Talk:Transparency International

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))
 * 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  L ondon 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  L ondon 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  L ondon 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  L ondon 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.  IN  Panda   18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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  L ondon 19:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Transparency International at the Bilderberg meeting
The Guardian has published an article about the presence of members of TI at the 2015 Bilderberg meeting, noting, of course, "the howling contradiction of being on the steering committee of the world’s most secretive policy summit and also on the advisory council of Transparency International USA".

I believe this is a highly significant criticism that should be added to the article. Dornicke (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transparency International. 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/20110131012755/http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html to http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

misleading capitalisation in lead paragraph
The second last sentence in the lead paragraph is "TI is a member of UNESCO Consultative Status[3], United Nations Global Compact[4] and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions and Partnerships For the Goals."

The capitalisation in "United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions and Partnerships For the Goals" is misleading in that it indicates that there exists an official UN organisation/group with that very long and unwieldy name. No such entity does exist. Moreover, Sustainable Development Goals is an article - very reasonably - about the sustainable goals of the UN and not about a group, so it would not be possible to be a member of it as it is not any kind of entity, of which anything or anyone could be member.

However there is a United Nations Sustainable Development Group.

Also there is a link in that article,United Nations Sustainable Development Group, to the article Sustainable Development Goals (about the UN goals) to which the the current article links those three words in the subject sentence, and I'm guessing that the editor who penned this was trying to get in all the info in a sentence including the words "Sustainable Development Goals".

I have therefore changed the sentence to:

"TI is a member of UNESCO Consultative Status[3], United Nations Global Compact[4] and United Nations Sustainable Development Group."

leaving out the link to the Sustainable Development Goals article, which can now still be reached indirectly via United Nations Sustainable Development Group.

However I don't (yet) have a reference to prove that TI is a member of UNSDG Hedles (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, the Wikipedia article,United Nations Sustainable Development Group, contains a list of member organisations. TI is not on that list.  Neither "UNSDG" nor "united nations sustainable development group" occurs in either the international TI website, https://www.transparency.org, nor the UK TI website, https://www.transparency.org.uk, although many of their publications refer to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.  TI also refers to itself in at least one of it's own publications as a 'non'governmental organisation, "Transparency International (TI) is the world’s leading nongovernmental anti-corruption organisation." https://ti-defence.org/publications/the-fifth-column/


 * The UNSDG web site, https://unsdg.un.org has one mention of "transparency international" and one of its publications, https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/c4d-effectiveness-of-UN-EN.pdf lists one of TI's publications amongst its references. But there is no mention of TI being a member or even affiliated with UNSDG.


 * On the basis of this lack of evidence, therefore, rather than stating something which may not be true, I have removed completely the claim (which I made in my last edit) of TI's membership of UNSDG and replaced a sentence similar in meaning to the phrase I replaced but without making any claims of membership. Hedles (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Political activities in Brazil - insufficient sources / questionable allegations
I would like to flag in line with the Wiki CoI guidelines that I am working at Transparency International e.V. I am therefore not making any changes to this article myself but am posting my concerns about a specific topic on this talk page. At the same time, this is not an official Wikipedia account of the organisation, and I am not representing the organisation through this account:

In the section on “controversies” there is a paragraph on “Political activities in Brazil”. In this paragraph it is stated that severe misconduct has been committed by Transparency International.

The relevant statements are the following:

1.     “In these, chief prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol and head of TI Brazil, Bruno Brandão, discuss a "backstage campaign" to "disarm resistance on the left", fund selected candidates, and target others, seen as adversaries, using social media.”

2.     “Plans extended to preparing a series of false accusations ("denúncias sem materialidade") intended to damage the reputation of former president and potential candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, […]”

3.     “[…] and lead up to a chat in which participants celebrate the election of Jair Bolsonaro.

These are incorrect factual claims. Neither are the disputed claims proven facts, nor do the linked sources support the claims. Even if it was worded as a disputed allegation, the provided sources do not support the accusations. The sources do e.g. not support the claims that the Executive Director of TI Brazil celebrated the election of Jair Bolsonaro, or that he prepares a series of false accusations to damage the reputation of Lula da Silva.

I therefore ask the Wikipedia community to double check those claims and the provided sources for their accuracy and reliability. Should the sources not support the claims, then it should be corrected accordingly, or reliable sources should be provided.

I would like to further flag that the allegations are focusing on a living person, the Executive Director of TI Brazil. In line with Wikipedia policies, high-quality sources are necessary in cases like this:

“''All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'' .”

Furthermore, there should be a clear differentiation between TI e.V. and the National Chapter in Brazil. Both organisations are separate legal entities in their respective country.

I am looking forward to a review of the paragraph in question.

Thanks! Transparency 24 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Wiki community,
 * unfortunately, the paragraph and allegations mentioned above have not been reviewed yet. I would highly appreciate it if the content could be reviewed. I personally think the allegations are not based on reliable sources and should, especially since they are referring to a living person, be amended.
 * Thanks! Transparency 24 (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)