Jump to content

Talk:International Crisis Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism section

[edit]

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)[reply]
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" [2]) of another think tank (" Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research [3]"). Sijo Ripa 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dear all
A much better critique is available from Spinwatch [4]. 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Criticism in Context

[edit]

The ICG is a government sponsored NGO. It is used as a depository of former US, UK and other Western and Japanese diplomats out of power in their respective parties' normal rotating door in and out of office.

It cannot be viewed as independent of US or UK influence and is NOT an actor on its own in international conflict. It is also an opaque outfit more closely resembling a lobby or a think thank than an NGO worth its salt like MSF or Caritas.

The foundations are also extensions of the various national foreign affairs departments, rarely acting on their own, and often within the framework of their national policies -- e.g. the Ford Foundation during the cold war.

None of this is particularly odious, but it needs to be put here and I am frankly amazed at the vitriol I am reading above.

The ICG is NOT NEUTRAL and to try to present it as such is an attempt to control information, stifle debate, and squash alternatives.---UNSIGNED ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTION.

SIGN YOUR EDITS.---Dagme (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of balance

[edit]

I'm only passing but this article's pure whitewash and, reading the discussion page, it's pretty clear it's being deliberately kept so. A balanced rewrite from scratch which avoids any input from interested parties is high priority. As it stands currently it could be a bland corporate handout. JohnHarris (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stripped it of some of the subjective wording, in hopes to make it less obvious that Wiki is being used by to promote ICG. However a more detailed page with criticism of ICG is in the making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.193.209 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"in hopes to make it less obvious that Wiki is being used by to promote ICG".... really? Is that what we do here? I tremble to think of all of the people who come here looking for a subjective study. Also this was posted in 2009 and the 'critisism' section, which would likely outweigh the rest of the promotional advertisement, is STILL absent. I'm willing to bet that 89.110.193.209 made a valiant attempt- only to find his hard work deleted by the Sunstienian plant network. (ResearchALLwars (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I wouldn't call the article whitewash, but it's not a decent encyclopedia article, it's more of an outreach page/extension of ICG's own website. 71.82.157.201 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI IDIOCRACY

[edit]

It is amazing how US diplomats are founding "goverment indepndent" organizations to "help" solving conflicts that are in major creatd by US goverment and accidentaly "facilitated" by exactly those organizations... It is also amazing how ICG is in tune with view of NATO goverments and James Layon is e.g now no more but OHR servant supported by, let me think, ah yes NATO goverments. And something that called itself encyclopedia cannot notice such a coincidence... :-D

Natzi could not do it better. Look just the views, of course un biassed and neutral, and it is hard to fail to notice that they are in compliance with NATO media... Just look any conflict in the world covered by CNN and compare with WIKI views, any difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.54.28 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74.15.54.28 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose interest does ICG represent? It looks to me as if it is a front organization of US government circle, such as neocon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.54.58 (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 'Funding' section. I remember the time of Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. 500 K was a great deal of money then - and must have been government money because Evans was not a multimillionaire. NGO should be 'NGO'. All organisations represent the agendae of their funders or people would lose their jobs. The Australian ABC writes as if the International Crisis Group was an official organisation. Proof of the pudding is in the eating - more crises since the existence of that organisation. Thumbs down?! 2001:8003:A02F:F400:352C:3664:E8D1:87A0 (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish

[edit]

I understand each word that is not red-linked. But the text is so un-wiki, that I do not understand its meaning/relevancy:

"Alumni/ae

--Sølvguttene (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the left pane and click on Deutsch you get the German wikipedia page for that NGO. I can read it, but if you cannot you can get a robo translation or you can look over the German version carefully and recognise some names.
I am no friend of NGOs because they owe allegiance only to their funders and the democratic process has no influence on them whatsoever. They have become far too influential and people have accepted that like nodding dolls. There is an NGO about bribery and corruption. They are HQed in Berlin where my family lost our land through government corruption of the Kohl-Regime (Leuna-Minol, elf Aquitaine, Mitterrand). If they cannot counter bad influence where they are, how is anyone expected to take them seriously? They are just another tool of the cabal and from Crisis Group I haven't heard anything positive, either. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:D12C:9276:6C6A:E118 (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Crisis Group. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Crisis Group. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Crisis Group. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPA edits

[edit]

A SPA, namely Msunnucks, came by on 3 April 2019, removed all refs to third party sources (and I do mean all), leaving as sole refs... citations to the International Crisis Group. The article ended up being a promotional advertisement for ICG.

I have not deleted the info Msunnucks added, as it provides additional detail regarding the organization, what it presumably does, etc., though, again, it is all clearly promotional to the organisation itself and is all sourced to itself. Maybe one day I should make my own Wiki entry with all the wonderful things I do in real life? Oh, no, I wouldn't, because it would be against policy!

I have restored all third party sources. XavierItzm (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies comment founded on false information about funding

[edit]

Please delete "The organization's actions and funding have been the subject of controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooke5 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 04-JUN-2019

[edit]

  Edit request implemented  

  • Mentioning controversy in the lead section is usually not necessary, especially considering that the controversy section in the main prose is not especially hidden or otherwise difficult to find.
  • Also, mentioning that "the company is involved in controversy" in the lead section without at least a cursory elaboration on the elements of that controversy does not seem to fit with the intent of WP:CSECTION, which is that controversial items in an article ought to be well-explained and fully integrated into the overall article, and should not be made to stand out in a conspicuous way.

Regards,  Spintendo  02:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar funding founded on false information and inaccurate source

[edit]

Please delete "23% of the ICG's budget comes from the government of Qatar, it was reported in 2019.[19]" and replace with "It was wrongly alleged that Crisis Group received $4 million from the Qatari government in one year, making up around 23% of its budget. Crisis Group receives funding from about 20 governments, each contributing a maximum of $1 million/year. This is the case for Qatar, whose contribution accounts for roughly 5% of total funding from all sources. A breakdown of their funding is published on their website[1]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooke5 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the mention of Qatar entirely, as it seemed odd to single out one donor. My preference would be for the article to include a summary of the organisation's largest funders (possibly including Qatar), but I will need to find a source that provides a breakdown because I don't want to have to work it out from the accounts. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ International Crisis Group Funding https://www.crisisgroup.org/how-we-work/financials. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Criticism section - NPOV

[edit]

Putting all criticism in one section all the way at the bottom is basically the worst way you can deal with negative information other than to completely remove it all. Poveglia (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Crisis_Group&oldid=1207725574"