Talk:Transparency (behavior)

message: the article reads as if it were written by a 5-year old. many parts are either redundant or confusing. furthermore, there seem to be no references on this page, which makes the article look like original research. 
--141.35.179.94 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, some separate articles about it, Radical transparency, Open government, Corporate transparency. Mion (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still needs some cleaning up (NPOV), and a few refs. Cheers Mion (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: President Bush is a member of the secret society Skull and Bones. The main problem with skull and bones is that it is a closed secret society. Therefore one can only speculate about that for which they stand. The symbol they use has been used in the past by pirates (theives). This does not enhance their image. They are so secretive that even presidential candidates give their allegence to the society before the american people; therefore they will not discuss what they society stands for or what ideologies they embody. 
Our country makes a big deal about being an open, transparant society, but how open and transparent can it be, if our leaders pledge their allegence to secret societies?
BmikeSci 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparency in USA

message: Article appears to make various subjective judgments about the issue of transparency, i.e. how it affects the significance of elections and democracy. --Wykypydya (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: I have read this discussion and am not sold on any of the proposals.  Transparency (social) is the option I dislike least, but due to deep divisions between the "hard sciences" and the "soft sciences", it feels like it excludes the same behavior when done by a scientist.  While there are differences in the implementation details, it's the same ethical concept no matter what the specific field is.
It appears that this article needs to cover transparency with details about how it is applied in many fields, and also in many ways within a single area.  For example, just considering the ways it  applies to government actions, we need to deal with bookkeeping, criminal justice, legislative voting (and lobbying), public health, scientific research -- and more.  Many of these are neither "research" nor "humanities", the two primary proposals.  We need a broad term.  
Furthermore, the point behind the disambiguating term is to make it clear how it differs from other uses of the term.  Lining up with some academic division is unimportant.  
May I suggest Transparency (behavior) as a neutral alternative?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly to the point either but perhaps the best suggestion so far. I would go for it, such that the article can develop. After a while, someone might come up with a better idea. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank WhatamIdoing for helping out and presenting a new alternative, Daniel, do the edits you like, as you suggest, developing the article further is a better option then stalling, happy editing. cheers Mion (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did thank WhatamIdoing, moved the page and cleaned up the remnants of the discussion in terms of direct redirects. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: i.e. that of being open and visible for inspection. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: should be moved to [[Transparency (<property>)]] where I assume it's currently "politics".72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless removing: as there's no discussion and no assignment of a subject area. Also the disambig page is entangled in the conceptual error. Actually what I was referring to above would probably be the core/master article for the concept in it's various "humanities and business" forms. Lycurgus (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a Property not Behavior  

message: It seems that this is a subject with an agenda. The mention of an American President when much more significant political leaders has a historic relevance to the subject (a lot of Victorian Prime Ministers held sway over more of the world's politics and also belonged to secret societies).
In addition the relevance of transparency in a digitally mediated society is hardly mentioned. I dealt with it here: NewPR Wiki - Defining Transparency. Nature of Transparency http://www.thenewpr.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?pagename=DefiningTransparency.NatureofTransparency   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphillips4363 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued quality issues 

message: I added a reference to the Pirate Party phenomenon, whose political platform is in large part driven by demands for transparency. I also think this entry deserves some mention about philosophical critiques of the concept of transparency, so I started a new section on criticism, which does need a lot of expansion. Cheers, Mabuse (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political movements around transparency and criticism of concept 

message: Check out the NY Times about researchers pushing medical firms to release data.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article about transparency in medicine 

message: Someone fluent in English should look at this opening paragraph -- I read the first sentence several times and it still made no grammatical sense, there are too many errors to list. BTW: this is an important and relevant topic, requiring due justice from its Wikipedia article. --OldCommentator (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I spruced up the opening paragraph for clarity and concision. Thanks for bringing this issue to attention. — Asgardiator Iä! Iä! 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph 

message: Hi! One of my students created a draft for the article, but I didn't know if it could/should be merged. I figure that I'd link to their draft here and let you guys decide: User:Octopus's garden/sandbox. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usable content?  

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Government Transparency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Government Transparency until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Government Transparency" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I made a quick edit to the lead to establish a second lead head for the completely incompatible sense used in information security. 
The two senses have nothing in common but the word itself, and worse still, employed with their metaphors of transparency in pure antithesis. 
Crunching these onto the same page is ugly. Splitting out the runt (infosec) onto its own page is also ugly, because I don't think it could ever become much of a page. 
I don't have a good answer in Wikipedia scope. 
But for my own notes, the runt topic was very quickly split out to a runt page titled transparency (design ethos). 
My own wiki doesn't give a damn whether fragments ever grow up to become a real boy. — MaxEnt 19:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparency (design ethos)