested you check the policy/guideline in order to avoid trouble.

Your implied suggestion that the biggest controversy in the history of neoconservatism, that is, the question of "dual loyalty" of Jewish neoconservatives", not be covered on Wikipedia is somewhat incomprehensible, and contravenes Wikipedia content policies.

It's not about how important it is to me at all, it's about how important the debate is in the reliable sources. The coverage Klein's comments have received is widespread and varied, and he is only one notable commentator to have spoken out on the issue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A relevant quote from one of the sources.

The problem for the American Jewish community would not seem to be with exposing the objectionable positions of Jewish neoconservatives and then having a debate. The danger is in the opposite approach -- in creating the impression that the Jewish neoconservative voice is the Jewish voice, or that of the "pro-Israel" lobby, and in drowning out, or more accurately, suppressing the voice of the majority. That would be a way to not only increase the risk of an extremely dangerous policy being pursued and to make support for Israel the partisan domain of the far-right bomb-bomb-bomb Iran crowd, but it would also cede the ground to those who are emptying the charge of anti-Semitism of all meaning. And those are good enough reasons for Joe Klein's cause to be our cause too.[18]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the first paragraph, the article states "Neoconservatives continue to have influence in the Obama White House" but later on it says "The neocons had little influence in the Obama White House, but neoconservatism remains a staple in Republican Party arsenal.[2][3]"

Which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.179.44 (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be settled by listing the influential neoconservatives among the Obama advisors? I cannot think of any. Whoever wrote that is probably reading too much Vice News (e.g., https://news.vice.com/article/why-president-obama-is-a-neocon), so they can no longer distinguish not being an isolationist from being a neoconservative. Cerberus (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The way to determine which is correct is to use current reliable secondary sources, not by counting neoconservative advisers. The contradictory statements are ironically sourced to the same essay, which was written when Obama became president and hence is dated. Neoconservatives btw are not isolationist, they are interventionist. TFD (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

The terminology section misleadingly suggested the neoconservative label emerged during the 1970s. Odd, since it is used by Buckley in his God and Man at Yale! I added a cite by Russell Kirk, who was in a position to know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk While the quote may be reasonably replaced, whatever replaces it *must* recognize the earlier origin of the terminology. Cerberus (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is possible that some writer had thought to place the prefix "neo" (which means "news") before the word "conservative." But this article is about a topic, not language usage, and the subject of the topic did not exist in the 1950s. BTW can you provide a reference to where Buckley used the term "neo-conservative" in his book? I think it may be more accurate to say the term "conservative" was already widely used and appears in his book. TFD (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. We follow the RS and none of the historians of the movement mention usage by Buckley or Kirk in the 1950s. Safire's New Political Dictionary p 482 gives 1971 as an early usage. Kirk did not say who used the term, where, or when--and only gives it a passing mention. that makes him highly dubious as a reliable source on the history of the word. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

more on this topic -- posted at User talk:Rjensen:

By removing that quote without replacing it, you render the section historically incorrect. Please see my entry on the talk page. Until you are ready to do better, please replace the quote, which at least gives a helpful and appropriate historical reference. For a well-known example usage of the time, see Buckley's God and Man at Yale. Cerberus (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirk does not say who in 1950s made up the term "neoconservative" when, where, or in what context. No RS or any google site repeats or accepts his story. looks like faulty memory. As a theory it's "fringe." I think he just mixed up attacks on him in 1980s with mistaken memory of 1950s. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it your are not treating one of the major figures in conservatism, who was around at the time, as a RS? What about Buckley, who uses the term in GAMAY? Then you deleted replacement text as making an unsourced false claim. But I provided the source in my comment for the edit: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a30s50sneoconideology And your characterization of the American Left (a term not even used in the quote) as anti-Stalin/pro-Trotsky is laughable history: the CPUSA of the time has been widely described as a Stalin sect. It feels like you are enforcing a POV in your edits. Unless the terminology section somehow acknowledges the origin on the term pre-1950, it is badly misleading. Please take this to the talk page before reverting. Cerberus (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

