Talk:Transparency International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

TRansparency International explanation posted today (29.12.2004) has been taken from their official site: http://www.transparency.org/about_ti/index.html therefore it should NOT be changed unless the source text changes. (anon)

In short, you have replaced our article with a copyright violation. I have reverted it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why use a 1998 Figure?

After 11 years, many governments have been changed. This very old figure should be changed as well?

No copyright violation, please revert to my last version of 29.12.2004

as a member of TI Secretariat, entitled to use the information posted on our website (you rightly say, it is copyrighted) in public gateways like this one in order to correct versions about who we are. Therefore I request that you revert to my last version. Please answer to this message in case you want to contact me to verify the information I have just gave you. (unsigned, but posted by User:Robe34 30 March 2005)

At least initially, I'll leave it to others to sort out what best to do with the material User:Robe34 inserted, and which I had reverted. Apparently, we may quote from it freely. However, we do not typically allow organizations to "take over" the articles about themselves, any more than a newspaper would do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

There you have a point Jmabel, but it's not much as taking over, rather is to give precise information about who we are, what we do etc. To give you some examples from your own text (I'm sorry if I am too long):

We are devoted to fight corruption, not ONLY POLITICAL CORRUPTION as you say, we have a holistic approach towards corruption, hence that is contradictory, political corruption is part of our agenda and we have defined it as one of our global priorities, among others. There goes one we need to correct.

We don't have a "central secretariat" we are not a centralized organizacion, we are a network with an International Secretariat (central v.s. international means a complete different approach to our work, pretty horizontal).

About us moving to a completely democratic organization, I simply don't know what you mean here.

In sum, we, this coalition, went and spent a lot of time putting into black and white what and who we are and of course our approach, this is not really taking over but definetly a short cut to spending too much time in a debate that at the end would (could) end by at least accepting the information/terms in which our statements are written, regardless of the style in which are going to be presented here.

I think it would be far more profitable to talk in this space about many other aspects of our organisation (and of corruption) rather than only the "descriptive" part of it. Maybe we can put some more juice in here.

Over to you guys, thanks for responding Jmabel (again unsigned, but posted by User:Robe34 30 March 2005)

• Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Otherwise this gets very confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure who you are addressing as "you". This article was written in various parts by various people, some of them probably well informed, some poorly. We should definitely incorporate any specific factual corrections you have (you can put them in yourself). However, wholesale replacement of longstanding copy (especially without specific comment on what was wrong with the copy remove) is generally not appreciated, for obvious reasons, especially when the replacement reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article.
  

The nature of writing a Wikipedia article is that it requires a willingness to be involved in a give and take. If you don't have time (or inclination) for that give and take, which I can perfectly well understand, I suggest that instead of making big edits to the article, you place your material here on the talk page and tell people that they are free to mine it for the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Love to reach consensus. I will participate as one more of the "You group" caring not to intrude too much, just when I spot something that definetly needs changing. I saw some edits already, great! Robe34

By the way, I reccomend a book, its called The Professor and the Madman Robe34

• Yes, we have our share of both on this particular project. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

IWPR

I wonder if IWPR and Transparency should have links on each other at the base of the pages?  ^freedomAnnawright 17:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just links to each other wouldn't do much good, but if there is a relationship between the two, that should almost certainly be mentioned in both articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, a possible effort by TI to control Wikipedia's coverage of them

Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). As it stands, this is not properly a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not supposed to simply reprint a groups's FAC. Either this is a copyvio, or we have permission to quote from it, and should, but should write our own article. Or perhaps this is a POV fork of Index of perception of corruption? In any case, it is not OK in its present form. I'm raising the issue here because this is a longstanding related article that people interested in the subject probably have watchlisted. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I just edited a section which was crude and obviously written to defend TI. What a thankless task. ^freedom Annawright 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just removed an original research tag on the funding section since the section did quote a source (TI itself!) and then linked to other wikipedia entries. Apparently sonmeone does not like lights shining too brightly.--Wickifrank (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Thick as thieves by Christian de Brie (Reporter Le Monde diplomatique).

