Talk:International Parliament for Safety and Peace

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

Is this some kind of joke?[edit]

Neutrality[edit]

Mr. Goodman

There are several issues you do not address. There are in fact two organizations of the same name, something you fail to differentiate in your accusations. I say "accusations" as your article is purely agenda driven.

Secondly, the International Parliament is actively investigating war crimes committed against Syria and Iraq. IP addresses (Tomer) of some tied to this article trace to accounts site as "sock puppet" and tied to Israeli intelligence services.

Even the language itself if mocking and riddled with sarcasm. One might question your neutrality on issues where Israeli security organizations are actively involved in delegitimization operations against this organization, something this article smells like part of. -


I doubt the accuracy and neutrality of this article, and request documentation of every assertion, from a third party reliable source. I see no clear evidence that the organization is at all notable, I doubt that the details of its structure of of any encyclopedic importance, we have only its own word for it that that it does in fact engage in the activities claimed, that the people associated with it are members, and I consider it a violation of WP:BLP to include them without satisfactory third party evidence. I shall remove all names that cannot be so documented. DGG (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Mr Goodman,

The IPSP doubts the accuracy and the objectivity of Wikipedia as well and we do not even want to be listed on this website.

Let us quote Wikipedia's own disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:general_disclaimer In this disclaimer it states:

“Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here….Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read her is without any implied warrant of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them. None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.”

We would certainly favour not to be listed here at all. When you have a close look, you see that no one of our people introduced your International Parliament website here.

So, a fair approach would be to simply delete the entry. We would certainly not object.

IPSP Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.94.246 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may well be right, but we need to check first if there are in fact any reliable sources. It's not seldom that groups about whom an article is written that contains some material they might dislike, or when editing might possibly produce some material that they dislike, will prefer to delete it than to have it stand, but our basic principle is WP:Neutral Point of View, and if the group is in fact notable, the solution is instead to make certain the article is in fact objective and balanced. We have various methods by which you can give appropriate input to this. I expect some further discussion here, which is the first step in the process. If you should think the information actually libelous, see WP:OTRS, but I do not think the article is really in that condition yet. Our general policy is to fix when possible, and delete when there's no way to fix or the subject isn't appropriate for coverage. DGG (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb was careful about sourcing back when he created the article. It appears that supporters of the organization have been embellishing it since that time. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Gentlemen,

This leads in my opinion to nothing.

Fact is that we do not even want to be listed in Wikipedia as we do absolutely not like your approach of omnipotent moderators who rule the whole thing. Neutrality is just a fig leave in my opinion in order to conceal this structure.

E.g. 3rd party verification.

We are a small but nonetheless existing organization that has its recognition by South American, African, at least one East European and at least one Asian country.

Third party verify e.g. this:

http://www.cnv.org.kh/personInfo/biography_of_hun_sen.htm

and this

http://www.sclcnational.org/net/content/page.aspx?s=18275.0.12.2607

and this

http://www.webindia123.com/personal/music/yesu.htm

With all the published letters from State Presidents and such additional evidence like e.g. from a Prime Minister and from a moral successor of Dr. Martin Luther King or the most distinguished Singer of India, I believe we have said enough here.

However, when we post links as you demand, you disregard this totally. When you have a close look, you can easily see that most facts are based upon letters which we scanned and posted then on our representation's website in order to avoid your inquisitory disbelieve and harsh discomfort from the beginning on. Therefore, it is easily available for you to see that e.g. Hugo Chavez, Omar Bongo and Teodoro Obiang are indeed involved with us.

The Gideon article was not well done and derogatory and you know perfectly well yourself as he did not even mention the structure of the IPSP with its 400 Senators and 800 Deputies - this shows me already what kind of people you are when you call this well-researched.

And I repeat it again: delete this article and it is fair for everybody. Your approach is absolutely unfriendly toward us from the beginning on and we do not need your listing, we do not need your opinion about our organization as well and we have certainly something better to do than to deal with elusive people without address, country and name who can stab their pens into everybodies backs. What you do is exactly why the aforementioned disclaimer is so important to cover and protect your purses from punitive damage law suits.

IPSP Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.94.254 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 July 2008 (ITC)

One amendment how Wikipedians work for their own hidden agenda (which is not so hidden anymore here):

, though they are legal entities within their respective jurisdictions as accreditation is not mandatory in every country (see e.g. USA http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/accred-fed.doc and http://www.adizesgraduateschool.org/accreditation.html )

This has been removed from the main article by the anonymous user Orlady as it, according to his opinion, states "that accreditation is irrelevant".

Well, everybody who reads English in a neutral way would have understood that being not accredited is not illegal, e.g. in the USA. Not more and not less this part of the article did say. Whether accreditation is relevant or not is not the discussion here. However, if the USA themselves do not have it as an obligation, everybody is free to have his or her own opinion about that. For that we do not need guidance through omissions.

We know exactly why we do not want to be part of this kind of "encyclopedia". Give other people and organizations there freedom and do not encroach upon us! We do not want to have to do with you at all. Delete the article.

