Talk:Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

I learnt of the CEDS through the brilliant works of Michael J. Strauss on Territorial Leasing. Strauss claims to be an alumni, here are the sources:

http://www.exploringgeopolitics.org/Interview_Strauss_Michael_Territorial_Leasing_Boundary_Conflicts_Disputes_Borders_Guantanamo_Bay.html

http://www.abc-clio.com/product.aspx?id=54377

http://www.amazon.com/Leasing-Guantanamo-Security-International-ebook/dp/B002BH3KUC

I changed one of the references on the page, as it was my own dissertation, which I did not particulary appreciate being used to attack Pascal Chaigneau, or to prove any links between CEDS and Africa. It was an example of using a source without reading it, as I say nothing about Chaigneau's affiliations in my thesis, other than his official status, as marked in his publications. - Dr. Christopher Griffin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.1.161.159 (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit war on whether e-International Relations should even be referenced in the article

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

@ User:Crusio Why did I mention e-IR in the CEDS page? because so far I know no other. If you censor the primer of this reference you are merely denying Wikipedia its fundamental snowballing effect and the collective intelligence to occur in its editing. Namely, one will bring another reference, and some editor just like you will say :"why do you just mention this?". In a nutshell: small editing is not tantamount to partiality. It has taken me a long time to find, read and quote the three (seriously long) e-IR references I have added here. It has taken you a little (taxpayer paid by the way) time to just dismiss them with the back of your hand. Do you realize this attitude is not only unfair but impedes the whole wikipedia magic of collective bit-by-bit editing?GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean to say that members of the CEDS have only published in this e-journal/magazine? I find that difficult to believe. Please see WP:UNDUE on why this has no place in this article. Also, please assume good faith in your comments. Nobody is here to damage your work or to be unfair. --Crusio (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
fine, what should we do then? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

What we should do is discuss this in a reasonable way, as we are doing now. As far as I can see, there is no justification for including this remark in the article. It would not be very encyclopedic to give an exhaustive list of all the journals in which centre faculty have published. So to highlight one particular journal, there needs to be a justification for that. I don't see any, but you added this remark, so perhaps there's a good reason to mention these three articles (that, as far as I can see, are not about the CEDS). --Crusio (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
you are making a confusion here. Articles about the CEDS must be picked to establish notablity. This does not mean all articles must be about the CEDS, others can be used merely to source fact. What I denounce here is a conservative bias; I tend to believe your mental category of an encyclopedia is a paper encyclopedia with limited space, which Wikipedia is absolutely not. I have tried to be bold in this article, and indeed de-orphaned e-International Relations by putting a relevant link to connect it. Being conservative is for paper journals and paper encyclopediae, not for wikipedia. Thus firmly note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and really not at all] and that it is a positive thing to hyperlink articles together. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't happen too often that people complain about WP having a conservative bias :-) The question here is not about space (as it might be in a paper encyclopedia) at all, however. It is about whether it is appropriate to include this information, which is not even tangential relevant to the present article. As you and I don't seem to be able to get to a resolution of this issue, lets ask for some other opinions. --Crusio (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

See the above discussion. Is it appropriate to include references to publications that are not even tangentially relevant to the subject of this article, for the sole reason of de-orphaning another article on a non-related subject? --Crusio (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I endorse this idea, and defend that too much information is always better than too little. See, Jimbo Wales would like Wikipedia to become like the Akashic records as the Internet is becoming the collective brain of Humanity as Auguste Comte's Great Being, see China Brain for example. Well, Wikipedia is "Humanity's brain" and I see nothing better than neural darwinism to determine what's in and what's out. If you want, we can write a peer-reviewed paper together on how a hebbian rule within Changeux's synaptic lability paradigm could make wikipedia more intelligent (I'm not kidding). What I essentially mean is that the brain's intelligence is not limited to that of one neuron. Allow that of wikipedia to not be limited to ours either, but rather to emerge in an enactive manner à la Varela huh? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not significant to the article. If we could cite something to say that members of the centre published exclusively or mainly in a journal then that might be significant. In general, though, members of such an institute will publish in dozens, if not hundreds of journals, and a given journal will attract contributions from a similar number of institutions. Certainly a table of institute vs journal might be both interesting and useful, but it would not belong in this article, and possibly not on Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC).Reply

The argument over e-International Relations seems to be settled best if someone finds a reliable reference about the relation between the Center for Diplomatic and Strategic Studies and e-International Relations. Until such reference provided, the relation should be considered not notable enough for inclusion. If eIR is really the official mean of publication for the Center, it still should not be mentioned without the reference discussed above as unverifiable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I understand this, nobody argues that there is a formal link between the two... --Crusio (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic