Talk:Alisher Usmanov/Archive 1

Accusations

The link I provided works just fine so I've reinstated the claims. I've also added a further link just to back up the claim.

moderator needed please ...

Its very clear that Alisher Usmanov's legal team are interfering with the content of this page - for the obvious reason of protecting the reputation of their client. However the function of Wikipedia is not a PR tool for the subjects of the entries. Its is bizarre that the main text omits any mention of Usmanov's conviction for six years' imprisonment for economic crimes in the 1980s. This had been relegated to the small section on Craig Murray's claims, though in fact not even the London lawyers Schillings deny that fact that Usmanov is a convicted criminal. In a memo to UK news organizations on August 30th the lawyers admitted that "Mr. Usmanov was imprisoned for various offenses under the old Soviet regime," while going on to deny that their client was guilty of the crimes for which he served prison time.

I've added a line to the main body of the text to touch on Usmanov's term in jail.--Sennaista 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues

I don't want to wade into a legal battle here but as far as I can tell, there are two issues here. One is Usmanov's imprisonment (verifiable) though for what crimes it is not entirely clear, but they appear to be economic-related, and subsequent pardon (verifiable, and even Craig Murray acknowledges this). The second is Murray's additional allegations about Usmanov which do not bear repeating here unless they can be proven. This is what has been reported in the papers:

Schillings, the lawyers acting for Usmanov, have been in touch with several independent Arsenal supporters' websites and blogs warning them to remove postings referring to allegations made against him by Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. - The Guardian

Last week, Usmanov’s lawyers were forced to write to the internet service provider which hosts Murray’s website demanding that it take down a posting referring to Usmanov’s business and personal life. In a letter his lawyers said: “Murray clearly has an axe to grind. [He] has made a number of grossly defamatory and completely unsubstantiated allegations about our client in his book Murder in Samarkand and on his website. - The Times

Both articles mention the fact he was convicted and then pardoned, so I can only assume it is safe to mention that in this article. What they don't mention is anything beyond that, so in order to keep in line with WP:BIO and WP:CITE this article should stay that way here as well, so I have edited the article accordingly. Qwghlm 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the revert of my addition to the first line that he's a convicted criminal :- he is a convicted criminal. He's also a billionaire, and there aren't many billionaire criminals about. That's the single most interesting thing about him. I'm putting it back.I would also warn people to be very wary about the bonafides of people editing this page and debating on this talk page. Usmanov has already shut down several web sites in the UK that discussed him honestly.He can't shut wikipedia down, but we may assume he has people ready to protect his interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.97.62 (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that your addition was deleted was because it was mentioned further down the page.--Sennaista 10:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition in the first line surely can't be justified if it is true that he was convicted of crimes which were essentially political. Andrei Sakharov was arrested many times, but he is not described as a convicted criminal. Of course the addition is entirely appropriate if he was convicted for offences which would generally be accepted as criminal in nature. At this point I'm not sure we've any way of knowing which category he falls in, but query whether it's POV to include an unqualified reference at the start of the article LeContexte 10:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education

The article now says Usmanov studied banking in 1997; maybe that should read 1979? I've not changed it cause I have no source, but 1997 does seem implausibly late. Moyabrit 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily... query if anybody studied banking in the Soviet Union in 1979! LeContexte 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the folks who ran Gosbank studied banking. It is fair to assume that most of them studied it in the USSR. -24.47.154.230 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spent convictions

People say Mr Usmanov are a Mogametaner. At The believe in Allah, for the gifts of state in value of USD 110 000000 made. Is that right, right?Kitationbot (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One for the wiki-lawyers: spent convictions are an interesting British law. Basically, after a certain period of time after you've been criminally convicted, e.g. 20 years, you can legally pretend that conviction didn't happen. So, if someone mentions in the newspaper that you're a past criminal offender, you can sue them for libel, because that conviction's "spent" and in legal terms it's as if it never happened, despite the fact it did happen.

