Talk:International Republican Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian The subject of this article, International Republican Institute, has edited Wikipedia as 206.57.121.14 (talk · contribs) and 12.160.57.46 (talk · contribs).
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Is IRI loosely associated with the Republican Party or not?

The anonymous contributor whose changes i reverted seems to think that IRI is unrelated to the Republican Party.

Let me cite the present text at National Endowment for Democracy:

NED was created with a view to creating a broad base of political support for the organization. NED received funds from the US government and distributes funds to four other organizations; one each created by the Republican Party and Democratic parties, one created by the Chamber of Commerce and one by the AFL-CIO.
The four affiliated organizations are Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) or Solidarity Center.

This looks to me like a reasonably factual statement which also sounds quite credible - neither of the two big political factions of the business party (Republicans vs Democrats) would have accepted that the other gain too much relative power in foreign policy, and by also having organisations for a big business organisation and a big union organisation, it respected the balance of political forces at that time: Republicans -> IRI, Democrats -> NDI, Chamber of Commerce -> CIPE, AFL-CIO -> ACILS/Solidarity Center.

So loosely affiliated IMHO seems a realistic NPOV description of the IRI - Republican Party connection. Boud 00:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked up the board of directors and it does appear they are all in some way, shape, or form connected to the Republican Party. Between donations to political candidates and simple googling to find out more, these people are all connected to the Republicans. "Non-partisan" is the absolute opposite description of this organization. It's a partisan project, much as I assume the other's listed above are linked to the Democratic Party. I recommend that someone look through and include links to the Republican party for every single person mentioned in the board list. --Pckelly 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Additional Note: the IRI web site Facts page currently has the FAQ: "Is IRI affiliated with the Republican Party? No, IRI is a nonpartisan organization, not affiliated with any political party. IRI is guided by the fundamental American principles of individual liberty, the rule of law and the entrepreneurial spirit." At the same time, on its history page it links to an excerpt from an article by Frank J. Fahenkopf stating that institute is actually "owned" by the Republican party: "Out of these very tentative and informal beginnings grew a series of Republican international efforts that have found their collective expression in our involvement in the proposals to create a new National Endowment for Democracy and our own Republican Institute for International Affairs. The Endowment and the Institute will fill a significant void in the Party's international activity by providing both the structure and funding through which the Party's exposure to, and understanding of, international affairs will continue to expand.". The name is slightly different, but the reference seems clear. The National Endowment for Democracy web pages asserts that the IRI was "created by" the Republican party. There seems to be some obfuscation going on here. For comparison purposes, the Democratic Party counterpart institute web page openly asserts its relationship to the Democratic party. For my part I think it is wrong for tax dollars to fund party activities, and even more wrong to obfuscate it when it happens.

How exactly is this group not an instrument of the Republican Party? The whole f-ing Board of Directors are Republicans. Not only that, but judging from the types of Republicans on their Board, they're a f-ing bunch of crazy Wingnut psychos. "Nonpartisan" should be dropped. "Republican affiliated" or "conservative leaning" needs to be added. 22:18, 6 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.132.140 (talk • contribs)
The issue is WP:RS and WP:NOR. Yes, the IRI is lead only by Republicans, the Board has only Republicans, and there is a Democratic counterpart that owns up to being connected to the Democratic Party. But until someone quotes a newspaper article stating that the IRI is "loosely affiliated" or whatever with the Republican Party, it's not accepable to put this into the article. With a reliable source, it's unacceptable to remove such statements, too. John Broughton | Talk 00:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've worked for both IRI and NDI and there is really far less to this than meets the eye. IRI is not "affiliated" with the Repubican party -- loosely or otherwise -- but it is run by Republicans (mostly) and draws on the human resources of the Republican party. This isn't some kind of secret -- in fact, the organization was set up for exactly this purpose, as was NDI for the democrats. I've edited the paragraph accordingly while leaving in the biased link. Waverly57 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)waverly57

[edit] IRI intervention in Poland - AWS

i'm archiving a few quotes from: http://www.iri.org/countries.asp?id=8369274321

which can also be found here:

or on the wayback machine, e.g. as of November 25, 2003 [1]

