Talk:Project for the New American Century/Survey/Archive

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. V V 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. V V 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. V V 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. V V 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. V V 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? V V 06:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although it is, I'm sure, clear to everyone how certain sentence fragments can be inherently pov, I do not see how letters can be inherently pov. I think this is a misapplication of the idea of being specific and concrete in disputes. Although letters certainly are specific and concrete, the dispute is not over spelling, but the presentation of information in a neutral matter. Kevin Baas | talk 20:51, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit of a mess

There's been a rather dramatic proliferation of survey questions focusing on some rather fine minutiae, and furthermore the discussion of those questions has started turning into a straight-out argument about exactly the issues that the survey was supposed to be addressing by vote. I'm going to make an attempt to salvage this later tonight unless anyone objects, by paring down the question count somewhat (merging similar questions where possible) and possibly moving some more of the discussion onto the main talk: page. Bryan 23:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A request: Please don't waste everyone's time by making flagrantly loaded questions. Very Verily 11:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Such as these, for example? Bryan 02:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Very Verily 07:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup work now (a day late, but this is just a hobby after all :). I'm also considering removing the "Which, if any, of the following fragments are inherently POV?" question because it seems too focused on context-sensitive minutiae to be of much long-term use in settling this and because it's rather long. "Do the statements, taken together, constitute a "reasonable" criticism?" is also probably redundant with the previous question asking about individual statements, IMO. Any objections so far? Bryan 02:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have basically restored KB's loaded/strawman questions. Very Verily 07:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't restore any questions, I deleted the ones I pointed out above and moved some discussion over to the main talk page. Bryan 07:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hence restored. E.g., who said "most critics"? Not I. Very Verily 07:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As in the question "The paragraph should say that most critics of PNAC believe the paper in question was proposing the invasion of Iraq"? I added that one when I first added questions beyond the "which version do you prefer?" starting issue. Bryan 07:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that one. It's a transparent strawman. Very Verily 08:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your preferred version of the paragraph has the line "Many also incorrectly claim that this "new Pearl Harbor" is stated to be needed to justify war on Iraq." If we were to change the wording from "most" to "many", would it cease to be a transparent strawman in your estimation? Bryan 23:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a confusing strawman then. Also, I'm reluctant to dignify those types with the word critic. Very Verily 11:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just can't believe you people are for real. This isn't The National Enquirer. Very Verily 07:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I think it is (assuming I'm included in "you people"). Bryan 07:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are. If you don't know why I think that, you did not familiarize yourself with my objections. Very Verily 08:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean yes you are included in "you people", not that yes you are sure. Very Verily 22:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to have to ask you to explain a little more explicitly, then. What did I do that makes it seem like I think this is the National Enquirer? You agreed that the questions I removed were "flagrantly loaded," and the only other thing I did was to move some discussions that had gone off the topic of this survey and onto the topic of what the correct result of the survey should be. Bryan 23:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me be the first to respond to Bryan, and defend the two questions: pov fragments - they are not context-sensitive. For example "incorrectly claim" - the issue is whether it is npov to endorse a pov by saying that a claim is made "correctly" or to attack it by saying it is made "incorrectly", and whether in fact this obviates the entire point of using "claim" for npov. Notice that my description never once brought in context. This is a case in point against the argument that these sentence fragments are inherently context-dependant, which is the purported fundamental (and sole) justification for their disqualification.

Well, I suspect I can think of contexts where any of those fragments could be POV and any would be NPOV, but I guess that will just mean I won't vote for any of them. :) If you feel strongly that this is a reasonable question I won't push for its removal, I'm just worrying a bit about how many questions there are still. Bryan 23:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This "inherent POV" talk is a crock. "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica incorrectly claims that Lincoln was killed by an air-to-air missile" is not POV. Very Verily 23:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's just one particular example. The sentence fragment could also be used like this: "Joseph Smith, Jr. incorrectly claims that he translated the Book of Mormon from inscriptions on gold plates." That is very POV. However, it's only POV in context; the sentence fragment itself is meaningless on its own. Mark your calenders, everyone, for on this very day VV and I have agreed on something - though we nevertheless shouldn't really be discussing it here, that's what voting is going to be for :) Bryan 23:49, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Voting is a fallback. Discussion is the real deal. Voting is just a way to trounce a minority who have facts and logic on their side. And your Joseph Smith example is off-topic; my point is that "incorrectly claim" is not inherently POV (that is, it can not be POV, not that it never is). Very Verily 00:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fallback for when discussion has failed. Which I believe it has - you're now apparently arguing with my agreement with you on this "inherent POV" issue. Bryan 00:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, then if we agree that "inherently POV" is a bogus issue, we can strike that question from our "survey". Very Verily 03:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, because apparently Kevin considers it a serious question. This debate isn't over what the answer to it is, it's over whether it should be included in the survey. If someone seriously supports it, I think it should be left in. Bryan 05:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then we're taking a survey on changing the NPOV policy? Very Verily 23:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about we add "none of the above" and/or "sentence fragments cannot be inherently POV" options to that poll question? If enough people disagree with that, then we can bring that particular issue up separately on the NPOV policy talk page. "none of the above" should probably be added to the other multi-part question too, to allow people to distinguish between opposition and abstention. Bryan 18:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's hard for me not to laugh. Very Verily 11:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the "taken together" question - that was actually the original question. It was in response to someone disputing the reasonableness of a criticism, and thus whether that criticism should be included. (on the apparent logic that "unreasonable" criticisms ipso facto don't deserve mention.) The question before that was a decomposition of the criticism, so that the issue can be fleshed out and the nature and origin of any confusion or discrepancy be made clear. Kevin Baas | talk 17:11, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

