This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 September 20. The result of the discussion was redirect to Astroturfing. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 August 7. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article has been
Old and new information tricks:
|
I was at one of their conferences recently (April 22 and 23, 2006). I am not a member but a friend who is a member brought me, and from the material which I have it clearly appears that their main office is now based in Mexico at this point in time. They still have their old mailing address in Washington DC too, but the Mexican address was listed first and the phone numbers for the organizers were all Mexico City numbers. This should be mentioned in the article and it is a reflection of the multinational nature of the work that this group does. Note, however, that the conference was held in Washington D.C. and the vast majority of the participants were Americans. - Mauco 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
To the anonymous user who just edited: I discussed this conspiracy theory last week with another very well-respected editor, TSO1D, and to not push one POV or another we need to present both sides or none at all. Unless proven, this aspect of the article (the conspirary theory part) should be brief and not dominate the main body. - Mauco 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi I am the author of the two Economist articles. I would be most interested in hearing verifiable proof of the ICDISS's previous existence, biographical details for its members, descriptions of its past activities, its legal status and its funding. I can be reached at edwardlucas(at)economist.com Comments can also be posted on my website at edwardlucas.blogspot.com
Thanks very much for that--and sorry for breaching etiquette. I've never contributed on this scale before. Those IPs are my home and office internet providers and not deliberately anonymous. I would like to suggest that all the ICDISS's claims be put as "it says" or "supporters say" (and equally we can have "critics say" for the other side). I am not asserting categorically that they are phoney, but I am highlighting a curious lack of independent verification of what they say.
On another related subject, I have tried to reach Liliana Dioguardi who posted the original entry for the ICDISS, but my message to her has been deleted from her personal message board (it's still visible on a previous version). So if she's reading this, please get in touch.
Thanks and once again apologies for my initial heavy-handedness. I will live and learn. Edward
Edward from the Economist here again. I don't want to edit the page myself because I am parti pris, but I would like to add that I have now used wayback to see if the mention of the ICDISS on the Venezuelan website is all that it seems. You may recall that this is the only independent proof they were able to offer of their pre-2006 existence. However a search of both Spanish and English versions shows shows that until 2005 at least (long after the events concerned) there was no mention of ICDISS. That suggests that it was added this year. If you paste this link into your browser
http://web.archive.org/web/20050324042941/militaresdemocraticos.surebase.com/sp/index.html
which shows the site as of 2005 and compare it with http://militaresdemocraticos.com/sp/index.html which is the current version you will see what I mean.
Of course I may be wrong about this, or there may be an innocent explanation that I have not thought of. I have asked Megan Stephenson of the ICDISS to comment before I include this in another article. But I wonder if would be a service to wikipedia readers to include a mention of this on the site as follows
The ICDISS cites http://militaresdemocraticos.com/sp/index.html and http://militaresdemocraticos.com/en/ as evidence of its existence before 2006 and its involvement in activity other than promoting Transdniestria. At first sight this website does appear to acknowledge their help in a sentence in pale grey type at the bottom of both pages. However, using web archiving tools, it appears that these sentences have been added quite recently, probably in 2006, and certainly long after the events which the website content deals with.
Or is that too controversial? I leave it for neutral umpires to decide. 88.108.113.17 10:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Edward
As a fellow anonymous editor :-), I think it's an entirely verifiable, interesting information and should go into the main page. 84.242.86.47 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Edward here again. The ICDISS produced their involvement in Venezuela as their only proof of verifiable prior existence. Now I find that it is not really "prior". What would be the appropriate way of reflecting this in the entry. Or am I getting obsessive here? 213.212.70.108 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep it out till they get a chance to respond. - 207.210.106.123 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Their explanation (in an e-mail to me) is that they didn't want to attract attention when the anti-Chavez protests were going on, but now they are happy to. Doesn't quite make sense. ICDISS mention is so tiny and discreet, only on two pages on the site, that it is odd. Second, if they are now happy to attract attention, then why don't they take what ought to be the very easy step of providing verifiable proof of their prior existence? But perhaps they will do that in the coming days and then the controversy will be over. Edwardlucas 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Just having read the Economist article and the results of Mr. Lucas's (Hey, I thought you guys were supposed to be anonymous yourselves, but whatever ...) excellent reporting, I believe we ought to alert our readers of the dubious nature of this organization.
If this is truly part of a Russian dezinformatsiya project, it is a hoax article. It should be tagged as such, and nominated for deletion as it has no place on Wikipedia. Even if it were not, the organization is just not notable enough for .
I'm sorry that all the good work that was done here by Mr. Lucas and others has to go to waste (we thank you for it, however). Perhaps it can be used in another article; perhaps this can be merged into disinformation or something else having to do with Russian intelligence. But we cannot allow Wikipedia to be used this way if this is what is occurring. Daniel Case 02:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Edward Lucas here. We are normally anonymous but I thought it would be absurd in this context. I would be sorry to see this whole article deleted. First, it is not completely clear that the organisation is entirely bogus. My reporting raises lots of strange inconsistencies but there may be an innocent explanation. We are still waiting. If I understand him rightly, William Mauco, a veteran contributor to Wikipedia including this page, says he has actually been to one of their conferences.
Secondly, even if it proves to be entirely bogus, then it deserves recording in case anyone in future comes across mention of this organisation and wonders what it really is 194.129.60.10 09:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
On another but related subject, ICDISS has changed their website to add the following
FAQ: What is your response to claims that ICDISS does not exist?
Although we do not maintain a dedicated office, and have found that we work best without one, we do have a small and highly qualified group of active members who network internationally and in real-time, using mostly the Internet. Through our joint efforts, we are able to raise funding to carry out our programs, produce legal research and policy reports and hold two conferences per year; in short - to work towards making a difference.
The Council's work has been linked, at various times, to both CIA- and Kremlin-based "disinformation" efforts. While we can not prove a negative, we can merely point out that neither is true, and that these accusations originate with political actors who disagree with our research findings or with the work that we do. Occasionally, these charges have then been repeated on TV (twice, 2003) or in the press (once, 2006) so as to question the work and scholarly contributions of our members or to undermine the effectiveness of the work of our members.
I find this very interesting as they are not being asked to prove a negative. The negative would be "This organisation does not exist" and that is what I am trying to do. ICDISS only has to prove a positive "We exist" (in the form of verifiable information from other sources that shows that they have an existence before 2006, and dealing with subjects other than Transdniestria. So far they haven't done that. Edwardlucas 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the bit of source code that Edward is referring to, I just copied the bit from the ICDISS website specifically
http://www.icdiss.org/members.html, I dont know what it means exactly, but it is worth noting.
<meta name="keywords" content="International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty,democracy,sovereignty,diplomacy, nation building,intervention,nation state,global governance,state formation,state reconstruction,weak states,breakaway states,new nations,emerging nations,new countries,emerging,statebuilding,statehood,international law,pentagons new map,state transition,coming anarchy,sovereign states,transition,Robert D. Kaplan,Thomas Barnett,Robert Kaplan,PNM,core,Thomas PM Barnett,Pentagon's New Map">
Williamwellborn 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Robert_D._Kaplan Thomas_Barnett