IRI placed great emphasis on efforts to promote unity among Poland's highly fragmented center and center-right political parties. These efforts paid off in 1996, when nearly 40 center-right parties and movements formed an electoral coalition - Election Action Solidarity (AWS) - and, after winning parliamentary elections in 1997, initiated concrete steps toward unification.
IRI's early joint-policy conferences provided a foundation for future success by bringing the feuding parties together on common policy ground. In 1995 and 1996 IRI intensified its coalition development programs, conducting opinion polls for the center and center-right parties and convening working groups on party cooperation and assimilation. In 1997, IRI helped the center and center-right parties ready themselves for the autumn parliamentary elections with campaign and communications training, along with training in parliamentary processes for AWS candidates. Though prospective in nature, the parliamentary program successfully identified future MPs and helped them get off to a fast start when they entered the Polish Sejm.
IRI also initiated a very important process in 1997 that strengthened the coalition during the election campaign and stimulated thinking about transforming AWS from an electoral coalition into a unified political party. IRI research, and recommendations made to AWS President Marian Krzaklewski, resulted in the formation of a high-level task force charged with exploring the issue and presenting Krzaklewski with options. The effort ultimately resulted in creation of a new party - AWS Social Movement (RSAWS) - which was registered in December 1997. Though the problem of a fragmented center-right was not solved, this was a concrete first step forward.

[edit] Republican? (redux)

What does loosely affiliated with the Republican Party mean? The International Republican Institute does not carry out partisan political activities, it does not solely hire Republicans, it does not receive funding from the Republican Party. So what do the writers mean when they say that? If IRI did any of those things it would not, as it has, survive under Democratic Administrations.

Is the leadership of the IRI split somewhat equally between Republicans and Democrats? The governing board? Because if these are 80+% composed of prominent Republicans and former Republican staffers, then "loosely affiliated" seems a fair characterization. John Broughton 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems some who edit this site want to separate IRI from its sister organization the National Democratic Institute. They also want to push the conspiracy theory that IRI has broken US law by participating in coups. It doesn’t seem to matter that no proof is ever provided to support any of these ridiculous accusations.

In addition, people either intentionally or unintentionally continue to get basic facts wrong. IRI does not maintain offices in Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Zagreb. This inaccuracy is a perfect example of why communicating what IRI does and where it works should be left to IRI.

Interesting philosophy - organizations should control parts (all?) of their wikipedia pages. Because we all know that PR folks in organizations (Democratic, Republican, corporate, labor) are bent on telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even if it costs them their job. [Insert sarcasm alert here.] John Broughton 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, "loosely affiliated" is a POV phrase. I've re-written the Board of Directors section to reflect that most of those members have been involved with the Republican party in some shape or form. I don't think it's fair to say the staff is Republican affiliated because we don't know who they hire to carry out the day to day activities. We can add a section about its relationship to the NED and that it was the Republican Party's answer to the NDI, I think that would be fine. We can even provide that some funding comes from this NED program. But the term "loosely affiliated" is way too vague and subjective to be encyclopedic, in my view. Let's draw comparisons: would you say that Pepsi is loosely affiliated with Taco Bell? Would you say that SBC is loosely affiliated with Qwest?

What we have is a situation where a non-partisan program funded the creation of four additional non-partisan programs, with two of the programs being largely controlled by partisan individuals. It's a very odd situation, to be sure, but can we phrase it in such a way that sounds more difinitive, conclusive, and less subjective. For example, my statement on the BOD part can be verified by looking at the bios of the individuals, but how do we verify "loosely affiliated?" JJ4sad6 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


The IRI (like the NDI) wasn't intended to be nonpartisan: it was founded on the concept that it would be the "Republican wing" of the National Endowment for Democracy -- just as the Solidarity Center was meant to represent the AFL-CIO, the NDI Democrats, and the fourth one "business." The combination of an intended partisan use (Republican) PLUS a partisan name (Republican) plus mostly partisan directors (Republican) seems...loosely affiliated to me. Or pretty closely affiliated, if you prefer.
Maybe we could say "The IRI was created to be the Republican branch of the NED. It has since morphed into a nonpartisan organization, but it retains a Republican name and a largely Republican board of directors." Would you prefer that? 66.224.185.202 07:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind that Republican has two meanings. I often describe myself as republican, but by that I mean someone who supports the governmental system of a republic, rather than the Republican political party. In such a way, in America, Democrats can also be described as republican, but not Republican. Likewise democratic and Democratic have two different meanings. The problem stems from the fact that the titles of these organizations are capitalized, further confusing the issue.
I think a more encyclopedic entry that would not be POV would be to describe the background of it's creation as compared to the other three entities (as the article currently does), but more specific. For example, "The IRI was created by the Republican party through the NED program as a non-partisan organization. The NED also allowed the Democratic party to create the NDI, the US Chamber of Commerce to create the CIPE, and the AFL-CIO to create the ACILS".JJ4sad6 09:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check - Haiti

