Jump to content

Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sub page (sandbox) idea for testing revised outline

Hi all, I have just asked admin User:Penwhale's advice regarding the sub page (sandbox) idea. I like the idea because it can help us rewrite the article using a more neutral structure. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Good idea--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Kolokol1, from what I have read of your posts on this talk page, you have been studying Berezovsky's and the Russian story for some time and have some valuable understandings. As I mentioned in another place I had not heard of Berezovsky before the random invite to comment. Perhaps that helps me remain objective. This discussion, with the few of us, has been quite positive. It will be interesting to see how things go when Deepdish7 comes off the week's block. Meanwhile, it is almost time to try out the sub page trial outline. Others: A brief opinion on the sub-page idea would be helpful to build a consensus, if possible. Thanks, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.Videsutaltastet (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear All, we have over seventy watchers and nearly a thousand visits on this page since the debate started. Yet the facts on Business History have not been challenged. I would have taken this for a consesus save for the notable absense of deepdish7, who his suspension ends tomorrow. Let us wait for him, but if he does not raise objections, I suggest that we ask the powers that be to start moving completed sections of the draft page into the main page. Or should we wait until the whole thing has been completed? Any thoughts?--Kolokol1 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fact-sheet for Berezovsky's Business History

Hi all, in fulfillment of DonaldRichardSands' plan, here is my suggestion for this section - just facts and sources. Please add/amend--Kolokol1 (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I have completed formatting this section in the draft page as per fact sheet below--Kolokol1 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • September 2000 Berezovsky reveals an attempt by the Kremlin to expropriate his shares in the ORT network. He announces that he will put his stake in trust, controlled be a group of prominent intellectuals. (http://www.russiajournal.com/node/3898)

Three more items (responding to Alex Bakharev)

  • SVYAZINVEST: With repect, my research shows that Berezovsky did not take part in the Svyazinvest auction, in which Potanin/Soros were pitted against Gusinsky/TelefonicaD'Espagnia. True, Berezovsky took an active part in the Bankers' War that followed Svyazinvest, but it was more a political struggle against the Chubais-Nemtsov duo. Of course Svyazinvest should be prominently mentioned, but the Berezovsky angle here is purely political, so it belongs to the Political Career section, IMHO--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Convictions in Absentia and Money Laudering Probes Abroad

Draft of Revised Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/new

I have begun drafting the new page [[1]] based on this reliably sourced factsheet and the one on Litvinenko above. It is particularly good that we have been able to avoid using the more controversial books about the subject; the use of Goldfarb's book for one reference is fine as it only refers to an opinion of Litvinenko, who was a friend of Goldfarb and whose widow co-wrote the book. I will probably next work on the section about these and other works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videsutaltastet (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Videsutaltastet, I moved your post to this new section for clarity--Kolokol1 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Kolokol1 and Videsutaltastet, I just looked over the draft. An impressive beginning. The references, or end notes, need major work to standardize them using Wikipedia citation templates. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, it is better. The current version is often written in unencyclopaedic manner and not clearly distinguish proven facts from accusations from hypothesises. I have cleaned it a little bit, but more needed. On the other hand the current draft of the article is very pro-Berezovsky and using Goldfarb as a reliable source is IMHO much worse than using Klebnikov as such. There also a lot of notable episodes in Berezovsky's biograpies that is not in the draft nor in the main article: AVVA, Svyazinvest auction, Logovaz reexport scheme, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. Yes, I'm sure some serious formatting work will be required. Some reorganisation of sections may be too, though I think this new structure is certainly an improvement on the mess of the previous article. With respect, I think it is a little premature to comment on the whether the draft is pro- or anti- B, as I have only worked on a couple of sections and even they aren't finished! The section in which I discuss the UK libel cases will, for example, cover the charges in Russia. As for sources, I hope the discussion in the draft is fair; as I said above, the policy is to avoid use of Goldfarb, Klebnikov (and other controversial works) as much as possible. The concern is that the interpretation of these works should not be accepted on trust (esplicitly or implicitly) or quoted as gospel, but it is necessary and legitimate to cite them on the odd occasions when the opinions of important protagonists need to be used and are only available here. I don't think anyone would deny (say) that Goldfarb's book can be trusted for Litvinenko's views, or indeed Berezovsky's. There is of course a lot more to be said on both sides of the story. I suggest that if well-sourced information on other episodes, especially in his business career, are available, that they be put in a factsheet on this talk page (as Kolokol1 did).Videsutaltastet (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that both Goldfarb and Klebnikov should be used as little as possible. There is a difference, however: Goldfarb openly declared his association and sympathies, so he should be taken as a partisan source. Klebnikov has been legally shown to be a liar, so he should be viewed as an unreliable source, in the same league as Russian State TV. There is a difference between a partisan and a liar. I agree with the approach of vetting the facts here in a fact sheet format. Let us try to dig up something reilable on AVVA, Svyazinvest and reexport (no Klebnikov, please)--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
PS: See my take on AVVA, Etc., above--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As a procedural matter I suggest to let fact sheets hang here (say) for three days, so they could be amended or challenged, after which transfer them to the draft page rewritten as a narrative. Any thoughts?--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Boris Berezovsky.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boris Berezovsky.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi all, wouldn't it be interesting to contact Mr. Berezovsky, perhaps by email, and have him give one of us a picture to use. I worked on an article where the subject of the article did just that; gave one of their pictures to use. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
He has a publicist in London - Lord Tim Bell, perhaps that is the place to inquire--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fact Sheet for Political Career in Russia

His Political Credo

  • Berezovsky's political philosophy was laid out in a 2000 article in Washington Post, in which he proclaimed the right of "oligarchs" to interfere in the nation's politics: "Our critics should not forget that a strong civil society and the middle class that serve to protect democratic liberties in the West do not exist in Russia. What we have are communists - still too powerful - and ex-KGB people who hate democracy and dream of regaining lost positions. The only counterbalance to them is the new class of capitalists, who, under extraordinary circumstances, find it acceptable - indeed, necessary - to interfere directly in the political process" (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=12973 ).His opponent on the global scene was George Soros, who compared Russian oligarchs with the American Robber Barons of late 19th century(http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-721524.html ) and blamed them for the failure of reforms in Russia ( http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sor2/English .

1993-1996. Role in Yeltsin's 1996 Reelection

'::::From my standpoint, this section is more or less complete. Feel free to add, amend, contest'. Of course it needs to be re-written as a narrative --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC) It appears that no objections have been raised, so I transferred this part in the draft article--Kolokol1 (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In the National Security Council

  • Perhaps the most controversial and least understood episode of Berezovsky's doings in Chechnya was his phone conversation with Movladi Udugov in the Summer of 1999, six months before the beginning of fighting in Dagestan. A transcript of that conversation was leaked to a Moscow tabloid on September 10, 1999 and appear to mention the would-be Chechen operation. It has been subject of much speculation ever since. As Berezovsky explained later in interviews to de Waal[1] and Goldfarb[2], Udugov proposed to coordinate the islamists' incursion into Dagestan with Russia, so that a limited Russian response would topple the Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov and establish a new Islamic republic, which would be anti-American but friendly to Russia. Berezovsky said that he disliked the idea but reported Udugov's ouverture to prime-minister Stepashin. "Udugov and Basayev," he asserted, "conspired with Stepashin and Putin to provoke a war to topple Maskhadov ... but the agreement was for the Russian army to stop at the Terek River. However, Putin double-crossed the Chechens and started an all-out war."[2]--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


::::From my standpoint, this section is more or less complete. Feel free to add, amend, contest'. Of course it needs to be re-written as a narrative--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle with 'Young Reformers"