IPSP Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.96.187 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. There was nothing derogatory about the article in its previous versions. It was, is and will remain a well-balanced and referenced article. In all modesty, it even stands out in NPOV and referencing among other Wikipedia articles of its kind. gidonb (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People associated with....[edit]

Normally, for organizations such as this, we list only the chief executive, and sometimes the chairman of the board of directors as well, not the members of a council, or board of directors, or a senate. Similarly, I am not sure of the status of its "ministers" but if they bear any resemblance to heads of departments, they too would not ordinarily be mentioned. That they have pages on Wikipedia is irrelevant to this; most of the members of the board of directors or advisors of a company or non-profit group will have WP pages, and the promient among them will have dozens of such positions, but it isn't significant content--and it doesn't even add to their notability, in the way we use the term. I shall accordingly be removing it. It belongs on the organisation's website, not in an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Mr Goodmann,

Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia but merely a forum where the ones who post most can write what they want due to their moderator rights. A real encyclopedia must pay printing costs and staff and must display its quality at the market. If the quality is mediocre or even substandard, this will be the certain end of the publication. Wikipedia, however, is excempt from such deliberations. This is the price of the internet, too. Even if you try to be more balanced, others are definitely not.

I would hold it for much more fair to delete the whole article instead of listing this organization here against their own will.

Moreover, this badge which disputes the neutrality of the article, should be removed at first as the article obviously presents some convincing facts in both directions - so what??!!

Pipin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipin2000 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are removed on request only under certain very special conditions, such as the invasion of privacy of non-public individuals or libel. I do not see that any of these apply. But if you think they do, or that your organization is being treated unfairly, the procedure is to send a message to WP:OTRS. DGG (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entity is purely fictional![edit]

Did anybody ever saw any actual activity of this International Parliament? I doubt that. It is purely fictional, created to support various diploma mills around the globe by offering some kind of official nimbus.

This entity claims to be recognized by the United States and Italy. That's a lie. Nobody will ever be able to provide proof of that. Their impressive list of various government documents is totally worthless. I mean, I am good at Photoshop, too. This is the reason why they never ever provide a hyperlink to a government website that contains any kind of recognition act.

This entity claims to have representative ambassadors from all nations. That's a lie, too. They don't have any ambassadors received from any nation, and they don't have own ambassadors received by any nation.

This entity claims to enjoy privileges, immunities and the honours reserved to heads of states. Of course, this entity does not have any standing in international law. It is the private fantasy of some guys disconnected from reality. The Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 do not apply to them.

This entity claims to be presided by a Viktor Busa, an orthodox archbishop. This man is not an orthodox archbishop. This man is not Vice Chairman of the Committee for Culture of the Russian State Duma, and of course not a member of the Duma at all. He has not been engaged in the international efforts to bring peace and stability to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

This entity claims to have signed a convention of cooperation with the University of Peace in Costa Rica. This is a lie. No such convention has ever been signed by the University for Peace, how that instituion is properly called. Of course you find some sources on the internet that seem to support this claim, e.g. on the websites of the World Information Distributed University and the West Coast University, both of them being fake institutions themselves.

This is supposed to be the website of the entity's delegation to Germany. There is not a single word about anything related to Germany. gmxhome is open to eveybody; there you can build up your own homepage ... ehm, I mean your accredited representation to Germany ... within 5 minutes.

Finally, I recommend this. Enjoy!

Henning Blatt (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I some time ago asked for Reliable sources, and I am removing mentions of people for who no sources for membership in this organization is available. I onsider this a matter of BLP, and the information should not be restored here or to the articles of the people involved unless 3rd party sources are available. I havent finished. We'll se if there is anything left at the end. I do point out though, that their claim of ambassadors, is ambassadors from them to all nations--whatever that may mean. DGG (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Not large but certainly not fictional!!

Well, if only one country has relationships, fictional is obsolete, isn't it?

http://www.legabon.org/uk/archive_actualites.php (scroll down to 47th anniversary of the Independence of Gabon)

http://www.cnv.org.kh/personInfo/biography_of_hun_sen.htm

Well, there we have at least two....

The IPSP has representatives in about 130 countries, not all of them are ambassadors. President Msgr Busa is not member of the Duma and he is not Russian. He is, however, honorary co chairman of the culture and sports comittee of the Duma. Emphasis on "honorary"!

A cooperation between the United Nations Peace University in Costa Rica has been signed between the IPSP and Rodrigo Carazo Odio (university president then) in 1987. Nowadays the university is usually referred to as Peace University, right.

The IPSP is small and not recognized as IGO everywhere, e.g. USA where it has, nonetheless at least NGO status. However, usually smaller South American and African Nations have relationships on IGO level with the IPSP.

Nobody claims that the IPSP is large, UNO-like omnipotent and universally recognized as IGO. In the countries where it has IGO recognition, however, the Vienna Conventions apply. In countries where this is not the case, it has NGO or association status.