The section on Haiti seems to be fairly heavily slanted towards the left. Additionally, the sources and further reading provided on the 2004 Haitian revolt are themselves heavily leftist from notedly leftist publications. Questionable at best. The problem is not necessarily in the evidence presented, but rather how it is presented: obviously insinuating and outright stating that the intervention in Haiti was a bad thing instead of simply presenting the facts of the matter, which is what encyclopedias do.Oldkinderhook 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was searching for IRI after watching a documentary on the Haitian debacle, and wanted to research the issue further. I just wanted to drop my 2 cents in the discussion. I don't really think this is slanted to the left at all, some wording might be changed to less POV, but generally, considering the facts of the matter I believe it's a pretty fair breakdown. I agree that ostensibly the presentation might benefit from tweaking a bit to make it a little more nuetral in verbage, but overall I don't think this article is unfair. There's no way you could present the facts in this article and not have it seem biased to the left, because the facts stand against a group on the right. Neutral POV itself is a concept that gets tricky in situations like this. Which parts do you feel are unfair or lack objectivity?

- Anon User, 1/31/06

I think that referring to the fall of Aristide as a coup d'etat and the references to the fact that the new Haitian government is undemocratic are worded in such a way to present a biased slant to the information. Essentially, the wording makes it sound like Aristide is the victim of external aggression invited in by an elite clique (coup d'etat especially has connotations of a military take-over). Mentioning that the government in Haiti is unelected is unnecessary in light of this week's election and I also don't feel it gives an adequate portrayal of the transition of power. For instance, one could just as easily say that the Allied occupation of Germany was a replacement of a democratically elected government with a non-democratic government. Although the basic facts would be accurate, the sentence is obviously misleading and biased. I don't mean to draw parallels between Aristide and Hitler, merely to make a general point about how particular wording and sketchy fact presentation can sum up to bias. Most of the article is top-notch, just one or two phrases in the last paragraph are a little misleading. Oldkinderhook 18:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I just watched the Discovery/Times documentary on the issue and it seemed to me that Aristide was most definitely displaced by a military coup. Although this junta may have attempted to legitimize itself afterwards through democratic elections, that does not change the fact that the original act was not a democratic one, and therefore I don't think that mentioning that it was undemocratic is "unnecessary." Addressing your point of the Nazi party being democratically elected, there are many authoritarian governments that hold stage elections, such as N. Korea and Hussein's Iraq. I'm no expert on any of these governments but I think those are qualitatively different cases than Aristide's elected government. MangoJesusSuperstar 18:30, 12 March 2006
I also just watched that documentary, and in light of its information, omission of mention of IRI's involvement in Haiti is in itself a bias in favor of the organization. The allegations can be noted in an objective tone and properly cited, rather than omitted. Funetikahl 19:10, 13 June 2006

Information on the IRI's role in Haiti is supported by the chapter "Haiti: The Untold Story" by Lyn Duff and Dennis Bernstein in Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories, pages 273-283. Yes, this is a leftist publication, if by leftist you mean willing to point out criticisms of the administration and other powerful groups. But this does not mean that the information that they cite is not true. The International Relations Center (an organization which defines itself as "people-centered" - does that make it leftist?) conducted an interview with the director of Trinity College's Haiti Program in Feb 2004. Although it is criticial of the role of the IRI in Haiti, it is conducted in a thoughtful and professional way. If this information was included in the article, combined with the IRI's own Haiti website, the IRI would be portrayed more honestly. CClio333 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

The interesting editting pattern this page has seen begs the question: Why is IRI so insistent on whitewashing its Wikipedia page? If it had an explanation for the Haiti situation, wouldn't it just add and cite those facts that prove IRI was innocent of foul play? Funetikahl 23:56, 22 June 2006

[edit] Time for a rewrite

I don't think this page should quote the IRI's website so extensively, and other parts of the page seem more factbook-ey (catalogs of nations, catalogs of involved persons) than encyclopedic. Also, some of the stuff about "planting the seeds of democracy" + etc strikes me as NPOV. 66.224.185.202 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see my entry at the beginning as "extensive", I am merely providing background on this organization in their terms, as we do not have a different source for the information (that I am aware of).
I'll go ahead and try to remove whatever cliches I find and make them more concrete.JJ4sad6 09:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be a violation of copyright to copy information directly from the IRI's website without permission. The place where this information was taken from lists the information as copyrighted and with all rights reserved.[2] If express permission hasn't been given to use the text, the intro to the article needs to be removed. --MZMcBride 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Can whoever rewrites it also be sure to add citations, before it becomes an issue? Bgold4 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV: one-sided coverage.

