Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I added a criticism section, because the article currently reads like an advertisement for the group, without the least-bit of criticism for what is in reality a highly controversial organization. The article didn't even include the mention that the group is considered neoconservative, with all the controversy aurrounding that ideology. Nevertheless, the article currently still has NPOV issues due to undue weight issues and such. Ngchen 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While i agree all articles should have a bit of criticism, it should be sourced. They certinly claim to be bi-partisan several times on their website, and have promoted the creation of bi-partisan commities in the us government. I'd think a strong citation is needed to call FDD neoconservative (although i see were you could get that idea) especially with the negative conertations with that word.Hypnosadist 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the International Relations Center, "[FDD] has become a prominent member of the web of neoconservative-aligned think tanks, a group that includes the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, and Freedom House." (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475) See the FDD's board members and board of advisors; whether Democrat or Republican (mostly R), it largely reads like a "Who's who" in American Neoconservatism. Therefore, IMHO, referring to FDD as "Neoconservative" is self-evident from the information provided by the organization itself, and in no way is a moral judgement. MrLou 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I haven't learned to Wikify citations yet, so perhaps someone could apply http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475 to the first "citation needed" for the Neoconservative label. MrLou 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think IRC's analysis of the FDD as solid proof. IRC is also an organization with a very clear agenda. it is most definitely not a self-definition of the FDD.

Forget IRC, have you actually read the articles on FDD's website? The ideology espoused within the vast majority of these articles largely meets the definition of Neoconservative, especially in terms of foreign relations. The term is not a slam; It's an accurate definition. MrLou 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not call it just a conservative group? The label neoconservative has become very loaded, the actual meaning of the word no longer is widely understood and is often used pejoratively [1] The conservatism of Thatcher and Reagan however has always been about the kind of foreign policy that the FDD advocates and hence it simply is that, too. Wikimam 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I fear that the label "neoconservative" here is being used in an inaccurate (at best) and denigrating (at worst) manner. To the best of my knowledge, FDD seeks to promote democracy through internal reforms and social movements, not at the barrell of a gun like in the Iraq war. Neoconservative and pro-democracy movements like FDD obviously have the same ends, but starkly different means. This is a nuance conveniently omitted by those who seek to label pro-democracy think tanks like FDD "neoconservative".

In addition, one cannot pigenhole each and every writer and thinker at FDD. There are presumably disagreements as to how each issue should be solved, if the issue should be solved at all. -- User: Fretboard1776 13:01 , 12 June 2007

The International Relations Center piece on FDD is completely unacceptable. It is a hit piece, fair and simple. The IRC website's subtitle is "exposing the architecture of power that's changing our world." Come on. This cannot be viewed as objective, just as everything on the FDD website must be examined as well. For instance, where does anybody get the idea that FDD is "pro-war"? Aren't they just "pro-democracy"? Don't they spend money and time on advocacy and training? Not lobbying like other high-profile institutions? -- User: Fretboard1776 13:01 , 12 June 2007

I agree, I don't believe one can call a thinktank neoconservative when one of its members is Donna Brazile, the former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000. The piece from the IRC definitely raises the Wikipedia Red Flag Wikimam 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely New Page

Based on the fact that the information on this page was quite outdated, as well as in dispute, I thought it would make sense to completely update it. So based on the comments above, I have replaced the information that used to be here with newer information from the FDD web site and Annual Report. I have also removed the NPOV dispute tag. If anyone disagrees, please don't revent to the old information and start an edit war. Simply update any of the information that is currently there with whatever edits you may have. Larryfooter 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to readd a criticism section, and have placed the NPOV tag back. The reason is that the edit makes the organization look like an angel (probably because organizations tend to write positively about themselves), without delving into controversies. The FDD's opponents include both paleoconservatives (with the reference to the American Conservative Magazine report, as well as antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo), as well as anti-war liberals and anti-war people in general. Without including such opposing views, the article cannot be neutral. But even with a drastically expanded criticism section, the article still would not read like an encyclopedia article without major reorganization to neutrally present the organization in question. Ngchen 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the neocon and pro-war references. How can a group with Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile on its board be neocon? And just because one web site labels them as pro-war does not make it so. This implies that these people are in favor of as much war as possible which is simply not true. Regarding the NPOV tag, you can't just slap up an NPOV tag forever and wait for someone to re-write the article - that tag has been up there for over a year - and it's time for it to come down. If you don't like what the article says, then *edit* it! That's what is great about wikipedia. But trying to keep an NPOV tag up for more than a year without making the edits to remove the non-NPOV items is not proper wiki-ediquitte. Larryfooter 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am forced to revert the deletion. I don't know about the two people you mentioned and their politics. Regardless, trying to draw inferences from the membership fails WP:OR. And FWIW, the Christian Science Monitor has a reputation for being a reliable source. Globalsecurity.org is considereded reasonably reliable too by military buffs and the like. If you do a search at antiwar.com, or the liberal commondreams.org, you'll find plenty of criticism. One can hardly accuse the American Conservative magazine of being unreliable. It is unacceptable to try to whitewash controversies. Honestly, the old version of the article was much more neutral in its last iteration. Sourced criticism from reliable sources should not be removed wily-nily. And the passage of time does not make a non-neutral article neutral. Perhaps someone can come and fix it? Ngchen 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


