Talk:Mafia state

Any other sources?

All the sources are western media coverages. Furthermore, no mention of Yeltsin, even though everything began under him--96.250.107.241 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand the sources, the specific term "mafia state" is used when referring to the Putin era, "in which officials [many of whom FSB], oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a 'virtual mafia state'", which is distinct from the Yeltsin era, although the Russian mafia of course also existed back then and although Yeltsin's government wasn't perfect either. By non-western, I suppose you mean Russian sources. Free/independent media in Russia are routinely harrassed and journalists even killed in some cases, and a state-controlled Russian source wouldn't be a reliable source for anything else than the position of the Russian government/the Putin regime in this particular case. In any case, here is a Russian source too: Moscow Times Tataral (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeltsin's government wasn't perfect either? Maybe Yeltsin's government wasn't government? "Free/independent media in Russia are routinely harrassed and journalists even killed in some cases" ... look at the statistics, you'll see journalist murders under Yeltsin weren't less, though many were not registered and there were less journalists that time. Please, if your emotions drive you, respect emotions of other peoples, or maybe let's drop off paranoia at all? The article needs to be rewritten to make understand mafia state is primarily an INSULT for any country, as it has neither legal status nor scientific definition, along with empires of evil and so on.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't YOU find all of the appropriate information (such as about previous Russian government regime also being a "mafia state", or at least being a "founding father" of this definition) with an appropriate (reliable and neutral) sources to back that information up and then add all of that to this article, instead of simply complaining about "insults" and "paranoia" (you forgot to add in another mandatory word that is often used in such discussions - "Russophobia")? The article is currently semi-protected, but you can always become a registered auto-confirmed user and try to improve the Wikipedia for everyone with your work... Unless, of course, your only goal is to simply portray certain government regime in an absolutely positive light, in which case you probably shouldn't do that (unfortunately, there are already plenty of such users here... fortunately, most of their edits are easily to spot and revert). Rndomuser (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wider meaning of the term and global perspective

I've tried to describe the wider meaning of the term, but the article still needs expansion and more global perspective. The way how the original version tried to present the subject term was rather inappropriate. GreyHood ^Talk 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about something like this (edit summary), I mist tell that it is about Russia, and it is about any other states that have been described in multiple WP:RS as "Mafia states". My very best wishes (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we can rm the tag now? Objections? Ukrained2012 (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ukrained2012 (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To whomever person that is trying to vandalize this and other articles using TeliaSonera IP ranges

Please stop. You tried to vandalize this (and other articles) using IP ranges such as 90.236.xxx.xx [1] and 95.199.xxx.xx [2]. Your edits were reversed. Now it looks like you're trying to do this using new range 95.195.2xx.xx [3], as well as 95.199.xx.xxx [4], belonging to same exact ISP... Which again was reversed. Not to mention VERY similar "strange" (the editor tries to revert his own edits several times in rapid succession) edits by now-banned user Peterzor, in this same exact article... I don't know who you are or why are you doing this - but please stop. This is not helpful to anyone. If you have obsessive-compulsive or any other mental disorder - please find another outlet for it, other than Wikipedia itself. Thank you for understanding. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Transnistria

The text on Transnistria is unreferenced, and the term "new underrecognized territory" might not apply. First, we cover these as States with limited recognition, second it seceded in 1990 and is not that "new" any more. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Oh, and I'm fascinated with your username) Ukrained2012 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

wp:overcat and a irrelevant picture

Here we go again. Some unregistered users just couldn't bear the controversy around article's topic. Something they should to keep to themselves(. Instead of blocking article's legitimate development (currently, with pictures (!). Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

per wp:overcat the newly added categories by Ukrained2012 should be removed and that folk festival picture is irrelvant 90.129.90.1 (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For your information, anything in this article may be removed after either reaching consensus (in this case, at least with me) or by administrator intervention on BLP cases (which is not what your reckless edits were about). Me objecting turns your repetetive "shoulds" into "mays". That's why I suggest you explain how the pic showing Yakuza public displays of pride on a government-overseen event could possibly be irrelevant here.

AS for the WP:OVERCAT, that guideline clearly allows for "common sense", "exceptions" and consensus. For starters, please cite subsec of OVERCAT that you refer to)

Oh, and please stop reverting, at least until you get your own account. Anons are not in position for revert-warring. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: The request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed. The guidelines of the Third Opinion project say: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." This requirement is also reflected in policy. With only one comment here by the IP editor, this cannot be said to have been "thoroughly discussed." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the IP's side on this one. The categories added aren't relevant. The concept of a mafia state transcends individual states so its not really appropriate to include it in specific country's categories. If we look at the other articles in the "Authoritarian and totalitarian forms of government" template for consistency, they no specific country categories included.

