Talk:International Anti-Corruption Academy

[untitled]
A well-written, clear, concise, informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiss1234 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic
Moved here as this is not encyclopedic content but rather is PR. Perhaps the refs here can be used to generate encyclopedic content


 * Media attention

IACA is frequently mentioned in media around the world. Most of the coverage is neutral or positive in tone, although a small number of media outlets have carried highly critical reports.

Radio France Internationale recently broadcast a story about the Academy and its Master in Anti-Corruption Studies (MACS) programme. Its Dean has given numerous interviews to outlets including Austrian state broadcaster ORF, China Daily, Die Zeit, Atlas (Denmark), and BFM Radio (Malaysia). The Academy is also frequently profiled in the FCPA Blog, both by the blog's editors and by some of the lecturers in IACA's master's programmes.

In July 2017, the award-winning German investigative platform CORRECTIV, in cooperation with the magazine NEWS, published an article claiming that a local old boys’ network is pulling the academy’s strings and that there is a conflict of interest over the appointment of the organisation's independent auditors. IACA’s sponsors are involved in choosing its financial auditors, and one of the organization's local auditors is implied in a corruption scandal. .

Earlier on in 2016, IACA was critically covered by Austria's second-largest commercial channel Puls 4 in its TV show 'Bist du Deppert?!'. In February 2016, this show (which is about tax wastage) made a critical feature of the Academy and accused it of being overly expensive and lacking accountability. Earlier on, NEWS published a critical feature on the academy called 'Castle in the Sky'. .

-- 12:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

needs revising
There may be something useful here but this is a mess of unsourced content and promotional writing.

IACA was created by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and the Republic of Austria. It was set up on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization. IACA was inaugurated during the conference "From Vision to Reality", in the Viennese Hofburg in September 2010. More than 1,000 delegates were present, representing over 120 UN member states, as well as international organizations, and the public and private sector. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was the guest of honour. During this conference, 35 UN member states and one international organization signed the IACA agreement. By the end of 2010, it had been signed by 51 UN member states and two international organizations, and on 8 March 2011 IACA was established as an international organization. IACA holds observer status with the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Council of Europe's Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
 * History

The founding group who set up the IACA were clear about its role as a practical training institution specifically for working practitioners, such as investigators and prosecutors, whose enhanced knowledge and expertise would have a trickle-down effect back home. Executive director of UNODC at the time, Mr. Antonio Maria Costa, highlighted the proposed practical benefits of the academy, particularly the training of experts working in anti-corruption agencies and financial intelligence units. INTERPOL Secretary-General Ronald K. Noble added that the academy was intended to "play a central role in enabling police and prosecutors worldwide to investigate and prosecute corruption". The UK Minister for International Development supported the initiative since it would "provide professional training and technical expertise to individuals and teams tasked with combating the scourge of corruption in both developed and developing countries" through a focus on UNCAC's four pillars of prevention, criminalisation, international cooperation, and asset recovery.

-- Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

IACA page
Dear Wikipedia community,

This is Richard Eames, Senior Coordinator for Advocacy and Communications at the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) – again disclosing my COI in connection with this page.

Instead of the current edit war that has involved many user names since 16 March 2017, I hope that through the talk page we can all work towards a consensual, accurate, fact-based page about IACA that serves the public interest. In this spirit, I fully understand that this page is not the IACA website and will contain content from different perspectives.

However, since 16 March the vast majority of page edits (apart from mine) have been overwhelmingly negative towards IACA, for reasons that have not been made clear. In many cases users were allowed to add false and misleading content with the clear intention of damaging IACA’s reputation. In addition, on 7 July one user impersonated IACA’s Dean, Martin Kreutner, by editing under the user name Martin.Kreutner.

Following the most recent edits and deletions on 18 July the page now consists of three short paragraphs that are almost exclusively negative in tone towards IACA and rely on a very limited number of sources.

I understand Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and am happy to work within them. I trust other users will do the same in the interest of reducing the conflict on the page about IACA.

Best wishes, Richard Richard.eames (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you would like to propose content here that is based on independent sourcing, I would be happy to review it. Thanks for posting here - glad you found the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi – I’d like to propose the following introduction. It contains basic objective facts about IACA that are of public interest. The IACA Agreement is international law.

This content and sourcing follows the pattern at the top of Wikipedia pages about many other international organizations (e.g. UNODC, Interpol). I trust it will not be problematic for anyone.

--

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders.

IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization.

IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.

Best, Richard.eames (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't use embedded URLs like this. We use references.  The general help page for citing sources is at Help:Citing sources; there is a quick introduction at User:Jytdog/How.
 * Please use independent sources. The website of the organization is not independent.
 * The content needs to be supported by the references (everything in the content, needs to be found in the reference). Content in Wikipedia summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about things. That is how we achieve "neutrality" as we define that, and avoid becoming a vehicle for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Richard Eames here from IACA. I've removed the embedded IACA URL while keeping the links to other Wikipedia pages. I've added independent external references that support all the proposed content:

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders.

IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization.

IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.

Best

Richard.eames (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first source doesn't mention IARC. It is an index page.
 * The second source is a press release by one of the agencies that formed the academy. This is not independent.
 * The treaty is what we call a "primary source" and not independent. We could cite this as an EL for anybody who is interested in it.
 * Please also see WP:Avoid mission statements.
 * Please try to understand and follow the mission of Wikipedia; this is the IARC website nor a vehicle for public relations. The goal is to summarize accepted knowledge and we find that in independent, reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to improve this page, the best thing you could do is provide a list of independent sources that we could use to build content. that would be great. I am finding the history hard to work out.  The UNODC press release says an agreement was signed in 2008 and the thing was supposed to launch in 2009.  The 2010 UK press release in the article says that it launched (past tense) the day before the press release was put out.  The infobox and "headoverheels" say it launched in 2011; there is no source for that at all.    Independent sources discussing the history and what it has done would be very helpful. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will provide such sources. Regarding treaties as primary sources: International Treaties are international law binding worldwide under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They are legal facts, whatever you call the source. One may like or dislike their content, but that's another story. If you want to inform about NAZI-Germany and you are citing NAZI-law that's as authentic as it gets. It can never be a wrong source. Regarding the founding dates: IO-treaties have depositaries which are almost always explicitly stated in the treaties. They are holding the treaty in custody, administering any accession/amendments/ratifications, etc. The UN-Charter, the NATO-treaty, and many others for example are held by the US state department. Noone would ever think of sourcing to the US state department, to support whether a treaty has 20, 30 or more parties. Please read WP:SOURCING which in particular says that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". That's why Wikipedia text is not hyperlinked and referenced all over (a terrible idea). Who would really challenge the number of parties to an organization, or its founding year? All IOs on Wikipedia I have browsed, are self-sourced. So if you are right about sourcing, Good Night Wikipedia, there goes basically all content about IOs. Naturally that's not the case and you will find plenty of other articles where this interpretation is not applied. However, for the sake of progress and because I may work on other IO and Anti-corruption articles in the future, let me help out with the link to the depositary of the IACA Treaty which according to the IACA-treaty is the Austrian Foreign Ministry, and the source is fairly easy to google and find at https://www.bmeia.gv.at/en/european-foreign-policy/international-organisations-in-austria/international-organizations-based-in-and-around-vienna/. By the way, as you mention the UK, they are NOT even party to the IACA treaty (also easy to find through reliable sources on the web), so far on authenticity of that source, but 71 states and organizations are. Are we linking now to all 70+ country-websites to support these data? On the confusion of the UNODC article: Here is another one in their archive http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2010/July/international-anti-corruption-academy-in-countdown-to-opening.html. Reading both I understand that the first article of 2008 was a prospective one, and referring to an agreement between UNODC and Interpol. The second article seems to support the information available at the IACA website, that this plan did not materialize and IACA was founded years later as IO. I understand that writing about IOs requires a specific knowledge and mindset which naturally not every editor/admin has. Here I hope to make a useful contribution to this and other articles. I understand that controversial content has to be properly supported. But exactly here this article still suffers in one or two instances, as I explained multiple times, which is just sad.