That's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.90.241 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my rollback and the future of the article[edit]

I created this article more than a year ago, after articles in the Dutch press raised my interest in Rutherford University. I first created an article on Rutherford, then got interested in the International Parliament for Safety and Peace, from which Rutherford claimed its accredation. At that time, there was an official request to start an article on the organization, there were anonymously entered mentions of the IPSP in a long list of articles (that I later linked and linked back) and there was little information by Orlady in her own workspace. I was not sure whether the organization deserved mentioning, then found the external mentioning in a Nijhoff book and an American newspaper and started from there.

In all modesty, I think I wrote a balanced and sourced article, but accept DGG's placement of a POV warning as necessary, especially with so little information available, at least until some issues are sorted out on this talk page. DGG, with whom I have a long cooperation working on controversial topics from which neither of us tends to shy away, suggested that I would join the discussion on the article, but I preferred not to join for a variety of reasons.

Now that more than a year has passed since the creation, and about all of its contents were changed by unregistered and topic-dedicated users, I rolled back these edits, while re-entering the improvements made by my colleagues, including the POV warning which covers the open issues and the concerns by the person(s) of the organization. I also deleted some details from the original text that have not been referenced over the past year (not withstanding my fact request that had been textually pushed aside by other insertions), including the list of associated people for which DGG states BLP concerns.

My rationale for including the associated persons list in the first place was to create connectivity between the various articles in which information about the IPSP had been inserted and improve referencing and qualities of many articles at once. To this end I had added a reference request in each one of the biographic articles, in which the association was inserted (by others), but these were answered with unreliable sources. In this respect DGG (above in the discussion) and I strongly agree that letters from IPSP are not reliable sources (unless to a claim). This was another major reason for the rollback, as the new descriptions of the ISPS were merely claims of the organization about itself. Referencing is key to our quality as an encyclopedia. I wish to thank Orlady for mentioning my careful sourcing.

As for the claims by Henning Blatt that the entry is fiction. It is likely that "Viktor Ivan Busá" (Giovanni Vittorio Marie Busa) or someone else using this name is a personal or organizational owner of a color printer, entered a conference in Addis Ababa, creates some correspondence, runs an accreditation mill, signed "diplomatic passports" etc. The contents of the Wikipedia articles, however, must be encyclopedic and referenced. I did not engage in original research, but wrote a balanced and referenced entry about an organization that was objectively already very much present throughout our encyclopedia, had a standing request for an entry and did get mentioned in a few independent sources. From the correspondence above with (the) affiliate(s) of the organization I understand it has second thoughts as well about its benefits from this article. Feel free to expand with reliable and verifiable information or suggest deletion. gidonb (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about that final point. such is not at all uncommon. many an organization or person wants an article, until hey realize they will not be able to control what the article says and does not say. DGG (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. You can say that again! I have raised this point amongst others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica de Bruyn (2). Regards, gidonb (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
btw, did her book ever come out? did it get reviewed? maybe she is actually notable now. DGG (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was ever published, this was under her name by marriage. I think we should really let it go. Even the Dutch-language Wikipedia deleted her in the end... gidonb (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] I was more impressed with this article back when it listed the various notables who festooned their biographies with ISPSP credentials. After removing that list, essentially all that's left is (1) information disseminated by the ISPSP, (2) diploma mills that claim accreditation from ISPSP, and (3) the Dallas newspaper article that I have not accessed (at least not recently). I would like to be able to list it in List of unrecognized accreditation associations, but I have not found a reliable source that states that it is not recognized (although the list of "accredited" institutions makes that fact pretty clear, and of course it is absent from all known lists of recognized accreditors). (Like gidonb, I first researched this organization because it was claimed as an accreditor by several diploma mills, and I wanted to be able to document its status.) In the article's present form, I fear there is no valid choice other than deletion -- unless the Dallas newspaper article has some good substance that could be used to expand the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately there wasn't any actual evidence for most of them that they added it, not the IPSP. I suspect the IP may have merely sent them announcements they had been elected. But I understand exactly what you mean by the amusement from the list
Looking at the first line of the Dallas article, its cant possibly be a substantial article about the IPSP--but likely to be about some other person who listed it.
Still, since Wikipedia does serve as a guide with reliable information about bogus colleges, and the like, I'd like to figure out some way to keep this in. DGG (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady and DGG, thank you so much for the additional feedback! The IPSP is also mentioned in several of the new sources that I have added to the article (next to the non-IPSP original ones). I suggest that we develop a road map by which we can remove the NPOV warning, as the texts about the organization are very carefully crafted and now even better referenced than before. In fact, there are additional sources out there that make much bolder statements. I have really tried to balance things while writing, as I always do, in the interest of the article's overall quality and neutrality. gidonb (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the lede para for NPOV. It must be used to make a neutral statement, not an attack on the organization, even as innuendo. I removed a ref. to a blog, which can not under any conditions be used for contentious BLP. I have additional doubts about some of the material.
  1. Does ref16, the Dallas Morning News, refer to this organization in particular?--I cannot tell from th eo nline fragment. Please provide a quote of the appropriate passage, or remove the reference.
  2. Does every college claiming recongition from it fall into the class of diploma mills? Unless you can source that, the word "some" needs to be used.
  3. I'd like evidence that "L'Intermédiaire des chercheurs et curieux" is a Reliable source.
  4. Ditto for "Ridders van nu : over occulte genootschappen en ridderordes in de 20ste eeuw" I am further not convinced from the snippet that this is the person being discussed.

