Talk:Committee on the Present Danger

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This looks like yet another nail in the credibility of Wikipedia. The bulk of this article (including the long stretch in quotes) is ripped straight from a "progressive" group's website, and not a responsible one at that. Pathetic. ________

Ummm . . . . should American-Israel Public Affairs Committee be the American-Israeli Political Action Committee? (AIPAC) I would change it, but I want to be sure of the author's intention here.

Why are there so many quotation marks in this article? Is it copied from another source? -Will Beback 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's this note near the end: Note: See original article for footnoted material, as well as other extensive information on CPD. What up with that? heqs 11:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the whole article is a copyvio from a page that doesn't exist anymore. This needs a complete rewrite (though most of the information copied seems both accurate and mostly NPOV). csloat 22:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been largely copied from a website, RightWeb, which does have a Creative Commons 3.0 license. However, the failure to properly cite or footnote the contributions of that source does appear to violate WP policies. This is being investigated by experts with the copyright violation noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This content was imported from SourceWatch (then Disinfopedia), a website with a compatible license, in 2004 (see [1]). However, much of it seems to have been copied from this website, which was not compatibly licensed. Looking to determine how much of the content was theirs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the SDUSA a neoconservative group? Socialists are usually part of the New Left in the USA, arent they? Not trying to disagree so much as try to get a coherent and truthful answer. holyinsaneone (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

If you read the SD, USA article you'll find this description of the group:

"Although most of SD USA's members are Democrats[citation needed], the organization has maintained ties with both major political parties[citation needed] and has, in the past, supported a strongly interventionist foreign policy.[1] It has been unwavering in its support for Israel, strongly supported the 2003 war in Iraq, and has come to generally favor the international policies of the United States under George W. Bush[citation needed], a stance which is also at odds with the views of the Continental European social democratic parties.[2]"

If you read up on the neoconservative movement, you'll understand that it has its roots in socialism. Seriously.

--John Bahrain (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Please use talk pages for discussing improvements to articles. You may ask questions at the help desk.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lest error stand uncorrected, I should add that John's serious quotation came from an old version of Social Democrats, USA, which has been corrected to comply with WP policies of no original research (as in footnote 2, which stated "See the SI website") and reliable sources; please review the current article, which makes no such claims. Second, Bush's efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan had the support of many social-democratic governments, certainly Göran Persson's in Sweden. Many social-democratic governments, notably Tony Blair's Labour government, also participated to some extent in the Iraq intervention.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20021217213107/http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-42.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

Thanks again for your help! Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add some sources and expand some of the sections on the CPD. I've just finished a PhD that examined the 1970s version of the group, so have some good sources to contribute. nickblackbourn (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Committee on the Present Danger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150813124828/http://committeeonthepresentdanger.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1744&Itemid=89 to http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1744&Itemid=89
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160220161351/http://committeeonthepresentdanger.org/index.php?option=com_cpdfront&Itemid=90 to http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/index.php?option=com_cpdfront&Itemid=90

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee on the Present Danger has been "reborn", so to speak, as evidenced by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piT8Zmuo6J4, as well as https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/03/25/live-stream-blue-ribbon-team-launches-the-committee-on-the-present-danger-china%EF%BB%BF/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreskX (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article in the NYT, which includes some quotes that would improve the

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/us/politics/china-red-scare-washington.html
A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington
By Ana Swanson
The New York Times
July 20, 2019

The administration paints the crackdown as necessary to protect the United States. But there are growing concerns that it is stoking a new red scare, fueling discrimination against students, scientists and companies with ties to China and risking the collapse of a fraught but deeply enmeshed trade relationship between the world’s two largest economies.

“I’m worried that some people are going to say, because of this fear, any policy is justifiable,” said Scott Kennedy, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

--Nbauman (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]