Christian de Brie himself goes as far to claim in a TV film (Lobbying by Myriam Tonelotto) shown on the french/german network arte that TI consists solely of large multinational concerns with support of governments or even intelligence agencies. --LuckyStarr 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The linked article really doesn't say much about TI, though. It says, in effect, international business is hopelessly evil and that TI is merely trying to report on governments that try to skim a percentage, hence serving the interests of hopelessly evil international business. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Transparency International: funded by Enron, Elf, Lockheed...

Here is another critic article: Can Transparency International be trusted for Integrity?, published on South Asia Tribune [1]).

As for Christian de Brie, in my documentary film (Lobbying, au delà de l'enveloppe : [2]), he explains that TI is precisely funded by the biggest corrupter in the world, from Enron to Elf or Lookheed. In 2003, the year of the Enron scandal, T.I America was still proud to present Enron as official funder. Hereunder an excerpt of the interview Christian de Brie gave for the film, which can be freely screened free of rights in its French, German or English version. [3]) .

Christian de Brie:

NGO c’est quand même un mot qui ne convient pas tellement à cette organisation. C’est une association internationale qui a des correspondants dans tous les pays du monde, qui est une initiative américaine au départ, et qui se propose de lutter contre la corruption et plus précisément de rendre transparente la corruption, c’est à dire de révéler au public qui sont les corrompus. Et plus particulièrement les Etats et les gouvernements corrompus. Donc, Transparency s’occupe essentiellement de la corruption d’Etat, la corruption publique, celle qui touche les fonctionnaires, les ministres, les hommes politiques. Et ils s’efforcent de faire ça à partir de sondages qui sont effectués dans chaque pays à travers des correspondants qui ont l’habitude de travailler dans ces pays et qui notent, qui procèdent à une notation de la corruption de chaque pays, à partir de cela on dresse une liste annuelle qu’on publie et qu’on renouvelle tous les ans. Et Transparency a des moyens considérables qui lui permettent de faire savoir et de faire connaître à l’ensemble de la presse et à l’ensemble des media les résultats de ses opérations.

Alors bon, très simplement, c’est une supercherie. Transparency International c’est une opération qui a été montée par des grands corrupteurs, c’est-à-dire toutes les grosses sociétés multinationales du monde, généralement avec l’appui des gouvernements quand ce n’est pas un peu avec le soutien des services secrets, c’est un peu comme si on confiait au renard le soin de surveiller le poulailler en lui demandant de dénoncer systématiquement les souris qui iraient grignoter les grains de maïs des poules. C’est pas sérieux. Le résultat, c’est qu’on voit rarement apparaître les grands pays, les grandes puissances occidentales en tête des pays corrompus. Or si Transparency International faisait correctement son boulot, le numéro 1 des pays corrompus, tous les ans, serait systématiquement les Etats Unis, car c’est de loin le pays le plus corrupteur et le plus corrompus de la planète. Non pas parce que les Américains sont moins moraux ou plus immoraux que les autres, mais parce qu’ils ont les moyens de la corruption et qu’ils les utilisent systématiquement.

On vit dans un monde où la concurrence internationale, le marché, est de plus en plus mondialisé, la concurrence que se livrent les grandes entreprises pour capter des marchés est de plus en plus féroce. Il faut savoir qu’à l’échelon mondial, à l’échelon international, quel que soit le secteur d’activité, on ne peut obtenir de grand marché sans des pratiques de corruption. Ce n’est pas possible. Que ce soit dans les armes, dans le pétrole, dans les grands travaux publics, quel que soit le secteur, dans les chemins de fer, dans l’électricité, dans l’apurement des eaux, vous ne pouvez pas obtenir un grand marché, un métro, vous ne pouvez pas l’obtenir sans des pratiques de corruption. Qui varient d’un pays à l’autre, et les grandes firmes internationales, qui se battent à mort pour capter ces marchés, utilisent évidemment tous les moyens mis à leur disposition pour le faire. Et généralement elles utilisent bien au delà de la corruption classique, l’enveloppe ou le pot de vin de grand papa - qui continue d’exister- elles ont des moyens de pression beaucoup plus considérables et d’autant plus considérables qu’elles sont les ressortissantes d’Etats puissants.