Checking the refs, I was quite amused by the wording on the p. for Weston Reserve University [1] "Weston Reserve University and the other members school of UCI hold a Parliamentary Charter from the International States Parliament for Safety and Peace, Palermo, Italy. This charter is valid in all countries that recognize the Parliament." We have to use this quote somewhere. Is it by any chance also used by any of the other schools?

I advise that for a group of this sort, it is much more effective writing to simply state the facts. There is no more need for negative adjectives than there is for positive ones in the usual sort of spammy organization article. this article is about the organization, not the President--a minimal amount of orientation information can be given, but not an attack on his credentials. Other changes to give neutral language means saying it gives medal, not it hands out medals. Itmakes no sense to say that it accredits unaccredited colleges, so I reworded it. Do not craft the wording for negative impact. for one thing, it's hardly necessary. DGG (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thank you for addressing your remaining POV concerns. The neutral point of view is a very important corner stone of our encyclopedia and absolutely essential if we want our content to be read as trustworthy by the general public. You deleted a general intro phrase from the lead and a reference to a letter that was no longer necessary and hosted by the "wrong" site, and added another phrase. I understand from the above descriptions of your edits that you have no more POV concerns, but that some questions about references remain (usually covered by "refimprove"). In the meantime, I have addressed your reference concerns. I have invested a huge amount of time and believe that the quality, quantity and detail of the references is very persuasive. If any of the above reference concerns remain after my very detailed additions, please let me know. You can also just change the text and use templates such as "fact" and "who?" to request additional references and improvement! I will continue monitoring this page for now. Regards, gidonb (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the article to the next level[edit]

I have expanded the article with the earlier mentioned passports. I found three good references that the passports are considered "fantasy documents". gidonb (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also found another reference for the Yahya Jammeh awards, this time a commentary written from opposite point of view from the previous reference. gidonb (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fully incorporated the articles in Italian by Rita Pennarola, that were still under external links, into the references, with quotes and all other details. The second article by Pennerola, BTW, references much more of the article's contents. gidonb (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You all have a very weird understanding of neutrality and being an encyclopedia when it comes to promoting your own ideas.

How can you write that President Jammeh got three peace awards. BS! You can read yourself or not?

He has been appointed Vice-President of the International Parliament for Safety and Peace and additionally, he became Senator for Life. No peace award at all, you liers! And especially not triple!


Additionally, why deleting all the VIPs of the IPSP who have your so-called third party verification by being mentioned outside the IPSP as members, like e.g. Hun Sen as Senator for Life or Omar Bongo Odimba as Grand Chancellor and Senator for Life?

Are you so in need to lie by omission - just to promote your RA accredited US american colleges and to sling mud unto everything that fosters an alternative view on academics? If you US Americans have a problem with not RA accredited colleges, why can everybody open a LTD with the word "university" in the company name all over the US? Before pointing your finger upon others you should do better and put up red tape for the use of the name "university" and "college" like everybody else does in the Western World. You are a fine world police, honestly!

Additionally, what is that BS with St. Regis? The International Parliament had never to do with St. Regis and there is not even any evidence that this International University of Fundamental studies had to do with them. This is cheapest propaganda and nothing else.

Shame on you, Gideon! The man with that name in the Old Testament was a man of the Lord, daring and righteous. Learn from him and let other people be and do not lie.

Enki2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enki2001 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Lies, lies, lies and more lies!


What is wrong with you people? If you find something about the International Parliament, you use it and emphasize it.

If there is something positive, you deceive the public by omitting it or by falsifying it.


It has been clearly stated that Jammeh has been appointed VICE-PRESIDENT of the International Parliament and SENATOR FOR LIFE!

Can you read, Sinebot/DGG/ORLADY/GIDEONB, or not?

Jammeh did not receive any Peace Trophy! Recipients of the Peace Trophy are e.g. Hugo Chavez, Omar Bongo and Carlos Menem but no Jammeh. Why do you falsify the article by deleting my right statement that Jammeh has been appointed Vice President and Senator for Life?

Any answer for this?

Why is the fact (even in your thinking as I provided the link to his own government listed biography) deleted that Hun Sen is Senator for Life?

http://www.cnv.org.kh/personInfo/biography_of_hun_sen.htm

What answer do you have for this? What are you doing? Is this democracy? Is this being neutral and being academic?

If you have a little rest of character, you inform me here and now to who I can appeal within your Wikipedia system in order to complain about your deliberate omissions and falisfications.

Moreover, why do you always insert St. Regis here in this article where it does not belong!

St. Regis had never any accreditation by the International Parliament. The President of the International Parliament has never received any degree from there.