  • July-August 1997. A bitter power struggle erupts between former members of the "Davos Pact", whereby the two media tycoons, Berezovsky and Gusinsky, clashed with Young Reformers, allied with Onexim Bank of Vladimir Potanin. The feud was triggered by a contested privatization auction of the communication utility Svyazinvest, in which Potanin, backed by George Soros competed with Gusinsky, allied with Spanish Telefónica. Potanin's victory unleashed a bitter media war, in which ORT and NTV accused the Chubais group of fixing the auction in favor of Potanin, whereas Chubais charged Berezovsky with abusing his government position to advance his business interests. The ostensibly commercial dispute was in reality the contest of political strength between Chubais and Berezovsky[3] Both sides appealed to Yeltsin, who proclaimed a new era of "fair" privatization "based on strict legislative rules and allowing no deviations." [4]. In the end, both sides lost. Berezovsky's media revealed a corruption scheme whereby a publishing house owned by Onexim Bank paid Chubais and his group hefty advances for a book that was never written. The scandal led to a purge of Chubais' loyalists from the government. Chubais retaliated by persuading Yeltsin to dismiss Boris Berezovsky from the national security council.[5] Soros called the Berezovsky-Chubais clash a "historical event, in the reality of which I would have never believed, if I had not watched it myself. I saw a fight of the people in the boat floating towards the edge of a waterfall". He argued that the reformers camp could never recover from the wounds sustained in this struggle, setting the political stage for conservative nationalists, and eventually Vladimir Putin.[6]--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Kremlin Family vs Primakov/Luzhkov

Berezovsky and Putin

This is a work in progress -- more to follow--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a good article on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4286284.stm. I will be away from wikipedia for a short while but I hope there will be more contributions to the growing store of facts.Videsutaltastet (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/Archive_2

I have moved the early stage of this discussion to an archive page --Kolokol1 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving the revised text to the main article

Hi all, I see that the editors have unblocked the main article. Accordingly I propose to move completed sections of the revised text from the draft to the main page, and continue working on the text there using the same algorithm: first vet the facts in the talk page in the form of fact sheets, and then, if not challenged, narrate them in the article. Any thoughts?--Kolokol1 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have moved revised text to the main article, section by section, replacing poorly sourced, potentially libelous or libelous (as per court decisions) statements, and sections violating WP:BLP and NPOV. Please compare and comment. This is a work in progress. Much input is needed on Berezovsky's relationship with Putin and his period in UK.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What follows is a discussion with DonaldRichardSands transferred from my user talk page--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear DonaldRichardSands,
The link for the revised article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/new

Thanks for taking a look. From what you wrote above, I understand that you do not mind replacing the old version with the revised text on the main page. I would very much want to get other editors of good will involved. All best--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think it would be more accurate to say, the revised outline seems to resolve the sensationalist approach of the old version. However, and this is what will take the time, the old version does have merits which should not be lost. There is an energy among some people to show that Berezovsky is a mafia-like boss. When I told friend about Berezovsky and the accusations of his involvement as such a boss and how I would like to email him and ask him to donate a picture for the article, my friend expressed shock and dismay that I would risk my life so. The article needs the balanced outline of the revised version but should deal with both sides of the view of him. This balance is what takes the time. I would enjoy helping. Your energy for the article is obvious. If we could get an editor who wants to portray Berezovsky as a mafia boss to agree to the balanced outline and then to enter some careful rules of collaboration, the article could strengthen quickly. In the article I am working on presently, one other editor is active and he is very critical. But, he and I have finally agreed to work with the talk pages and to talk more civilly with each other and things are progressing much better. Similar cooperation could happen for the Berezovsky article. Rely on Secondary Sources. Insist on a conservative, scholarly examination of all aspect of Berezovsky's life. And, yes, I still want to email him, ask him for a picture, and perhaps go for coffee. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Dear DonaldRichardSands, thank you for your input. Of course, Mr. Berezovsky is a highly controversaial person, and I think, all these controversies are reflected in the revised text. But he is a major figure, who influenced Russian political history over two decades, and his biography deserves professional approach not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the whole Russia block on Wikipedia. With respect, the belief of "some people" that Berezovsky is a mafia boss is an opinion, which is not supported by facts. If an opinion is poorly sourced and potentially libelous, it has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of how many people may hold it. Otherwise we should change the rules and make Wikipedia a collection of opinions supported by a majority vote. Under current rules, we should work with well sourced facts. The facts in this matter are as follows. (1) That particular opinion has originated from a single source (Mr. Klebnikov), whose antisemitic bias has been noted by three respectable independent sources. (2) The publication (Forbes), which printed his opinion has unequivocally retracted it as lacking any evidence in a libel court hearing. (3) Dozens of profiles of Mr. Berezovsky in major world newspapers, which adhere to the standards of fair and responsible journalism - including serious Russian sources - do not repeat these allegations. I believe that Wikipedia should adhere to the same standards. The revised article states the sourced facts as they are: there was an opinion voiced, which was then discredited. Of course, if anyone can quote another reputable source, which supports this opinion with evidence, it should be mentioned. Since I am going on vacation, I have put the revised text on the main page, and leave it for the community to compare it with the previous version (which can be accessed via History tag), amend, challenge and comment - as long as it is done by the rules. The last thing I want is another edit war. On the other hand, seeking consensus is just one of Wikipedia rules. Avoiding pushing opinions, and removing unsourced slander is another.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Report the controversy: You may already be doing this. When a controversy exists among a significant group of people, report on the controversy. You mention Klebnikov. Be sure to include in your article a paragraph that reports what Klebnikov has said. Use solid secondary sources to report his role in the Berezovsky story. Keep balance. The first article seemed all about the controversy. Don't ignore the controversy. Report objectively. Try to stand back from your strong feelings and just report what your third party sources are contending. And, get a good picture of Berezovsky, if you can. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Berezovsky's meteoric enrichment and his involvement in political power struggles has been accompanied by allegations of him belonging to the criminal world from his opponents. After his falling out with Putin and exile to London, these allegations became the recurrent theme of official state-controlled media, earning him comparisons with Leon Trotsky[7] and the Orwellian character Emmanuel Goldstein.[8]. While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is that of an incarnation of evil, "the most hated man" in Russia[9].
In 1996 Forbes, an American business magazine, published an article by Paul Klebnikov entitled 'Godfather of the Kremlin?' with the kicker 'Power. Politics. Murder. Boris Berezovsky could teach the guys in Sicily a thing or two.'[94] The article, which Klebnikov subsequently expanded into a book (see below), fulfilled the promise of these phrases by linking Berezovsky to corruption in the car industry, to the Chechen mafia, and to the murder of Vladislav Listyev. The decision of Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov to sue for libel in London raised questions about the jurisdiction of the UK courts, but the case slowly proceeded until the claimants opted to settle when Forbes offered a retraction.[95] The following statement appended to the article on the Forbes website summarises: 'On 6 March, 2003 the resolution of the case was announced in the High Court in London. FORBES stated in open court that (1) it was not the magazine's intention to state that Berezovsky was responsible for the murder of Listiev, only that he had been included in an inconclusive police investigation of the crime; (2) there is no evidence that Berezovsky was responsible for this or any other murder; (3) in light of the English court's ruling, it was wrong to characterize Berezovsky as a mafia boss; and (4) the magazine erred in stating that Glouchkov had been convicted for theft of state property in 1982.[96]
What else could be said?--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Information and sources outrageously ripped from the article by Kolokol1 restored, as well as language neutrality