again, this NPOV dispute tag has been up for over a year - the article was completely re-written since the NPOV tag was added a year ago - so it's not the passage of time, it's the complete re-writing of it that makes it no longer an NPOV dispute - which is why the tag was removed - and again, if you don't think it is from a NPOV, then *edit* the article rather than putting the NPOV tag back on ... and maybe you need to do more research? if you do not know who Chuck Schumer is, then you probably do not know much about american politics ... FYI: Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile are both liberal Democrats - they are not supporters of Bush - Schumer is a Democrat senator from NY (just this week he said "Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.") ... so he is not a neo-con ... and Donna Brazille worked on the Jesse Jackson and Al Gore campaigns - she is not neo-con. Both are not only members, they are on the board of advisors. Why would 2 liberal democrats be on the Board of Advisors of a neo-con group? Maybe you should do more of your own original research before you make your next edits. Maybe you should call the organization or find someone who has interacted with them before and get some actual real research before you edit this article next time. Once you do this research, maybe you will understand my question of "how can you call an organization with Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile on its board neocon?" ... once you do that research you will understand that your comment is not an NPOV comment. and antiwar.org is a not a neutral source. By their name, they are anti-war ... so their opinion is not from a NPOV. So citing them does not make this more neutral. And no one is trying to whitewash anything. But it is not fair to keep slapping an NPOV dispute tag on an article but not be willing to edit it to make it NPOV. so again, if you think the article can be improved, then improve it ... but stop vandalizing it with endless NPOV disputes. that is not fair to wiki-readers. So I have removed the NPOV dispute tag again. please do not add it again. if you think something is not NOPV, then *EDIT* it for God's sake. your laziness should not disturb wiki-readers - and what you are doing is not fair :/ Larryfooter 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
one more tidbit for you from the wikipedia page on Chuck Schumer: "A Democrat, in 2005, he became chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In November 2006, he was elected to the new post of Vice Chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. In this position, he is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin." Why would the third most powerful Democrat be on the Board of a neo-con group? Do you think his Democrat friends would allow him to be associated with neocons (who are all Republicans) and continue to elect him to top Democrat leadership positions? Your argument just makes no sense. Just like the NPOV dispute tag makes no sense. Larryfooter 05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
and as mentioned above in the NPOV dispute section of this page, your actions raise the Wikipedia Red Flag - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - and you do not have exceptional sources - I suggest you read the Wikipedia Red Flag page to learn more about this before you make your next edits. Larryfooter 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
ngchen - you should also learn more about the guidelines you cite - The first sentence of WP:OR reads: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The fact that these two individuals are on the Board of FDD is a published fact. The fact that they are both liberal democrats is published fact. Therefore, if they are both liberal democrats and on the board of FDD, then FDD can not be labelled as neocon in any intellectually honest debate. If it were neocon, then liberal democrats (the exact opposite of neocons) would not be affiliated with the organization. So citing those two members does not fail WP:OR. Larryfooter 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
one other point: antiwar.org is not "Sourced criticism from reliable sources" ... it is an oganization with an agenda and has been proven to be unreliable dozens of times. Larryfooter 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