What kind of cheapest meanness is this to say: hey, we sling mud on the IPSP as follows... IPSP has President Busa, Busa has a degree from the International University of Fundamental Studies, the International University of Fundamental Studies has (according to some obscure entry in a private person's for profit book) had something to do with St. Regis.

I would call this media terrorism.

Enki2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enki2001 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S:

You always allege that the IPSP people themselves inserted the article in order to promote themselves, not knowing what could result out of this.

I can assure you that never, ever it crossed our minds to insert IPSP into your mafia like system. We have seen how you crucify the non RA Universities which are legal according to the laws of your own country USA. Do not think that we are stupid! The article has originally been created by Orlady or GideonB.

Moreover, you are so happy to report here about the Italian article of a Rita Pennarola:

" I have now fully incorporated the articles in Italian by Rita Pennarola, that were still under external links, into the references, with quotes and all other details. The second article by Pennerola, BTW, references much more of the article's contents. gidonb (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)"


Yes, but why do you forget to mention that she has been convited by the court in Italy for attacking the International Parliament with false allegations? To uncomfortable to mention, eh?

http://www.parlamentomondialedeglistati.org/diff.htm

Click through 1,2,3,4

and surprise, surprise - you find a convicted lyer!

Enki2001

"Parlamento Mondiale degli Stati per la Sicurezza e la Pace" - should be International Parliament for Security and Peace, not "Safety". An allegedly international organisation that can't even corectly translate its own name deserves everything it gets. PS There's no Italian Wikipedia article for them. Disembrangler (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Disembrangler,


Thank you for stating your biased opinion in regard of the IPSP.

If you are such an intelligent person, why did it escape you that the direct translation of "Parlamento Mondiale degli Stati per la Sicurezza e la Pace" is: World Parliament of the States for Security and Peace".

What a blunder. You all hunt down alternative organizations in the name of "neutrality" and third party verification.

In reality enough of you are sponsored opinion mongers who hunt in groups. You are not better than Fox. A normal person can easily see that you all transformed the article with such malicious technicality that a normal gifted user who has a life in the real world cannot even edit it anymore without difficulty. Bravo, Bravissimo, you are heros!

And by the way: a successor of Martin Luther King is with us, too.

http://www.sclcnational.org/core/item/page.aspx?s=18275.0.12.2607

And you deleted and thus falsified the article with that deed , too.

How do you answer this?

I reinsert it and then we can see....

Enki2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enki2001 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it didn't escape me, I just couldn't be bothered to comment on that as well, because it's less obviously a translation error, it could be a deliberate choice to drop the "states bit". As for the rest of your remarks, er I don't know, but I refer you to WP:AGF. Disembrangler (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The organization is entitled to choose Safety over Security in their English name or to usually drop the word States from its title. As Wikipedia editors, we strive towards impartiality by making fair summaries of information from verifiable and reliable sources. As "security" has also been used occasionally in the title, I have just created redirects also with "security" instead of "safety". I have put a welcome message on Enki2001's talk page as a starting point in finding more information about Wikipedia. Enki2001, you are very welcome to use all relevant editing methods in improving the article. We only do our Wikipedia chores and do not have "hidden" agendas. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. gidonb (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS why use security or safety? The following biography collection has a different view on the name of the IPSP: "Dr Bera was a Justice of Peace from 1973 to 1976, a member of International Parliament for Safety and Security, and International Society for Education ..." From the Dictionary of International Biography‎ by Geoffrey Handley-Taylor, Ernest Kay, Biography & Autobiography, published in 1974, 885 pages, Page 798... gidonb (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GidonB,

If you do not have a hidden agenda on behalf of RA accredited universities of the USA, why do you nearly remove everything what is positive on behalf of the IPSP?

Listen, I am not happy myself that the presidency is blinded by some fancy looking incorporation certificates and letters of good standing of the state secretaries and gives IPSP recognition to such people from the: USA.

However, it is not illegal in the USA and you US people make yourself the problem by not regulating the word university. GidonB, this is a fact. You fight the effect instead of the cause.

OK, you say your are not biased and have no hidden agenda.

Why do you remove Charles Kenzie Steele Jr? This man is important, he is a big figure in Christianity, human rights and charity and, even according to his own biography he is our senator member. Why omitting this. Why deleting this when I insert it? It is the truth and it is necessary to know.

If you must put in every foolish unaccredited US college, if you even think it is neutral to insert St. Regis university in order to give IPSP a bad name despite it had never ever anything to do with them. Wouldn't you think that the IPSP should then at least have the opportunity to state positive things like having certain VIPs aboard?

And you are not biased and you delete everything. Wonderful.

GidonB, please refer me to a kind of ombudsman of Wikipedia. I am not happy with what you all are doing. This is not balanced. If you are alone before G_D : be honest, are you really treating the IPSP neutral. Do you really allow both sides to be demonstrated? Are you really in line?