Il est évident qu’un pays comme les Etats-Unis, qui a les moyens d’accéder à toute information, qui a un système universel de surveillance de toute la planète, qui est sous l’autorité d’un service secret américain qui s’appelle NSA, National Security Agency, peut capter n’importe quelle information dans le monde, la décrypter, l’utiliser. Et on sait très bien que l’un des clients de la NSA c’est pas seulement le Pentagone, ce sont aussi les entreprises américaines à qui l’on peut fournir des informations sur le comportement de certains gouvernements, sur les marchés en perspective, sur les exigences de ces marchés, et donc en fournissant ces informations on donne à ces entreprises les moyens d’agir auprès des gouvernements pour obtenir ces marchés.

D’autre part des pays comme les Etats Unis mais aussi les grands pays européens ont des moyens de pression indirects sur le plupart des gouvernements ou de Etats qui passent des commandes . Parce qu’ils ont des liens d’activité économique, parce que souvent ces pays là sont dans un dépendance financière, et donc ils ont des moyens de pression très précis. Or ces grandes sociétés multinationales, les gouvernements qui les soutiennent, voient généralement d’un mauvais œil les pratiques de corruption classique, traditionnelles, celles que dénonce Transparency International, qui consistent à glisser une enveloppe à un fonctionnaire pour obtenir quelque chose, parce que ça leur fait une concurrence qu’ils pourraient juger entre guillemets « déloyale » entre corrupteurs, eux ils préfèrent une forme de corruption beaucoup plus élaborée, beaucoup plus sophistiquée qui n’est accessible qu’aux grandes firmes qui ont les moyens de le faire. Et donc ce qu’ils voudraient, à travers des opérations comme Transparency International, c’est éliminer du marché de la corruption la petite corruption traditionnelle, qui dérange. Ce qui ne les empêche pas de la pratiquer à l’occasion, parce que eux aussi continuent d’utiliser les enveloppes et les pots de vin. D’ailleurs la plupart de ces enveloppes elles ne sont plus transmises de valise à valise, généralement on les retrouves sous une forme beaucoup plus abstraite, dans des comptes numérotés des paradis fiscaux. Or le réseau mondial des paradis fiscaux est principalement et massivement utilisé par toutes les grandes banques du monde », ce sont elles qui les tiennent. Ce ne sont pas le Burkina Fasso ni le Bangladesh, dont on sait très bien comment fonctionne le système , on comment fonctionne le circuit, et ce qui est intéressant dans ces opérations de type Transparency international, encore une fois c’est cet effet de rationalisation ce la corruption sous une autre forme plus élaborée, plus sophistiquée, et certainement beaucoup plus efficace.

Christian the Brie in "Lobbying, au delà de l'enveloppe", ARTE/NDR/Ana-films; director: myriam tonelotto (myriam.tonelotto2(arrobase)laposte.net)

((myriam tonelotto)) 9 Feb 2006

The above comment was modified (including changes to the HTML links) 28 August 2006 by 62.241.76.79 (talk · contribs), presumably the same person who made the comments originally. Please, if you are liable to modify your comments from a different URL, open an account and use it. Otherwise, it is very hard to distinguish this sort of revision from vandalism of someone else's comments.

Transparency International frightening bloggers?

Now this is interesting...

• Transparency the German way

The German chapter of Transparency International is in the middle of a self-inflicted publicity disaster this weekend. A lawyer representing Transparency International - Deutschland e.V has threatened to sue the ass of a young German blogger unless she removes a blog post of hers by Sunday midnight. She received the threatening e-mail less than 48 hours before the dead line.