Thanks Richard for informing me about the DR/N request. Still need to see what that is doing, but any channel to make this article a useful and informative one is certainly welcome and supportive of Wikipedia's mission. I will come forward with new non-IACA sources about the IACA history, as soon as I'm finding some. HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the list citations of independent sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, as requested I've listed some generally reliable secondary sources on the DRN talk page under a new section about IACA. Hope they are useful for you. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I've added other reliable secondary sources (of the kind you previously asked for) on the DRN talk page. Hope these help you too. Look forward to hearing from you soon regarding adds to the article. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That talk page is for discussing the DR process generally - posting there is not part of anything. I recommend that you cut the content from there and paste it in a new section below. I would do that for you but I'm afraid you would take it the wrong way. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - see new section below. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Information about IACA
Good evening,

I just edited the article about IACA to start building up something useful. I found some information suggestive and not supported by any external source. The cited NEWS-articles are in German. Does it serve the Wikipedia-mission to add credentials in another language than the article, making it impossible for 90 % of the readers to review its content and verify the text? My wife is German and explained me that the cited NEWS articles are making various hear-say claims, but neither the unusual staff turnover in 2015/16 nor any claim pointing to a revolving door is made therein. Has obviously not been reviewed by anyone...(because it's in German). I suggest not using foreign language links and sources for reasons of independent verifiability.

My particular interest is international organizations. That's where I am able to give to and share with the Wikipedia-community. I feel that a lot more of data and facts about IACA could be placed on this site. It's a public entity so governance is key. How about that? Activities are critical (just look at UNODC, UN, Interpol and other related articles on Wikipedia). How about partnerships? True, that state relations can be fuzzy but what about international joint activities, funded by tax payers money? What about IACA's efforts in contributing to the fight against corruption? Should that not go in here? And if not, why not?

Would be glad to hearing your commments...Be patient with me I am a NewBie!...and hope to hear from you on other related articles as wellHeadOverHeels (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit removed negative content, added WP:OR to mushify other negative content, added invalid embedded URLs, and added promotional content. It was not OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog,

Thanks for commenting my edits. I responded to your question of a possible Conflict of Interest (there is none)on my talk page, where I also explained my motivation to make this article a useful one, which currently is absolutely not the case. Just compare with other organizations.

Regarding the edits made:

With all respect, I removed wrong content not supported by the articles cited. Read and judge yourself. I rectified errors and typos which you reinstated (e.g. IACA was established in 2011 not 2010, IACA is not IARC, etc...). Apart from a missing source on IACA's staffing (I explained that nothing of these statements are supported by the cited NEWS-article) I found this information as insignificant for an Encyclopedia, as the menue-plan of their staff-canteen (if there was any). Now as I have closely studied the history of this article, and particularly as you seem to discard facts and data about the organization, which are of encyclopedical value as promotional, could you provide guidance if there is any information about IACA, which you deem encyclopedical, apart from two or three articles in German which most readers do not understand? Don't get me wrong, I do not oppose negative facts about any entity if they are reviewed and supported. But that seems here only the case in the third paragraph. And that's reinstating text which has been found "un-Wiki" by other adminstrators on other articles. If however, you have good reasons to limit this to you and Richard, and don't want to get anyone involved to improve quality then just let me know and I'll move on to the next arricle. It does not have to be IACA.

This is an excerpt of how IOs are portrayed at Wikipedia, with noone even thinking of promotional aspects:

"The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (in French Office des Nations unies contre la drogue et le crime) is a United Nations office that was established in 1997 as the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention by combining the United Nations International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) and the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division in the United Nations Office at Vienna.[1] It is a member of the United Nations Development Group[2] and was renamed the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in 2002.[3] In 2016–2017 it has an estimated biannual budget of US$700 million.[4]"

Curious to hear your comments. HeadOverHeels (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Content in Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's not true! Facts about organizations are regularly and almost entirely pointing to their own archives. Just see the above excerpt on UNODC. Entirely UN-sources. Who else should know about numbers of staff, organizational purposes, new projects etc. Just like a state, which informs about the size of its territory, number of inhabitants, etc. Who else should have these data? Please look up the IO websites as the fragment above and judge yourself to what extent external independent sources are being used. It's naturally very rare. HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true. Please don't rely on other articles here; many articles are subject to corruption and promotional pressure by their subjects, just as this one has been, and currently is.    I will not continue this specific discussion with you as there are other articles I am trying to improve, and I do not have time to keep running around the same tree.
 * Again, if you want to improve this article please provide independent sources that we can build it from. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog: I am determined to make this a better and more accurate read. But at the start of everything has to be the removal of errors? You have not only been acting as Admin but also as editor. I understand that the current text comes entirely from you. Please revisit WP:INVOLVED, WP:NPOV, WP:NONENG and you will understand.

The Quoting of non-English sources If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate.

Here is the literal translation of your reference regarding „unclear staff-turnover“: "It is said that in recent months a double-digit number of employees left the Academy. This has been officially explained by the increased „Internationalization“, due after the built-up phase of the organization." So it's hear-say and not a fact, as currently stated. It has not been a product of the author's research. And the writer makes clear that an official explanation has been provided on staff-turn-over. So "unclear" is simply a false and unsupported statement. Furthermore the article informs that two public servants from Austria were working for IACA, before leaving again. Where is a „revolving door“? No support by this Article. You are eagerly preaching the use of independent and reliable sources. Should that not apply to your contributions too?

You are mentioning corruption and personal pressure. How do you judge other IOs articles. Why has Wikipedia a cooperation with the UN if almost entirely UN-sources are being used? If you know that facts and data provided by IACA are false, wouldn't that be something to disclose and support by proper sources, instead of making suggestions which are not supported by your sources. If there is more behind this article, then please share. The community has a right to know. If not, then please consider my humble inputs, since it's also your reputation as Wikipedian editor and ultimately admin, which suffers with the current text in the article.