Well, and why do you always delete the statement that the IPSP does neither claim recognition from the Isle of Man, from Portugal nor from the Council of the European Union. It is important. Because you could e.g. get statements from the 100 countries that do not recognize the Order of Malta and say: hey, the service passport are fantasy. This whole thing is a fraud. But you would certainly embezzle from the public eye that the Order of Malta is recognized by 93 countries and that it has special relations to another 6.

You see where I am going. It is 100% essential that you do not delete the fact that the Leader of the Southern Christian Leadership is with IPSP as a senator and is is also essential to let sentence remain that IPSP does neither claim recognition of the Council of the European Union nor from Portugal nor from the Isle of Man.

And by the way: how about a vote for deletion? IPSP never wanted to be here and you created the article yourself.

P.S: stop deleting the fact that Hun Sen is with the IPSP as Senator for Life. This is deception by willfull omission and you know it. Here, again, chrystal clear from his own government bio:

http://www.cnv.org.kh/personInfo/biography_of_hun_sen.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enki2001 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Enki200! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enki2001 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enki2001, if you feel that our edits are injust to you or your organization you are free to turn to whoever you like. There are many options. DGG gave at least one example above. You can also follow the links in the welcome message that I have placed on your talk page, to find the most relevant procedure for you. The contents of the article reflects its coverage in the media and literature. Your repetitive change of the number of awards and insertion of an IPSP approach to the EU, Isle of Man, and Portugal is unacceptable for reasons of original research and sources and irrelevant to the matter. For the same reasons and biographies of living persons I also lean against inclusion of Sen and Steele. This also seems to be the understanding between DGG and me upon my makeover of this article (after its contents had been distorted by the organization). Again, we strive to a a fair coverage of your organization. The article is about the organization itself, not about its members. But it seems you really want to make an exception for these two members. Let me think this over once more. Input from other editors is also very welcome! gidonb (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


gidonB

Your way of editing the article is way out of line and definitely unfair and unbalanced.

Reasons:

You put over 20 negative links. If somebody wants to balance it with positive links, you delete them under some some technical blabla.

You falsify information. It makes a vast difference whether President Jammeh has been appointed Vice-President and Senator for Life or whether he received "several" honors.

You insert St. Regis University, obviously in order to rub of some of the negativity on the International Parliament as well despite, and I repeat it, despite the International Parliament has nothing to do with St. Regis at all.

You insert Oregon with a statement which is only legal in Oregon. You will certainly delete my insertion that being unaccredited is generally not illegal according to your own Federal US laws:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/accred-fed.doc

You write that the International Parliament "claims" to have senators and members who have some important standing in society, yet, when I start listing them, you talk something about living persons biographies and want to delete it again. In that moment when I bring the evidence that it is not just a claim, you delete it and let the dubious word "claim" remain.

I am so sorry to say this to you eternally falsly friendly North Americans but we Europeans still have a clear language and are not artifically friendly or civil or whatever you want to call it if we are oppressed and confronted with unfairness:

You are strongly oppinionated against the International Parliament and your (and many of the other editors) are definitely biased as well.

Count the number of negative entries: over 20 Count the number of positive entries: not more than 4

Why? Because you suppress everything positive, even if it comes from a external sourcen and not from an IPSP site.

Moreover, you are using articles which are old. Extremely old and cannot be found by normal means on the internet. And, you, where does it come from. Where do you have those sophisticated means from if you are not working professionaly in the opinion creating business for profit?

Additionally, it is interesting how articles are used. Mrs Pennarola has been convicted for her article as being libelious by an Italian court but here in Wikipedia it is not worth mentioning it.

Additionally, you quote an article (old and, again, not to be found by amateur means) where is stated that you can join the IPSP for 140 Dollars.

Conveniently deleting again that membership in national associations of the IPSP, as they at least indeed exist in the US, Germany, Cameron is available indeed for about that amount of membership fee. Membership in the IPSP itself is obtained by recommendation from Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Ministers. Period!

Then the thing with the Council of the European Union and Portugal: You conveniently delete the remark that the IPSP does not claim any recogntion, neither by the Council nor by Portugal and again: you hide this discrimination behind some Wiki internal technocratic bla. Fact is as I stated before that when dealing with an international organization it is indeed decisive where it is recognized and where not as technically it does not exist for the countries where it is not recognized: a "fantasy".

Comparable the situation of the Order of Malta: a reality in 99 countries and a "fantasy" in the 100 others where it is not recognized. But do you write this in their article? Nope!

Then the structure of this article. I have checked several other articles. None of them has such a format and is so difficult to edit due to that. By accident? Certainly not since gidonB changed it over 30 times in a row which everybody can see by clicking "history".

Then the issue that Wikipedia does not even have an ombudman. Horrible! So, experienced moderators can get together in groups and obtain unchecked real world publishing power by outsmarting and outnumbering unexperienced users of that mean. Always under the official umbrella of being a "neutral encyclopedia".

You are not: a real encyclopedia is printed, expensively researched and can - unlike Wikipedia - be held accountable for what it states.

