Talk:Budget accountability in the European Union

Untitled
I have reformated the page, added the template, and edited some English but apart from that left the original text vitually untouched. I find it very Eurosceptic and thus lacking in neutrality. The article does not give room to show the efforts of the Commission to tackle these problems. In addition to the slanted view I find that the author has not cited sources sufficiently, e.g. for the 10% of the budget that is supposed to be subject to corruption.

Before making an attempt at improving the neutrality I wanted to hear the opinion of others here.

--Drdan 10:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have restructured the page, edited some of the English, removed passages that did not have cited backing, replaced some terminology with the technically correct version, and added quite a few links. Still I find the language and the article as a whole to be slanted towards the Eurocritical standpoint. The Bonde webpage is references a little too often as well.

--Drdan 09:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit more tidying, mainly to make the language less convoluted and less "when did you stop beating your wife". Sources really do need to be more independent than these.


 * The very title is NPOV - it prejudges the issue before the article even begins. It is also incorrect.  The article is mainly about corruption in the Commission, but the subject would suggest it is about "corruption in the member states".  It really is very confused.  --Red King 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say a total rewrite and a new title is required at the very least. Otherwise this is no more than an anti-EU rant and, as such, has no place in an encyclopedia.  Consider nominating it for deletion.  Marcus22 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten
Have rewritten article to make it NPOV. Have changed title for same reason. Also redirected from OLAF to this article. Marcus22 14:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OLAF is an institution (an agency) of the European Union whereas Accountability is a concept just like Corruption in the EU. I really do not think that the articles should be merged. All other Agencies, Services, and DGs have their articles and it would be inconsistent to make OLAF a part of an article on accountability. --Drdan 15:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I realised now that the article on Corruption in the EU also is included in this. I agree in that the old article was not NPOV and needed a rewrite, but I do not agree in including OLAF like this.  In addition, I found the information on the whistleblowers as being relevant though the way that the text was written was not very NPOV.  Why was it deleted?  --Drdan 15:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well, yes, first this is an attempt at rewriting the awful 'Corruption in the EU' which as you know mentioned very little about corruption or the EU but did cover issues relating to accountability and transparency. Hence the rewrite and the title.  (Which I admit is still not brilliant but at least it's NPOV).  The issue over corruption could of course be resurrected in a NPOV article and sections such as, for example, 'Whistleblowing' could be included therein.   Second, the OLAF redirect: the OLAF article was a stub.  I could either have merged this (Accountability) into the OLAF article or vice versa.  I chose this route but would be equally happy for the opposite to take place.  Marcus22 16:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good work on the rewrite! (Though you really ought to have MOVEd the old article with its discussion). --Red King 12:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Red. I will bear in mind the MOVE option in future.  Marcus22 13:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * After having read my post above a second time I realise that it sounds a bit negative. Don't get me wrong Marcus - you did a good job in that you successfully reworked a page that was in serious need of attention!  (I do however lack my whistleblowers and I might extract OLAF from the article if that is OK)  :) Drdan 15:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Drdan, no offence taken! And feel free to extract Olaf etc.. as you wish.  Whistleblowers: I didn't like the section myself as it seemed one-sided.  It seems to me that the question one needs to ask is how many people work for the EU and are not Whistleblowers and/or don't see the need to be such?  Are the quoted cases the tip of a Whistleblowing iceberg, in which case they are significant, or just a few isolated incidents - in which case they are probably not.  For myself I did not have time, means or inclination to research the extent of such accusations of Fraud or to look into cases in order to see other possible underlying causes of grievance.  But I think that would need to be done to justify the inclusion. (IMHO).  Marcus22 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Accountability in the European Union. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002111233/http://www.europarl.europa.eu:80/eng-internet-publisher/eplive/public/default.do?language=en to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/eng-internet-publisher/eplive/public/default.do?language=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002111233/http://www.europarl.europa.eu:80/eng-internet-publisher/eplive/public/default.do?language=en to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/eng-internet-publisher/eplive/public/default.do?language=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)