Talk:Corruption in Angola

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michael Szpik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence needs extremely good cites to justify

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isabel Dos Santos

I am not sure why someone removed the well-cited and written section on Isabel Dos Santos, but certainly it is applicable and necessary.--TM 11:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi TM, I'm sorry but I disagree. I can't understand why there is a subchapter about Isabel dos Santos in an article called Corruption in Angola when nothing in the text backs up this accusation. All references are merely allegations without proof. These allegations are even denied after. Wikipedia has strong rules against this kind of situation. You can read more about it here. In order not to be misunderstood, I'm going to explain my opinion chapter by chapter:

- Paragraph 1: The investments Isabel dos Santos has made in Angolan and Portuguese companies are transparent and have been made through transactions based on the arm's length principle. - therefore, we cannot say she is corrupt.

- Paragraph 2: suggested that this wealth and power comes substantially from her father's influence and connection. - Forbes suggested??? Such expressions are not used by reliable sources within the policy of living persons. It must be evidence, not suggestions/baseless allegations.

- Paragraph 3: her increased stakes could lead to a monopoly over much, if not most, of the media business central to Angola and Portugal. - False accusation. Isabel dos Santos has no media interests in Portugal or Angola. You can read about it here and here. And Isabel dos Santos was accused of political bias, and of having inside information and contacts in Portugal in her dealings. - another false accusation. Reference doesn't work, so according to Wikipedia policies it must be removed.

- Paragraph 4: If this information is relevant (which I sincerely doubt, since once again there is no evidence, but only claims), this paragraph belongs to the subchapter about the "President". I will make this change, because I have not had time to judge the relevance of the references.

- Paragraph 5: An investigative journalist discovered that at least $1.8 billion of Isabael's fortune originates from government funds. - Who? And where is the reference? We do not know, so we cannot make such statements. It has to be removed (according to Wikipedia policy).

Also references are often written in Portuguese, and this is an English article. It makes no sense, we have to pay attention to this. I can read Portuguese but others can't. We cannot use all that is written in a website just because it suits us. We have to think about its relevance and its truthfulness. XavierD75 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Page Update

So I rebuilt this page as an assignment for a university course... I think its pretty good.

There are some specific things that could be improved, however:

1. Further theoretical discussion in each lead sections, supported by articles that are themselves thorough analyses of the subject in question.
2. A discussion of the relationship between corruption and, repression and regime stability and how that relates to the legacies of war and the culture of violence (specifically extra-judicial killings, media persecution) and the effect on these things on civil society and culture. (among my references, Pearce, Schubert, and Messiant had a fair bit to say about that subject).
3. More data with regard to the magnitude of economic appropriation and the consequences of corruption.
4. More details regarding: Land concessions; corruption in the military; corruption and foreign aid; corruption in the broader economy; corruption in day to day life for Angolan citizens
5. More cases, and expansion of detail provided for each case.

So, if for the next guy that shows up to add to this... that's what else I would have done had I had an infinite amount of time.