• Kritik an TI at Wikipedia in German

Im März 2006 ging TI Deutschland gegen die Verfasserin eines privaten Weblogs vor, die über die ihrer Meinung nach unfaire Kündigung einer ehemaligen Angestellten von TI Deutschland berichtet hatte. Der Justiziar der Organisation verlangte die Löschung des Artikels und drohte mit rechtlichen Schritten. Diese Reaktion stieß in vielen Weblogs nicht nur im deutschsprachigen Raum auf Widerspruch; auch etablierte Medien berichteten über den Vorfall.[2] Dabei wurde der Vorwurf laut, dass TI sich in diesem Fall nicht an die eigenen ethischen Grundsätze halte.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I suspect that some further relevant materials can be found by googling "Transparency site:http://wasweissich.twoday.net"; I skimmed the results, some look interesting. But would someone please work on the relevant section of our article in terms of better sourcing? - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Transparency International: a 2002 analysis about links between TI and corrupted funders

Since then, Enron is no more TI America funder. But others still are. As says Christian De Brie : asking an NGO funded by the most corrupted companies through the world to fight corruption, it's just like asking the fox to denounce the mices stealing corn from a an henhouse.

• How Low Can You go? The Corruption Of Corporate Imperialism

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.241.76.79 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

The article currently says:

The first is a danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Country analysts might be influenced by past corruption indices and therefore not realise changes.

If the corruption index worked as a self-fulfilling prophecy, this would mean that it influenced corrption; not that it influenced future corruption indexes. Because the corruption index says nothing about corruption indexes, it cannot be a prophecy (self-fulfilling or not) about these indexes. Also, because the index says nothing about the future anyway, the very idea of it being a prophecy of any kind is quite absurd.

However, I don't feel knowledgable enough about the topic to make accurate changes to the paragraph. May others do it in my stead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.229.186.82 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2006.

I disagree. It is an index of perception of corruption, not of corruption, and clearly the index influences that perception. - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorporated governance

An anon turned "addressing corruption" into "addressing corruption and incorporated governance". This makes no sense to me, and I suspect will make little sense to anyone else. A Google search on "incorporated governance" turns up mostly coincidences like "IDA has incorporated governance considerations in its work." The only place I could find the expression used as such was complexxon.org, which led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complexxon, which tells me that not only was an article on Complexxon deleted, but so was one on precisely the expression "incorporated governance". I gather that we are being subjected to a sort of spam here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving article

Looking at content and structure of the entry on Transparency International, I would like to make a couple of comments. As a staff member of Transparency International, I have a Conflict of Interest in editing the article itself, which is why I would like to open the discussion here on the Talk-page (as it seems discussions in 2004 have been dis-continued), and provide information to improve the quality of the article.

The entry as it stands currently does not seem to comply with a standard neutral Wikipedia entry. It would benefit from a more comprehensive overview of the objectives of the organisation (the link to the mission statement is outdated eg), the work carried out and tools developed by Transparency International. Also, it would be beneficial to explain more in detail the relationship between the international secretariat and its independent national chapters, as there seem to be some misunderstandings on roles and funding.

I also would like to suggest creating a page on “Criticism of Transparency International”, similar to other international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Human Rights Watch, where criticism can be listed and discussed more in detail. Georgneu (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The TI article is very short, sections are usually only splitted of when the whole article becomes a really clumsy beast. Maybe it can be consolidated under one heading though. Still the article looks OK'ish, it may needs to be updated and edited.

Alma-Tadema (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. One of the quick fixes is the link to TI's mission statement, now available at [4]. I would support creating consolidated headings for TI's tools including referrals to the Corruption Perceptions Index, the Bribe Payers Index and the Global Corruption Report (not linked currently) among others; as well as Criticism of Transparency International. On the latter, I would also like to add a couple of comments on the recent Venezuela addition, which I will do in a separate section. Georgneu (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say this article needs a great deal of improvement. While it's perfectly legitimate to discuss criticism, this articles seems to be almost exclusively about TI's bad press. The German version of this article [5] seems a lot more encyclopedic and balanced. I would strongly suggest getting some of that content over here. Volunteers, anyone? (Audionaut (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I would agree. By the nature of their work, Transparency International is going to make enemies. It seems like they have the upper hand on this article. Pepik70 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments to Accusations of bias & links to Venezuelan opposition