Now before I start editing, three questions, to avoid wasting our boths time:

1. Do you agree removing typos/errors, wrong/unsupported statements, as outlined above? 2. Do you agree with adding general data about IACA (no IO-article has external sources on that) which are the basis for every article on IOs? 3. Why is the founding treaty of IACA, which is an instrument under international law, a improper reference for IACA's mandate?

Thank you, HeadOverHeels (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Primary Sources and References
Jytdog, Richard,

Good news for all of us, and it will also ease your conscience and safe you time. No need to be worried about primary sources for using basic facts and data about the organization. The use of facts and data of an organizations website in an article is not only the standard at Wikipedia but is explicitly approved under WP:PRIMARYCARE which reads in its relevant part:

''An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or child organization to another. It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").''

I do not want to withhold, however, that I tried to be constructive and found some additional links supporting the date of inauguration (which is different from coming into force), the mission, the partners etc.

http://www.epac-eacn.org/news/latest-news/47-international-anti-corruption-academy-inaugural-conference http://www.cna.md/pageview.php?l=en&id=115&idc=59&t=/International-cooperation/IACA/IACA/ http://www.ehfcn.org/agreement-signed-ehfcn-iaca-international-anti-corruption-academy/ https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-media/News/2017/N2017-013/

I also found protocols of deliberations in the Australian parliament about their decision to join IACA, which supports plenty of relevant details.

The date of establishment derives from the logic of these links, the text of the IACA-Treaty, which is a primary source and law, and a simple calculation (60 days period stated in the agreement). Yet, in the light of this revelation about primary sources, I suggest that we spare the community this math, which is found nowhere at WP, and start working on a good article in line with well-established and approved practice at WP, including the use of primary sources for basic facts and data about the organization.

Happy to hear that?

HeadOverHeels (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not how things work here. You have done a bit of what we call "wikilawyering" as part of your advocacy work. This is not a court, and you don't "win" by going and finding a couple of sentences that support what you want to do.  What you are doing here is very blatant advocacy. Please stop. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The first ref there, from epac, is not indepedent but is plagiarism/churnalism, with content copied directly from this IACA press release and other boilerplate PR language, like "a pioneering institution that aims to overcome current shortcomings in knowledge and practice in the field of anti-corruption and compliance" that one directly copied in IACA promotional materials like  here and else where.  This is as much time as I am going offer for now.
 * Again very interested in seeing actually independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog! No advocacy, but a sheer interest, don't worry. Primary sources are key. True, EPAC might have copied, with or without permission. Reason is clear: Basic facts and data are internal knowledge of a subject, and noone else knows better then the subject. That's not promotional but informative. That's why WP policies permit the use of organizations websites as sources for this limited purpose. It becomes promotional and unreliable when data about product quality etc. are taken. This is not my intention here. Let's clarify the primary source issue at the DR/N. Your new additions to the website are well-supported by the referenced sources. It's true, IACA is funded on a voluntary basis, this is also supported by the IACA Agreement, that's unbelievable! If you think the detailed budget data are informative for the public I have no objections. Otherwise, I'd rather make a summary to the point, saying that IACA due to voluntary contributions seems heavily underfunded by members, or any shorter wording along these lines, but no hard feelings either way. Still paragraph two on unclear staff turnover and the revolving door is unsupported by the mentioned source. Did you look into that? HeadOverHeels (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional secondary sources
Dear all,

Following the DRN discussion here are some generally reliable secondary sources, all of them well-established news outlets that discuss IACA’s history and what the organization does. I hope they can be used to help build a more informative WP article about IACA.

Die Zeit (a leading German newspaper): http://www.zeit.de/2013/06/Antikorruptionsakademie-Laxenburg-Oesterreich (in German)

China Daily newspaper: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2015-03/27/content_19923209.htm

Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence (introductory part before the paywall): http://www.complinet.com/global/news/news/article.html?ref=187256&bulletin=spotlight&region=_10170

These sources mention the following:

IACA is both an intergovernmental (international) organization and educational institution (China Daily).

IACA was set up in 2011 (China Daily), i.e. it was formally established as an international organization in that year. But IACA was launched in 2010, as the Wikipedia article currently states and as confirmed by the reference in Die Zeit to IACA’s inaugural conference in 2010 (see paragraph 6).

The China Daily article mentions three of IACA’s four main founding partners - the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the European Commission's Anti-Fraud Office, and the Austrian government (it should also mention Interpol too, as the UNODC press release does).

IACA offers academic degree programmes and standard and bespoke training (Thomson Reuters), including the Master in Anti-Corruption Studies (Die Zeit, paragraph 2).

IACA’s Dean and Executive Secretary is Martin Kreutner.

Sorry for not providing these sooner - was away for 2 weeks.

Best, Richard.eames (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

...and let me again declare my COI regarding this page - I'm IACA's Head of Communications. Richard.eames (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - here are some additional reliable secondary sources on which further content can be derived for the article about IACA:

FCPA Blog (widely read in the anti-corruption and compliance community): http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/2/25/whoa-enforcement-and-compliance-are-breaking-out-all-over.html -please note that this article was written by the FCPA Blog's own Publisher and Editor, not by a lecturer on IACA's programmes

Content here: IACA specializes in training mid-career anti-corruption professionals. It runs short and mid-length training courses and programmes. In 2012 it launched a two-year Master in Anti-Corruption Studies programme.

Radio France Internationale: http://www.rfi.fr/emission/20170517-bulgarie-retraites-plus-pauvres -click on the play button in the top right corner of the main photo, and the IACA story starts at 04:36

Content here: IACA has trained professionals in approx. 150 countries to date.

Best, Richard.eames (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.eames (talk • contribs)

Here's a Financial Times article from October 2010: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/25d6da38-dbd9-11df-af09-00144feabdc0.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4qT0rV6eu

Content: An international anti-corruption academy, co-sponsored by the UN, was last month (i.e. September 2010) established in Austria – this refers to the launch of IACA, which is also mentioned in the Die Zeit article above. Richard.eames (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC) ...let me know if you hit a paywall here Richard.eames (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. Will review this week. Jytdog (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - were you able to review these sources and proposed content yet? Would appreciate your suggestions/edits to build up a neutral and informative WP article about IACA. Thanks, Richard.eames (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a gentle ping, as you expressed interest in reviewing the above content. Don't feel obligated either way. :) TheDragonFire (talk)

Number of IACA Parties - update
Hi - I'm the Head of Communications at IACA, so am declaring my COI regarding this page and will not be editing it directly.