I have visions of those questions ending up with everyone either voting "yes" for all of them or "no" for all of them down the board, but I guess I should try to be more optimistic. I won't push for the removal of these either, though perhaps we could make the survey at least seem a little shorter by adding the "do all these statements taken together etc." question to the end of the numbered list rather than making it a standalone header? Bryan 23:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We've been hashing out the questions for about a week now, I think it's about time to get this survey started. An last-minute minor tweaks or objections remaining? Bearing in mind that nothing in life is perfect, nor does it have to be. :) Bryan 18:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Last-minute minor tweaks? I didn't realize there were any tweaks at all. This list looks suspiciously like Kb's initial set of loaded, irrelevant, strawman questions. Maybe can we just get back to reverting each other? That was much more rewarding than this unidirectional conversation. Very Verily 11:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Five out of the current eleven questions were originated by me, actually, and I'm about to merge two of the others so that'll make it five out of ten. Also, I have never reverted you; I stopped the revert war. Please try to pay closer attention to the bases of your accusations. Bryan 20:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The English word we can be both inclusive and exclusive. Very Verily 08:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been gone for a while - I agree with Bryan's suggested changes. for the pov fragment section, how about something like "in the context of the disputed paragraph" or "in most cases" or "has a relatively high potential to be"?

On the second question, I also think it would be reasonable for someone who put all yes's for the former question, to, by logic, put yes for the latter. But I don't assume that much from people anymore. In any case, i think it's a good idea to subsume the latter question under it's former. Kevin Baas | talk 13:29, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

I'll add those tweaks, then, and this evening I'll start the survey rolling. Bryan 20:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you start a survey with these questions, you know of course that I will never, ever accept its results. But I guess that's the goal, isn't it? Very Verily 08:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've said that since I first proposed the survey, let alone started working out questions for it, so although it's not my goal I guess it's hardly unexpected. You've had over a week now to propose new questions or modifications to existing ones, were these really the best you could come up with? I've no sympathy, you clearly had no interest in constructive participation. Bryan 08:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I was more receptive before this whole comedy got really rolling. I thought there was a chance of at least getting relevant and appropriate survey questions. And I have stated here my opposition to several of the questions, but there they are. I'd also be more motivated to participate if there was any indication my issues were being taken seriously. Or that there was even an interest in fair questions. Guess we have a date with the ArbCom in about a week. Congratulations. (Oh, and I noticed you removed my new slew of questions; are you the surveymaker here?) Very Verily 09:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Re-adding the previous comment after it was repeatedly removed by the vandal Shorne below. See page history. Very Verily 18:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Please proceed. He is only here to make trouble, as everyone knows. Perhaps you and I can combine our requests for arbitration against this impossible troublemaker. Shorne 11:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing; should I move this rather lengthy discussion into an archive sub-subpage when the survey begins? A lot of it refers to stuff that's changed, and the length will likely make things complicated for the voters. There would of course be a prominent link to it from here. Bryan 20:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please archive this rubbish. It only clutters up the survey. As can be seen from VeryVerily's behaviour, the discussion was of no value anyway. Shorne 21:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Archive please. Kevin Baas | talk 22:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

BTW, I'm moving the following discussion down here and changing the question's wording to reflect Kevin's clarification: Bryan 20:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it important to have the full quote, rather than only part of it?

I think this is the winner for sheer comedic value. What constitutes a "full quote"? All 80+ pages of RAD? Considering it is quoted wholly out of context, one might think that would be the only way to be "fully" sure. But no it means that Kb gets the word transformation in there, so he can spin his cute, pretty little deception. Then it's a full quote! Oh, it makes perfect sense. Very Verily 11:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By "full quote" is meant the sentence.

BTW, you could have simply asked "What is meant by 'full quote'?" The derogatory ranting was completely unneccessary. Kevin Baas | talk 13:14, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

The derogatory ranting underscored the tricksy nature of the question. Very Verily 20:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Derogatory ranting does not exist where good faith is the rule. In other words, I don't think you are operating in good faith. Anything that appears to me as sarcasm or what have you, I nonetheless respond to as if it was serious, regardless of how ridiculous the response may sound to me or others. I always act as if the others are serious in what they say, and always am serious in what I say, because no progress can be made in discussion if the parties are not seriously trying to communicate. Kevin Baas | talk 01:26, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I do not believe the questions you formulated were in good faith. My evidence for this is pretty substantial. Very Verily 07:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)