And for disembrangler: yeah, this we love. First starting the mudslinging according to the motto: an organization that cannot even translate its name properly, deserves everything (and within this context we can safely assume: negative) it gets. And then crying: civility. Pah!

The International Parliament translates into different languages according to the emphatic meaning which sounds best in the local culture. Does this ring a bell, Mr America?

As I said: who do you want to sell THIS as neutral?

Enki2001 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enki2001, we seem to agree that this is the correct title of the article. I also agree with you that the thorough referencing has a downside for the editor. I look forward to the day that each reference can be entered in two parts. The encyclopedic entry on the IPSP contains most of the media and literature information I could find covering its activities. It is true that your organization is often covered in a negative context, but we have created an extremely fair and balanced summary of both the positive and negative reports. If you can find additional reliable and independent sources (not PR texts as you are trying to promote for Steele and Sen), I would be happy to include these. gidonb (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I am still looking into several issues that you raise above. It would be helpful for the efficient communication if you refrain from this continuous rant about the fine Wikipedians who have edited this article and/or contributed to the discussion on this page. gidonb (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the review of your points: Can you please refer me to a URL with the lists of Peace and Arts trophies given out by the IPSP, per year. gidonb (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also have a published list of all hundreds of senators and deputies? As in other parliaments, surely this is not confidential information. gidonb (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there a list of schools that were recognized by the IPSP? gidonb (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Jammeh awards - Back to the roots in The Gambia and Germany
As concerns the Yahya Jammeh awards and the question "three awards for peace" or to state more precisely: 1)VICE-PRESIDENT - 2)SENATOR FOR LIFE - 3)HONORARY PROFESSORSHIP you may refer to Statehouse The Gambia.
I'm wondering about why Enki2001 didn't mention this reference in his discussion.
BTW there is a typing error in the underline of picture1 (Georg Raif) - correct name is XXXX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapot (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zapot, thank you for the reaction! I had already found this information about Jammeh on this very page. It appears that there is a connection between the people behind the the IPSP and the [www.unem.edu Empresarial University of Costa Rica] (which also keeps to itself), but since I do not have this explicit in an independent and verifiable source, I have deleted this example of peace honors altogether. I have also deleted the examples of Steele and Sen for quality considerations. I am considering the deletion of Bongo as well, as the sourcing is weak. Examples for honors, imho, must contribute to the overall quality of the article. This is what I meant with "taking the article to the next level". I will correct the caption right after writing the reaction. Regards, gidonb (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK the error in the caption is at the Gambian site. The person you refer to could easily be found be found on Google as "Dr person names" and "Prof person names". The source found through the latter search made the same connections, and more. This is, however, not the direction Wikipedia should go. We wish to work with quality sources and provide quality information. Blogs serve other functions. They are more personal outlets. Thus said they can contain information as well. Just not information we can rely upon. Regards, gidonb (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few more words about the blog I referred to above (http://ipsp-china.blogspot.com/). It is really a set of blogs, that developed in parallel with the IPSP entry here, with unaccredited learning in Hong Kong as a departure point, but encompassing much more. I respect the work that it has done. It is not our way of collecting and presenting information, but definitely serves a purpose. It also connects to the Wikipedia entry for reliable background on IPSP. That is all that we wish to provide on our end. I think that we cannot link to the blog in the article the way the blog links to us, but the link is useful as background material for those discussing our coverage of the organization. Hence my inclusion on the talk page. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Gentlemen,

I erased the name Zapot was so eager to get involved here as this is simply tactless and invades privacy.

A note to GidonB: your fair approach on a personal level is appreciated, though, as an IPSP person I still cannot hold this article for balanced. But different opinions are ok, right?

Pipin2000 (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We present a balanced and fair summary of the reliable and independent sources. Most of theses sources are indeed negative about your organization, if not very negative. So if we do our work correctly, you would say something along the lines of what you have just written above. At the very best. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fun to see some people trying to convince the sceptics by pointing to the biography of Hun Sen, PM of Cambodia. These IPSP people really know whom to fool and how to do that. I am pretty sure within the PM's office they really think the PM got all these funny "titles" from this obscure organisation. I mean ... it's Cambodia! All of the sudden there is a letter in the PM's mail from Costa Rica or Italy or whereever, stating that His Excellency has once more been choosen to be one of the world's greatest figures. Of course they include this into his biography. I'd do so, too, if I have to do all I can to whitewash my reputation in my country. Did Hun Sen travel to Costa Rica or Italy to receive his new "titles"? Did an IPSP representative travel to Phnom Penh to present him his new "titles"? Of course not. His office simply got a letter with a nice looking "document", and that's it.
  • Do you have any idea who much effort it takes European or US or Australian etc. authorities to find out whether some Indian or Russian or Chinese etc. banks or universities or courts etc. or their documents are fake or real? Why do all people somehow affiliated with this organisation originate from countries that lack any resources to effectively carry out such validation? No wonder that Gabon or Cambodia might got fooled by IPSP people. I am still waiting for a link to any government page of Japan or South Africa or Israel etc.
  • In a way it is correct that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is nonexistent in all countries not recognising that Order. The same applies to the Republic of China. But there always are at least some countries that recognise the Order of Malta and the Republic of China. And such recognition can always be traced back to official journals or gazettes or records of certain countries, thus the Order's and Taiwan's existence in the international forum cannot be denied. But why is no such recognition of the IPSP included in the journal of any country? Why is none of their "ambassadors" included in the journal of any country? Why is there not a single picture available of any IPSP "ambassador" providing his credentials to any head of state? Normally, such events are extensively covered by the media.
  • Of course everybody is free to register a private legal entity of almost any name in any country, but a private legal entity has nothing to do with "international" or "diplomatic" stuff. Nevertheless, the IPSP supporters have not been able to provide proof of having actually registered such a private legal entity in any country, to say nothing of some real activity, e.g. holding conferences, giving receptions etc. Normally, such events are extensively covered by the media. Does any private legal entity of the name "IPSP" actually operate any offices anywhere? By the way, it might be legal in the US to register a business with the word "university" in its name, but that does not mean that this business is indeed a university.
  • Why is none of their officials included in any Who's Who?
  • Why does their website contain more that 874,922 writing and grammar errors? Don't they have anybody among their distinguished members with a minimum command of any of the languages used on that website?
  • I'm glad to see that the article now reflects what this organisation actually is: nothing. All the best from Phnom Penh! Henning Blatt (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UN recognition and a suggestion for sections[edit]