The picture I'm not as averse to; its not "wrong" it just feels misplaced. The portion of the article about the Japan and the Yakuza is a bit thin; if it were expanded the picture might feel a bit more at the home. But at the minute it is sort of like "what has the Yakuza taking part in folk festivals got to do with mafia states?"

--Rushton2010 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No substantial counterarguments have been presented to me so far. I'm, however, willing to explain my point even more popularly) So, reference to WP:OVERCAT is erroneous as it doesn't apply (see above and the guideline itself), and wasn't elaborated since.

As for the picture, its relevance is obvious, especially with caption which I added (and which text I'm willing to discuss further). It illustrates how the Yakuza (the mafia) is deeply entrenched and comfortable in the public life of Japan (the state) which has been characterized as mafia state. Do you read me so far, gentlemen? Are my sentences short enough for you?

I'd be glad to see someone suggesting better pic demonstrating similar thing. Unfortunately, the only goal of my bulldozeuos IP "opponent" is to purge these particular pictures and cats( And, quite possibly, to prevent further development of a sore-topic article;)

Oh, and the rant about "section being too thin for a picture" is very mature, helpful and reasonable too( Why don't you make that section thicker NOW?

Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like discussion is booming here(. The crusading anonymous user is probably;) busy editing other articles. What a circus have the lazy admins allowed to happen... Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether a user is anon user or a registered user, or a long term or one off user, their views are just as valuable. Its the whole point of wikipedia -its open to be edited by anyone. --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the image of Putin be in this article

Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) and FSB Chief Nikolay Patrushev at a government meeting. The term mafia state is frequently used in relation to both the Putin regime in general and the FSB misconduct particularly.

I am going to start this RfC because I see above that not only the sockpuppets of Chaosname have concerns here. Thus we should see what others think that have not edited the article. The image has been here for some time but thats not a reason to keep if others see a problem. So should we display an image of Putin and FSB Chief Nikolay Patrushev as the primary and thus far only visual representation the article has? -- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion. Seems well-sourced and illustrative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Against inclusion. My initial thought is that it does not represent a world view of the subject. I've studied Russian politics and I've seen reputable British scholarship uses the term "mafia state". There is consensus among scholars that power in Russia has become (and is increasingly becoming) centralised, but there is disagreement about whether this is part of increasing democracy/accountability or a move back towards Russia's tradition of autocracy. The article itself is certainly out of date with how it describes Russian politics and there are a few things in it that have made me wince. The power of Oligarchs, for example, has been significantly curtailed, with the informal circles around Putin now holding the power. Corruption and inefficiency were widespread among the regional governments, but through the centralisation, their power has again been significant reduced; although the inefficiency is endemic (many say worse because of the centralisation). My fear is that this is not a world view and that political bias comes into it. When I studied Cuba, for example, I was struck with how different American scholarship was to the rest of the world. Many US sources would portray the US as a saint and I was quite shocked at how supposedly reputable sources could be so politicised. I think the Euro news said it right "Russia is considered in some circles to be a virtual mafia state" -some circles. The caption of the picture says "frequently"; something completely uncited - I'll change it.

Now to the photo and the caption itself. The second half of the caption is uncited. "frequently used"? there is nothing in the article to back that up. "the FSB misconduct particularly" -again there is nothing in the article to back that up. Then there is the question, why a photo of Putin? Is there nothing else that could embody the mafia state or mafia in russia? I read an interesting article not long ago about how, through the centralisation of power, Putin was attempting to remove power from the corrupt, mafia like regional government, the leaders of which they called "barons". In that view Putin could be seen as attempting to reduce any form of mafia state. Again; there's no agreement about where Russia is heading (or the nature of political power currently for that matter).

Common Sense: Just choose something not controversial. I think really, if we approach this issue on common sense grounds, this photo has caused a great number of issues and has had repeated attempts at removal. At the end of the day, as the sources state, Russia is only sometimes called a Mafia State, so, -common sense- wouldn't we be better to select a photo that is not controversial, and which is not going to spurn constant attempts at removal, and constant and pointless talk-page debates? Did we all join wikipedia to get involved in pointless surveys and constant debate? Let's not waste our painfully short lives. Let's have a non-controversial photo or no photo at all and save a whole load of pointless and counterproductive talk-page battles. --Rushton2010 (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Against inclusion It does not represent a world view and it is pointlessly controversial. WP does not exist to make judgements about the governments of countries. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Don't care, so take it out. This article needs a lot of work, and the picture of Putin is just a distraction. Take it out, improve the article, and then argue about what pictures should be included.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)