Talk:Corruption in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / Politics and law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Intro[edit]

I've removed the following lines from the intro:

Bribery and theft by officials are widespread and common, but little is done to counter this, despite declarations made by Russia's top statesmen. It is suspected that the most widespread corruption is closely related to key state institutions. Some state structures' activities, when analysed, appear to be actually harming the country.

These lines constitute a clear POV pushing, implying that the Russian state and even its "key institutons" are the main source of corruption. First, such claims contain an obvious logical fault, since corruption is always multilateral, that is business and common people also participate in corruption and do contribute to its spread. The phrases like "little is done to counter this, despite declarations made by Russia's top statesmen" should be included into the good article only if supported by the sources that contain a serious and neutral analysis, otherwise it is just a part of a political blame game, not an encyclopedic knowledge. The phrases "It is suspected" and "when analysed" are not a good encyclopedic style unless properly referenced, preferably with several sources each.Greyhood (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All that makes sense, but we're talking about an intro. By your own words, "Enough is said about the scale of corruption in the article body". The intro introduces the article body. It doesn't necessarily obligatory need sources and the like if it is further expanded in the article body with expalations and sources. Also, we have many sources stating there's a large-scale corruption in Russia: most of them by now you qualified as POV (and used a term "LOL" once, addressing Washington Post), but I couldn't fairly find other-POV sources telling there's no or little corruption in Russia. Large-scale corruption is obvious then, and that's what presented in the intro. Also, as I said before, this intro was reviewed and edited by several users who participated in the AfD. You didn't participate, but finally you come and just plain delete what several people wrote and what was accepted during the closure of AfD. You did't collaborate, just delete, cutting overall brief informative intro, preferable for any article, to a single short sentence (unpreferable, suitable for a stub or so). You didn't analyse article body asking sources, neutral analysis or the like, but simply attacked the brief intro, decreasing Wikipedia quality. You was alone, intro editors were not. That's why I'm going to return the intro. Proceed with intermediation or the like if you're going to oppose. --ssr (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The into may (and in this case should) easily cite some sources from the main body of the article, and it should avoid overgeneralizations and stick to some key staments from in the main body with references provided. I won't object to the well referenced intro where sources correspond to the sources in the main body of the article.
>Also, we have many sources stating there's a large-scale corruption in Russia
I don't argue with the fact of large-scale corruption in Russia, but I'm concerned with a puffed up role that the proposed intro assigns to the Russian state regarding the problem.
>and used a term "LOL" once, addressing Washington Post
I used a term "LOL", addressing not Washington Post, but Mikhail Khodorkovsky the author of that article, a person convicted for his corrupt business
>You didn't participate, but finally you come and just plain delete what several people wrote and what was accepted during the closure of AfD.
The results of that AfD discussion doesn't mean that we should stop editing, discussing and improving this article.
>but simply attacked the brief intro, decreasing Wikipedia quality.
No. I just want to see an intro of the better quality. Apparently, now I have to write it myself.
>Proceed with intermediation or the like if you're going to oppose.
Better lets turn to collaboration in writing properly referenced intro that corresponds to the sources given in the main body of the article. Greyhood (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I won't object you writing a quality intro. I tried myself my best, if you can make it better, please do. --ssr (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've put a link to Transparency International into the intro, as well as one of the few references given in this article. Obviously, this article badly needs more citations. Greyhood (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The second source is a dead link. Also, just would like to toss out that maybe we shouldn't be using Transparency International's figures as a reference for logical and intuitive reasons. Logically, it is a perception index and perception is not a measure of reality. Furthermore intuitively, TI did not meet with Edward Snowden at the Moscow airport in 2013 but Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch did. At their 2013 annual meeting the USA branch (TI USA) somehow silenced TI Germany and TI Ireland who were in support of a resolution that had measures to protect whistleblowers like Snowden. The resolution was passed without mention of whistleblowers or Edward Snowden. That is kind of a disgusting thing to hear. TI also gave Hillary Clinton their annual integrity award in 2012. TI was founded by many people that could be partially categorized as "Globalists" including a laundry list of bankers including World Bank members. I could keep going. Transparency International does not have credence as a source and we shouldn't be legitimizing them. Some heavy editing is definitely needed. If I could read Cyrillic it would be a lot easier. 107.142.19.143 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC) cfranks

Affect on the average citizen[edit]

According to a Levada poll from earlier this year[1], 15% of Russians polled said they had to pay a bribe in the past 12 months. The poll shows the situation has been completely unchanged for the past half-decade. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between business corruption, and corruption in every day life. LokiiT (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

This entire article needs to be re-written; it's sounding like all over the place and much of it is barely making any sense whatsoever. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 00:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the article needs to include the recent corruption statistics; there's no sign of the fact that corruption has started becoming less of a problem. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The map on where it has its influince is an exaggeration because the majority of the nations that are red have nothing to do with Russia but have constructed their own corruption. --124.169.226.110 (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is very out of date, and very poorly sourced. Removed some text as it didnt make sense, and was opinion. martijnd (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Bribery Legislation[edit]

removed: Russian criminal legislation contributes to corruption as it envisages penalties not only for bribery to commit illegal acts but for bribery as an act in general.

This is an opinion, not a fact, and it doesn't make sense. martijnd (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics[edit]

Since this is not included in the article, i quote the data of the article: "The cost overruns for these Games were much higher than usual. Much of the cost overruns have been blamed on corruption, with Boris Nemtsov claiming: "The Sochi Olympics are an unprecedented thieves' caper in which representatives of Putin's government are mixed up along with the oligarchs close to the government." ( ref The Sochi Olympics: Castles in the sand 2013) According to research by Transparency International, a global anti-corruption watchdog, approximately 50 percent or more of the building costs went to corruption. ( ref One year out, Sochi's Winter Olympics is already dogged by allegations of massive corruption Yahoo Sports 2014) Watti Renew (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

this sentence doesn't make sense![edit]

"As of 2015, Russian officials are periodically accused of spending on luxury cars, mansions or clothes significantly their declared income." I think a word is accidentally dropped or something. It's the last sentence in the article. 77.31.240.143 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)