We rely on reliable secondary sources. Kirk is a) a primary source; b) he was never in favor of neoconservatism; c) he is very vague on what some unknown critic at an unknown date in an unknown publication said about Kirk being a neocon --too vague to call it "reliable.". As for Buckley, please provide the quote on his usage in 1950s. A few of the neocons were anti-stalin trotskyites around 1940. then they became liberal Democrats in 1940s, 1950s 1960s, then in 1970s they became neocons. No one says the term neocon dates pre 1950. No reliable secondary source anyone has mentioned says it dates from the 1950s. Your anonymous unpublished blog http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a30s50sneoconideology is not a reliable secondary source -- and anyway you garbled what it said. you need a reliable secondary source Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cerberus0:, where does Buckley use the term "neo-conservative" in GAMAY? Kirk's article is not a reliable source, and if he is correct, then you should be able to find an example. In any case, you are missing the point. He was saying that c. 1950 he and his allies were called the new conservatives, now the term is used to describe Harrington's former colleagues. Indeed you are correct that the CPUSA was pro-Soviet, but Trotskyists, Socialists and liberals were not, and they were the colleagues to whom Harrington referred. TFD (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In the section on the Yale Daily New, Buckley observes: "The chairmen of the 1948 and 1949 boards of the News were, roughly speaking, noncommittal, neoconservatives." He does not bother to define the term, because it was already generally recognized. Failing to acknowledge that makes the section on terminology extremely misleading. To point this out is not "missing the point" at all. In a section on the evolution of terminology, this *is* the point. Cerberus (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement By Justin Vaïsse, p.7: "This first age of neoconservatism was built around two journals: The Public Interest ... 1965, and Commentary ... in 1970." Cerberus (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up, rebuilding

There's a lot of unsourced, somewhat gossipy ungrounded quotes and other undue material, much with "dubious" tags, and a redundant and superfluous section or two, etc., that I've cleaned up, rebuilding using the material where possible.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, it seems the part at the start is not a good summary. I came to this article seeking a short and clear description of the neocon ideology, but after reading the first few paragraphs, I have not found it. 76.95.155.84 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I second that. I still don't really know what a neocon is. Benjamin (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why are there lists of "neoconservatives" on this article when similar political philosophy articles have no such lists?--v/r - TP 19:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sketchy sources

I'm quite concerned about the reliablity of the sources used for the "Politicians" section, meaning references #122-197. While I'm not an expert on which sources are and which sources aren't reliable, I'm certain that several of these fail to meet our WP:BLP standards. Let me just highlight a few so someone more experienced can take a look at them all:

• www.infowarscom/ infowars.com], a website run exclusively by reptile/illuminati expert Alex Jones
• neoconsexposed.blogspot.nl, don't really need to explain this one
• patriotslament.blogspot.nl, ditto
• theunhivedmind.com, a wordpress-powered website with the stated goal: "SUPPORT THE PROMETHEANS & THE BRICS BANK IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE FOR HUMANITY. THE ZEUSIAN ARISTOTELIANS MUST BE STOPPED" (I don't even know what this means, Promethians from Halo?)
• captainsjournal.com, this seems to just be a regular person's blog website

Going through them all was pretty terrible. Would not recommend it to anyone who isn't familiar with these types of "alternative news" places (hint: they all claim to be alternative). Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And I do not think that reliable sources on neoconservatism describe individual politicians as neocons, they normally save that description for intellectuals. I would recommend removing the politicians section. TFD (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Should remove the entire list. I don't see a list on Neoliberalism_(international_relations).--v/r - TP 19:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Neoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080320065640/http://www.hoover.org:80/publications/policyreview/3564402.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3564402.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121114100459/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/articles/206955/neoconservative-invention/jonah-goldberg to http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206955/neoconservative-invention/jonah-goldberg
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081211043728/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/20031101fareviewessay82614/joshua-micah-marshall/remaking-the-world-bush-and-the-neoconservatives.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101fareviewessay82614/joshua-micah-marshall/remaking-the-world-bush-and-the-neoconservatives.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110204172141/http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140108162236/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100628183230/http://www.amconmag.com:80/article/2004/jun/07/00036/ to http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jun/07/00036/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081204190939/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewArticle.cfm/The-Past--Present--and-Future-of-Neoconservatism-10935 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-past--present--and-future-of-neoconservatism-10935
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927131121/http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc to http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070103040206/http://www.mlq.qc.ca:80/7_pub/cl/tremblay_en.html to http://www.mlq.qc.ca/7_pub/cl/tremblay_en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105221904/http://amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html to http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108140516/http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050727161903/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14335,filter.all/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14335,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050729034016/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19107,filter.all/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19107,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070810093311/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/culture/articles/030113/13empire.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030113/13empire.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060819163844/http://zfacts.com:80/p/236.html to http://zfacts.com/p/236.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 12:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson / William Weld