There are many well-publicized criticisms of the IRI. Its actions in Haiti have been severely criticized (it was even accused of having fomented the coup d'etat which ousted Aristide). These criticisms can be found in several places, including @ Salon.com and in the New York Times:

Blumenthal, Max. "The Other Regime Change." Salon.com, July 16, 2004.
Bogdanich, Walt and Nordberg, Jenny. "Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Towards Chaos." New York Times. January 29, 2006.
"No Help To Democracy in Haiti." New York Times. February 3, 2006

Besides the coup in Haiti, the IRI has also been accused of assisting the forces which overthrew Venezuela's government in 2002. (Since Eva Golinger's book is listed on the page as a reference, I assume there was once a mention of this criticism on the page that has since been erased.) If you want to read about the IRI and Venezuela, some claims can be found here:

"The International Republican Institute: Promulgating Democracy of Another Variety." Council on Hemispheric Affairs. July 15, 2004. [www.coha.org/2004/07/15/the-international-republican-institute-promulgating-democracy-of-another-variety/]
Kurlantzick, Joshua. "The Coup Connection." Mother Jones. November/December 2004

Similar claims have been made in relation to the "color revolutions" in Ukraine and Serbia and the IRI has been accused of supporting partisan politics in Cambodia -- there's more, but that's off the top of my head.

Not to put too fine a point on it, a lot of people think that the IRI engages in partisan meddling and attempts at "regime change" in the guise of building civil society. The article needs to reflect that this viewpoint exists. It needs to mention the specific accusations in the cases of Haiti, Venezuela and Cambodia.

Additionally, statements like "these organizations provide technical assistance to aspiring democrats worldwide" are POV considering that a lot of people would disagree with that statement. (Aristide, for instance, might say that the IRI provides technical assistance to nondemocratic coup plotters.) Repeating the IRI's stated mission in the lead paragraph is also not NPOV. Please state things that it actually does, in neutral terms (i.e. not things like "expand freedom throughout the world").

I'm going to place a POV tag on this article. JonathanMowat 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Intro

"Initially known as the National Republican Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute (IRI) receives government funding..."

Whicha nation? What government? Sure, it gets clear later in the text, but the initial sentence is quite confusing. After all, this is international institute (or so it claims to be). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.53.9.165 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

As we're exhorted by Jimbo Wales 'be bold' don't be scared to make improvements. Saganaki- 05:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship by the IRI

Someone accessing wikipedia from an IRI IP address continues to censor this site so this is a request to other editors to keep a watch out! Every two weeks or so the user reverts the page back to an earlier version of the page which was largely created by the IRI. I've bought this to the attention of admins but the response so far is that it's not regarded as vandalism. (The user has repeated warnings on their page from a variety of wikipedia editors including multiple "you will be banned if you do this again" warnings.) Cheers Saganaki- 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV in question

I'm highly suspicious of some of the wording in this article. There is evidence, brought to my attention by a tech. I know, that POV edits have been made from an address allocated to the US Republican Party.

I intend to delete statements that are not properly referenced over the next week or two. Tony 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoever the political functionaries are who are responsible for the wholesale bending of the angle of this article: please desist. It won't work any more. NPOV is a core policy here. Tony (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the material inserted here as a possible copyvio. Saganaki- (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stanley_Lucas" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.105.4 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? Tony (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:International Republican Institute logo.png

Image:International Republican Institute logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

I've tagged the article with COI because I saw from this wikiscanner log that IP User:12.160.57.46 rewrote significant parts back in 2005 December (not affiliated with RP, removed think tanks, Haiti suspicion, mission statement, etc) and again on June 9, 2006. However, I'm not sure if all the IP's edits have been checked to see that nothing important was lost. For example there were more external links before 2005 December. Please remove my COI tag if this has already been checked. -Wikianon (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is this Democracy activist person who keeps vandalising the article? If the behaviour continues, I think action will need to be taken WRT this user's account. Tony (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at the edits by User:12.160.57.46 and added back the deleted material. We can review it now and see if has an appropriate tone etc. Cheers Saganaki- (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Tony (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted a last warning sign on his/her page. If s/he did it again we need to report it.Farmanesh (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personnel and offices section

I think these could be pruned back a bit - is an exhaustive listing of all the IRI's offices appropriate? Same goes for the personnel section - perhaps just the executive members? Cheers Saganaki- (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these lists are important; happy for them to remain. Tony (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)