Eisspeedway

Talk:Corruption in India


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): Saitejamekala.

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

Whistleblowers in India

There is a need to add whistleblower section under this artile --Pavanksingh (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ashwin

I ASSURE THAT INDIA WILL BECOME DEVOLOPED NATION IN 2020 11M 2008-2009 batch INDIA-TAMILNADU-MOGAPPAIR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.230.90 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I can't figure is

In Pakistan, politicians gobble up EVERY single dollar they get as "aid for the country" from the USA, and extreme poverty is quite a norm out there, yet, they are WAY down at 138 in the rankings by this organization "Transparency International", and in India, when things are getting better and better, they are at 72nd position... that's ironic, to say the least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.195.254 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is due to the fact that transparency international measures the perception of corruption and not the actual corruption. This means that if 100% of respondents to a survey in India say that they have experienced corruption first hand and only 90% of Pakistani's say that they have experienced corruption first hand then India will be at a higher position. It is possible that some government departments of Pakistan don't ask for bribes but their Indian counterparts do.--Wikishagnik (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption across various States of India

The section shows a map of India with the states colored as corruption index from the study: http://www.transparency.org/regional_pages/asia_pacific/newsroom/news_archive2/india_corruption_study_2005. But the study only covers 20 states which are clearly described in the study. However, whoever created the graphic out of the study data put the rest of the unstudied states (mostly north-eastern states of India) in the rank of "least corrupt" color. I couldn't figure out where that comes from, even after reading the study results. If there is no basis for the data, there should be "unknown" color to describe them. Otherwise, I think that is very wrong and should be corrected (either by taking down the grahpic map or correcting it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.112.200 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khairnar

I have created an article G R Khairnar. Please read and provide inputs. Nshuks7 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The writing style of this article is not factual or verifiable

For example -- "It seems as if only the honest people are poor in India and want to get rid of their poverty by education, emigration to cities, and immigration, whereas all the corrupt ones, like Hasan Ali Khan are getting rich through scams and crime." "Officials often steal state property." "Grieving families are often asked in Government-run offices to pay bribes to obtain the Death Certificate." There is no indication if this is a widespread concern throughout the country. I am not disputing that these incidents happen -- only asking that authors should provide a reliable source / citation to verify these claims. --77.99.70.92 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alarmist facts?

The article suggests that the funneling of money from India amounts to $462 billion per year between 1948 and 2008. But more probable is that the total between 1948 and 2008 (60 years) amounts to 40% of the current annual GNP (1 year). This works out to about 7.7 Billion per year, or about 0.6% of current GNP.) Still not great, but not quite as significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.19.14 (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Hi all

I have started the copyedit only to find a blatant example of copyvio. Rather than start copyediting the whole article (and so starting to blank sections with copyvios) I will put this copy-edit on hold for two or three days, or until someone confirms they have looked at this, to allow time for people to remove any offending text.

  • "An international watchdog conducted a study on the illicit flight of money from India, perhaps the first ever attempt at shedding light on a subject steeped in secrecy, concludes that India has been drained of $462 billion (over Rs 20 lakh crore) between 1948 and 2008. The amount is nearly 40% of India's annual gross domestic product." [1]

I will note it as such on the GOCE requests page. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have not tagged it with the copyvio template either, to allow 24 hours for someone to deal with this matter. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matter referred to copyvio project as more than one copyyvio was found. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love contributing to wikipeida, but i don't know about copy editing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting means cleaning up grammar, format, etc. But that's not what Chaosdruid is talking about--xe's saying he started to copyedit, but then found out that lot of this text is a probable copyright violation. That means it may have been copied from another website. We are never allowed to copy information from copyrighted sources, and can only copy from free sources using special templates. Since you're one of the main editors of this article, do you know if any of it has been copied from elsewhere? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reply, Maheshkumaryadav? I know that you have had a block for copyvios before (and have committed further violations since), so I think that unless we get some sort of useful reply then the best course of action would be to remove any content you have added other than stuff of the "copyediting" type which Qwyrxian has explained to you. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Corruption and Indian politics be merged into this article. The other article violates WP:NPOV, and contains only a few usable verified facts, so there's no reason why it can't be merged here. If, at some point in the future editors believe this article has become to long, a split can be proposed. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this looks like a pretty clear consensus, just to be completely fair, I'm going to let this run for a full week before actually performing the merge. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I let this run a bit long; I'm now going to proceed with the merger. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it turns out there isn't really much to merge. The other article had three sources. One was an interview with a Yoga guru, and I don't believe that including his opinion meets WP:UNDUE. The other two were about black money, but not specifically about politicians having black money or being corrupted by/through it. I may move over one of those sources to Black money in India. The "Politics" section either needs to be expanded or just worked into other sections; actually, the whole article structure looks like a problem; I'll take a look at that after I finish the other merge. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal (Effects)