I'm not sure these two should be on here; I'm less familiar with William Weld, but I constantly hear Gary Johnson talking about reducing the size of the military and the scope of international intervention, which seems contrary to neoconservatism.70.161.173.99 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the articles, neither of them even mentioned neoconservatism, so I removed them. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary a neocon?? neocons hate Trump and support his opponent, that does not make Hillary one

Several neocon intellectuals prefer Hillary over Trump. Indeed so too do many intellectuals of left, right and center. No mainstream media RS states that she is a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No one has argued that Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative because neoconservatives like her, the argument is that she is a neoconservative because of her neoconservative views. Here is a sentence from the Neoconservatism page, "(n)eoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism." Here is a quote from a speech given by Hillary Clinton, "(t)he next president will take office at a time when the United States faces the greatest confluence of challenges in our country's recent history. We must regain our place in the world with a new security policy that serves our national interest, recaptures our moral authority, works with our allies, modernizes our military, and confidently projects our values. In short, we must rebuild our strength and widen and deepen its scope." These statements were reference in the article titles "The moral purpose of US power: neoconservatism in the age of Obama" which I cited. Also, repeatedly claiming "No mainstream media RS states that she is a neocon." and then blanking the edit entirely without any actual discussion is a bit ridiculous; I don't believe you have actually reviewed all mainstream media, so you're claiming something you can't know. Also ridiculous is posting misleading section titles on the Talk page, without offering any meaningful discussion to go along with it.70.161.173.99 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

that's all OR. none of the cites call her a neocon--try finding a quote that says she is!. none of the major media call her a neocon, nor do her political opponents. All we have is one politicized Wiki editor working a fringe theory. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research, how is an article that someone else wrote original research? <--There it is again. I'm spelling it out here because you can't be bothered to read sources.70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Mrs. Clinton herself is already under fire for her foreign-policy views — the journalist Glenn Greenwald, among others, has condemned her as 'like a neocon, practically.'" 70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop pretending to have a discussion, this has all already been pointed out to you. You've previously argued against sources calling her a neoconservative because they were distant political opponents, now you claim that "none of the major media call her a neocon, nor do her political opponents." You don't care about truth, you contest every source I provide without justification, and you accuse me of being politicized?70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Truth?? shall we find it in a political attack the week she became the Dem nominee??? Wikipedia depends not on an anonymous editor's personal notion of "truth" but upon reliable secondary sources, which are lacking. No major political observer in the last decade has called her a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have provided reliable secondary sources, you have ignored them, or at least haven't addressed them. I then pointed out that in the article I cited about neoconservatism, the author quotes statements by Hillary Clinton which mirror the description of neoconservatism given in Neoconservatism, and you tried to claim that was original research. As if locating a source that backs your position is original research. You are making statements with no basis to support your position. You are attempting to force your own personal point of view onto Wikipedia, in contradiction to cited reliable sources.Mattswest (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

