Talk:International Crisis Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Criticism section

I just paraphrased this from the information on the web page. Please add any information you can find. Especially helpful would be info from other sources. What people think of ICG's reports and how they affect world policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.113.57 (talk • contribs).

Why was the section about criticisms of the ICG removed? Personally, I believe it does good work, but a balanced view would surely include detractors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenThackeray (talk • contribs).

Dear Friends,

I have deleted the response of the ICG to its criticism. While I aknowledge the good things that ICG does, and in no way endorse slander, at the same time Wikipedia is not a 1) a promotional billboard for the ICG 2) a place where oppositing parties can debate. It is an encyclopedia which should give balanced views. If you want to fight it over, please go to a forum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaneck (talk • contribs).

Dear Editor

If it an encyclopedia that is supposed to give balance views then why include the ranting of some Danish academic who makes entirely unjust criticisms? Why shouldn't there be a right of response? It is not balanced to include these criticisms when they are false, can be shown to be false and have been shown to be false. Responding to false criticisms is not promotional. If you don't endorse slander, then why allow on the site while not allowing a response? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.238.204.99 (talk • contribs).

Dear Friends,

The Criticism has been watered down to a very thin point. I think this is just enough to show that there is criticism without harming the good name of ICG. In response to

[quote]If you don't endorse slander, then why allow on the site while not allowing a response? [/quote]

The whole section is or was a promotional brochure for the ICG. I viewed the part about criticism as a response to the overly positive tone of the article. The part about criticism struck a balance . There is no need for a counter response, this would create a response to a response, thus turining this page into a forum. Lets leave it the way it is now, allowing the reader to formulate his own opinion. Which I bet still wil not be very negative, at the least the reader will be aware of different views om the ICG, which is completely legitimate to have in an encyclopedia.

kindest of regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.131.108 (talk • contribs).

Dear Editor

But why allow false charge on the site? The charge that ICG's finances lack transparency is just plain false and is of course suggestive that ICG has something to hide. You can read fully, independently audited accounts in the annual report that is available on organisation's the website. Non-profit organisations have to maintain very high levels of financial transparency and disclosure in order to maintain that status. Non-profits that receive money from governments are also audited often. Every report ICG produces contains a list of its funders and the information is also available on a web site. This isn't a matter of the reader forming their own opinion -- it is a blatantly, proveably false lie and it shouldn't be included in something that purports to be a fact-based assessment of an organisation. Your site says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" So why include a verifiably false charge? It is just not legitimate to enclude false statements in an encyclopedia on the grounds that they are a different point of view. That just opens the door to the most ridiculous positions. You can have your own point of view but you can't have your own facts. I can see why you might link to the critique but to include it as fact undermines your credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.238.204.99 (talk • contribs).

Dear Friends,

Indeed, i have read your post, then the Oberg's critique and finally the information about funding. I have refrased the critique and erased he part about funding. If it is still not to your liking, and if you have strong arguments I will again refrase it. Let me know. My aim is to work on the quality of the article, not to be a reactionair.

Kindest of regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.157.131.108 (talk • contribs).

Dear Editor and Friends,

where has the section the Editor said he refrased gone? Why does half the article consist of an unsourced quote by Kofi Annan; why can't there be one sentence uttering some critique?

best regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.164.229.102 (talk • contribs).

I have deleted the quote of Anan, there is absolutely no room for windowdressing in an enceclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I have removed the "criticism" section. It violates WP:SPS - essentially this is an article published by Øberg on his own site, which got cut and pasted onto someone else's site.