Whatever the individual views of everyone here, we are missing the main point - to create a balanced and substantive article. Whether this organisation has achieved anything or not is besides the point. The fact is that this organisation is recognised by the United Nations as a sovereign, intergovernmental and diplomatic organ<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.generalcouncil.info/Organizations.html|title=General Council of Diplomacy|date accessed=13th September 2009}}</ref> and deserves a better article.
I would recommend splitting the article into the following sections:
  • History
  • Workings
  • Criticism
  • Members
It's just a guideline - feel free to change it however you want.
In my humble opinion, this may well be a bogus organisation with many questions to answer for itself. However, we still must create a reasonably balanced article. Flipper24 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote: this organisation is recognised by the United Nations as a sovereign, intergovernmental and diplomatic organ. Sorry, but that's a lie. Neither is the quoted webpage a United Nations website, nor has the United Nations ever issued such a recognition. Again: Provide some facts! In cold print! Every document the UN produces has a distinctive number, and I wanna see that number! Henning Blatt (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments H.B., we are discussing the article, not the organization., and I advise you to moderate your tone. But Flipper, whether the organization is known for having achieved anything notable is very much the point here, for that is the basis at which we include articles in an encyclopedia. And I think it would be a violation of BLP policy to list any living people here as members unless there is confirmation that they themselves do indeed regard themselves as members, and this is proven from a published source originating outside and independently of the organization. And HB is correct, that the source you give is that of a group that seems to offer to sell what purports to be a diplomatic passport for $35,000. We can certainly say it lists you, and give a link to that p., and have people conclude what they will. That it is the United Nations is not correct, and I am surprised that anyone would be naïve enough to even assert it. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't see your point concerning my tone. The article links this (fictional) organisation to the United Nations, and that is not just unverified, but a lie. Please correct me, if I'm wrong. Henning Blatt (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very important that we apply Wikipedia policies to each article, including this one. When I first wrote the article, I ran into the claims that the organization is recognized by the United Nations. There is no truth in these claims. I ran into two minor connections, the second one really minuscule. [1] Someone signed into a meeting of a UN body in Addis Ababa claiming to represent IPSP. The protocol was included in a reputable source so this information was included in the article. [2] The UN library has shelved a couple of documents that it received from IPSP. This could and should not be included in the article. Neither connection constitutes of recognition. gidonb (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent improvements to the article[edit]

After the article had been vandalized by anons several times in the past few weeks, I restored the information and expanded the article with more information and references. I will be happy to discuss these. The following link was inserted several times into the article. http://www.international-parliament.net/html/Wikipedia.html It contains a few reservations about this article and rant about Wikipedia in general. Both seem not to suit all the purposes of the IPSP or ISPSP. These things sometimes happen with organizations and individuals. We will continue to work on and protect this article so to offer the readers of our encyclopedia well-balanced, well-referenced, and fair information of high quality. gidonb (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above mentioned page was expanded and relocated at http://www.international-parliament.net/sub/wiki.html. gidonb (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now also contains ridiculous rant about me. I will keep an eye on this page from time to time, because if IPSP can provide verifiable, independent, quality sources for any of their claims, we would be happy to adjust the article accordingly. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The domain is no longer of the IPSP but the comments can still be found here: http://free-rice.net/sub/wiki.html gidonb (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar organization: http://www.fpjn.org.uk/[2] gidonb (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rant can still be seen here: http://archive.is/oSuee gidonb (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International Parliament for Safety and Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International Parliament for Safety and Peace. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on International Parliament for Safety and Peace. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Parliament_for_Safety_and_Peace&oldid=1207726799"