User talk:AngusSeager/sandbox

Peer Review
This is a pretty good draft. The main thing I would change is the order/organization of the sections. There is no lead for the overall topic. Instead there is one lead for the policing side and one for the political side. I think it would make more sense to combine these two leads into one main opening paragraph. If I were writing the article, I would reorder it in this way: I think structuring the article in this way would improve how the article flows, and make it feel like one topic with multiple applications, rather than two very separate ideas. Besides that, I have a few other minor suggestions to make. The second and third examples in the “In popular culture” section are very strong, but the first one doesn’t really add to the topic. I would consider taking the first example out. The opening sentence in your lead about cops feels unnecessary. The first sentence of the lead should define the term “noble cause corruption”, and the current opening sentence doesn’t really do that. I thought that you did a really good job addressing multiple views in your article, and didn’t make any claims without backing them up with the author’s name. The article didn’t feel biased in any particular direction. I thought your example in the “In policing” section was good, but if you could find a second example I think it would add a lot to that section. In addition, there were a few small grammatical errors I noticed: My last comment is that there are quite a few statements missing a citation, so make sure to add those in before publishing. Overall I think your draft is well done, and you’re off to a great start on your article. Good job! Shannontimmins (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead (combine policing and politics)
 * Motives (again, combined)
 * Opinions
 * Examples
 * In policing
 * In politics
 * In popular culture
 * In the Pablo Escobar section:
 * “which could created positive externalities”
 * In the US gov’t section:
 * remove comma after “political scientist”
 * “were consisted of”
 * “as well as” used twice in one sentence
 * In the Coup d’etat section:
 * “referred to the deaths as “due to an accident””
 * Maybe try “claimed the deaths were “due to an accident””
 * In the CHAOS section:
 * “When this search failed to demonstrate a link...:” (incomplete sentence)
 * In the Opinions section: uses the word however a lot

---

Peer Review by Tom
This is an interesting topic. Nice choice. Let me know if I can clarify any of this feedback. Hope it's helpful. -Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.wiki497 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

'''Definition of NCC: ''' I'm left wanting to know more about the definition itself. Many things fall under this term for me as I currently understand it from the article (the original plus your edits). Is NCC defined via its outcome or its intent? Is there a distinction between successful NCC and unsuccessful NCC? Are there cases where the 'success'fulness is highly debated? Objectively successful? Who determines whether the means are justified by the intended outcomes? I feel like there is some controversy here to be addressed.

Is self defense a specific form of NCC? Are revolutionary armies that fight for peace within definition of NCC? Can certain acts of terrorism be considered NCC? How does perspective play a role in NCC?

"Dirty hands, however, differs from noble cause corruption because it does not necessarily consist of the circumventing of institutional values and often consists of legal actions, such as police and military violence.[3]" This sentence is helpful in defining NCC, but it deserves more discussion/unpacking in my opinion. Maybe within your examples you could explain exactly what it is about that example that qualifies it as NCC and not regular corruption, dirty hands, or normal political compromise etc..

NCC overlaps with the general issues of historiography, right? Who gets to say who were the good guys and who were the bad guys? Who gets to decide what "the common good" is? Is NCC a way for politicians to rationalize their own compromises. "You don't want to watch sausage or laws being made" quote.

'''Other: ''' The historical examples are good. Would it be helpful to digest these examples into categories of NCC [murder, torture, lying, surveillance, etc]? Or to categorize them by the specific rights, morals or institutions they breech [free speech, peace, fair trial, privacy, etc...]?

NSA surveillance would be a good example of NCC. But again, the term NCC seems very subjective. Who decides what 'the greater good' is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001%E2%80%932007)

The wikileaks example could be unpacked some more.

Typos in CAPS:

This case demonstrates an instance of the government conducting an abuse of public office by allying themselves with known criminals in order to gain a result which could CREATED positive externalities.

The US government has also condoned the torture of suspected terrorists, despite this going against the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits "CRUAL and unusual punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.wiki497 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Manuel Balan Review
Overall, good work on this draft. I think there's quite a bit of interest here, but as the comments mention above, it will be important to have a solid lead section that sets up the concept and the structure of the article. Sources are solid (you can always expand, of course), so I would focus the work on developing the different parts and on having a clearer structure. Comments by Shannon and Tom are on point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)