Full disclosure: I used to work for ICG (but don't any more) and the article in question includes an unfounded personal attack on me personally. (WP:ATTACK)

Nwhyte 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, Nwhyte, but WP:ATTACK does not prohibit this. I've just read the now removed criticism section. It did not slander persons or include any attack on you or any person, the source possibly does. It did raise some concerns about the ICG (valid or not - that's not to Wikipedia to decide) and emphasized the word "allegedly". So it seemed to be WP:NPOV for me. WP:SPS also does not seem to be valid, as it is not a blog or something similar, but a press message ("Press Info #219" [1]) of another think tank (" Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research [2]"). Sijo Ripa 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about WP:ATTACK; admittedly I was not mentioned in the text removed from the entry (though it still linke to an article elsewhere which does attack me unjustly). However, I think I am on firmer ground with respect to WP:SPS. The original source for the article is not the mirror site given in the text I removed, but here. The Transnational Foundation is Øberg's own little thinktank, and effectively anything published under his name on their web-site is self-published. WP:SPS applies not only to blogs but to any essentially self-published source. If Øberg had got his little rant published by a "reliable third-party" (to use the words of WP:SPS) it would be a different matter; but he didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwhyte (talk • contribs) 09:47, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is (of course) valid for the mirror site, but it is not for the original source. So if the criticism would be put back in, the mirror source should of course be replaced by the original source. I don't really know what the status of the think tank is, but a quick glance shows that the think tank has quite some contributors and publications, and thus the comment that it's "Øberg's own little thinktank" does not sound to be (entirely?) true and would bring Wikipedia into POV waters. What I suggest is to put Øberg's criticism only back in if several other related or non-related criticisms are found in order to avoid an emphasis on his criticism. The criticism should also be properly attributed (e.g. Jan Oberg of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research criticized the ICG (...)). What do you think? Sijo Ripa 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough; I would add that I don't think you will find much else that supports Øberg's credibility (and for obvious reasons, I am not about to go looking for it). NB that while dozens of WikiPedia articles accept ICG reports as a reputable source, Øberg's outfit is cited by fewer than ten!Nwhyte 19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then Øberg's criticism remains removed until then because we agree - based on WP:UNDUE - that no undue weight should be given to one author (Jan Øberg). I don't want to make a judgment whether the think tank is a reliable source (WP:RS). I personally think that the reliability criterion is mostly relevant for citing facts, not opinions. An opinion, if cited as an opinion and is rightly attributed, seldom violates the reliability criterion, but often does violate the undue weight criterion. Sijo Ripa 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear all

A much better critique is available from Spinwatch [3]. The questions they raise are regarding:

a) Research credentials of the organisation - very few, if any researchers or professionals in peace/conflict resoultion - mainly ex-politicians.

b) Non-governmental/independent - 40% of funding from governments, 43% foundations, 16% private sector, NGOs virtually non existant

c) Commentary rather than research - virtually no analysis of Western government role in conflicts, and also factual errors plus highly simplified interpretations of situations

d) Conflict prevention - a misnomer. Conflict is inevitable, the question is how to peacefully resolve conflicts

The best quote IMHO

"Closed doors, close interaction with elites who have all the formal and informal connections to power! What power? Most often the power of governments, such as the US, the UK - but also Australia, Japan and Denmark - that have repeatedly chosen to not do something about conflicts when they could but later chose to aggravate the conflicts by exporting their arms and simplifying images of "good" versus "evil" by bombing and occupying - power who does not even bother to learn the history, philosophy, vocabulary, methods or potentials of non-violence but, instead, increasingly promote violence as an integral part of their worldwide conflict "prevention" - power that is pretty isomorphic with the structure of ICG and its worldwide operation."Pacificbiblio 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Shifted the previous comment to end of page)

I'm afraid this is just a reprint of Øberg's article, and is not an independent account at all!

I would contend that a) is inaccurate, in that the author has not looked at those who actually do the ICG's research in the field; b) is extraordinary, in that NGOs are in general recipients rather than donors, so complaining that one NGO does not receive funding from other NGOs is really rather hatstand; c) is inaccurate in that the ICG reports frequently do precisely what the writer accuses them of not doing; and d) is frankly incomprehensible, as indeed is the "money quote" provided.Nwhyte 18:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)