I am proposing to merge Effects of corruption in India into the section of the same name in this article. That article has only one source at the moment. More importantly, I don't actually see how, rhetorically speaking, the "effects of something" can be separated from the "thing" itself in terms of article structure. That is, I'd almost be inclined to say that no matter how many sources that other article had, it should be merged into here, because it doesn't make sense to discuss "effects" separately from the corruption itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add here that I completed this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged in information from Anti-corruption initiatives by civil society in India

As a result of the AfD decision to MERGE Anti-corruption initiatives by civil society in India into this article, I have completed that merge today. While doing so, I also removed a lot of information that was previously in that section. Basically, it had become a laundry list of various websites, NGO, and other groups associated with anti-corruption efforts. However, simply because a website/organization exists does not mean it should be listed in our article. In fact, we should really only have information that someone else has already found notable; i.e., that has been written about at least once in a reliable source. Note that the websites themselves are not reliable in this regard.

The information that I merged/left I kept in a bulleted list. I know this isn't the optimal way to organize the info; however, this whole article needs a major organizational overhaul. Rather than try to get a great organization now, I opted to just get the information over and worry about how to format when (if?) I ever get around to larger work on the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forward caste (FC) corruption vs Scheduled caste (SC) corruption

Caste and corruption are NOT mutually exclusive in India. 90% of corrupt money is with the Forward caste.<redacted>--Laitrapmi (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redacted part of what you wrote, because you're alleging criminal activity of a large number of living people without providing any evidence; while WP:BLP doesn't apply quite the same on talk pages as it does in articles, it still applies. In any event, what does this have to do with this article? Are you proposing some specific addition? If so, what are you specifically proposing the article say, and what reliable sources do you have to support that suggested addition? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False claims of India's black money in Swiss banks

The statement "India tops the list for black money in the entire world with almost US$1456 billion in Swiss banks (approximately USD 1.4 trillion) in the form of black money" is false

Statement of all assets in Swiss banks by nationality, issued by the Swiss Central Bank
The sum of all assets in Swiss banks together is only about 1.5 trillion francs, of which liabilities of banks to India is 1.65 billion francs.
No mention of more assets than anyone else, or trillions of dollars, or anything of that sort.
The reference article cites the unbelievable number of $1.4 trillion in "black money", which almost exceeds all the combined deposits in Swiss Banks.
Here's an article on the real black money situation which debunks that Huge figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpk1024 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no black money report from swiss bank

In relation to putting "black money" in Swiss banks - I found this article: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-13/india/28092452_1_james-nason-swiss-bankers-association-sba-s-head

It appears there was no report in 2006 by the Swiss Bank association about India putting so manyy dollars worth into Swiss banks in the form of black money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.14 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the black money stuff out of the lead, added the citation you gave above, and made the information less certain. I hope that addresses the concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions

Under the heading Black money it states that black money stashed abroad is $ 462 billion whereas couple of lines below under the heading Black Money in Switzerland its written that black money stashed in Switzerland alone is $ 1.4 trillion — --Aryan wiki (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC) comment added by Aryan wiki (talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct--it appears that 2 different sources report 2 different numbers. Since we have no way of judging which is "correct", WP:NPOV says we should include both, properly attributing the source of the differing data. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD of the article

WP:LEAD requires that the lead be a concise overview. It should summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic as discussed in the main article. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The LEAD para starting with In the book 'Corruption in India: The DNA and is neither discussed in the remainder of the article nor is it properly supported (link is dead). The secondary source that does work is a blog that does not meet WP:RS guidelines. In the current form it is not an appropriate and constructive LEAD.

