Talk:Henry Jackson Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] neo-cons?
Does the society self define as neo-con or not? If not what is wrong with being a neo-con? Thomas.neumark 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Although most external observers view it as neo-con, the soc clearly makes efforts to use other terms in its more prominent publications. 'Neo-con' is more often considered pejorative outside the US, and in many interpretations it is impossible to become a neo-con without becoming American.
[edit] Think tank?
Is the HJS really a think tank? Evidence would be things like: publishing significant pamphlets or reports under its own name, employing or at least funding researchers, or holding major conferences. Can anyone point to evidence like that? From what I see "Society" is the right term - it holds meetings of like minded people and publishes short articles (sometimes reprints from elsewhere) in an (electronic) newsletter, and is run by an "Organising Committee" of members. Rwendland 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Guardian considers the HJS a think tank - the profile of HJS hosted by the Guardian (seems to be written by HJS representatives themselves) says that the society is "not a thinktank in the conventional sense". An unconventional thinktank is still a thinktank.
- The Independent also has run a column on the society calling it a think tank
- The HJS is also categorized as a think tank on the Social Science Information Gateway, an academic internet resource directory funded by the UK government.
- There are other references, but those are the 3 most authoritative I could find in 5 minutes of googling. The HJS may not have the resources to be a fully fledged thinktank at the moment, but given its patronage, mission, and associations with US think tanks, it seems likely that they aspire to more "conventional" thinktank status. Bwithh 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty reasonable sources, so I accept it's OK for the article. Though, from what I know of it's activities, it doesn't really match the definition very well. Thanks. Rwendland 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political influence section
This really needs proper external references - at the moment it is full of unverified boosterish claims and sounds like biased original research. Please provide references or this section will have to go Bwithh 16:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
