Talk:Kleptocracy

Joe Biden Hunter Biden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.152.35 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOV or objective truth?
Given that there is significant controversy about who is and isn't a kleptocrat, we shouldn't be in the business of trying to list those that definitely are. I like the change to cite the list from Transparancy International, but I have an alternative suggestion. How about we list those people or systems that have at least N (say 3) moderately-independent creditable citations for being a kleptocracy? We can also cite counter-arguments, if any. This way, we're not trying to define objective truth, and not doing original research, but are instead representing all sides of a controversy. Bovlb 23:20, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Neutrality of 'Financial System' section
I have qualms about this section, and feel that it places undue emphasis on Russia and China as specifically prone to kleptocracy. I am also unsure about the use of the phrase "kleptocratic Russians and Chinese" (since it seems [and i may be reading too much into this] to be implying things about the populations of those countries, rather than the failings of their governments and/or ruling classes), and these concerns are compounded by the use of several american newspapers as sources in this section. While I have no doubt that the russian and chinese governments exhibit a high level of corruption, money laundering, and the like, I feel that we should endeavour to find better sources that the newspapers of those countries' main rival.

It also might be worth noting that money laundering and embezzlement do happen in democracies such as the united states on occasion. Margatroidwitch (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no possible way that an article about a form of government in which an elite steal from the people can be interpreted as being about the population of those countries in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that section seems less concerned with the actions of states and more about the actions of private interests within the state. If I was writing about, I don't know, militarist tendencies in the Canadian government, the term "militarist Canadians" suggests I'm talking about people, not states, since I'm using a plural demonym. Similarly, "plutocratic Russians and Chinese" doesn't sound like a description of a government or governments, it sounds like a description of people, since I've never seen the Russian government referred to as "Russians". Margatroidwitch (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Okay, but that section seems less concerned with the actions of states and more about the actions of private interests within the state." Yes, that's correct, that's basically what a kleptocracy is about. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstand what the term means: "government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed", per Mieriam-Webster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of a non-kleptocratic government, by that definition? Margatroidwitch (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not having that conversation with you. What you have shown is that your opinions about the nature of government is such that you are in no position to be labeling anything in this article as POV.  Please don't restore it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)