Talk:International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

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:

(No byline given) (August 5–11, 2006). "Disinformation". The Economist.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

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)[reply]

just edited the article to reflect this but it already mentioned their activities in mexico before, too. - Liliana Dioguardi 07:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory[edit]

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)[reply]

I shortened the section and removed strong POV to make the article comply with Wikipedia policy. The edited version kept the links to each side of the argument. So now readers who want to research this in more detail can follow the information and decide for themselves. - ConsultantJoe 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personally I can't help you but check with the original author or editor. But as a rule of thumb you shouldn't edit the entry as substantially as you have done without discussing changes here in Talk first with the other editors. See the notice above on top of this page. Two of your IP addresses (194.129.60.10 + 88.108.113.17) appear in the log with substantial changes and it is not good Wikipedia practice for one of the involved parties to push a POV fork like that using anon IPs. Don't be surprised if someone reverts you for that reason alone. Your claims may be true, or they may not, but we must still observe the encyclopedia's policy. To me, personally, it seems like you have a lot of circumstantial evidence. Some of it sounds pretty convincing. But it also sounds like you still need something real, which you don't have yet, or you wouldn't be posting your public plea for more information. - ConsultantJoe 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don't worry to much about breaching etiquette, we don't bite the newcomers on Wikipedia just be bold. Mieciu K 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Not so fast, this is more of the same, conjecture. Even if it is true it borders original research because the only claim we have of ICDISS citing the above is Edward's article where ICDISS (in the article itself) tells him that he is wrong, so how much else is right or wrong. At the very least wait for their reply but even then it is iffy. - 87.118.96.153 13:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I wouldn't say that. It is not obsession. But there is nothing wrong with sleeping on it. The really good Wiki articles tend to evolve over time. The bad edits are when we all rush in and individually push to include facts which do not reflect general consensus, and like someone says above, there is a lot of conjecture still and you don't seem too sure of everything yourself yet, so there is nothing wrong with taking it slow little by little. Plus: I note that since I started this subsection a few days ago, we still haven't heard their side of the story. I'll knock on some doors and see if I can't get some more info on this. My opinion: It is important too, as the subject of the article. - Mauco 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it out till they get a chance to respond. - 207.210.106.123 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nominating for deletion as hoax[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If a reporter for the Economist was shown to have completely fabricated an article about something, would it remain accessible in the newspaper's online archives? Daniel Case 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might (in regards to an unrelated item, we here on Wikipedia have found inaccuracies in BBC's reporting, for instance, and corrected it on Wiki but BBC has not corrected anything on their website). But in this case, you can rule that out. I am the veteran editor that Edward Lucas (the reporter from Economist) refers to in his post above, and I am in direct contact with him now; off-Wiki. We'll be sharing notes and information, meanwhile I can tell you that he certainly seems well intentioned and not like the kind of chap who would intentionally fabricate an article about something. - Mauco 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing him of that. My point has been that, if the organization this article is about is shown to be some sort of fig leaf for the FIS, then it does not merit an article of its own. It (and the other Russian disinfo campaigns Edward Lucas documents in his article) could be covered in something more general and more encylopedic like Post-Soviet Russian disinformation campaigns. Daniel Case 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to William, but his edits only go back to March of 2006. Considering that the status of this organization pre-2006 is key to deciding the fate of this article, or subequent edits proposed by Mr. Lucas, I don't know if that's veteran enough for attending an ICDISS conference to be admissable. Unless I'm being a jerk. jazz 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this concern is justified. If the conference was held, surely there must be some identifiable attendees. It's not as though supporting Westphalian sovereignty, or being sympathetic to the Transnistrian administration is an opinion so controversial that no-one can safely express it.

I am not sure that a fabricated story in The Economist is the right analogy. So long as some people think (or maintain) that the ICDISS exists, then there should be an entry on it, highlighting the controversy and views of both sides, I think. Edwardlucas 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The proof of the negative is referring to allegations that they are a CIA or Kremlin disinformation effort, not the allegation that they did not exist before 2006. --Dylan Thurston 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is understood; the point is that they are attempting to reframe the question in a way which falsely makes their critics appear to be unreasonable. True, they are accused of being a Russian front, but they are also accused of not having existed before this year. This latter point, at least, should be easy to refute -- if it isn't true.--Sproul 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One point I've just noticed is the claim of TV mentions in 2003. This would seem pretty strong evidence in their favor if they could point to the relevant programs, since it would imply that they were around in some form well before critics claim they were fabricated. So, why not give some details and settle the issue. JQ 07:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I have been asking for verifiable references for these TV mentions, but so far not had any response. They also said they would send me the receipt from the Beacon Hotel in Washington DC, where they say they met for their conference in April. Another interesting wrinkle to this story is that if you look at the source code for the members area on their site, it includes the names of two well-known American journalists. This might lead a googler to believe that these were among their distinguished members. I have written asking for an explanation of this strange piece of website design but so far not had an answer. Edwardlucas 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Williamwellborn 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_D._Kaplan Thomas_Barnett

Westphalian sovereignty and Contingent sovereignty[edit]

These articles were created, apparently as a "cover story", by User:Liliana Dioguardi. The current content is entirely or almost entirely produced by her. In light of recent events, I have made a request at several corners of wikipedia for expert help in rebuilding these articles Bwithh 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]