The number of IACA's Parties is now 72 following the accession of Guinea: http://www.iaca.int/952-guinea-joins-iaca.html

Please could this be reflected on the page? Thanks. Richard.eames (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fuzzified the number; we don't need to keep it exact as this is an encyclopedia not the organization's website; we just provide high level, summary information. This will also save you effort of coming to update this anytime a party joins or leaves. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested edit: Improving article
Hi. Short disclosure: I am currently paid by IACA, where I am employed as a Wikipedian in Residence. I noticed that there were some discussions taking place like one year ago and further noticed that the article has potential for improvement. Here is my draft for an alternative article. I did, however, also break it up according to each change. I hope this helps to clarify the motivation and benefits of the proposed changes.

lead
 * link "international" to International organization → useful internal link
 * Add " (intergovernmental) " between "international" and "organization" → Clarification which kind of international organization IACA is.
 * Add " " after "organization" → reference that IACA is an international organization.
 * Replace ‘'"Vienna"’’ with "Lower Austria" in brackets and add " 20 km south of Vienna in " after the brackets and before "Austria" → Laxenburg is close to Vienna, but not a part of the city. It is rather an independent city in the Austrian state of Lower Austria.
 * Add " It is the first educational institution that focuses on educating professionals on the topics of combatting corruption and anti-corruption measures. Membership of IACA is open to UN-member states and international organizations. " → The first sentence summarizes the mission and special position IACA is holding, it is backed up by a book, published by an academic publisher (Ashgate Publishing). The last sentence explains the membership structure of IACA.

infobox
 * Add " |formation     = 2011 (As an International Organization) " → Year of gaining the status of an international organization (reference are given in the main body, could, however also be added here directly. See for example: OSCE Handbook on Combating Corruption, p. 24)
 * Add " |leader_title  = Dean and Executive Secretary " and " |leader_name    = Martin Kreutner " → job title of highest ranking individual in IACA and name of the person
 * Change "ca. 70 parties, including some international organizations (Jan 2018)" to "71 States-Parties  3 international organizations"→ correct number of members. User:Jytdog mentions above that it should intentionally be kept fuzzy to make updating less pressing. We are, however, keeping the appearances of soccer players, career records for tennis players, etc precise. Both are changing far more frequently than the constituency of an international organization. I would therefore argue to have the precise number of members at IACA, as it is also done for other international treaties/organizations/etc.

History
 * Add new headline "History" → Structuring article
 * Add " The process of creating an International organization focusing on anti-Corruption education dates back to the year 2005, when an Interpol-working group started to discuss such endeavor and was firstly raised publicly in 2006 at an Interpol General Assembly. " → Summary of activity before the launch of the organization. All steps are referenced with external secondary sources.
 * Replace "It" with "IACA" → by adding more details, the reference of it would become unclear
 * In case of accepting the 2nd point in history: Remove link at INTERPOL → link already set before
 * Replace "INTERPOL" with "Interpol" → correct name, avoids redirect
 * Add " The founding agreement was signed by 50 states and two international organizations. IACA planned to host the first training in fall 2010 and started its first Master program in February 2013. On March 8, 2011 IACA gained the status of an international organization. " → Adding information on the history after the launch of the Academy and before becoming an international organization.
 * Add " Since its creation it is possible for UN-member states to ratify the treaty. The IACA currently has 74 members. " → Explanation how countries can join and referenced information on number of members
 * Add " IACA, however, could not yet match its envisioned budget, as contributions to its budget depend on voluntary contributions by members that are so far regularly lower than deemed necessary, as already pointed out at the organization’s launching. " → smoothing the transition towards the budget issues raised by the news article.
 * change 12.98 million euros to €12.98 million, change 13.24 million euros to €13.24M, change 2.3 million euros to €2.3M, change 2.1 million euros to €2.1M → complying with MoS
 * If Adopting the addition of a sentence before the numbers: Delete sentence The IACA replied that the six-fold increase in budget were projected figures-expressing a fund-raising goal. → content already mentioned before

Organizational structure
 * Add new headline Organizational structure and post-secondary education → structuring the article
 * Add three two sentences to describe the internal organization of IACA: "IACA’s highest decision-making body is the ‘’Assembly of Parties’’ that convenes annually to elect the governing bodies, approve its activities, and set the guidelines for the following year. The academy is represented by the Executive Secretary, who also serves as dean and is directly supervised by the Board of Governors. This position is currently held by Martin Kreutner. " → Structure of IACA could be relevant in an article about IACA
 * Add section BoG controversy: " The election of Mordechai Kremnitzer to IACA’s Board of Governors led to a heated dispute at IACA’s Assembly of Parties in 2012, as the Syrian representative expressed to no avail his opposition towards an Israeli serving at the board. " → Add controversy of 2012
 * Add ", when a two digit number of employees left the organization." after staff → explaining nature of the large turnover, by quantifying it in accordance with the quoted article
 * Add work of IACA/Education offered by IACA: " The Academy offers postgraduate programs, open training programs and tailor-made programs IACA’s approach towards its Master programs was described as holistic, due to its interdisciplinary character and the connection between academics and professionals. "

 Controversies and criticism
 * Add headline Controversies and criticism → structuring the article
 * Add " The election of Mordechai Kremnitzer to IACA’s Board of Governors led to a heated dispute at IACA’s Assembly of Parties in 2012, as the Syrian representative expressed to no avail his opposition towards an Israeli serving at the board. " → Add controversy of 2012
 * Add ", when a two digit number of employees left the organization." after staff → explaining nature of the large turnover, by quantifying it in accordance with the quoted article


 * Move remaining sentecnes (" IACA's relations with Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation were criticized in the News and in July 2017 by CORRECTIV, which reported that the IARC held its 2014 annual conference in Baku at the time of a governmental crackdown on NGOs and anti-corruption activists, and that one of the students in the program at the time of the report was the Azeri prosecutor involved in the jailing of the journalist Khadija Ismayilova. ") to the end of History to avoid criticism being singled out and incorporate the following remarks:
 * Delete in the News[4] → the quoted article is not mentioning neither Azerbaijan, nor Russia, nor any other state besides Austria
 * Delete also → word does not refer to any criticism that was expressed earlier
 * Replace and in July 2017 by CORRECTIV, which reported that the IARC  with after IACA → and is incorrect, as news did not criticize. IARC is most likely a typo for IACA. The criticism was not triggered by the reporting about the conference but by the conference itself. All those aspects are present in the suggested edit.
 * End sentence after anti-corruption activists → Improves reading flow
 * Replace and that one of the students in the program at the time of the report was the Azeri prosecutor involved in the jailing of the journalist Khadija Ismayilova. with  According to Correctiv, one of the students at IACA was an Azerbaijani public prosecutor, who worked for the investigating authority that was prosecuting the Azerbaijani anti-corruption activist and journalist Khadija Ismayilova. → Quotation Correctiv: "The Azerbaijanian group included a prosecutor working for the authority that jailed journalist Khadija Ismayilova with trumped-up charges.". This does not mean that the student actually prosecuted Ismayilova personally. In addition the alternative adds information on Isayilova, as not everybody might now her immediately<

