Talk:United Nations Convention Against Corruption

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Map still out of date

Saudi Arabia ratified the UNCAC in April of 2013, the map does not seem to reflect this. Oman and the Czech Republic have ratified as well. I'm not sure if there are other errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.96.2 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it's solved now! (you may need to clear the cash of your browser though) L.tak (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

According to http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html : "Status: Signatories: 140 ,Parties: 146." while the box says: "Signatories: 140 (as of 23 July 2009, signatories who haven't yet ratified are above in blue) Ratifications: 137 (as of 8 September 2009, above in green)" which also doesn't match with the map above - there are clearly more than 3 countries that signed, but not ratified the treaty.

Thanks for updating!

The map is wrong :-(

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:UNCACmap.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary versus secondary sources

There is a flag that says that this article relies "too much" on primary sources, to add secondary or tertiary sources. As a scholar and keen student of propaganda on Wikipedia I just have to object. The Primary sources are the only ones that count, in the courtroom as in science. Secondary and tertiary sources are where PROPAGANDA enters. In Wikipedia particularly there are hordes of agents employed by corrupt regimes to distort the articles using secondary and tertiary sources (which other branches of the same propaganda apparatus produces, through media outlets that they control, e.g. RT, TeleSur, to mention just two of the most egregious examples). Therefore, the idea that secondary sources are better than primary is a PROFOUND FLAW IN WIKIPEDIA. If you want an example of an article that is propaganda and impossible to correct due to the flawed rules, see the history of the article about Alejandro Peña Esclusa in Wikipedia in Italian. 2601:7:5680:4AC:E2F8:47FF:FE0E:8D82 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are best says Wikipedia

This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source says that the original peer-reviewed papers in science make the best sources. And obviously, the text of a convention is the best source for knowledge on the convention. The flag on this article is flat out misleading, and invites for the introduction of propaganda. I suggest it be removed and that the article is good. 2601:7:5680:4AC:E2F8:47FF:FE0E:8D82 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on

United Nations Convention against Corruption. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCCAPS

. But that guideline is about sentence case vs. title case, which isn't the issue (i.e., nobody wanted "United Nations convention against corruption").

Other evidence: there are a few other sources not cited in the article that, like Wikipedia and unlike the UN, probably follow styles that specify the capitalization of long prepositions in the titles of works, and do so for this treaty. However, most sources don't actually capitalize "against", and I couldn't find any discussions of similar issues on Wikipedia (including on

Convention against Torture

).

If this request is denied, MOS:TITLECAPS should be amended. Knr5 (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.