Following some additional information clarifying the process of the elaboration of the report referred to. From the start, Transparency International’s Promoting Revenue Transparency Project aimed to be inclusive and to help oil and gas companies both reflect and improve their transparency practices. It was a priority to engage with the sector and to ensure a fair and trustworthy process. In December 2006, companies were informed that they had been selected for possible inclusion in a report on revenue transparency. The report examined the levels of transparency of 42 national and international oil and gas companies operating in 21 countries. In February 2007, the companies finally selected for inclusion were provided with a detailed timeline for the project. In March 2007, these same companies were invited to a meeting in London to join reviewing the report’s methodology. In August 2007 TI provided companies with the information compiled on them based on the methodology and requested their review of the data. Company feedback was considered, even well after the two-week deadline that was originally stipulated. In practice, the deadline for company reviews was never closed. One company reviewed their data as late as March 2008.

Data review by the companies was offered to them for three reasons: to provide an opportunity to verify the accuracy of the information gathered on their operations, to provide an opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the information on their home and host operating environments and to gather information pertinent to contextualizing the scoring of companies and facilitate qualitative comparisons in the final report. Ten companies took the opportunity to review their data. PDVSA did not. The company also never responded to any of the letters, faxes or e-mails sent at each stage of the process, spanning the period from 2006 to 2007.

PDVSA published their report after the data compilation phase. TI welcomes that PDVSA has published audited financial statements for 2006 in September 2007 and for 2007, in May 2008 on its website. PDVSA is welcome to review its data with TI at any time and as with other companies involved, TI will work with them to strengthen transparency and anti-corruption.

The project management and data for the report was centrally managed by the Transparency International Secretariat in Berlin through a project consultant, not through TI’s network of national chapters.

The work of TI’s Venezuela chapter is a clear expression of a balanced, non-partisan approach that is fully committed to democratic values and procedures. The chapter’s constructive work on a national scale includes Expo Transparencia and a yearly municipal transparency index. Georgneu (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that so much of the Venezuela section is based on allegations made in an editorial on a website run by the Guardian which is being misprepresented as Guardian reporting. It is not even published in the paper. Furthermore, the writer has his own blog, "21st Century Socialism" and his editorials frequently appear on www.venezuelananlysis.com, a wildly pro Chavez website. Nearly as much space is given to this person's allegations as the section describing Transparency International. Is this appropriate?Pepik70 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Calvin Tucker, nor Stephen Lendman are authoritative sources on anything related to Venezuela. Venezuelanalysis.com is not a trustworthy source, but a propaganda site funded by the government of Hugo Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekboyd (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

Wiki does not use blogs, blatantly partisan sites, or editorial comments to source this kind of text: please refer to WP:V and WP:RS. I have removed this text, which could be re-added if reliable sources are found: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

When questioned about the apparently biased report, TI initially claimed that information was not available at the time of publication—a claim which was also false—and then refused to answer further questions about the matter.

The data in TI's report was gathered by Mercedes de Freitas, the head of their Caracas bureau and a longtime opponent of President Hugo Chávez. De Freitas' previous job was running a US government funded opposition "civil society" group, the Fundacion Momento de la Gente, which is subsidized by National Endowment for Democracy, a US government agency. [6]

According to a blog entry posted in Comment is Free, "TI's Venezuela bureau is staffed by opponents of the Venezuelan government. The directors include Robert Bottome, the publisher of Veneconomia, a strident opposition journal, and Aurelio Concheso of the Centre for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge, a conservative think tank funded by the US government. Concheso was previously a director of the employers' organisation, Fedecamaras. The president of Fedecamaras, Pedro Carmona, led the failed 2002 coup and was briefly installed as Venezuela's dictator."