External links
 * Add " " → Including the template:Corruption, where IACA is linked for already quite a long time

Thank you very much for considering my remarks. I am obviously always ready to answer questions, explain my thoughts further, etc. I would especially be glad to translate the German and Spanish sources, if it should be needed or provide those references that are not available online by sending scans/copies to your mail-account. I hope that I grasped the details of this process correctly. Please let me know. last word was originally forgotten --WiR IACA (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC) --WiR IACA (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One quick reply and I have to go do RW stuff.  "controversy" sections are not good - see Criticism -- it is an essay, but a widely cited one.  So no, we will not create such a section.  Negative things will remain integrated.
 * The recommendations here are very typical PR. You are obligated to follow all the content policies and guidelines; disclosing and putting things through prior review are not enough. Please remain aware of that. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * hm, can you pinpoint anything specific that is "very typical PR"? I actually had the feeling to use the sources I found. But maybe you can comment more precisely on your criticism and I can improve those sections. It is not really urgent though.
 * I see your point about controversies and would hence suggest either to delete the reference to the Israeli being elected or integrate it into the organizatorial structure. Similarly one could integrate the turnover rate there. Not sure though where the criticism of being cozy with Russia/Azerbaijan could fit. do you have any ideas on that? --WiR IACA (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope my revised suggestions are now in line with WP:Criticism. The example draft I created to show the differences might be helpful to consult as well, as I am afraid that the above sketched differences are somehow getting less clear --WiR IACA (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have crafted a compromise version which introduces (a) minimal elements of IACA's creation along with (b) wording/phrasing changes suggested by the COI editor in their draft and here on the talk page.  spintendo   04:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I only have one more small request. Could you or anybody else remove reference 7d after IACA's relations with Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation were criticized? The article is not mentioning Russia, Azerbaijan or the ties of those countries to IACA. In case you should not read German, you might want to go to the article and search for either "Russland" (Russia in German)/"Rußland" (in the old spelling), "Russische Föderation" (Russian Federation in German), "Aserbaidschan" (Azerbaijan in German), "Moskau" (German for Moscow), "Baku", "Wladimir Putin", "İlham Əliyev", or any other word that might be connected to those countries, governments, etc and see the results. If you want to check for any other possible mentioning of anything connected to Russia/Azerbaijan but don't know the translation to German: fell free to tell me and I'll happily translate.--WiR IACA (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

COI requested edit: details
I am currently paid by IACA. One requested edit was already implemented by, small improvements should, however, still be implemented, especially as they were for most parts caused by my stupidity or are relying on newly published material:
 * I made a pretty stupid and persistent typo, it should be 51, not 50 signatory-states (the article by Saskia Jungnikl, referenced in my example draft says so, just as e.g. the Romanian government, the German parliament, and IACA itself). I am very sorry for the mistake and would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused by my typo.
 * Add ‘’” In 2018 IACA was offering two Master programs and had a total of approximately 1,600 alumni. ”’’ after ‘’74 members’’. -> Clarification what IACA is actually doing and quantification of educational programs by numbering alumni. I tried to find a reliable source for currently inscribed students but could unfortunately not find anything, therefore the reference via former students.
 * Remove the reference 7d after IACA's relations with Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation were criticized. The article is not mentioning Russia, Azerbaijan or the ties of those countries to IACA. In case you should not read German, you might want to go to the article and search for either "Russland" (Russia in German)/"Rußland" (in the old spelling), "Russische Föderation" (Russian Federation in German), "Aserbaidschan" (Azerbaijan in German), "Moskau" (German for Moscow), "Baku", "Wladimir Putin", "İlham Əliyev", or any other word that might be connected to those countries, governments, etc and see the results. If you want to check for any other possible mentioning of anything connected to Russia/Azerbaijan but don't know the translation to German: fell free to tell me and I'll happily translate. The reference could be replaced with the Correctiv article that is used to reference later to the student whose employer was jailing Khadija Ismayilova. (see also here for former comments on this edit)
 * Add navigation template (see also here for former comments on this edit)
 * Add Category:Intergovernmental organizations
 * Add Category:Education in Lower Austria

I’m offering my sincere apologies for raising a second request for edits in such a short time, especially as I should have checked the number before publishing the first request and could have also added the categories. --WiR IACA (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 10-SEP-2018
Regards,  spintendo   11:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The information regarding alumni was omitted pending references.


 * Thank you for your efforts! Just a small question, in which way is the reference to Cercle Diplomatique improperly formatted? I just copied it into the article and at least in the preview it looked as it was working well. Once again, my apologizes for causing such a lot of work to you --WiR IACA (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Markup such as ref tags and other details should not be visible on the page once the editing stage is completed and the page is saved. The fact that you're able to see the wiki-markup in the finished request above means that you have not formatted it correctly.  spintendo   21:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

COI requested Edit: last touch
I am currently employed as a Wikipedian in Residence by the International Anti-Corruption Academy and are hence in an economic relationship with the subject of the article. I was already twice requesting edits (see here and here), which were both kindly implemented by. Thank you very much for doing so! As my residency is likely drawing to an end and tasks are reduced for various reasons, I had some time to play with the article and thought that some things might still lead to an improvement. I would accordingly suggest the following edits, partially new, partially influenced by older requests. All changes are also reflected in the test page I created in my user space. Here we go:
 * Add " In 2018 IACA was offering two Master programs and had a total of approximately 1,600 alumni. IACA’s approach towards its Master programs was described as holistic by the OSCE and the research portal of the French Ministry for the Economy and Finance. El Mundo reported that the studies are designed to be interdisciplinary and have a practical dimension. " between the first and second paragraph of the History section.
 * The first sentence comes from my second request but was turned down due to incorrect formatting (see here). I copied it on the test page in my user space and it seems to work there for me. Maybe I am simply not noticing the problem, if you can find the mistake, I am already in advance begging your pardon and would be helpful for a hint towards my mistake.
 * The second and third sentence are informed by my first request, in which I obviously and unfortunately disrespected WP:SYNTH. Once again my pardon goes out to everybody for stealing their time with improperly drafted requests.