one final point: your comment "perhaps someone can come and fix it" is disingenuous at best. you started the NPOV dispute over one year ago. and as being one of the only people in all of the world to object to this article, *you* have done *nothing* to edit it other than add biased unsourced criticisms. why don't *you* fix it if you do not think it is neutral? you seem to be the only one, so why don't *you* do something about it other than taking the easy way out and just adding the NPOV tag over and over and over again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryfooter (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request for comment (RfC). Now, I would like to offer a rebuttal. I believe the rewrite, while done in good faith, is nevertheless not neutral. Someone can rewrite something multiple times in good faith, and still not produce a neutral article. Now about Charles Schumer and Donna Brazile, I am familiar with the fact that they are Democrats, Schumer's anti-gun politics, etc. etc. But saying that because they are relatively liberal democrats (verifiable), and that they are on the board (verifiable), and that the organization therefore cannot be neoconservative (not verifiable) fails the subset of WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYN. Nobody is claiming that Democrats cannot be hawkish and so forth (see Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman for examples). A common criticism of neoconservatism is that it allegedly is not really conservative at all, and that it derives from the far-left. As for "calling them" and such, that really is OR. Remember, the goal is verifiablity, not truth. The sourced criticism I added specifically notes that people making the criticism. As you correctly noted, antiwar.com is against war. Are you saying that statements like "the liberal group X has argued that position Y is wrong because of blah blah" should be excluded? If so, why? Notice that the phrase liberal group specifically notes that it is a liberal group. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether they want to consider criticism from liberal groups. Nevertheless, if the group is well-known, then such a statement should stay. For fixing POV disputes, well I'm not necessarily the best writer for presenting stuff neutrally. I know that for the 32 Demands article that I worked on, what happened was that there was a very biased version first, I added some criticism, and a third author later kindly fixed it. It is now neutral to everyone's satisfaction. I am hoping the same will happen here. Removing sourced criticism (from the Christian Science Monitor no less) is unacceptable.Ngchen 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
ngchen: see my comment below about your criticism section - it fails WP:RS - read more below under your copyvio / sourcing discussion section Larryfooter 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Larryfooter, the FDD website is not a reliable source for this page. see WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
dlabtot: the web site was not a source for this page - the web site was referenced above to make a point that the organization is not neo-con - it's bipartisan - the web site was mentioned on this discussion page only to show that it listed many prominent democrats on its board - which would be impossible for a neo-con organization to do - also, WP:SELFPUB says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" but then lists some exceptions - if you feel any of those exceptions have occured, please post the specifics of your concerns. thanks! Larryfooter 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out a number of fallacies in the above remarks. First of all, the fact that Schumer and Brazile are associated with the FDD does not in any way make the organization "not neocon." Both Schumer and Brazile are also associated with the Democratic Leadership Council, which is essentially the forum for the "neocon Democrats." Brazile worked for Al Gore, who was consistently as militaristic as any of his Republican counterparts. Therefore, the Brazile/Schumer argument is not only OR, it is false. The argument by Larryfooter that the organization is bipartisan, and therefore not neocon, holds no water whatsoever. Moreover, the characterizations of FDD as "neocon" were all properly sourced and must be restored, and I will do that now. Larryfooter's claims against antiwar.com should be documented before material from that source is deleted. The fact that it "has an agenda" may be noted if properly sourced. However, it is not a "liberal" site -- one of the noted commentators there is Paul Craig Roberts, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.--Marvin Diode 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
anyone who thinks Schumer and Brazile are neoncon doesn't deserve the right to edit any political article on wikipedia because they obviously know nothing about american politics. There is sooooo much evidence to the contrary that it's not even debateable. And regarding anti-war.com - they have no editorial oversight - they have no reputation for fact-checking - and the claims made by them are exceptional (and rememeber, WP:RS says: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people") - so the criticism is poorly cited, does not meet the WP:RS guidelines, and therefore does not deserve to stay on this page. Larryfooter 16:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment - Neutrality/Criticism