ExxonMobil, which has taken legal action against PDVSA in the UK, US, and the Netherlands to freeze PVDSA's assets after it rejected PVDSA's offer of compensation for newly nationalised oilfields in the Orinocco River region, has been a funder of TI.

Having worked for an anti-corruption organization (not TI) that reported negatively on Venezuela, I can say that backlash was immediate and well-organized. I see hints of that here. For one: local TI chapters get no financial support from the Secretatiat in Berlin, so that Exxon funding is almost certainly not a factor. But it works well as a smear. 67.184.179.77 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional text that is not correctly cited, removed for citing to reliable sources, tagged uncited for over a year and a half: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In March 2006, TI Germany attempted to ban an article from a German blog. In this article the blogger expressed her disapproval about a friend’s dismissal who used to work at TI Germany, stating accusations that TI viewed as being false. This led some German bloggers to protest against TI’s alleged method of suppressing the freedom of opinion.

This reaction of the German blogosphere aroused media interest. After the blogger got some help from a German lawyer (who was also a blogger), TI Germany and the blogger came to an agreement. TI Germany never published a conclusive comment on this (a press release making some details on the monthly income of the affected employee was withdrawn very quickly).

References

Uncited text removed

This text needs to be cleaned up and cited to reliable sources: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Banja Luka dailies Nezavisne Novine and Glas Srpski as well as Republika Srpska radio and television, RTRS, reported on Tuesday (1 July,2008) that two unidentified personnel from the Bosnian branch of the Transparency International, as well as one person from the Bosnian Indirect Taxation Agency, have been involved in racketeering of local businessmen.

" known for its accuracy? "

Of all the sentences on this page for Transparency International this one about the Corruption Perceptions Index should be deleted first:

"Based on many different studies, it is known for its accuracy."

This is an astonishing claim to make, especially as its role is widely debated and disputed at all sorts of levels of discourse.

avaiki (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a word of TI and it's website. Seems strange.... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

However the TI USA Chapter has never commented within its publications[1] on any corruption case within the USA, and has taken money from the Boeing Corporation,[2] whose executive Darleen A. Druyun was imprisoned for corrupt activities, leading to the resignation of Boeing CEO Phil Condit.

This is clearly meant to smear Transparency International USA and has no relevance. It is a clear example of Bias and should be removed.

The entire article needs a once over with a critical eye toward content bias, as many editors seem to be using this page to grind their own axes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj spinster (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

The funding section currently looks like a synthesis and is entirely based on primary sources. Please provide secondary sources to support these claims before removing the template. Laurent (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done--Wickifrank (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Funding section bias?

In the Funding section, as of Dec 31 2009 (happy new year!), the article only mentions how corrupt the corporate sponsors are, and implies that the organization itself is corrupt because of these corporate sponsors. If this is just my interpretation, please correct me, but otherwise somebody should change this.  :) --70.177.11.9 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to remove the section on funding seems to be another (amongst many well documented above) attempt by apologists for TI to cover up any information that they regard as detrimental to the organisation. It is the function of an editor to bring together relevent facts (none of which have been disputed). To ignore that an organisation whose stated objects is to fight curruption is in partly, but significantly, funded (at least in the USA) by organisations which have their own legal troubles in that direction is in my mind at least as biased as mentioning it. The references mention other sources of funding other than the those with criminal connections, though it is clear that funding in the USA is mainly corporate. The irony, if it exists, is in mind of the reader, not in the written text. Unless someone submits a rewrite rather than a deletion I will reinstate in the next day or so.--Wickifrank (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section but to be honest I'm quite neutral on the issue and I do not mind if there's information detrimental to TI in the article. Currently, the section is definitely a wp:synthesis and thus cannot stay, at least not in its current form. However, if you (or someone else) can bring a source that directly supports the accusations, then I have no problem with it staying in the article. In other words, we need a source making explicitely the correlation between Boeing or Pfizer's funding of TI and the alleged corruption of their executives. Laurent (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear where the idea that the legal problems of Boeing and Pfizer are "accusations" comes from. The convictions are well documented and fully referenced in the Wikipedia articles cross referenced in my original edit. It was not my intention to incorporate them fully in the TI article but will do so if that is required. I am not suggesting that either corporation funds TI USA because of their legal problems, which even if it were true is unlikely to have been stated on the record, and therefore made no such statement. All I am doing is referenceing those problems in an article which deals with an organisation which they help substantially fund and direct, and whose purpose is directly related to the issues referenced. The relevance must be obvious to all but those unwilling to see. Synthesis is only relevent where a conclusion is drawn. I draw no conclusion but repeat that relevance is clear.--Wickifrank (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• I propose that Transparency International India be merged into Transparency International. Frankly, there's very little content in the source page, and most of what would end up there would likely duplicate with what's here, as it's simply a local chapter of TI. If we do end up getting more content about local chapters, we can expand, but there's simply no there there right now. Mosmof (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Merging proposal Discarded: Mosmof I appreciate you for bringing an idea for merging Transparency International India into Transparency International. But sorry to say that these two articles can't be merged together as most of the details in the both articles are not same although they are of the similar category. It would be better to add more context and resources under Transparency International India other then merging it with Transparency International. The key people and the managing people's names are also not same. I've also removed the merger tag that you have placed in the articles Transparency International and Transparency International India. Iraag (talk)