Now I hope everyone has had a chance to see who's working here fulltime. And it may come as a surprise to some, but it's not me for Russian government, but Kolokol1 for Berezovsky, surely being paid to whiten the remnants of his reputation. Anyway I'm going to process this page and restore all that can be restored. All claims against Klebnikov are totally unfounded. In his book he never points attention to Berevozsky's ethnic origin and only mentions it once. And please do not forget, that he was a chief editor of Forbes magazine in Russia before his death, not a tabloid like Guardian that Kolokol1 so much loves to quote here. It is absolutely fair to give Klebnikov and other sources against Berezovsky a word on this page, as well as to all the media supporting him Deepdish7 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note, that all my comments and replies have been deleted from discussion page (archive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/Archive_2). This is another good evidence of Kolokol1's intentions.Deepdish7 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored some links which were outrageously deleted by Kolokol1 and partially restored neutrality. Now we have contraversial contradictory views for and against Berezovsky almost on everything. From now on ready to discuss every part of the article, point-by-point. Any vandalism by Kolokol1 will be reported immediately.Deepdish7 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you please format correctly. PUNCTUATION, REFERENCE, SPACE, NEW SENTENCE. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
These changes appear at least superficially to have issues with WP:BLP. Since I have no great knowledge of the subject, I have created a topic at WP:BLPN. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have responded at BLPN. I've cited just a few examples of inflammatory changes Deepdish7 has made to the article that, without even checking sources, are plainly unencyclopedic from a tonal perspective. I suggested that all of his changes be backed out and that if he wishes to make significant changes, he should propose them here first. The current shape of the article is not acceptable, and I don't see why I - or anyone else - should have to go back and review each change and back out those that shouldn't have been made. Too many inappropriate changes to justify that kind of burden on other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The article has been restored prior to the extensive changes by Deepdish7. The first rollback was better than the second, and Debresser has rightly restored that version, which is just prior to Deepdish7's edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Het, Bbb23, you are overdoing it a little. You removed some good and necessary internal links. And the Jewish cats have no problem with WP:BLPCAT, imho. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with both. The phrases "power broker" and "political asylum" don't need wikilinks - they are common phrases. And where in the article does he self-identify as Jewish to justify the cats? The only thing about him being Jewish is that he was born to a Jewish father, and even that is unsourced. The rest has to do with supposed anti-semitic remarks. I don't care that much about the wikilinks, but the cats don't belong.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The simple fact that I find these links useful is in itself sort of proof that they are. As to the categories, you are mistaken. Being Jewish is an ethnicity, not a belief, and as such does not need self-identification. It wouldn't hurt to have a reference, agreed, even though everybody knows he's Jewish. Shouldn't be hard to find. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I had a quick look for a source; there are a number (though not brilliant), however this and this claim he's actually converted to Orthodox Christianity. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but even if true, per Debresser's views (as I understand them), the Jewish cats would remain.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One person's view is not enough to justify the usefulness of links. I'm tired of the Jewish-is-it-a-religion-is-it-an-ethnicity issue, so I have nothing more to say about that. I won't remove the cats, though, because it would entail one of those wonderful extended discussions about BLPCAT generally and Jewishness in particular. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else removed the cats, but maybe no one will notice or care.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You should be surprised if someone did. It is a clearcut issue with WP:BLPCAT. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL (but not offensively), I don't think there's anything clear about BLPCAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I take it in stride. Actually, I am one of those who have reworked the related Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality of late, so I am up-to-date. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good source. Just that I don't see how to use it in the article. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Or this, from the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You could stick the first source in the paragraph about his father - it's tangential but is workable. The second source is probably not needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys leave all jewish stuff that you want on this page - but please stop vandalism and just cutting whole sections of the page?! you can't revert after 50 different changes, please address each if you don't like something, not just revert everything. I will report this, it is not appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I already replied to a similar comment you made on BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

-replied you there as well Deepdish7 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to go there, but the truth is that if you make 50 edits and 30 are bad, we just revert the whole thing, yes. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean 'bad'??? now the page is completely 'bad', and I'm going to change this Deepdish7 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepdish7, first thing don't comment on other editors and their motives. Comment on content only. As to the removal of all of your edits, I agree, this was somewhat disprutive. However, there are some POV adjustments that needed to be made, and some sourcing. Berezovsky is or was Jewish. If Jewish is an ethnicity, he will always be Jewish; if Jewish is a belief, he may or may not have converted. However, sources such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this---need I go on---all clearly state that Berezovsky is Jewish. What else was the problem here with Deepdish's edits? Can someone please explain that to me? BTW, the Itogi reference can be used for quite a lot of the article. --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional discussion was at the BLP noticeboard here - also there are as I remember previous discussions at the noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding to what Rob said ... I wouldn't focus on the Jewish issue. That was a side disagreement between Debresser and me and wasn't part of the original problems. I don't even know whether Deepdish7 added the cats, and I don't feel like looking. Also, the idea here is for Deepdish7 - or anyone else - to propose a change to the article (one at a time, please) with sources, not for others to explain what was wrong (that's been sufificently done, and the burden is now on the proposer).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on this article occurs on this article talk page, not at some noticeboard. I have provided the sources, and they are ALL scholarly sources, which give information on Berezovsky being Jewish, so what exactly is the issue here? --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

When a twenty five percent expansion occurs that someone feels is against policy and guidelines - discussion occurs at the noticeboard if reported as it was in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
My god!! So someone does a 25% expansion on an article, with only some minor issues to be fixed, and because editors can't be arsed simply removing or changing BLP violating material -- I had a look and it took me all of 5 minutes to do it. But no, that's not how WP works. WP apparently works by simply removing a 25% expansion in its entirety, and then we sit back and call the person doing the expansion "disruptive". Excuse my cynicism, but that is not how things work on the project. Most of the information put in by Deepdish7 is good and checks out. And the removal is a little disruptive.
Let's look at this....
"In 2007, a Moscow court found Berezovsky guilty of massive embezzlement in absentia." Simply remove the word massive.
"By 1994, Berezovsky had moved beyond dependence on alleged mobster protection. He had forged a more potent alliance by paying for the publication of Boris Yeltsin's memoirs, thus gaining entrée to the inner circle around the grateful author/president. This court was populated with strange figures, such as the "hippie journalist" Valentin Yumashev, through whom Berezovsky obtained his entrée; Yeltsin's tennis coach, who ran a large criminal empire of his own from a Kremlin office; not to mention Alexander Korzhakov, for a while the powerful chief of Yeltsin's Praetorian guard who later reported that Berezovsky had asked him to kill a business rival. Korzhakov performed great services to history by his assiduous bugging of everyone's phones, leaking the tapes when it seemed useful, and by his forthcoming reminiscences once he had fallen from his master's graces." Blind Freddy can see what needs to be removed or reworded here. Why not just do it.
"The early '90s, when Berezovsky was getting under way, was the time of the great gang wars in Moscow, as rival criminal coalitions shot it out for control of key industries and businesses. Businessmen could only ward off extortion or worse by paying one or other criminal group for a "roof"--protection. On one side in the most important war stood the Chechen mafia, much feared for their ruthlessness, and impenetrable to outsiders. On the other were the "Slavic alliance," native Russian gangsters determined to fight off the Chechen threat. Blah-blah alleges Berezovsky forged an alliance with the Chechen forces, who provided his roof, a connection that would have terrible consequences in years to come." -- Again, it is obvious what needs to be removed or reworded.
Why are editors instead blanket reverting a 25% expansion to an article, when a few minutes is all it would have taken. I had it done, except the article was locked by the time I got to do my edit, so my fixes were lost. Great. --Russavia Let's dialogue 21:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, and the page got blocked straight after my edits were reversed, and before anybody could do anything. Now you see how BlackKite is treating everything here? Do you know a way to complain on an admin? I'm definitely going to do it, it's crystal-clear that BlackKite is not maintaining neutrality in this dispute, we need another admin (or better a couple) to come to this page

can we please create a shadow page again and I will make edits there, which we can discuss

thanks Deepdish7 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

i'll make my changes and let's see Black Kite how open you are to listening to any critics. or will just continue blindly supporting that gang of people bought by berezovsky to PR him with Kolokol1 as their leader.

