Talk:Corruption in Angola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 22, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Lead sentence needs extremely good cites to justify

"Corruption in Angola is a pervasive phenomenon, hindering economic growth and government-sponsored liberalization programs." -- We really cannot justify keeping a line like this as the lead of any article unless it's extremely well cited (beyond any realistic question of OR or POV). -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with the entire article, which is why I originally put it to AfD because it appeared to me to be so rife with POV that it was not salvageable. In return, I was harangued by the original author, who seems to be oblivious to WP policies about deleting comments in AfD discussions and such. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see the policy that says it's okay to tag articles with PROD when you consider them POV. Please, enlighten me. Jose João (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"The South African invasions of Angola helped dos Santos strengthen his control within the MPLA, and he was able to make major economic, diplomatic, and political changes. In August 1987 he announced a major economic recovery plan. Blaming the nation's problems on excessive centralization of socialist planning, corruption, and too much bureaucracy, he proposed privatization of some state enterprises, banking reforms, and measures to encourage foreign investment. In 1988 he introduced plans to further liberalize Angola's economy."^[1] Jose João (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jose, I don't think you understand. I'm not disputing for a minute that there is corruption in Angola, and pretty rampant corruption at that. It is your treatment of it in this article, in which you make broad, sweeping statements like the one cited above, that I have a problem with. Such statements were so pervasive in the article that I believed it was beyond repair, so I took it to an AfD after your contesting the PROD, which was the proper procedure. In return for that, instead of defending the principles of the article and responding to the issues themselves, you flew off the handle and strted calling for me to be blocked for supposedly violating WP:POINT. Then you unilaterally started deleting the comments made by another editor, among other things, and were reported to the administrators for that action. If you had just settled down and explained why you thought the article was OK, everything would be fine. I could care less about your dispute with "Alice" or anyone else.

The result of the AfD was to keep the article, and I respect that. But that doesn't mean the article is in good shape. It needs work to tone down the rhetoric and make it more encyclopedic. If there is some sort of source that gives any sort of government "response," such as the World Bank's rating, that should be provided. Present all sides, and let the reader decide. I'm a journalist by trade, specifically a sports reporter and editor, and we get the concept of balance and presenting all views drummed into us all the time. That's probably why I get riled up when I'm on new-page patrol (where I found this article) and come across an article with big POV problems.

One more thing, and this is a minor point. This article might be better titled "Corruption in Angolan government," since it focuses on government and doesn't include corruption in business or other fields, for instance. Alternately, you could expand the article to include those areas a well. Not a big deal, but something to consider. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we misunderstand each other. I am 'riled' up about the fact that you tried to speedy delete multiple articles on grounds that wouldnt even fly for an AfD. POV is not a reason for deletion. Regarding the article, what exactly are these 'broad sweeping statements'? The article is so specific it's boring. It consists of nothing but ratings and the estimated amount of $ the government stole in X year. The opposing view, that Angola is run by the most honest of bureaucrats, doesn't exist. The Angolan government really doesnt care if people call it out on corruption. Notice that the above quote, admitting the government's corruption, originated with the guy who's been in power since 1979. Jose João (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Multiple articles" for speedy? The only other one I can recall is the Negocios article, which was simply a dictdef and a statement that corruption is rampant in Angola. If that's "multiple articles," well then you're stretching things, but the latter merited a speedy simply for lack of context.

An oppoing view "doesn't exist"? An opposing view ALWAYS EXISTS with any issue, no matter how crazy that view might be. Here's a rather extreme example: The vast majority of people agree that the Holocaust did happen and was a crime against humanity that can hardly be understood, yet there are a small group of nutcases who truly believe the Holocaust was a hoax. It's crazy, but it's an alternate POV that an encyclopedic article should present. Back to corruption in Angola: Somewhere, some government spokesman has made some sort of statement along the lines of, "The World Bank's findings are inaccurate" or some sort of baloney like that. That's what government spokesmen do, basically: lie to make their bosses look good. But, it's still an opposing point of view, and it should be presented here. You'll probably find it in some Angolan newspaper article somewhere. If I knew something about Angola, I would do it myself, but I have no clue as to where to start. You're obviously better versed on the subject, so you would know where to look much better than I. I know it's counter-intuitive to present a POV with which you strongly disagree. I've had to do it myself at Wikipedia on occasion. Debate teams do it all the time, as they may be required to argue either side on an issue at a competition without prior knowledge of which side they'll be assigned.

You've done an excellent job with sources. That's not the issue. The article just needs the other side presented — and it DOE exist somewhere out there — and the tone of the lead paragraph taken down a notch. That's all. You can do it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)