What does this mean for Wikipedia's BLP policy? I presume it's following Florida/USA law, and besides Mr Usmanov's convictions can't be considered spent by the UK authorities because they're not UK-issued convictions. But still, it makes me wonder if we are free to refer to Mr Usmanov's former criminal status or not. I don't say this because I like Mr Usmanov and his thuggish lawyers, but because the tone of the page seems slightly negative to me, but I can't see anything specific that's uncalled for. 192.18.1.36 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. If a conviction is "spent" then you are not obliged to disclose it in response to, e.g., a question at a job interview, on an insurance application form or during cross-examination in civil proceedings. You still have a criminal record, but it's an offence for the police to disclose this without authorisation. This does not prevent others discussing/disclosing your past criminal record, although they could be sued for libel if they act maliciously.

Also note that convictions for more than 2 1/2 years jail never become spent. LeContexte 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, as an encyclopedia, wikipedia is fine to disclose this information. Anapologetos 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. In this case, the rule on spent convictions is irrelevant as the alleged convictions were not in English courts. However any reference to convictions is potentially libelous under English law, and the burden of proof to show that any reference is true lies with the person making the statement. In principle, Usmanov could sue an editor who includes the information, wikipedia itself or its hosting companies. In practice, tracking down editors will be difficult (unless they make anonymous edits), and bringing an English libel suit against non-UK editors, wikipedia or its (presumably) non-UK hosting companies would be fairly pointless unless they have a presence/assets in the UK, as the US courts will not generally enforce an English libel judgment.

I would suggest that any UK editors making possibly false (or even just controversial) statements about living persons should be very careful

Needless to say, none of the above constitutes legal advice. LeContexte 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree. IANAL, but I believe that, as you say, the rule on spent convictions is irrelevant, but as to UK editors, I do not believe that this is an issue. Yes, they might try to find the identity of an editor, but their is a significant amount of things that would have to fall in place, not the least of which would be the precedent of "libelilty" on a wiki--I believe this is all a move to sanitize this particular article...

Anapologetos 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the issue. Please assume good faith - my only edit to the article has been to correct a small typo.

If a UK editor could be traced (a big if) then legally there would be no obstacle to him or her being sued under English law for any defamatory material he or she added. Any communication of a statement is a "publication" for the purposes of libel law, and the precise form of the communication is not a relevant factor.

LeContexte 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From where was his pardon?

Okay, this is interesting. There's a Sunday Times article (apparently based on an interview by Alisher Usmanov) and they state that his convictions were quashed and his name cleared by Uzbekistan’s Supreme Court (possibly in 2000). I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this in relation to the statement that he was cleared after Gorbachev became president. (The fact that technically, the letter from his lawyers didn't say his pardon was by Gorbachev's administration doesn't help.) The Times article in question is not exactly unflattering to him, so while it may be wrong, I doubt it's deliberately libeling him (and I imagine that newspapers are being very careful about what they say). - makomk 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

"This has upset many loyal fans who do not want a rather dodgy Manchester United supporting fatman involved with their beloved club"

Is the line really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.165.239 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of article

The neutrality of this article has been questioned at WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN. I'm far from knowledgeable about the subject matter, but edits like this one that substantially change descriptions of incidents involving the subject of the article, and blank out lots of sourced content without any edit summary at all, are both unhelpful and concerning. I would encourage editors to co-operate, here, on proposing, discussing, and agreeing, what content should and should not be in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000: I share your concerns. Statements such as "the oligarch Usmanov" should not be present in an encyclopaedia. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Fans and their opinions

A paragraph has been added recently following the open letter sent by Usmanov to the Arsenal board on 5th July 2012 which states the opinion of 'many Arsenal fans' (and also Usmanov's intentions) with no verification. Unless anyone objects I am going to remove references to fans' opinions which have no verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripper (talk • contribs) 23:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit done. Tripper (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact Mr. Usmanov > is there an mail adress?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.8.172 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mentioned in the Times today

