Talk:Benador Associates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Defunct?

Why when I try to access the site it says "You don't have permission to access / on this server."? Is the site permanently closed now? What's the reason for that? 88.154.170.171 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellect, now it works again! :-) 88.154.170.171 09:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

I removed the citation needed on the assertion: 'particularly those from a neoconservative point of view.' It should be obvious from reading the membership/speakers list that this is so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.178.131 (talk • contribs)

As it turns out, that's not how we're supposed to do things at Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research, and note that the phrase "original research" has a different meaning here. So I've put the tag back. (Sigh.) Thanks for trying to help; we understand that the rules here are not always obvious. Cheers, CWC 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See "The Andean condor among the hawks", an article in Asia Times about Benador. This provides more insight into the Benador direction, from a reporter who isn't promoting a particular position. There are many other references available to Benador Associates as a neocon speakers bureau, but this is the most neutral one I've found. --John Nagle 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly object to using that article as a source. (That reporter has his heart on his sleeve: "blood-and-guts classicist", "resident imperialist".)

How about this April 2003 item from the New York Observer? Quote: "Mr. [Daniel] Pipes said that Ms. Benador's new firm was unique in its focus on neocons."

The NYO item is a little indirect as a source for "particularly those from a neoconservative point of view", or I'd have put it in already. Are other editors happy to use this article as a cite there?

The other advantage of the NYO item is that it provides a reasonable overview of Benador Associates. I notice they have a copy on their website, so I guess they don't have any big problems with it. Cheers, CWC 14:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Asia Times article is not appropriate. I'm surprised Nagle used it; I'll remove it, and NPOV the rest so it actually complies with WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biography category

Why is the article tagged with a biography category? It's not a biography of a living person. It's about an organization. It has one line about the organization's head. --John Nagle 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. Since this article is about a company and not a person, I removed the banner.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The infobox was added back in February by a bot, User:Thadius856AWB. Thanks for fixing the bot's mistake. CWC 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)