Talk:Anti-corruption
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 21:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC).
|
Copyediting
editContinuing the discussion from Talk:Anti-corruption#Replacement of disambiguation by an article:
@WiR IACA: Thank you again for researching and writing this much-needed article, including the new sections. The article does not have to be comprehensive in order for us to move it to mainspace; indeed, by moving to mainspace we open it to a wider editorship.
One thing that I believe is a priority before publishing is to eliminate passive voice and weasel words from the article. Here are some examples: "Empirical research suggests"; "It was, however, also questioned"; "there are laws interpreted as directed against corruption"; "is often seen"; "was fully recognized"; "is credited as influential"; "became more common to refer to corruption as…", "the UK Bribery Act of 2010 was implemented"; "Even though sanctions seem to be underwritten by a legal framework…".
Readers need to know who did what, or who believes what. Active voice makes a narrative easier to read and understand. A phrase like "empirical research suggests…" might also constitute original research. —Ringbang (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will go through the draft bearing in mind your remarks. Thank you very much --WiR IACA (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I hope my edit improved the article. --WiR IACA (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- In case you should not strongly advise against doing so, I would suggest to submit the article for a review soon. Best regards, --WiR IACA (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- You can submit it any time you wish, but I do think there are problems with neutrality and attribution (WP:NOTESSAY, WP:WEASEL, WP:SAID, et al.). Are you familiar with the policy WP:SYNTH? —Ringbang (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Ringbang, thank you very much for your advice. I agree that several aspects did not comply with SYNTH, so it is really great that you pointed it out! I hoped that I corrected all of them. Be assured that I have no intrinsic POV on the issue, as I am not a professional in the area of anti-corruption myself and am currently just taking advantage of the library at IACA. For this reason, I do not have any personal opinions on the debated material; the POV-looking points I found were merely inattentively worded expressions. I am obviously agreeing for any change on any aspect, as I do not have any preferences on anything mentioned in the article. I hope the article is not beyond any hope and can be rescued in order to once have a real article on anti-corruption instead of the current disambiguation. --WiR IACA (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- You can submit it any time you wish, but I do think there are problems with neutrality and attribution (WP:NOTESSAY, WP:WEASEL, WP:SAID, et al.). Are you familiar with the policy WP:SYNTH? —Ringbang (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Ringbang: for your remarks, I think I will go towards a submission. I think this might be the best possibility to receive some kind of feedback by additional editors who might also give me a hint which aspect needs extension, etc. Best regards --WiR IACA (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
COI: IACA
editWhile extending the international law-based section, I thought to add intergovernmental organizations that are operating globally and are created through an international act of law. I could only find, however, the so far not-created International Anti-Corruption Court and the International Anti-Corruption Academy, IACA. The latter one is currently employing me, which causes necessarily a conflict of interest. I hence tried to keep the segment as short and neutral as possible. I would, however, like to point-out my Conflict of Interest in this regard once again and invite readers to review
- a) whether the mentioning of IACA is appropriate in the given context
- b) whether the text itself fulfills the NPOV-policy
- c) whether I omitted other notable organization that deserve mentioning in the given context unduly.
all other remarks, comments, etc are obviously welcome as well. --WiR IACA (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
prevention of corruption
editEnglish 102.148.117.178 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Corruption War
editHi,Conflict is one of the corrupted activities on going and recommended and recognized and all agreed to stop corruption at all levels but all is not enough to end Anti-Demon amongst all aspects of lives and as civilians suffer the mirror shows other shapes of futures abroad as emissions against the weather the humanitarian are also against their demand as I can say I can change and I did change many lives except mine.Amooketsi they to them from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.122.130.163 (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "emissions against the weather the humanitarian are also against their demand" Humanitarians are against greenhouse gas emissions? Since when? Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)