Talk:Weaponization of finance

Section on Terrorism and Weaponization of Finance

This section contains a lot of information, but the wording feels a little awkward. Also, you should consider revising the order of your information (explain what UNODA acronym means while you introduce it, perhaps add link?). You should try reading the section out loud, it will help you determine what flows better and what doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchamb13 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the section on Libya is a great start! However, I would like to see more information about what steps were kinda of steps were taken with the embargo. Also the overall effect of the embargo, and how the weaponize of finance took hold. At its current state I would say that it is a great start, great information presented in a concise section. Psmalcer1996 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Overall this page is well put together but could use some tweaks to the wording in various sections to make it easier to follow. The section about Criticism could be expanded to include more examples of criticisms and oppositions to the use of the weaponization of finance. The section on Terrorism and Weaponization of Finance could be rewritten to make it more clear, perhaps defining what UNODA is before diving into what it does would be one place to start. Also this section seems to talk more about the financing of weapons for terrorist groups as opposed to the actual weaponization of finance used by other countries in the form of sanctions which are two different things. I would add to that section a part about how weaponization of finance (economic sanctions, etc.) are used on the governments of countries that host or sponsor terrorism. Wade Elmore (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This contribution has good content, and my main critiques are in terms of structure. I would suggest perhaps breaking the section "Terrorism Effect on Weaponization of Finance" into multiple paragraphs so it it better organized and less daunting. It also seems like it would be helpful to add hyperlinks to other Wiki pages, such as UNODA, or even September 11th, Al-Qaida, and ISIS. Changing up the wording and perhaps taking out some words such as "forever changed" or "forever triggered" would help the sentences to flow better and sound more matter-of-fact. Rbernert (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Original Research, Conflicts of Interest, and article cleanup needs

Two separate issues here to highlight, in order of importance:

• Original research: The vast majority of this article is original research, written like an essay rather than a discussion of "Weaponization of finance" per se Given that there are already existing articles on things like sanctions, etc., it is unclear what the purpose of this article is if not to reiterate academic literature mainly in the framework of certain political scientist. It appears a number of students from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Kent State University/Political Economy (Fall) expanded the article by adding their own scholastic research.
• Conflict of Interest: Ian Bremmer (through employees at his company, Eurasia Group), cited in the lead, appears to have conducted a sustained effort at elevating and introducing content related to himself without disclosure per WP:COI and WP:PAID. See discussions here. This also appears to be true for this article, at least to an extent. User Creidy91 (Contributions) started the article and never edited anything that did not make reference to Bremmer.

I have not dealt extensively with article cleanup due to issues like this before, so please correct me if I go overkill in taking care of it. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)