On pages 14-15 of the (British) Times today, it says that staff at his PR agency edited his Wikipedia article to remove potentially damaging information, and replaced it with information on his philanthropy and love of art. I presume that there's some mechanism for responding to media reports on Wikipedia abuses, but I can't find it. 20.138.246.89 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just have found it! The talk page (this page) is indeed the perfect place to discuss claims such as those made by the Times. (There's also a template to put on the talk page to mention the mention, if anyone wants to.) In addition, if you have more information to add, or concerns about who might be editing and why, there's also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw that article. In the meantime I have added a section "Controversies" which details the recent allegations. I will closely follow the article and particularly that section in order to ensure it maintains a NPOV. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations and Wikimedia-UK have also commented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the information that was removed, so long as it is actually encyclopedic and sourced, been added back into the article? Silverseren^C 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was material removed here that was not added back (and the stuff about Kommersant seemed well sourced and relevant). I don't know actually whether this IP, 109.156.63.107 (talk · contribs), was Finsbury, too; the IP geolocates to London. I've just been told by Mike Peel that the Finsbury IP mentioned in The Times was 212.161.34.130 (talk · contribs) (also geolocating to London), and a Wikimedia UK statement said that the material removed by Finsbury was reinstated. Andreas JN 466 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone feel the material deleted here about Kommersant does or does not deserve to be reinstated? It was well sourced (BBC). Andreas JN 466 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems important. And directly so because of how it involves Usmanov. The removal of that info seems like an attempt to censor the negative opinions of Usmanov because of his actions. Silverseren^C 08:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Andreas JN 466 12:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another media article on Usmanov and his Wikipedia entry

Ottawa Citizen just published an article on the history of this WP article presented against Usmanov's published and less-published biography. It seems it is partly based on the Times article discucsed above. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=7549214.

Link is broken? Silver seren^C 07:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, the whole article has been taken down, even from Ottawa CItizen's archive! Usmanov's lawyers must have a truly worldwide reach. Anyway, a cached copy is still available with Google (for a few days longer - until it's removed also from there by Usmanov's people): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BKks4D-WugEJ:www.ottawacitizen.com/news/./7549214/story.html. If suitable, someone might wish to include direct quotes in the Wikipedia article before things are gone for good. kashmiri 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it gets taken down for good, then it's no longer verifiable, meaning it's not a reliable source, even if we used it when it was verifiable. Is there any way to back up a copy of the cached version, archive it somehow? Silver seren^C 19:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this question over at the Help Desk. I've also saved a copy of the article to my hard drive and i'm also going to email it to myself. Silver seren^C 19:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference in various Wikipedia version .

Big difference in various Wikipedia version / En, De, Fr, Ru /. From where this wind come from ?195.244.180.59 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete

This article is about one of Russia's richest people. If so, why is there no information on how this fortune was obtained? Usmanov went from a simple politician to an oligarch. Did he find a fortune in prison? This article is extremely biased and sounds like something Usmanov might write himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.86.50 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add information - if it is there in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. More substantial changes or controversial information should be best proposed and discussed here on the Talk page first. Please also take a look at WP:BLP. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the Usmanov article as part of researching Sutton Place. The article's not bad, with no deliberate bias (IMHO). But the initial contributor above is absolutely correct about the article lacking information on how Usmanov began to build the fortune that has now put him into the world's top 100. Articles on all other "famous billionaires" (eg. J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Bill Gates etc.) include descriptions of their financial origins, eg. by reinvesting inherited wealth, or by building a hugely succesful first company, or by cornering the market in a specific product, etc). The lack of this information (ie. no explanation at all) can give people suspicions about bias. A basic description (based on reliable sources) of how he accumulated his initial wealth will go a long, long, long way to restoring balance. Without such a description, the article is definitely incomplete. Pete Hobbs (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Hobbs: Sure! Do you think you could find sources and improve the article per WP:BOLD? kashmiri ^TALK 09:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concern Regarding Opening Line