 * Add a new headline Current Members after the section History and before the section References
 * Add a list of members, which can be copied from the test page in my user space: User:WiR IACA/International Anti-Corruption Academy. I think it is easier to copy&paste it from the draft page, posting the whole list here would not really look nice...
 * Add the Template:Corruption (IACA was included there already several years ago) at the end of the article.
 * Change "Category:Intergovernmental Organization" to "Category:Intergovernmental organizations established by treaty" → I made a mistake and did not go to the correct category when requesting the edit. My apologizes for the mistake. (Page 274)

I would once again like to express my gratitude to everybody of you for the efforts. Please let me know, if there is anything I should change. Please tell me your criticism, your remarks, etc. I am very much looking forward to any question, comment. --WiR IACA (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply 13-SEP-2018

 * 1) The following paragraph is not formatted correctly:"Add 'In 2018 IACA was offering two Master programs and had a total of approximately 1,600 alumni. IACA’s approach towards its Master programs was described as holistic by the OSCE and the research portal of the French Ministry for the Economy and Finance. El Mundo reported that the studies are designed to be interdisciplinary and have a practical dimension. ' between the first and second paragraph of the History section."The fact that the ref tags and brackets can be seen means that the referencing has been altered in some way. These elements should be hidden. It may appear to be assisting when placing the markup out in the open such as this, but in fact it only makes the request difficult to read.
 * 2) I cannot see the 2nd and third sentences. In your request it should not be necessary to refer to these in the abstract as "please do the following with the 2nd and third sentences" because this raises the question of the second and third sentences of what.  If anything, the request should state "please do this with the following statement" and the statement should be the very next thing written. There is no need for a claim statement and its directions to be separated by anything more than a few letters or words and certainly not separated into different lines in the request necessitating the reviewer to locate directions for the statements she or he finds. Please list these elements together.
 * 3) The current member list should be placed here properly formatted for editors to review.
 * 4) The document provided refers to this as "international organizations-institutions" and the category has been changed to reflect this.

 spintendo   22:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought it might be useful to copy the text directly from the talk page and was therefore putting it into a nowiki environment. But anyway, here are the suggested changes once again:
 * In 2018 IACA was offering two Master programs and had a total of approximately 1,600 alumni. IACA’s approach towards its Master programs was described as holistic by the OSCE and the research portal of the French Ministry for the Economy and Finance. El Mundo reported that the studies are designed to be interdisciplinary and have a practical dimension.


 * The section of members as suggested:

• 🇦🇫 Afghanistan (2013)

• 🇦🇱 Albania (2011*)

• 🇦🇷 Argentina (2014*)

• 🇦🇲 Armenia (2014)

• 🇦🇺 Australia (2012*)

• 🇦🇹 Austria (2011*)

• 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan (2012)

• 🇧🇭 Bahrain (2016)

• 🇧🇴 Bolivia (2012*)

• 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina (2012)

• 🇧🇼 Botswana (2014)

• 🇧🇷 Brazil (2013*)

• 🇧🇬 Bulgaria (2011*)

• 🇧🇫 Burkina Faso (2013*)

• 🇰🇭 Cambodia (2013)

• 🇨🇱 Chile (2013*)

• 🇨🇳 China (2014)

• Cote d'Ivoire (2016)

• 🇭🇷 Croatia (2011*)

• 🇨🇾 Cyprus (2011*)

• 🇨🇿 Czech Republic (2011*)

• 🇪🇬 Egypt (2013)

• 🇸🇻 El Salvador (2016)

• 🇫🇮 Finland (2014)

•  Georgia (2015)

• 🇬🇷 Greece (2015*)

• 🇬🇳 Guinea (2018)

• 🇭🇺 Hungary (2011*)

• 🇮🇳 India (2013)

• 🇮🇩 Indonesia (2013*)

• 🇮🇶 Iraq (2013*)

• 🇮🇱 Israel (2012*)

• 🇯🇴 Jordan (2011*)

• 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan (2014)

• 🇰🇼 Kuwait (2015)

• 🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan (2015)

• 🇱🇻 Latvia (2012)

• 🇱🇧 Lebanon (2017)

• 🇱🇮 Liechtenstein (2011*)

• 🇱🇹 Lithuania (2013)

• 🇱🇺 Luxembourg (2013*)

• 🇲🇰 Macedonia (2012*)

• 🇲🇼 Malawi (2014)

• 🇲🇾 Malaysia (2012*)

• 🇲🇻 Maldives (2011)

• 🇲🇱 Mali (2015*)

• 🇲🇺 Mauritius (2018)

• 🇲🇽 Mexico (2011*)

• 🇲🇩 Moldova (2012*)

• 🇲🇳 Mongolia (2013)

• 🇲🇪 Montenegro (2013*)

• 🇲🇿 Mozambique (2014*)

• 🇳🇬 Nigeria (2013*)

• 🇵🇰 Pakistan (2012)

• 🇵🇦 Panama (2013*)

• 🇵🇾 Paraguay (2018)

• 🇵🇭 Philippines (2011*)

• 🇷🇴 Romania (2011*)

• 🇷🇺 Russia (2011*)

• 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia (2013)

• 🇷🇸 Serbia (2012*)

• 🇸🇰 Slovakia (2011*)

• 🇸🇮 Slovenia (2011*)

• 🇰🇷 South Korea (2012*)

• 🇪🇸 Spain (2011)

• 🇸🇩 Sudan (2016)

•  Syria (2011*)

• 🇹🇭 Thailand (2011)

• 🇹🇬 Togo (2015*)

• 🇹🇷 Turkey (2012*)

• 🇺🇬 Uganda (2017*)

• European Public Law Organization (2011*)

• International Centre for Migration Policy Development (2011*)

• International Organization for Migration (2012)
 * * Signatory


 * Best regards --WiR IACA (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes
I just noticed that performed several changes which are partially surprising to me. Therefore I would like to shortly comment on them and would be glad about a brief reply
 * unsourced, not a directory, PROMO (removing classification as first institute of its kind)
 * Given the state of the article, I fully agree to the deletion of this sentence. For this reason I suggested the following text in my request for edits on August 27: It is the first educational institution that focuses on educating professionals on the topics of combatting corruption and anti-corruption measures.  As I just found the google.books preview for the book, I added the url now...
 * I think the section above illustrates the kind of misunderstanding between and me concerning the way how to suggest references. I assume that this was the reason why they did not include the reference into the lead.


 * remove more unsourced stuff and more padding (removing parts of the description what IACA is doing, removing eligibility for membership)
 * I am very unemotional about this change. Even though government and other officials is technically not necessarily correct, as many people educated at IACA don't qualify as officials, neither government, nor non-government officials. I would prefer a stylistically more appropriate version that also includes non-officials (as stated e.g. in the Zeit article that refers to Profis aus aller Welt (Professionals from all around the globe), who are studying at IACA, in the OSCE handbook on fighting corruption (p. 24), in the news article that describes IACA's "Kernaufgabe ist die Ausbildung von Führungspersönlichkeiten aus dem öffentlichen Bereich und der Privatwirtschaft aus aller Welt im Bereich der Korruptionsbekämpfung." (The core mission is the education of leaders active in the public and the private sector from the whole world in the area of combatting corruption)). After having had a closer look at the book stating that IACA is the first organisation of its kind, I have to admit, however, that my suggestion might be not in line with WP:SYNTH, as the book only states that IACA is "the world's first educational institute dedicated to fighting corruption". Linking it with a description from a different source that specifies the education further might therefore be inappropriate. I would therefore suggest referencing the sentence with Fletcher & Herrmann and, in case of need, add the target group at a different spot (gladly with the indicated references).