no they do not actually claim she is a neocon. No RS says that. eg saying she believes in democracy makes her a neocon!! you are making up the neocon claim to attack a Democratic nominee for president during an election campaign because you oppose her politics. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't "mak(e) up the neocon claim", the claim originated close to a decade ago, as I proved in this source. Second, it's not an attack, it's an assertion. Third, you are the one who has made this about politics. When I first added her name to the section, I didn't even list the fact that she was a Presidential nominee, someone else did that later. You accuse me of being a "politicized Wiki editor" yet you leave deceptive edit comments when you revert my edit. Lastly, as I've tried to make clear to you before, the direct claim that she is a neoconservative is not necessary, not is it reasonable. In fact, I wouldn't think any source to be very reliable which simply claimed outright that she was a neoconservative, instead of actually arguing and support the claim with quotes and facts. That is why the section is titled "Notable people associated with neoconservatism" and not "List of known/confirmed neoconservatives." I posted an academic research paper as a source, and your only acknowledgement of it was to claim I was doing original research for discussing it. If you would actually attempt to acknowledge and refute the sources this wouldn't be an issue, but you're only input is edit descriptions, which are at best vague, and at worst misleading.70.161.173.99 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It also concerns me that Gary Johnson was in this section with the only cited source being an article about him throwing away a gun, nothing to do with neoconservatism, didn't even mention it, yet you neither took notice of nor bothered to remove that entry. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope. it's a fringe theory not accepted by any mainstream RS, or political commentator right left or center. No source is quoted that says "Hillary Clinton is a neocon." Adding the allegation to Wikipedia the week she won the Democratic nomination is what politics looks like. None of the three cites say that Clinton is a neocon. One by Heilbrunn cites the Weekly Standard" (a neocon voice) that says she is an enemy [“be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”] Heilbrunn emphasizes Robert Kagan who years ago was one of numerous advisors to the State Department when she was secretary; It says Kagan is now associated with liberal think tanks, that he avoids neo-con associations, and that he is now a neo-neocon But it does not say that Hillary is either a neocon or a neo-neocon. The closest Heilbrunn comes is saying It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. Bottom line: author Heilbrunn does NOT say Hillary is now or ever was a neocon. 07:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101fareviewessay82614/joshua-micah-marshall/remaking-the-world-bush-and-the-neoconservatives.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jun/07/00036/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-past--present--and-future-of-neoconservatism-10935
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mlq.qc.ca/7_pub/cl/tremblay_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Today's Cato Daily Podcast highlighted the similarities of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.

Here is the link: Cato Daily Podcast July, 30 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)

I have added Hillary Clinton's name to the "Notable people associated with neoconservatism" section, and added three credible sources either deeming her a neoconservative or highlighting neoconservative activities that she has been associated with. I notice this has been an issue from looking at the history, and while I agree hillaryisaneocon.com is not a credible source, comments such as "Hillary Clinton isn't known to be a neoconservative so adding her to the list has absolutely no basis and is essentially vandalism." and "Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative. Arguing that she is constitutes hyperbole and/or conspiracy theory." are borderline absurd.

The description for this section reads, "The list includes public people identified as personally neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisers, such as George W. Bush and Richard Cheney." and further down the list the is this entry, "Robert Kagan – Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Historian, founder of the Yale Political Monthly, adviser to Republican political campaigns, and adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department." This alone justifies Hillary Clinton's inclusion in this section, and there is certainly no basis for removing her name unless the description for the section is changed, or the name of her adviser is justifiably removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.173.99 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Also I feel I should point out, one of the sources I added is Ron Paul directly calling Hillary Clinton a "neocon", and Ron Paul is referenced in this very article as a "longtime critic of neoconservatism" and having given "an extensive speech on the House floor addressing neoconservative beginnings and how neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative". Thus, as a prominent figure in the neoconservative discussion, he is a more than credible source as to who is a neoconservative. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