I intend to move this good faith content from prior contributors to a sub-section. I also intend to summarize important points and controversies from the main article into LEAD per WP:LEAD guidelines. Discussion is welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent plan. In truth, the article needs a major overhaul--it goes into excessive detail at some points, and misses broad info in others. The task of making this a decent article is quite extensive, which is why I've never attempted it, but I absolutely look forward to your help; I'll keep watching and will chime in when I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

The article is tagged: 'The neutrality of this article is disputed.'

Any idea on which sections or what is in dispute? If identified, I will research and try to constructively contribute to resolve the dispute. If not, after several weeks of wait, I will remove the tag. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should remove this tag asap & not "wait for several weeks" or give a concrete deadline because the editor who tagged this article did not bother to explain his/her reasons for doing so in the talk page.Nishant (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing it is fine. While I do think this article could be improved (it's not very well organized right now, and I feel that some parts are over-covered while others are undercovered), it seems to be fairly neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar--Least corrupt?? ,really?

it does not require more than commonsense to understand this is the opposite of the truth.Corruption is always proportional to poverty. I would say Kerala is the least corrupt state.Anyway, just check your info again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.31.234 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources always beat common sense, which really has no place in Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources stating that another state is less corrupt, feel free to provide them. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

I don't understand why the scams that were unearthed in 2010 have got special mention in the Politics section? Indian became an independent country in 1947, why single out 2010? Moreover, the case is still in progress in the courts. I think it should be removed as it is not appropriate and sways the opinion of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katyaan (talk • contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Ayyadurai promotional content

So, I'm not really arguing against Indian corruption in technology, as that would be a fool's errand. But this entire section lines up directly with Ayyadurai's vendetta against the CSIR after he got fired. It's debatable if that was due to corruption or due to unauthorized grandstanding to 400+ researchers about his superior's faults via email. Possibly a bit of both, but it's certainly not clear enough to be presented as proof positive of corruption.

My main concern with this section is it feels just like the political rambling of his that I pointed out three months ago in the middle of his EMAIL controversy. It's got all the signs of an Ayyadurai edit:

1. It always puts his full name, "VA Shiva Ayyadurai" instead of leaving out the preceding VA to match his article's title. 2. It has multiple article citations on the exact same word instead of more flowing citations. Like the 11 citations in a row at the end of the first paragraph on his page. 3. It gives him a non-existent prestige title, like "systems scientist". He teaches one class at MIT about powerpoint presentations that he got through connections, and tried to invent the discipline "systems visualization" from it. 4. It explains only his point of view, quotes his supporters, and gives him a major role in fighting scandals in India when he really only spent a short time there. 5. It puts a tonne of irrelevant details inline in the article instead of grouping relevant data and linking to it.

It seems there really ought to be evidence of more than just Ayyadurai's scuffle for this. At the minimum, this should have a more neutral presentation. I'm leaving the consensus and implementation to others who watch the page more frequently, as he edits it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PassingCommenter (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Corruption in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Corruption in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corruption in India. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corruption in India. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Corruption in India. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are various kinds of corruption. Many of them have been mentioned using the word government official, but they need to emphasise on corruption occuring in legal matters, especially the corrupt and decietful police. They support the one who gives more bribe, thus leading to injustice. They are the worst kind of people in India. Kindly mention that too. I would have but I thought of getting more suggestions and opinions. Thanks. BRAINLY456 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figure caption

In the figure "Index trends in major states by respective anti-corruption effort" there is no indication of what the index shown is. The inexpert reader has no way to interpret the figure.Bill (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would really love to see more treatment of trends, especially some kind of consistent and coherent presentation of trends. There is a small section titled "Trends", but most of the paragraphs in that section simply cite different ways that some kind of corruption was observed to exist at various points in time (pro tip: these are not trends). The index table 1990-2010 is a nice start and it fills in some of the gaps prior to the TI info etc., but more is needed (and the other unrelated stuff should probably be moved, retitled, or eliminated). 50.53.38.220 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

say no to corruption

more 2409:4042:4E37:46A6:3CCF:96E:BA9A:CF74 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corruption_in_India