A dispute exists over the neutrality of this article. This user believes the article is biased in favor of this organization by not including criticism. Another user disagrees, and argues that the criticism is unreliable. Further questons exist over the requirement or lack thereof of a duty of one raising a POV dispute to fix it oneself with the passage of time, as opposed to having third-party editors do it.

I took a look at the article's edit history, and it does appear that the article has been "cleansed" of legitimately sourced criticism. The language in the article is also somewhat biased, using formulations that echo the organization's own propaganda. --Marvin Diode 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second the request for criticism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.148.103 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio/sourcing?

I just wikified a bunch of links, and tried to make the article more neutral. Something that struck me was how the article seems to be almost lifted out of the organization's website, at least for the parts I checked. If true, there may be a copyright violation. In addition, the tone really is/was that of a promotional handout, rather than that expected of a neutral encyclopedia article. Interestingly, there have been no sources cited by authors other than myself for all the article sections. If the writing was based mainly on the organization's website and such, then I'd like to remind editors that the use of primary sources, while OK in itself, requires special care to do well and do in a neutral, fair manner. Ngchen 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

some content was adapted from the organization's annual report with permission from the organization - no copyright violation has occurred. and regarding your "sources" cited in the criticism, i will refer you to WP:RS ... excerpts of which follow:
In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views.
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.
antiwar.com, rightweb, and Globalsecurity.org (despite the fact that I like John Pike) are not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" nor do they have any "editorial oversight." Therefore, it would be impossible to claim that they are "the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views."
none of the criticism is sourced from "multiple high quality reliable sources"
the criticism represents "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories" (ie. shutting down terrorist TV is censorship)
the criticism presents exceptional claims (ie. militarism / war mongering / hypocracy) but does not cite one exceptional source (such as a scholarly journal)
some of the sources (antiwar.com and rightweb) are considered to be politically extremist (even the names antiwar.com and rightweb respectively imply an extreme of never going to war and absolute leftism).
moreover, nice try moving criticism to top of the page before the body of the article. that's just absurd. so the standard now is "i'm going to tell you why everything you are about to read is wrong before you even get a chance to read it" ... this criticism is obviously an attempt to smear a respectable organization with poorly sourced conspiracy theories. as a result, i have removed any criticism that is poorly sourced and moved the criticism section to the bottom of the page where it belongs. Larryfooter 04:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
also, this is misleading: "The campaign to shut down al-Manar broadcasts have raised concerns about censorship from the American Civil Liberties Union. [2]"
a few points here: if you read the ACLU press release, it does not even mention FDD. It cites concerns about government legal prosecutions - not the FDD campaign. Moreover, such criticisms are baseless since censorship did not occur. Advertisers quickly withdrew support and satellite providers stopped broadcasting once FDD's campaign made them aware of the English translations of the terrorist-supporting content provided by Al Manar. Such criticism is consistent with the ACLU's repeated efforts to provide moral support to terrorist organizations in the name of free speech. And therefore is not even criticism about FDD but instead criticism of the government. please find a different page for this. Larryfooter 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
So where does that leave the Christian Science Monitor? What about the paleocon American Conservative? What if I got stuff from the liberal The Nation? Antiwar.com is a well-known well, anti-war group that welcomes anti-war opinions from across the political spectrum (from liberal to libertarian to conservative). Labeling all criticism "extremist" and such with your edit is making it difficult to assume good faith. Phrases like "nice try" make it seem as if you're waging a war. If you don't understand how censorship concerns can be raised (rightly or wrongly) about the closing and banning of extremist messages (a la al-Manar), might I suggest reflecting on the notion that it's precisely unpopular and repugnant speech that free speech is supposed to protect? If FDD supported banning or shutting down al-Manar, and the government does so, it's reasonable to argue that FDD supported censoring al-Manar, rightly or wrongly. Hence the "concerns" raised by the ACLU. I will agree that the material from Rightweb is somewhat more questionable, as they aren't well known per the earlier discussion. As Marvin_Diode has noted, it appears that you've tried to "clean" sourced criticism which is not acceptable, and violates NPOV. How'd you like it if the ACLU page didn't list its critics? Ngchen 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ngchen i agree with your points as to the notability of the ACLU's criticism and FDD worked hard to get al-manar banned anywhere they could. Having said that Antiwar.com is not a RS, but Christian Science Monitor is in my opinion. Antiwar is a website with no notable editorial controls and of a very specific one issue bias so does not meet the standard but you could ask at the policy talk page. (Hypnosadist) 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Antiwar.com features notable experts who have served their country as high ranking administration officials and as officers in the CIA or other intelligence agencies. The specific one issue bias does not disqualify the site, although it can be mentioned so that the reader is aware of its orientation. --Marvin Diode 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Its not the quality of contributors thats the problem, its the editorial quality that i think makes it not an RS. I'm asking at [3] to get clarity for this article (and others) that use the two sources. (Hypnosadist) 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Quick Lesson on Reliable Sources

I feel compelled to remind some of the editors of this article of the following WP:RS guidelines (and I quote from the WP:RS guidelines):

In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views.
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

a few points here:

1) any claims of militarism, being "pro-war" (which implies that these people actually want soldiers and civilians to be killed), partisanship (since the organization claims to be non-partisan), promotion of censorship, being in the pocket of israel, being "war boosters," engaging in spin, being a front for the israeli lobby, or being in favor of "permanent war" (which is ludicrous - even hitler did not call for permanent war) are 'exceptional claims.'

2) WP:RS clearly states that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people."