The mention of Usmanov's conviction in the opening line of the article seems misleading to me. According to the Biography section, the conviction was for multiple serious offenses, so "convicted criminal" would seem more appropriate. However, what concerns me more is that the Biography section also asserts that "this conviction was vacated [...] by the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan," stating further that the court found the original conviction (for all offenses) to be "unjust, [that] no crime was ever committed, and that the evidence was fabricated." Whatever an editor's views on the validity of the Supreme Court's ruling, it seems inappropriate to imply that the conviction formally still stands. I apologize if I have misunderstood the situation. Aomra (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the sources provided, both in the opening line of the article and in the relevant part of the Biography section, it appears to be contentious that the specific conviction referred to in the opening line actually occurred. All of them (except the Financial Times article, which I did not view due to a subscription requirement; also, I used a Google Translated version of the Meduza article, as I cannot read Russian) appear to imply that the existence of that conviction is only alleged (eg., some organisations that made the claim have since published retractions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/19/russia.football, https://meduza.io/feature/2017/05/19/obvineniya-alishera-usmanova-v-iznasilovanii-otkuda-oni-vzyalis-i-kak-biznesmen-ih-oprovergal).

Hence, I will now remove mention of the aforementioned conviction (just the dubious bit), as it seems to be effectively unsourced. It seems reasonable to document the allegations of such a conviction, however I would prefer to leave that to an experienced editor.

I am concerned that, by mentioning the specific conviction by type in my first post, I have contravened WP:BLP. However, at the time, I had no reason to believe that the facts of the conviction were contentious. Aomra (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my first post to remove mention of the specific conviction, and to remove an ambiguity. Aomra (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Are you on Usmanov's payroll or something? I had cited the conviction with the following article - and u just ignored it in this giant monologue. i would advise you to read cited sources BEFORE you remove all information about Usmanov's rape conviction. Here's the article I was talking about: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/09/alisher_usmanov/ by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray

I As for the vacation part - it is true that in 1999 the supreme court of Uzbekistan (yes, I know, right) vacated his conviction. But as far as I understand it does not undo the fact that he was convicted of rape. His conviction - as the supreme court of uzbekistan says - was illegal - and it was already mentioned in the biography section of this acrticle. Since we are here to provide unbiased view - I'd sugjest we leave all the edits as is - both the mention of him being convicted of rape, and the fact that supreme court of uzbekistan removed his conviction 20 years after the rape took place. 194.67.216.222 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Regarding the Craig Murray article, I could not find any statement that Usmanov received such a conviction. The title of the article describes him as an "accused [you-know-what]", and the body states that he is "dogged by the widespread belief in Uzbekistan that he was guilty of a [you-know-what, and some more bad stuff] [...]. If anyone has more detail on the specific case involving Usmanov please add a comment." Nobody, so far as I can tell, has added such a comment. Also, accused is not the same as convicted. Hence, I disagree that this article provides evidence for his conviction.

Additionally, I could not find any statements in the other sources provided (that I could read properly; please see my first comment) that he had such a conviction, without the additional mention that the sources (the ones that were organizations) of the allegations of the conviction have since withdrawn their statements (eg. kompromat.ru mentioned in https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/19/russia.football).

I am not saying that no mention of the possible conviction should be made, just that it should not be stated as fact. I am also happy to be proven wrong; however "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material" as per WP:BLP. Aomra (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I work for Finsbury, a communications agency that represents Alisher Usmanov. We noticed an outdated description of Mr Usmanov's position at Gazprominvest Holding in the Business Interests section. Mr Usmanov was General Director of Gazprominvest Holding from 2000-2014, but has not worked at the company since this date. ^[1]

Please could an editor make this change? Thank you. Kitheren (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=544107

[1] ttp://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=544107

[1]