Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:01, 15 March 2015

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Untitled

I got rid of the huge, over-sized photo, on the basis that none was better than the problems such a big photo poses for reading the page. Please forgive, if this is a dud-move. bkjmilller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkjmiller (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "war crimes prosecution" section is incorrect. If you read the times article cited, it doesn't say that the german government is prosecuting. What's happened is that private individuals have filed a complaint with German prosecutors. Cttck 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is much difference in content between the current and 09:32, 5 February 2006 revisions. Moreover a couple of paragraphs are completely copied, from the first google result.

Why has there been so much content removed, why are all the categories gone and why are no sources cited and no external links?

(will do my best to update as I see fit)

Jabbi 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In Feb of 2006, someone deleted the material linking Stephen Cambone with Abu Gharaib, the mention of his extreme unpopularity with the US military, and other controversial matters. All of the controversial material was replaced with standard biographical stuff. The changes were made by an unregistered user at IP = 72.66.19.22, which traces back to the US government. That is all that I can determine from the available evidence. I think we can conclude that someone acting on behalf of the subject "cleaned up" the article to make it more favorable. Since the original article violated the Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View rule, was very poorly written in the first place, had very few references, and was not up to Misplaced Pages standards, I suggest that this article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, with more and better references and careful adherence to a neutral point of view.

Aetheling 05:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, this is completely biased against this fellow Cambone!! Full of speculation, heresay, and is generally libelous to Cambone.

• Your comments will carry more weight if you sign your comments. Mr. Cambone is a politician who has been appointed to a series of political positions of great sensitivity and responsibility. Every action he takes is subject to public scrutiny and comment. Misplaced Pages has a duty to report the controversies that surround such people with care and objectivity. We do not have the option of ignoring or suppressing hot political controversy. If you have read somewhere that Jeffrey St. Clair did not report that Cambone was responsible for intelligence operations like Gray Fox, or that he was not referred to as Rumsfeld's "chief henchman", or that the "revolver" quote is fictitious, then please add this contribution to the article, with a reference to the publication that made this claim. Similarly, if you have read positive evaluations of Cambone's professional actions or career, then you can add them as well, with citations. The important thing in these cases is for Misplaced Pages to report the controversy, with citations, and not to take a position one way or the other. — Aetheling 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PNAC membership

At the bottom of p.90 (last page) of the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses where Cambone's name appears, there is a statement as follows.

The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions.

Furthermore, this peer-reviewed sources describes Cambone as one of the "authors" of the report.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And you seem to forget the rest -- that it does not in any way imply at all any agreement with the report which is what not necessarily represent the views of the project participants says. If you can claim a person is a "member" of a group when he might vehemently disagree with every single statement it makes - that is a very interesting concept of "member" indeed. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Being listed as a person who may disagree with every single position of a group no more makes a person a "member" of that organization than it can make a horse's tail into a leg.

"The other ‘‘listed’’ groups cited in the report were International Workers Order (Goldberg was alleged to be one of the group’s ‘‘representatives’’ in Chicago), the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (he reportedly ‘‘led the discussion on the anti-alien bills’’ at a 1940 conference), American Youth Congress (his name appeared on a mailing list), United Spanish Aid Committee (his name appeared on a list found in the group’s files), the National Emergency Conference (he allegedly signed ‘‘the call’’ for this 1939 conference held ‘‘in protest of legislation’’ believed to threaten ‘‘the civil rights and liberties not only of aliens but of native and naturalized Americans’’), International Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and Professions (he reportedly made reservations at the Continental Hotel for 20 persons ‘‘expected to attend’’ the group’s 1946 convention), Russian War Relief (an unknown source charged he was ‘‘a signer of the Chicago Committee of Russian War Relief’’), and National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (an informant said his name was on ‘‘a list of sponsors’’ of a ‘‘national conference of all civil rights groups to be held in Washington in June, 1940’’ to establish the organization).

As the note you cite states that being listed does not state any agreement with anything, I find it a weak source for asserting "membership" in anything at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it. It means that the views are PNAC's, collectively, not the individuals or their other associations (including other think tanks).

If they are contributing to the production of a policy study, then it seems to be a matter of course that they are counted as members of the group that put the study together and put it out. The RS certainly consider them to be members, (co-)authors of the report, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles