Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey

Please don't vote yet, this is a draft.

The dispute is over which of the following two versions is more appropriate for inclusion in this article:

Version 1:

A section of the document that has proved particularly controversial can be found in Section V, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" (page 53):

"Further, the process of transformation...is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Critics of the PNAC have suggested that the September 11, 2001 attacks were just such an event, which were then cynically exploited by the Bush administration to enable it to aggressively pursue the PNAC's agenda. (Some conspiracy theorists see this passage as evidence of complicity in the attacks.)

Supporters of the PNAC say the quote is taken out of the context of a discussion specifically about military use of information technologies, and the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly.

The quote is a source of much spirited - and frequently extremely partisan and ill-informed - debate, and readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly than to rely on third party interpretations.

Version 2:

A line frequently quoted out of context from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). Conspiracy theorists argue this is suspiciously prescient of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with some going so far as to suggest complicity of the PNAC in the attacks. Many also incorrectly claim that this "new Pearl Harbor" is stated to be needed to justify war on Iraq. In fact, however, the quote is part of a discussion about military use of information technologies, where the report is simply guessing that full transformation to new technologies is likely to be a slow process unless some "catalyzing" event causes the military to upgrade more quickly. Despite the easy availability of the whole document, the quote provokes spirited - and often partisan and ill-informed - debate.

Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

The paragraph should mention Iraq, but should not say that critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq.

Verily's tiresome strawman pokes its ugly head up once more. VV is attempting to characterise the critics as either conspiracy theorists or those who have not read the report, ignoring the real critics. VV, please note that version 1 does not use such intellectually dishonest tactics: you don't see a qualifier like "supporters of the PNAC mistakenly argue that the phrase A New Pearl Harbor does not appear in any PNAC documents" in there, do you? CK 21:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is you who are attacking a strawman. I never refer to "critics of the PNAC" in my version at all. That is one reason this selection of "questions" is so disingenuous. VV 21:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In fact it is precisely in deference to the "real critics" of the PNAC that I chose certain wording. No legitimate critic of the PNAC would want to be associated with this flagrantly dishonest reading of RAD. VV 21:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But Verily, didn't you once say "Speaking of which, if you can point out an instance of me labelling all critics of the report "conspiracy theorists", I will gladly concede the entire debate to you"? CK 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But I did, an offer which notably I was not taken up on. Now, perhaps you can explain the logical connection of this comment to mine at the same time as the "just such an event" logic. VV 10:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which, if any, of the following fragments are inherently POV?

• "frequently quoted out of context"

• "Conspiracy theorists argue"

• "going so far as to"

• "incorrectly claim"

• "Critics of the PNAC have suggested"

• "Supporters of the PNAC say"

• "has proved particularly controversial"

Are the following statements reasonable? (address each statement individually)

1. the sept-11 attacks can be thought of as a "New Pearl Harbor" in the sense described in the document
2. the sept-11 attacks enable an administration to accelerate the "process of transformation" suggested by the document, if the administration acting at the time is so motivated, as the document so states.
3. the "process of transformation" described in the document includes america becoming more militant and unilateral
4. since the sept-11 attacks, the adminstration has become significantly more militant and unilateral.
5. prominent members of the acting adminstration helped write the document
6. what is written in the document reflects the beliefs of those who wrote it
7. it is reasonable to think that the people in the acting administration are acting according to their beliefs

Discussion

Definitely version 2.

This is just a draft for the survey, to work out what the question should be. Please don't start voting yet. Bryan 02:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would also add that VV is absolutely correct when he suggests that most critics of PNAC have not sat down to read the documents, all public domain information, and instead prefer to have their own personal analysis of PNAC spoon-fed to them. TDC 01:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! This is the TDC who wrote "I dont know where people get this, but the "new pearl harbor" phrase is not found in any of PNAC's documents." Sir, you are not qualified to criticise others for not reading the documents. CK 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this in reference to VV pointing out that the document in question doesn't actually mention Iraq? I hate to sound like a broken record, but version 1 above doesn't mention Iraq either. It refers to "PNAC's agenda" without specifying what it actually is. Bryan 02:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that many of the critics who deceptively quote RAD do mention Iraq is notable, if this tabloid criticism is at all. VV 08:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Erm, why are we having a "vote" as to which version is better?

It seems to me that both versions have some problems, but would not be too difficult to merge. Ambi 01:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By all means, propose a merged version. There's been a great deal of aimless argument in the main talk page over this issue, I'd love to have others participating and making alternate suggestions. Bryan 02:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CK could have proposed some sort of merge, just like I did. But instead he chose to revert me repeatedly. And so here we are. VV 07:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily is lying, as an examination of the edit history of the PNAC page will reveal. CK 18:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alternately, it would be nice if we could work out what the underlying issues are that are causing this disagreement over which version is better and put those to the vote instead. Bryan 02:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll start. Underlying issue #1: CK's version makes no logical sense. VV 07:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

The question is fine, but I was expecting multiple questions.

There's currently not a lot of contributors to the PNAC article, I'm not sure that we'll have a meaningful sample size unless we somehow get more people. Kevin Baas | talk 15:48, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

Once the survey questions and format were worked out it would be announced on Wikipedia:Current surveys, which would hopefully garner some more outside participation. Bryan 18:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would appreciate if VV could remove his excessively long nonsens and start a discussion rather engage in cynism. Why do we need to quote at all? It could just be written: Critics have suggested that the PNAC's agenda influenced the cynical exploitation of the September 11 attacks by the Bush administration for aggression. There is a heavy debate about interpretation of certain passages in PNAC documents that some see as evidence for this view.

It is not encyclopedia style to use words like "partisan and ill-informed" or to address the reader like "can be found at..." or "readers may find it more enlightening to examine the document directly". Get-back-world-respect 16:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about addressing some specifics to get a more thorough survey of opinion? Perhaps a question like: "Which of the following are pov?", and put in some phrases from each version. Some examples might be:

• "frequently quoted out of context"
• "Conspiracy theorists argue"
• "going so far as to"
• "incorrectly claim"
• "Critics of the PNAC have suggested"
• "Supporters of the PNAC say"
• "has proved particularly controversial"

Kevin Baas | talk 17:59, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the main issue I have with version 2 myself - along with the issue of whether this is specifically about the invasion of Iraq or about the PNAC agenda in general instead. That should probably also be a question too. I'm going to be offline for the rest of the day, BTW, so I hope nobody's holding off on editing the draft question waiting for me to do it. Feel free to rip out the existing one and try out a new version. I just ported over what was being argued on talk: at the time. Bryan 18:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those survey questions are ridiculous. Here, I'll add my own. VV 21:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not think these questions should be on the survey. They are all sarcastic/rhetorical or loaded; they are not serious questions. Kevin Baas | talk 23:28, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

My point is, I feel the other questions are similarly loaded, and was illustrating this. VV 00:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, those were on the same order of silliness as the original question for the Sysop Accountability Policy survey. By which I mean, like that one, the answers are all utterly obvious and so also utterly useless when it comes to actually solving this argument. Bryan 00:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VV, you are welcome to change the three last bullets in the section of pov sentence fragments, to sentence fragments in the 1st version that you feel are pov. You are also welcome to add as many such sentence fragments as you like. Kevin Baas | talk 03:13, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Are sentence fragments fine enough? Maybe we should go word by word. Is theorists POV? In fact, is the letter 'q POV? VV 06:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)