3) the criticism has not been "cleansed" - it has been cleaned up to adhere to WP:RS - antiwar.com is not a "high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." none of these claims can be supported by multiple reliable sources

4) "Sources with with ... no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves" ... please adhere to this guideline ... think about what editorial oversight any of these sources have - "NONE" will be your answer.

5) the repeated efforts to modify this article in clear violation of WP:RS are what wikipedia calls vandalism and will be reported if it continues.

come on guys! if you have some real criticism about this organization - source it properly and come with something better than the vast right wing jewish conspiracy - this is all unsubstantiated propaganda and has no place on wikipedia. this is the kind of stuff that gives wikipedia a bad name. so please stop. and please note that i will not stop removing these poorly sourced references every time they reappear.

and regarding criticism in general: criticism belongs on the bottom of articles - not at the top - look at any other article on wikipedia - so stop moving it back to the top Larryfooter 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about reliable sources. Perhaps you missed the WP:NPOV policy though? Claiming (non-neutrally) that all paleoconservatism is "extremist," and that "liberal" groups are extremist and by implication wrong clearly violates NPOV. NPOV is absolutely non-negotiable, per Jimbo Wales. People at the reliable sources noticeboard have noted that antiwar.com isn't considered reliable. However, neutrality requires that well-soruced material (positive or negative) not be removed. The fact that FDD is a neoconservative (notice I am purposefully avoiding the loaded terms neocon, neoconartist, neoconnazi, etc.) group is clearly part of any reasonable description of the group. You had perviously asked why the WP:SELFPUB guidelines throw the groups's own page as a source into question. The answer is that it is overly self-promoting. I don't blame them for that. As I have noted, primary sources are tricky to use in a fair manner, as the source has a motive for making itself look good. This is true regardless of where it falls on the politcal spectrum. I will now make modifications taking into account the concerns raised about rightweb, antiwar.com, and such. Oh, and BTW, the ACLU is a well-known group on the liberal end. Their opinion certainly ought to be included because civil liberties are in their area of expertise, and they've issued their opinion. Political magazines, when clearly identified as such with their general orientation, are reliable in representing "their" ideology. They do have editors, writers, and so on so their material is vetted for accuracy. In general, the accuracy of a publication can be judged by its reputation. Recently, WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag were deemed unreliable, not because of their politcal slant (right), but because they have had a history of publishing false and misleading information and rumors. The same cannot be said of publications like National Review, Salon.com, Asia Times Online, The American Conservative, The Nation, and so forth. Being engaged in "spin" might not be the most neutral way of putting it, but generally it is understood that partisans with any agenda will tend to spin. FWIW, WP:RS is not a license to remove any and all negative information simply because the information is negative. If the source is credible, then having a source for negative information is sufficient, unless the material is strongly negative and improbable, at which point an additional source is needed.Ngchen 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Long story short, I'm not sure you know what neoconservatism is. The wikipedia article appears to be a battleground at the moment, but there are several good articles out there outlining its origins. Not saying that this particular group isn't neoconservative, merely that I have yet to see a reliable source that says so. Please produce such a source so we can proceed. You give a nice description of WP:RS, but then don't produce a citation that justifies the fact in question.
On another note, there are plenty of groups that are ideological without being partisan. So I wouldn't be surprised if User:Ngchen found such a source. In the meantime, with founders like Donna Brazile and Charles Schumer (clearly liberal), and Newt Gingrich and Steve Forbes (clearly movement conservatives), the question is at least up for debate. Richard Perle is one good example of a neocon, of course, but my point is that the founders seem to come from across the spectrum.
Lacking a source, the fact that you think it's self-evidently true isn't going to cut the mustard.
Wellspring (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The neoconservatism of the group is perhaps best documented at [4]. As I have argued all along, the Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source. Secondarily, articles from the Asia Times, and so forth have also documented the group's neoconservative nature, rightly or wrongly. I have yet to hear anyone speaking on the group's behalf denying that they're neoconservative. If that happened, of course the denial is worth including.Ngchen (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. CSM is a reliable source. The tag should stand then. Thanks!
Wellspring (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Alas Ngchen, WP:RS is a license to remove anything that is not from a reliable source - and wikipedia defines what a reliable source is - and unfortunately, your sources are not reliable per wikipedia's standards on fact checking and editorial oversight - and again, i will remind you that these guidelines say "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources" - which you have failed to produce - as such, I am again removing your vandalism of this article Larryfooter 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC closure

I am going to close the RFC unless someone objects. Eiler7 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I object, but it looks like the horse is already out of the barn. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)