  • Sigh - I have no interest in the article, which is why I haven't edited it apart from the protection. I'm just looking at it in exactly the same way as I would any other BLP, according to the policy. I have no doubt that many of your edits are valid, but there are doubts about others. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • of course, this is why you blocked it straight after my edits were reversed and reported my edits just a few hours after they were done to a watch page. you see, the 'protectors' of the page suddenly disappeared, though they asked me yesterday continuously to join the discussion page. let's see how our discussion here progresses Deepdish7 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for changes and continuation of debate started in August

the version of the page that incorporates all proposed amendments can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deepdish7/Berezovsky

Intro section of the page

  • have a look at the first paragraph, pls. I added one more sentence to complement a proper introduction. also removed 'power broker' phrase - too much for a criminal. let's keep NPOV and use proper language. any objections here? Deepdish7 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
First, you left the power broker phrase in. Second, the added sentence has no cite, which brings up a related request. If you start with proposed changes to the body of the article, that would be easier. Technically, you don't have to cite sentences in the lead if they adequately summarize cited sections in the body. So, if you get your changes to the body discussed first, the lead would go easier.
Another request. Can you keep your section headers simple? It's irritating, at least to me, for you to talk to us in your headers, not to mention with argumentative comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
no problems, I just made those two to attract attention, as some people may have left the page. we won't need any new sections anyway, all the discussion can take place here. and surely I'll make enough attention to the body of the page, still I want its summary to be a proper one as well. removed the power broker phrase. sourced the fact that berezovski started to loose power at the dawn of yeltsin's epoch. looks better now?
Indeed. In addition, this header shows you are preparing for some kind of war. And are suspecting something of a "gang" to take issue against you. All of this is highly detrimental to the climate of consensus building that should be prevailing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
well it is highly detrimental to deface 50 posts of edits claiming there was a 'consensus' on the page (which never existed actually as the man with opposite opinion was banned). anyway i rephrased the section name if it irritates you, let's proceed with discussion
  • edited second paragraph to reflect NPOV, added phrases that possibly Berezovsky's assets were acquired in questionable ways (hope there're enough links on the page already as a proof of possible law violations). also moved one sentence from 2nd paragraph to 3rd to separate business/legal issues from politics. any objections here?
Others may be willing to comment on more lead changes at this juncture, but I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
anyone, any comments to the 2nd paragraph? Deepdish7 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Exasperated, I renamed the section header. I'll comment on this one change as a courtesy, but please shift to the body of the article for your other proposals. Here's the sentence you want to add: "At the dawn of Yeltsin's epoch though Berezovsky started to lose his political influence in Russia, several criminal cases were opened against him and he had to flee the country." In no particular order: (1) I don't see why it needs to go into the lead; (2) the tone is unencyclopedic ("at the dawn of" - keep it dryer); (3) "several criminal cases were opened" is vague and not really supported by the cite; and (4) the cited source doesn't say anything about him fleeing the country.
As for the removal of the power broker sentence, I don't see that you've justified its removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
ok let's restore the power broker phrase. still i'd like to go through the summary before going to body page, we have plenty of time for everything. rephrased the 1st paragraph, better now? used your source to confirm him fleeing the country.Deepdish7 (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Business career section of the page

Accumulation of wealth in Russia subsection

  • added two paragraphs describing in details the criminal elements in Russia's business environment in early 90s, as well as Berezovsky's assassination attempt. Also described how Berezovsky was able to enter Yeltsin's family circle Deepdish7 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • added information on Avtovaz cross-shareholding used by Berezovsky's AVVA firm for NPOV Deepdish7 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • removed paragraph 4 as it contained duplicate information and moved sentence about Litvinenko's investigation into paragraph 2 Deepdish7 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • corrected fact at paragraph (now) 5 - Berezovsky didn't "play crucial role" in creation of ORT channel, but got majority ownership in it at 0 cost with Yeltsin's help
  • removed "Convictions in absentia and investigations abroad" subsection in Business career section of the page, as separate section is created for thisDeepdish7 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Political career in Russia section of the page

Political credo subsection

  • added other point of view for NPOV with his famous phrase "First, the privatization of profits; second, the privatization of property; third, the privatization of debts"

Role in Chechen conflict and allegations of funding terrorism subsection

  • amended the subsection name to reflect allegations of funding terrorism Deepdish7 (talk)

The Kremlin Family subsection

Allegations and convictions of criminal activity

Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair

Writings

  • consolidated section Deepdish7 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • removed libelous information on Klebnikov's supposed anti-semitism as unfounded - words "Jew", "Jewish" or "Israeli" were never used in his articles, and in the book on Berezovsky word jewish was only used once when speaking about his family, so there're no grounds to accuse Klebnikov in anti-semitism. Having been born in the USA, Paul was brought up in international community where any racism and nationalism are strictly forbidden and regarded as evil, and he being a true partiot of the US as well as Russia would never become anti-semit, not even speaking about expressing such views in his writingsDeepdish7 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to ban Deepdish7