 * unsourced (Deletion of title and name of highest ranking individual from the organisation in the infobox)
 * There are some sources saying that Kreutner is the dean and executive secretary. or, in order to avoid creating references the whole time: European forum Alpbach, the Austrian Association of Compliance Officers, etc. I wasn't aware that those obvious facts have to be sourced...


 * date is incorrect (Deletion of the year of establishment in the infobox)
 * The claim that the year of creation is incorrect is somehow surprising. The article included two references (OSCE handbook on fighting corruption (p. 24) and IGPDE). If this is not convincing enough, I would also like to refer to the EU-Infothek (referenced in my initial request on August 27), the corrective article, or to go beyond those sources, for example the UN that states that IACA was created in 2011 in accordance with article XVIII. IACA also states so on its own website.


 * this is unsourced, and our job is not to keep tally on the exact number of members (Deletion of members in infobox)
 * A reference was in the text. This reference was introduced by (here) into the infobox but I tried to limit referring to IACA's page, therefore I suggested to only keep it in the text.
 * our job is not to keep tally on the exact number of members. As I already stated in my initial request on August 27 is opposing to keep the numbers precise. I am still, however, standing on my point of view that precise numbers are not contradicting the encyclopedic approach of Wikipedia or are in any other way conflicting with our rules. In addition quite a lot of organizations (basically all I ever saw) have precise numbers (even though they might sometimes be outdated) for their membership. Just as the appearances of soccer players are kept precise, etc. I would be happy about a reference to prove that I am generally wrong, or that IACA is a special case where those general rules do not apply.


 * This infobox brings no value (deletion of remaining infobox)
 * I fully agree. After deleting the members, the head of the organization and the date of creation, the infobox was really fairly empty. In case of reconsidering the deletions, I would, however, argue for including it again. But with content


 * puffery on top of puffery (removing description of IACA as an intergovernmental organization)
 * IACA is an intergovernmental organization, listed and described as such by the UN. It is, however, highly confusing to see those things, as the treaty that created IACA as an IGO does not refer to it as such but rather as an "international organization". International organisation in this context, however, does in fact mean intergovernmental organisation.


 * this appears to be PR (deleting reference to IGPDE)
 * Why should the French government commission the research center of the ministry of economics to write a piece of PR for an organization France is not a member of?


 * his is a self-published book by yet another "international organization" based in Austria (deleting date of establishment, deleting reference to OSCE handbook on combating corruption)
 * In the article the handbook was cited once. It does not seem clear to me, why OSCE should willingly lie on the date IACA was established, just because it is also based in Austria. As shown above, there are also some other references, so maybe we can just reference it with another source?


 * NOTHING IS CURRENT IN WIKIPEDIA. EVER. also remove spam (removing number of members and reference to article on IACA's website)
 * Ok, currently can be replaced with "As of August 2018". Fine with me
 * Maybe the list of members at the United Nations might be better? Obviously all those are primary sources but I am not sure how else one is referencing membership structures.


 * this is somebody's dissertation. not a great ref (deletion of reference for the group that created IACA
 * It is not only a dissertation but also a regularly published book by a publishing house focused on academic publication on legal issues. Is the fact that is based on a dissertation making the book automatically less reliable?


 * add (deletion of initially signing states, deletion of the connected reference, change from "IACA started its first Master program" to "IACA started its first program", addition of number of members in 2013 referenced by the zeit article)
 * I understand the deletion of the original signatories as it is referenced. It makes sense
 * The difference between "first program" and "first master program" is quite significant I think. The cited zeit-article says "Für den Masterlehrgang wird von Februar an in sieben Blöcken à zwölf Tagen zwei Jahre lang gepaukt." (Für den ersten Masterlehrgang=For the first master's program).
 * Adding 2013 the precise numbers of 2013 is fine with me but I think readers might profit more from updated numbers. No objection to integrating the number anyway


 * Not commented changes are obviously not controversial for me.

I would be glad to hear your opinion on my thoughts. I am highly appreciating the work you already invested in the article and. Looking forward to improving it further with you --WiR IACA (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * About the dissertation. yes it is a dissertation. LexisNexis is not actually a "publisher" like, say Springer is. LexisNexis is an aggregator and part of its service is offering dissertations.  Dissertations can be used, but are not great (they are compulsory, for somebody getting a Phd). In a page like this that is under sustained promotional pressure, I generally work to raise source quality.
 * about the french source,it is unclear what this is exactly. It is very amateur and the content reeks of not -independent PR. It adds no value as an independent source, that I can see. I'll circle back and answer other bits in a while Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * LexisNexis is, according to my knowledge, running a scientific publishing house in Austria according the German Wikipedia article. I didnt check the details though and based my conclusion only on this article...
 * economie.gouv.fr is the official page of the ministry of economy. The file also exists in French, where at least the layout looks somehow more professional... --WiR IACA (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Concerning the dissertation by Rauch, I would suggest adding Vienna as location to underline that is not the classical lexisnexis publishing platform but this thing, our colleagues on the German Wikipedia are calling a "Fachverlag". The publishing house lexisnexis is running in Austria was founded as ARD, respectively orac. I tried to find any evaluation of the publishing house but could not google anything that went beyond pr by lexisnexis or citations of works published by lexisnexis publishing house. While they seem on a first glance to be trustworthy, I am lacking deep insight into legal science, making it hard for me to offer a competent insight into the reliability of the publishing house beyond saying: looks quite ok. --WiR IACA (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

, : In case you should agree with my arguments, I would be very thankful for implementing them into the article, in case you should disagree, I would be very thankful for voicing your criticism. Alternatively, I could also think about involving other editors, e.g. through a request for comment, etc. What do you think? Would this be an appropriate way forward? My apologies for being maybe a little bit inpatient. --WiR IACA (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll circle back and respond more this week. Please be mindful that you are getting paid and we are not. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * just a small ping did you already have time to check my remarks? --WiR IACA (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear, did you already find time to review the changes? (As I am no longer in any economic relationship with IACA, I kind of retired my Wikipedian in Residence account (User:WiR IACA). If you find it appropriate for me to include my new account into the list of COI-editors on top of the page, I will gladly comply with this request. I didn't do so, because I am not paid, nor expecting any payments, etc and found it, therefore, misleading to list myself as a paid editor. I will, however, not interact directly with the article. I am looking forward to your comments and obviously also to comments by any other interested editor. Best regards, --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

direct edit in article by COI-contributor
I was just linking articles that focus on anti-corruption to the article and also set the link in the article by accident, as I was just searching for "anti-corruption" and only afterwards noticed that I edited the article of IACA. You can find my change here. I would like to apologize for doing this direct edit but assume that it is not really controversial. For this reason, I did not revert myself. If you find this edit inappropriate, feel free to revert me anyway. --WiR IACA (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

going forward
I was asked or assistance. Rather than going through all the material suggested previously, it might be more useful to see what should be appropriately added now. To assist in the revision, I reorganized the article, adding appropriate headings.