• Against merger: I think the merger is not neccessary and we could well benefit in the long run with artilces on each of the chapters. Inclusion of some of them in the Transparency International article would be likely to be giving some undue weight. There is scope for development of independent articles for some of the chapters. The Indian one is, in my view, one such. Adding stuff to the Indian one is easy and fine. Adding to a section on the Indian one in the Main TI article would be undue weight. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

Except there's minimal content and there's no apparent evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. We could break out an India article when there's sufficient content to warrant an article, but I'm not seeing it right now. Mosmof (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if one were to examine the Indian mdeia - one can find that TI has made quite a big impact in terms of political debate. A very quick search via google news gives

this

The first story (as of today) from the Times of India has some discussion of the impact of TI and quotes AK Mishra, TI India's Exec. Dir.. This seems to me indicative of notabilty. But I don't think such refs would help the article - but they do convince me of likely notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

@Msrasnw: Google searches are individually tailored; we don't see what you see. Whatever it is, if it is not suitable to incorporate in the article, it doesn't justify keeping a separate article at the moment. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some stories in major media sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-26253001

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/gas-scam-govt-acted-on-complaints-by-four-activists/article1-1183039.aspx

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/was-misinformed-says-embarrassed-aap-after-corruption-survey-blunder-485126

23:28, 6 March 2014‎ Msrasnw

The point is not whether the national chapter is independently notable, but whether the article is worth keeping as a separate page at the moment. Go ahead and incorporate the news stories into the stub article, otherwise it should be merged for the time being. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that TII is independently notable and the article could be expanded and our merger policy suggests - Merging should be avoided if ... the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles. Also adding a little section on TII to the TI page would I think make the resulting article clunky. Therefor I think instead of merging efforts could be directed towards adding content to our small article on TII. This is to my mind better than a section on TII on the TI page. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for making a start with more citations, but please incorporate material from individual press reports rather than just saying "TII has been commented on". Never mind quotes from its own people - what have independent notable people said or done as a result of its work? – Fayenatic London 18:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support merger for the time being. At present it only adds the names of leading people, and three news links which have not yet been expanded to report any additional facts. Until someone does the latter, there is no justification for a separate page; it just looks promotional for the names listed. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Against merger: Transparency International India meets the Wikipedia standards and I am against the the merger. Please remove the merger template. INPanda 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@IndianPanda: Which standards, exactly? Mosmof 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

While we're waiting for the answer, WP:NGO seems to indicate the articles should be merged, given that TII doesn't seem to have notoriety outside India. Mosmof (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As there has been no action to implement the above requests to expand the page, I am redirecting it. The two independent citations available online state that TII has not made a report on corruption in Delhi - this does not confirm notability, and gives nothing worth merging. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)