Editor Deepdish7 publicly insulted the administrator BlackKite on the Russian talk pages using obscene words: Message of Deepdish7 06:15, 6 сентября 2011 (UTC) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81_%D0%90%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Moreover, the new section head created by Deepdish7 На английской версии страницы беспредел, орудуют люди, купленные Березовским, помогите! asserts that the English talk pages are operated by the people paid by Berezovsky.BigPensil (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@Deepdish7: The Russian talk pages is equally inappropriate forum to insult administrators of the English article. The assertions you make cannot be based on your feelings. Nobody makes here claims about *your* supervisors/sponsors, had you a chance to notice it? Speaking factually, your favorite citation - Klebnikov's book - is a trite compilation from tabloids and gossips. The man had never been insider to make weighted judgements.BigPensil (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I wrote on the Russian page because it's a complete madness going on this page, and I simply tried to attract attention to it since nobody else cares. I you have a chance to notice - there has been claims in this discussion that I'm working for Russian government, so it's fair enough for me to reply this way. As for Klebnikov - his book is based on factual information and collection of interviews he personally did. It's rather your sources are tabloid and gossip based. Saying that Guardian is a better source than Forbes does not make any sense. Especially, again, after News of the World scandal, British press has lost much of its credibilityDeepdish7 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Look. Deepdish is quite allowed to criticise my actions on this page, but frankly you lose any credibility whatsoever when you accuse myself (or other editors) of having an agenda. Admins end up watching many hundreds of pages because of what is happening on them (in this case, originally, an edit war). It doesn't mean they're actually interested in their content - despite being British, I'd never heard of Berezovsky previously. The only thing I'm interested in is what my "job" is at Wikipedia - to uphold policies. If there's a WP:BLP problem with what Deepdish7 is adding - which there was - I have to fix it. That's all. If editors think it would be better for another admin to deal with this article in future, then that's fine, just ask and I will find one. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • So much for my deletes. Responding to your last sentence, which you phrase in the plural ("editors"), this editor is against your withdrawing from this article simply because someone wants you to. That is currently the subject of Deepdish7's request on ANI, and I see no reason to accommodate his request.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Which is why I said editors - plural. I'm certainly not going to back away because of a single editor. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I will discuss it with Russavia, from his comments above seems he would be happy with changing administrator for this page. As he was definitely not happy for page being blocked and his comment not going through when he was about to submit it. And, if you read through the archive, you'll remember, that it was actually Kolobok1 who first accused me of having an agenda. After that I have full right to accuse you of same at least. And plural as editors, is different from 'multiple', that is normally used for two-three instances, but rather 5+Deepdish7 (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Deepdish7 asked me to look at this thread. Firstly, there is no reason to ban Deepdish7 from the article, nor is there any reason to have Black Kite removed from the article. The problem I had is that a 25% expansion was wholesale reverted, simply because editors couldn't be arsed in making necessary amendments to it. FYI, Paul Klebnikov is quite famous for his investigations on Berezovsky, whom he nicknamed the Godfather of the Kremlin. Anything that may be BLP-violating has to be credited to Klebnikov. i.e. We can't say that Berezovsky has links to criminals, but we can credit the opinion to Klebnikov. And it's well known opinion too; opinion that may have been a factor in the murder of the journalist. We don't whitewash our articles on WP, and Klebnikov is one of the most cited authors on Berezovsky. --Russavia Let's dialogue 06:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As nobody seems to be interested in discussing the proposed changes, despite people opposing them told me so, I will start implementing them slowly once page block expires. In case someone is against certain changes, feel free to make corrections to particular points that you don't feel comform to NPOV and BLP wiki policies Deepdish7 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Refer to WP:SILENCE. Just remember, to take into account the BLP policy. That is a core policy and is not negotiable. WP:NPOV is also of major concern for all articles. If editors have a problem with what is being inserted, they can discuss it, but they haven't, So WP:SILENCE comes into play then. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:SILENCE. As far as Deepdish making changes absent consensus here first, I'll see what he does and react accordingly. I was initially planning on responding to some of Deepdish's proposed changes to the body of the article (he refused to honor my request not to propose changes to the lead), but then he complicated matters by going to ANI and getting himself blocked. Based on his behavior, I wasn't sure it would be worth my time or effort to respond to his proposals, so I haven't. I will reiterate, though, just in case it's not clear, that he has not obtained consensus on any of his proposals. He says he's going to implement them "slowly". Without approving of what he's doing, I suggest he make a small change and give editors some time to react before making the next small change. I, personally, am not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day, so it may take me a day or two to review each change.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm no longer blocked so you can write if you have any objections. I will implement changes slowly giving others time to respond accordinglyDeepdish7 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
          • One more thing. Please make your first changes to the body, not the lead. You can leave the lead to the very end.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Hm I was actually going to start from the very start of the page. Why would we ignore the lead? I was going to add very subtle things there. Why should we ignore the lead?Deepdish7 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
              • First, I'm not suggesting you "ignore" the lead, just leave it to the end. Second, I've already explained to you that the lead is a summary of the body, and it is not required that information in the lead be sourced if it is properly sourced in the body. Therefore, if you change the lead and I have to look in the body to see if your proposed change is an accurate and sourced summary of the body, it creates extra work for me (and any other editor evaluating your proposal). By leaving the lead to last, theoretically everything you've proposed will have already been sorted out, and there will be less work in evaluating any proposals you make for the lead. If you insist on changing the lead first, I will evaluate the lead in a vacuum and reject any inaccurate changes standing by themselves without searching the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the book by Klebnikov qualifies as RS, even though FSB fed him a lot of disinformation. But one should remember that the title of the book was "Godfather of Kremlin". The B. is mostly known as a power broker/oligarch who brought Putin to power (according to other books as well), and he must be described as such, rather than merely a crook. Other than that, some parts of text inserted by Deepdish are highly misleading because they improperly combine allegations of criminal activity and actions to free hostages: (According to Paul Klebnikov book "Godfather of Kremlin Boris Berezovsky or looting of Russia", those connections came from Berezovsky's close relations with Chechen mafia, whom he paid for protection against other mafia gangs in early 90s. He said that he "saved at least fifty people, who otherwise would have been killed; most of them were simple soldiers. And believe me, all of this was strictly official, with the full knowledge and consent of the Kremlin."). Biophys (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I will pay additional attention when using Klebnikov accordingly to make everything as clear as it can beDeepdish7 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Page changes started

  • Day 001 I've changed the lead just a bit, to reflect 1) basic description in the 1st para of BB status post 2000 2) the fact that source of his wealth is controversial 3) that he was first attacked by primakov, not putin 4) added details how he ended up in exile for more clarity 5) a couple of sentences on major assassination attempt on him which he was lucky to survive 6) added one sentence on personal life. tried to make all changed short and better reflecting NPOV. any objections here? Deepdish7 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've backed out many of your changes as not well sourced or copyright violations or both. My edit summaries in the reversions are fairly self-explanatory.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the misleading statement "By the end of Yeltsin's rule, Berezovsky started to lose his political influence, and he left Russia for the UK at the end of 2000." for the following reasons:

1. It created an impression that B left Russia because of some problems with late Yeltsin, which is not true. He left after he quarreled with Putin, which can bee seen from every major source
It doesn't create impression that BB left Russia because of some problems with Yelstin, it just says that by the end of Yeltsin's rule BB started to loose influenceDeepdish7 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Until Berezovsky has started criticism of Putin in May 2000 (5 months after Yeltsin rewsigned) he was considered the second most influential politician in Russia - this can be easily sourced. So it is wrong to say that he lost influence under Yeltsin. The whole point of his saga is that he brought Putin to power, and then fell out with him--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Still Putin wasn't the only one against Berezovsky, as Primakov by the end of Yeltsin's rule first started official assault on him. So it's not fair to focus on just Putin's conflicts with Berezovsky, as there were many people against him. The link from guardian clearly displays that he started to loose his influence already, though of course after conflict with Putin the magnitute of change increased. You can't say you aren't loosing political influence, if criminal case is opened against you. Deepdish7 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your change. The sentence, in and of itself, was well-sourced. If you have other sources and want to change the material, suggest the change HERE first with your sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not well-sourced. How can a news report from early 1999 be used as a source concerning the end of Yeltsin's rule? Colchicum (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
So what??? Yeltsin finished his presidency on 31-Dec-1999. So it's fair to use early 1999 article to say that by the end of Yeltsin's rule Berezovsky started to loose influenceDeepdish7 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
And the second source reads: "Mr Berezovsky was at the height of his power in the later Yeltsin years." So what is well-sourced? Colchicum (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It is true indeed, but, again, with criminal investigation being started against BB in 1999 you can't say he wasn't really loosing any political influenceDeepdish7 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • is a Russian controversial businessman

- strike controversial, unneeded editorializing

  • By the end of Yeltsin's rule, Berezovsky started to lose his political influence

- After the end of Yeltsin's rule, in fact. And it is somewhat disingenious to use a hot 1999 news item as a source for this.

- Inaccurate. They had never been nationalised in the first place.

  • Though possibly in questionable ways, as he was accused of multiple crimes in Russia, first by Evgeny Primakov's, and later by Vladimir Putin's government.

- Though possibly in questionable ways what? Furthermore, a government/cabinet is not in a position to charge anybody with anything, please clarify (perhaps by => during?).

- The party has a name. The role of his mass media in this campaign was far more notable than the role of the money, btw.

  • On November 1, 2000, Deputy Prosecutor General stated that Berezovsky was to appear at the Prosecutor General's Office for questioning on 15-Nov-2000, during the course of which charges might be brought against him for embezzlement of state funds in the Aeroflot case. Berezovsky did not appear for questioning. Instead, he announced that he would not return to Russia.

- too detailed for the lead, and yet it is still not at all clear to the reader at this point what the Aeroflot case was. Rewrite this.