The principal problem is that some of the material is outdated. In order: a/ the current membership figures need to be given, along with a link to which states are membeers (but do not  list them)  b/ The current status of the formal educational program needs to be given. In particular the numbers ofstudents and graduates is needed, and the accreditation status. c/ It would be appropriate to lsit the financial data for each year, in the form of a table. d/ The name and title of the head of the organization is essential information. If there have been more than one, list them all, with dates, if they are notable with articles here, link them. If they have articles in other WPs but not this one, link to those. f/ It is possible that there are additional controversies in addition to the one in 2014. Add the information in separate paragraphs g /If there have been other major activities besides running the masters program, add them. In particular, have there been publciations? h/ If by now therehave been any students or faculty who have become notable in the sense o fhaving articles in this or any othee WP, list them in a separate section. (they need refs showing the association)

The second problem was sourcing. I consider some of the problems exaggerated. For plain facts about an orgnaization, its official publications are suitable sources--this is one of the exceptions at WP:RS to the use of primary information. For information about the importance ot its work or the significance of itsprojects, those are the parts where third party reliable sources are needed. It should also be the case that the organization is now included in handbooks or general listingsof intenrational organizations, and these should be looked or and added. As a general rule, sources should be in English, unless the best sources for something are in other languages In that case, use the best source available regardless of language, and if possiblre add whatever is available in English.

I like infoboxes for all organization articles, but this is disputed, and for a short article like this, they are not strictly necessary. Do the rest first. Material in an infoboxdoes not have to be sourced if it is sourced in the article, unless it is particuarly controversial.

As for approval. The method of suggesting changes and letting other editors add them is the suggested method, but I do not like to do it except in trivial cases, as I find it makes things more complicated. Different admins here work differently. So please add what you think best,and then let me know on my user talk page to take a look at it. I'll try to respond quickly.  DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much DGG for your guidance. I just made some changes and am hoping to properly incorporate your suggestions throughout the weekend. I will, as suggested by you, inform you on your user talk page as soon, as I finished my changes. --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I tried to answer as many points raised by you as possible. Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to find yearly data on income and expenditure but I could find an article from December 2018, summarizing the financial development from 2015 to 2018. --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Looking to expand the "Historical overview" section and provide some more background; made the edits in a sandbox draft here (diff here):


 * The first paragraph of the section has been edited to include more detail on the Interpol general assembly in question, with the previous source replaced by one from Interpol reporting on the assembly in question. An additional sentence was added, covering a formal announcement made on the intention to create the Academy, with a source from the Austrian government provided.
 * A second paragraph was added, covering the signing of the Academy's "headquarters agreement" in July 2007 and the agreement's approval at the Interpol general assembly in November 2007, with sources from EPAC-EACN (European Partners Against Corruption and European Contact-Point Network Against Corruption) provided for both, as well as the signing of a partnership agreement between Interpol and the UNODC for the Academy in October 2008, with a source from the UNODC provided.
 * A third paragraph was added, covering an April 2010 Vienna meeting between Interpol and Austrian authorities during which support in developing the Academy's curriculum and a donation of US$250,000 were pledged by the former, with a source from Interpol provided. The paragraph covering the Academy's launch was merged with this one, with the phrase "to help implement the UN Convention against Corruption" removed as that information is now mentioned in the previous paragraph.
 * The sentence beginning "Since the accession of Honduras to the IACA" was placed in a separate paragraph, with the preceding sentence beginning "As of 2013" removed as that information is now outdated.

Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅, though I'm not sure why this edit request was necessary (what kind of conflict of interest do you have with the IACA?). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edit request changes and Davykamanzi's edits just prior to it. The editor has not disclosed, as required per the terms of service, his WP:PAID editor status.  See editor's talk page.  Orville1974 talk 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was hired to make the changes, but I forgot to provide disclosure for the minor edits I had made before you responded to my edit request. I've rectified that now and notified of the same. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 29-JUN-2019
The draft has issues preventing its implementation. A few of them: Regards, Spintendo  20:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Interpol representatives met with Austrian authorities in Vienna to pledge support in helping "define the Academy's curriculum and to provide course work support regarding law enforcement’s role in anti-corruption training." This quote does not provide proper attribution to whom is speaking, per MOS:QUOTE.
 * 2) In addition to its academic programs, IACA is also engaged in developing anti-corruption standards that are applied by various European organizations. per WP:FUTURE.
 * 3) In the upcoming years, IACA's members did not increase their contributions to a necessary level, trailing constantly behind the goals defined by its members. per MOS:RELTIME
 * 4) This developed [sic] led to warnings from Eduardo Vatere
 * 5) The most pressing financial problems were solved through an additional payment of €544,000 by the Austrian government in December 2018 but additional measures to ensure liquidity were deemed necessary does not state what these "additional measures" are, nor who deemed them necessary.


 * I hadn't actually made edits to those sections of the article, but I've gone ahead and made edits to the draft covering those point (new diff here):


 * The quote highlighted in point 1 has been attributed to an announcement published on the Interpol website.
 * The sentence highlighted in point 2 has been removed.
 * The phrase "In the upcoming years" (point 3) has been reworded to "Over the next three years".
 * The sentence highlighted in point 4 has been removed and replaced with "During IACA's seventh Assembly of Parties in September 2018, Eduardo Vetere, the chairman of IACA's Board of Governors, referred to an external auditor's report which concluded that IACA was in danger of insolvency," with a reference to Mr. Vetere's address to the assembly included.
 * The sentence highlighted in point 4 has been replaced with "The Austrian government also made an additional contribution of €544,000 in December 2018".

Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 18:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I hadn't actually made edits to those sections of the article, but I've gone ahead and made edits to the draft covering those points This leads me to believe that there are sections of your draft which contain text which was not modified by you, in which case that text should not be included in your draft proposal. It matters not who "actually made edits to those sections of the article" because those edits become your edits if they're included in your draft proposal. If you could remove these sections from your draft proposal (or otherwise mark them as text which is unchanged from the current version) so that your draft only contains your requested additions or deletions from the article, it would be most helpful. Text which is to be left unchanged should not be included in your draft (or if included, it should be marked as such, so that the reviewer may more easily identify it as the "unchanged" text). In that way, text which is problematic will not be mistakenly assigned to you as it was in this case. When ready to proceed with the requested changes to your draft, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  19:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted for future requests. I've removed the sections I don't intend to have edited from my draft proposal (new diff here). Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 04-JUL-2019
Regards, Spintendo  05:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Ref tags #16 and #17 are not formatted according to WP:CS1. All additions to an article ought to use the same citation style already in use by the article, per WP:CITEVAR.
 * 2) The reference for ref tag #5 is missing.
 * 3) Ref tag #18 is missing the page parameter.
 * 4) Ref tags #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, and #12 need to use the  template.
 * 5) When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you!
 * Citations have been fixed as outlined; ref tag #13 has also been edited as per point 4 as an announcement published by the UK government (new diff here). Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 06:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 05-JUL-2019
Spintendo 07:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)