BLP rules apply here. You need a published reliable secondary source--several of them to make this extreme claim. Ron Paul is not a reliable SECONDARY source. He's a primary source who planned to run against her for president. As is RAND Paul (Ron's son). No news media say she's a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate, this section is not titles "List of neoconservatives", it is titled, "Notable people associated with neoconservatism", so your statement, "No news media say she's a neocon." is irrelevant, and the argument, "Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative." or anything similar is not sufficient to justify the removal of her name from this section. Also, I added four sources, not just the two you mentioned, one of which IS a news media source asserting that she is a neoconservative. Also, while Ron and Rand Paul are primary sources, the news articles I referenced that reported on their comments ARE secondary sources. The bottom line is, I have provided credible sources for this, actually being a neoconservative is not necessary to be included in this section unless the description is changed, and while you insist that "No news media say she's a neocon," that's simply not true. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And in case you didn't notice, there are several blogs being used as references in that section, I doubt they are as reputable as Salon.com, so if you feel so inclined to eliminate poorly referenced additions, I suggest you start there.70.161.173.99 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the list of neoconservatives should not be in the article. Clinton's use of neoconservative advisers is significant, although any competent president would seek advice from experts with a variety of views. We would need a better source that Clinton intends to return to the foreign policy of the early 2000s. TFD (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone who criticized neoconservatism is now associated with it and listed here???? The BPP rules are very strict. Using a political opponent who attacks another candidate is unacceptable in terms of reliability. Rjensen (talk)

I have no idea what you're on about; you seem to just be faking confusion to conflate the issue. She is not listed here for criticizing neoconservatism, she is listed because the news media have reported on her neoconservative policies. Also, Ron Paul was not attacking Hillary Clinton, he was trying to "sell" her to Republicans over Donald Trump, which is the same thing she is herself trying to do (See: http://republicansagainsttrump.org/). Maybe you should actually review a source before you trying to discredit it on false pretense. Also, I will say this again hoping it sinks in, I did NOT cite Ron Paul himself, I did not cite a video or transcript of his statements, nor did I cite self-published statements by Ron Paul; I cited a third party news source reporting and commenting on his statements, which IS a secondary source. None of which matters, there are three other sources I added that you're pretending don't exist, and you seem to be trying to conflate the issue in your edit descriptions. I have removed the sources reporting on statements Ron Paul and Rand Paul, this leaves two other sources.http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_hillary_clinton_a_neoconservative_hawk_what_iraq_ (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No major news media or any of the many books in the bibliography nor any RS calls Hillary a neocon. That is amazing if indeed she is actually a neocon. We have one salon essay by Rosenberg that ASKS with a ? mark if she is one regarding Iraq. His answer is "she was also expressing a common elite consensus view." the other is a reprint of a self-published essay by Robert Parry from his website. [Self-published sources are not allowed at all in BLP] To tag a presidential candidate is especially sensitive and BLP rules apply here. Rjensen (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You have clearly proven your bias here. You continually seek to remove the Hillary Clinton from this sections, with your most recent argument being that the sources I provided are blogs, yet as I pointed out, several other people are included in that section with a blog as their only cited source, and you don't seem to care about that at all. You are also CONTINUING TO MISREPRESENT YOUR EDITS; neither of two sources were blogs. Also, you seem to be STILL missing the point that this section is titled "Notable people associated with neoconservatism", so the Salon.com article doesn't actually NEED to make the assertion that she is a neocon. BUT WAIT, IT DOES, "To the contrary, Clinton’s just like Bush and the neocons in fighting the last century’s wars." Also, the other article I cited is not "a reprint of a self-published essay by Robert Parry from his website," it is an article which quotes excerpts from another author's article. It is not simply a reprint of a self-published essay as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.173.99 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A more productive line of discussion might be the increasing number of neoconservatives on this list who have endorsed Clinton - Kagan, Boot, Stephens, Kirchick, and Richard Perle to name a few. I would note that GW Bush, Cheney, and Obama are not on the "politicians" list, despite also surrounding themselves with people sympathetic to neocon ideology in their administrations (objectively speaking, the last 2 administrations and the likely upcoming Clinton administration haven't been all that different when it comes to foreign policy positions and actions aligning with neoconservatism). I would also note that this article seems to trail off after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as though neocons went off into the sunset afterwards - which is patently untrue. Analysis of the so-called Obama Doctrine suggests mostly stylistic differences with its predecessor. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Bush and Cheney are not in the actual list, but they are in the leading description at the top of the section. I imagine trying to add Obama to the list would be met with as much contention as the addition of Hillary Clinton.68.229.97.100 (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502151928/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html to http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)