- What does it have to do with the biography of Berezovsky? Furthermore, it looks like a veiled accusation. Remove it. Colchicum (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of the items you complain of have already been removed. Some of what you say doesn't make sense. Please review the lead in its present state and make one comment at a time. Also, be more meticulous in your comments. For example, you talk about a 1999 source when the sentence at issue is supported by two sources, one of which is much later than 1999. Also, please focus only on the changes being made now as opposed to stuff that was already in the article. Otherwise, this is going to get even harder to control.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
And the second source doesn't support anything like that, check it yourself: [2]. Mr Berezovsky was at the height of his power in the later Yeltsin years. Nothing of these points was already in the article as of yesterday, btw. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Bbb23: This widely respected annual rating of political influence, ranked Berezovsky #4 in 2000, after President, Prime-Minister, and Kremlin Chief of Staff (http://www.ng.ru/politics/2001-01-10/0_100politics2000.html). The statement clearly contradicts facts. With respect, please remove the misleading phrase.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but, first, I know nothing about the source you cite, as to whether it's "widely respected" or not. Second, a ranking is not particularly relevant to the issue here. Third, it makes no sense that he was highly ranked in 2000 and then left the country. At the same time, I think I have a slight understanding of your issue, but it's more complex than just removing the sentence. For the moment, I'm leaving it in, although it may end up with some rewording later. I just wish Deepdish had respected my request NOT to start with the lead. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, to make it more clear: (ng.ru is Nezavisimaya Gazeta, btw) In 1999 Berezovsky had a conflict with prime minister Primakov. This may be notable enough in itself, but Primakov could do little to lessen Berezovsky's influence, as his own influence was not particularly strong. Primakov himself was sacked in two months (that's why we shouldn't rely on fresh news), and his party lost the parliamentary election to the party funded by Berezovsky. So much for Berezovsky losing his influence. He lost his influence only after Putin, who he had supported and likely considered his own puppet for some time, turned against him at some point in 2000, so it makes perfect sense that he was highly ranked in 2000 and then left the country. Colchicum (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, but it was a power struggle! During late Yeltsin's years nobody was able to start investigation against Berezovsky. And Primakov was a prime minister, you can't say he was not 'particularly strong'. Yes he was sacked, but again, not because of loosing Parlamentary elections, but because of Yeltsin dismissed him, still being influenced by Berezovsky. It was a small, still power struggle. Yes did lost his influence completely only after Putin, but you can't say he didn't start to loose it a bit already in 1999 Deepdish7 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted the lead based on Colchicum's and Kolokol's arguments. I also think it reads better now.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A major omission of the section "political career in Russia" is the lack of any description of his conflicts with Primakov, his role in Putin's rise and his subsequent conflict with Putin. Also I think it was a bad idea to divide his career into business and politics. Please merge them. Colchicum (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree on this. Because actually his source of wealth was closely connected with political influence he exorted on Yeltsin. And, again agree, conflict with Primakov (as well as everyone else including Lebed, Korzhakov and others) should be described in details here. Kolokol1 rewrote the page completely while I was blocked and made everything look like Berezovsky was highly respectable man who never really conflicted with anyone before Putin, when it's actually not true at all Deepdish7 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Day 002 Rewrote 1st paragraph to incorporate some changes - that BB started to loose influence more as Putin came into Power rather than at late Yeltsin's time, also added information that he left Russia in 2000 as criminal charges were brought, and granted political asylum in the UK (I believe that clearly needs to be there as 1st paragraph usually briefly summarizes everything). Deepdish7 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the business and politics sections should be merged. While few would disagree about their connection, clarity is the chief virtue of this new structure. The same applies to the various criticisms and criminal allegations: they must of course be reported, but in a clear, signposted way (more or less as at present), not simply insinuated tendentiously wherever a particular editor feels like it. The lead is now repetitious (we have two separate accounts of his departure from Russia). Can editors, some of whom I know have strong views about the article's content, please have some regard for this kind of thing when making edits, rather than leaving such matters, along with good English style, to pedants like me?Videsutaltastet (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree, removed double instances of information on his departure to the UK. Para2, and 4 willbe amended once we're done with the first one. Everything will look proportional then Deepdish7 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Towards the end of Yeltsin's presidency, and especially when Vladimir Putin became president, Berezovsky's political influence in Russia began to wane.[2] While he was away criminal charges were brought against him in late 2000, he did not return to Russia and was later granted political asylum in the UK.[1][2]" - This does not make any sense whatsoever! What does it mean, "end of Yeltsin's presidency, and especially when Vladimir Putin became president"? "While he was away" - where? Why spoil a perfectly balanced lead, which has been arrived at by consensus, and do it in awkward English at that?--78.149.192.199 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I know we're all trying hard to get this as good as possible - but the lead now gives a misleading impression (Putin was president when B disappeared from Russia for good), and I shall correct this. I think the lead can be improved structurally, but I don't think any changes I may make will be at all substantive.Videsutaltastet (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, now things look indeed better. Added one sentence to 1st para to reflect BB status past 2000. As again, 1st para is a brief summary of everything, so it should have some info on past 2000 BB's life. I believe the wording is fair enough and conforms to NPOV Deepdish7 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Towards the end of Yeltsin's presidency, and at the start of Putin's, Berezovsky's political influence in Russia waned.[4] He helped fund the party which formed Vladimir Putin's parliamentary base[5], and was elected to the Duma on Putin's slate.[6]" - there is an internal contradiction here, because the first statement is plainly false. The matter has been resolved and settled - see discussion with Bbb23 above, why start it all over again? For some reason, Deepdish7 is on a mission to downplay Berezovsky's conflict with Putin, at the expense of historical facts. I promise this will not stand because it is not true. Hence, the edit--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Last change was mine. It seems that you're actually here on a mission to make things look like all charges against Berezovsky were politically motivated, which isn't true - they came on the grounds of him breaking the law. Sources have been provided above confirming that Berezovsky started to loose influence pre Putin already. Other users seem to agree with me (see discussion above) Deepdish7 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to add - I'm not trying to downplay Berezovsky's conflict with Putin, more than happy if we provide as much details as possible here. I just don't want other information to be ignored, including official charges brought against Berezovsky, accusations by various senior government officials and investigations in various countries, and that seems to be exactly what Kolokol1 is trying to hide from everyone Deepdish7 (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to say something, and then repeat it two paragraphs later. The lead is a summary not a sermon. Removed redundancy in the first paragraph. Deepdish7, please stop disruptive behavior--78.149.204.195 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC) That was my comment and edit--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Kolokol1 it's actually you who are acting disruptively. 1st paragraph always contains brief description of any person. And stating there only half of relevant Berezovsky biography (pre-2000) and completely omitting events past 2000 is just erroneous. Then everything else in the 1st paragraph is redundant, as it is contained later in the summary. The phrase "Convicted in absentia of multiple crimes in Russia, he's currently living under political asylum in Britain, who believes the charges may be politically motivated" clearly sould remain as without it the 1st paragraph is incomplete. If you want then please remove the whole 4th paragraph, rather than changing the lead 1st paragraph. Thank you Deepdish7 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not mind having asylum and convictions in absentia mentioned in the first para, as long as it is done only once. You removed it from the fourth paragraph, so be it. However, I rephrase it to make in chronologically logical: Berezovsky moved to London in 2000, received asylum in 2003, and was convicted in absentia in 2007. Otherwise the sequence of presentation is misleading. Secondly, "multiple" crimes is too vague. As you well know, and as is described in the body of the article, he was convicted in two trials on economic charges. I changed the phrase accordingly--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

General structure of the article: substantive vs. chronological

I second the opinion of Videsutaltastet that the article has lost in clarity after the business and political sections have been merged. I understand the intention of Bbb23 to have a bio presented in chronological fashion, but is this case, I believe, is has become more confusing to readers not familiar with the Russian situation. I may be wrong so I would not rush on to reverting to the old structure. Rather, I invite opinion from other editors--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I reread the narrative once again and, in fact, see some merits in chronological presentation. This, however, puts the section "Political Credo" out of place. It is, however, important because it presents two fundamentally opposing views on Russian politics: that of Berezovsky and of his opponents. I therefore moved the Credo section to the lead, making the story run more smoothly--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Restructured the narrative into two main chronological sections - "In Russia" and "In Exile"--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Now we clearly see evidence that Kolokol1 is paid by Berezovsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties as you can see from description, this is a firm funded by Berezovski.

In the link on the bottom of this page you can see, that Kolokol is their "Foundation's news project"

Doesn't it have clear resemblance to Kolokol1's nickname??? Of course it can be a mere coincidence, but it's up to you all to judge Deepdish7 (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If one reviews his edits, it is obvious that he is an single-purpose account. I would ask Kolokol to declare whether they have a conflict of interest here - if they are Boris Berezovsky (unlikely), or connected to Berezovsky or Alex Goldfarb, or the IFCL, in anyway (most likely) -- if they refuse to declare what is an obvious COI, one can take it further thru normal channels. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe above evidence is a very good reason to restore page status to the end of July, before biased and destructive actions were taken by user Kolokol1 Deepdish7 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Deepdish7 himself haven't edited anything not related to Berezovsky, he is a single-purpose account. A disruptive account at that (socking, edit-warring, gross BLP violations, personal attacks). The changes in question have been endorsed by a large number of editors, including myself, there is no reason to slap a COI tag on it and restore an attack page, of course. Unless Deepdish7 wants to see himself banned for good. Long overdue, I'd say. By the way, doesn't a state party to this story have a clear resemblance to the nickname of another user here? And kolokol1 is Alexander Herzen of course, ROTFL. Evidence?! One must be from among the Russian authorities to consider this evidence.

Colchicum (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • what a white lies you're saying. among those 'large number of editors' there were just a couple of guys, and Kolokol1 made 90% of the contributions so the tag rightfully restored on the page. It's not you who decides whether to ban me or not. Sure my evidence is just a coincidence, but I'm clearly a Kremlin agent just because you say soDeepdish7 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no reason to respond to this instance of harassment, except saying that I fully agree with the views and ideas expressed by the Russian human rights site www.Kolokol.Ru, which is an offshoot of a major independent news portal Grani.ru. I stand by all my edits, which are well soursed, and were made in good faith in an attempt - hopefully not futile - to bring this unfortunate article to WP standards. BTW, "Kolokol", which is "Bell" in Russian, refers not only to Herzen, but also to Jon Donne and Ernest Hemingway.--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no good reason (and certainly no evidence) to make allegations against Kolokol1. As Colchicum points out, the word (which just means 'bell'), has a proud place in Russian history as the paper founded by Herzen (as Wikipedia itself testifies...)and I can quite see why someone could independently choose it as a username. If Deepdish7 really thinks that we would be better of without Kolokol1's contributions (as his record of edits would suggest),I strongly disagree. The current version of course needs work, but is clearer, more detailed, better sourced and treads a sensible line between reporting allegations and making them. I regret that Deepdish7 feels the need to make such allegations about another editor, as I have worked amicably with both him and Kolokol1 on the page and, hope to continue doing so; I believe we are slowly making progress towards a good encyclopedia entry. We should be moderate about making allegations about other editors, as one can easily construe what may be innocent remarks as evidence of insider knowledge, personal connection, or parti pris, e.g. 'Having been born in the USA, Paul was brought up in international community where any racism and nationalism are strictly forbidden and regarded as evil, and he being a true partiot of the US as well as Russia would never become anti-semit, not even speaking about expressing such views in his writings Deepdish7 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)'Videsutaltastet (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Surely you don't see because you were supporting him all along the way, why would you. Omg Kolokol1 already said so much nonsense on this page on Klebnikov that my phrase you quoted is nothing compared to itDeepdish7 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I really think we should all focus on improving the present article (which has its merits) in a consensual way, as opposed to trading insults and using crude language - you more than most on this discussion page. The claims you make about Kolokol1 do no follow logically from the evidence, as I and others have pointed out. If we are to make progress, can I politely request that you don't just summarily undo edits of mine that correct typos and spelling mistakes, and aim to improve npov? You were of course entitled to reinstate the weasel words tag if you feel that that is a problem (beyond general npov concerns), but it would be more helpful if you used this page to discuss language you object to (I am curious to know what it is). I do not support Kolokol1 blindly, but contributed to his proposed new structure because I thought the previous article - which you seem strangely enamoured of - was a poorly structured, sensationally written, and an almost certainly libellous concoction of fact and allegation (I don't say fiction, because I really don't know) - it is absurd to claim that he has 'devastated' the article by providing detail and putting a clearer divide between fact and opinion. Which brings us to the tragically murdered Paul Klebnikov (I won't follow your example and call him 'Paul'). If my memory serves me right, what you call my 'nonsense' was just the suggestion that the meat of the article should be based neither on his book nor on that of Goldfarb; different reasons applied in each case, and in Klebnikov's case the two main reasons were that serious newspapers were concerned about anti-semitism (your attack on the Guardian - which I see you elsewhere call a 'tabloid',which it is not - shows a frankly eccentric assessment of the British media, and the value of sources generally)and that the chief reason for taking him seriously, viz. his position with the respected publisher Forbes, is removed in view of Forbes' court statement withdrawing the allegations that were the basis of his subsequent book.Videsutaltastet (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Claims against Kolokol1 fully logically follow the evidence. Don't see where you're proving the opposite. The weasel tag will remain until we are in consensus on this page (which will take eternity probably though). There was no libel on the previous version, but the current has a lot of whitening and concealing of facts about Berezovsky. You seem to exactly blindly support Kolokol1. He didn't put a divide between fact and opinion - he simply erased any negative information about Berezovsky, and little that remained used in his own favor, that's how everything was done. The meat of the article should be based on many sources and it is absolutely justified to use Klebnikov as a source as well as everything else. Klebnikov himself was working in a 'serious newspaper'. Claiming that Klebnikov was anti-semit doesn't make any sense, as he never used words "jew" or "israeli" in respect to Berezovsky, and always criticized non-Jewish oligarchs as well. Even if those 'serous newspapers' were justified and right in accusing Klebnikov of anti-semitism (which is not true at all), even then those sources have full right to remain here and be used for this article. I use Guardian as much as you, but I'm just saying if you're critizising Forbes than Guarian is just a tabloid comparing to it and you can't trust it at all, because business magazine is normally less politically biased, than political/news magazine like Guardian. Forbes has withdrawn just a small part of allegations against Berezovsky. Article is still there on the website (with one phrase removed), and Berezovsky never contested a book which has much harder allegations. He never contested many other articles in Forbes either.Deepdish7 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not the way to go, Deepdish7. BLP violations will be reverted. You have already been told that the article as it was before is inappropriate. Colchicum (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
If you prove there're any BLP violations you're free to revert them. I doubt if you find any thoughDeepdish7 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no good faith at all in your attempt to devastate the article. Of course, continue saying bullshit that your name doesn't have to do anything with one of Berezovsky's web portals. You were even 'smart' enough to register under the same name and make amendments to his page on Wiki. Well done! You've discredited yourself more than we ever could already Deepdish7 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I now see that it was grimly appropriate for Deepdish7 to reinstate the weasel words tag: he was about to start contributing content! Or, one should rather say, reinstating libellous content from one highly controversial source, using sensational language in scarcely comprehensible English...the list goes on. It may well be that there should be more space for allegations of wrongdoing - how about in the section which actually discusses K's book, where they could be dealt with an a balanced way? Can't we discuss these things here, rather than acting unilaterally?Videsutaltastet (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Language like "Berezovsky's meteoric enrichment and involvement in power struggles have been accompanied by allegations of various crimes from his opponents. After his falling out with Putin and exile to London, these allegations became the recurrent theme of official state-controlled media, earning him comparisons with Leon Trotsky[107] and the Orwellian character Emmanuel Goldstein.[108] While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is that of an incarnation of evil, "the most hated man" in Russia.[109]" does not make any sense. The article is full of weasel language like that. Unless we finish editing the article and agree on all points, the weasel tag will remain there. Please point out where I insert libelous content, happy to discuss and remove if there's any. I actually started to act slowly and discuss everything, but then Kolokol1 rushed with many undiscussed changes to the article, so I will act unilaterally unless he stops doing what he started. More than happy to stop discussing and continue point-by-point, like we startedDeepdish7 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any serious problems in the quoted segment. Quite obviously, Berezovsky was compared with Emmanuel Goldstein (and Trotsky as prototype of Goldstein) in media). There are more serious BLP violations here, as explained by many editors at this talk page (agree with revert by Off2riorob [3]).Biophys (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen any "serios BPL violations" "explained" anywhere in this discussion. If there're any violations, happy to see you correcting them, where there's really an explanation Deepdish7 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, then let me explain. You just included the following piece:

By 1994, Berezovsky had moved beyond dependence on mobster protection. He had forged a more potent alliance by paying for the publication of Boris Yeltsin's memoirs, thus gaining entrée to the inner circle around the grateful author/president. This court was populated with strange figures, such as the "hippie journalist" Valentin Yumashev, through whom Berezovsky obtained his entrée; Yeltsin's tennis coach, who ran a large criminal empire of his own from a Kremlin office; not to mention Alexander Korzhakov, for a while the powerful chief of Yeltsin's Praetorian guard who later reported that Berezovsky had asked him to kill a business rival.

. This all might be true, but I'd like to see anyone trying to write article Putin in the same manner...Biophys (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Your point on this one is disputable but I'm happy to meet you half-way. How about we let one phrase remaing here - "He had forged a more potent alliance by paying for the publication of Boris Yeltsin's memoirs, thus gaining entrée to the inner circle around the grateful author/president.". And for NPOV modify it as follows: "He was told to have forged a more potent alliance by paying for the publication of Boris Yeltsin's memoirs, thus gaining entrée to the inner circle around the grateful author/president.". Would that look ok for you from BLP/NPOV points of view?Deepdish7 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Would be much better indeed if Kolokol1 outlined his concerns in this section and we could work them properly, rather than reverting each other's edits. I'd like to reiterate, that it's him who started unagreed edits this time again.Deepdish7 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • By the way, just looked at Putin's page as you suggested. Look what we have there:

In July 2007, Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state. It does not matter here, as the Kremlin's apologists are so fond of pointing out, that Mr. Putin is wildly popular in Russia: Popularity is what competent despots get when they destroy independent media, stoke nationalistic fervor with military buildups and the cunning exploitation of the Church, and ride a wave of petrodollars to pay off the civil service and balance their budgets. Nor does it matter that Mr. Putin hasn't re-nationalized the "means of production" outright; corporatism was at the heart of Hitler's economic policy, too." [249]

So as you see, we do have a freedom of speech on Putin's page. Still you insist that we don't need it on Berezovsky's page. But we will have it here. As shown above - happy to discuss and remove some points. Won't let Kolokol1 vandalise everything again then. The material will be restored after each of his cuts. We'll have an article with full NPOV here, whatever it takes. I'm prepared for a lifetime struggle because I'm editing this page on principle Deepdish7 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

        • The fragment on Putin's page is a direct attributed quotation. The fragment on BB page is presented as fact although it is a copyvio from a Khlebnikov's atricle over inherently subject on opinion. I have no problems with a few citation's from Khlebnikov , but they should be presented as attributed opinions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

COPYVIO

I am now pretty sure that most of the content Deepdish7 is trying (and will miserably fail) to add is copied verbatim from other copyrighted sources. Compare: [4] [5]. Colchicum (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You can be pretty sure of anything you want, it won't change anything though. If something in the text I'm editing is copied verbatim, I'll easily rephrase it, not a big deal at all Deepdish7 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a blatant copyvio. The segment I quoted above was taken by Deapdish word to word from here. User:Marshallsumter just was banned at the ANI for making copyright violations. Biophys (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It is a big deal till you rephrase it and if you don't do it very quickly it has to go ASAP. We're talking strict rules here where there is no grey line.TMCk (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
So far I've seen only a statement against me without any details. Please post exact details where I have COPYVIO, and I'll happily rephrase. Thanks Deepdish7 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio's should be rephrased or removed as soon as possible. I would also note that Khlenikov's writings are not usually suitable for encyclopedia by their tone. They should be either rewritten in proper encyclopedic manner or given as direct citations even if the copyright requirements are satisfied Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

anybody keen to create a shadow page so we could propose further editing while page is blocked?

Klebnikov Revisited

Thank you Black Kite for protecting the article. Now we can return to constructive discussion. The point of contention is the use of Klebnikov as a reliable source. Two major concerns about him are documented in the body of the article as it stands now.

(a) Well sourced allegation of anti-semitic bias (Section 5) (b) Questionable journalistic standards, reflected in Forbes retracting major points of his reporting on Berezovsky (Section 3.2)

  • Regarding those two points - though allegation is 'well sourced' it's just an allegation. There is no evidence at all in his writings of any anti-semitic bias. He never uses words jew, israeli or just mentions nationality of Berezovsky (only once in his book maybe when he says a bit about his family during introduction to the readers). so despite being 'well sourced' those allegations cannot be used to prohibit his findings and point of view to be published in this article
    • Forbes did not retract 'major points' of his reporting on Berezovsky. Despite the fact that due to resolution of the High Court in London Forbes stated in open court that "(1) it was not the magazine's intention to state that Berezovsky was responsible for the murder of Listiev, only that he had been included in an inconclusive police investigation of the crime; (2) there is no evidence that Berezovsky was responsible for this or any other murder; (3) in light of the English court's ruling, it was wrong to characterize Berezovsky as a mafia boss; and (4) the magazine erred in stating that Glouchkov had been convicted for theft of state property in 1982", 'the court didn't order Forbes to remove the rest of the article from the website nor acknowledge that all data contained in it was false, nor forced Forbes to pay a compensation, that Berezovsky wanted when filing his claim. The article is still available online on the Forbes website (with exception of one above mentioned statement). Some media sources controlled by Berezovsky though, such as Kommersant magazine, reported, that Forbes "lost the case" and "completely retracted their claims against Berezovsky" which actually never happened. Berezovsky never contested in court the book "Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the looting of Russia" that Klebnikov published in 2000, which was a very extended version of the article. Berezovsky never contested the book in court. And the book actually has many times more allegations against him rather than the article. He didn't contest the book in court simply because he was afraid that if police really investigated into all those allegations, as at least some of them would undoubtedly prove true and he may loose his protection from Britain'. Deepdish7 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Klebnikov is of course a major PART of Berezovsky's biography, but precisely for that reason he cannot be a good SOURCE on him. He should be mentioned but not relied upon. Berezovsky is probably most covered Russian person, and there are thousands of other, independent and respectable sources, more than enough for a good article. The same is true of using as sources Chechen warlords, or a person like Ramzan Kadyrov. Shame on you, Deepdish7

  • Klebnikov has a right to be mentioned AND relied upon as well as any other source. He was a Chief Editor of Forbes Russia magazine! You can't prohibit sources like that, it doesn't simply make ANY sense at all. And, Berezovsky is by far NOT the most covered Russian person comparing to our presidents, senior government officials and other oligarchs like Potanin or Abramovich, for example. Shame on you in the first place for daring to continue your writings after being spotted at editing article where you have close connection with the subject. Ramzan Kadyrov made a major contribution to fighting terrorism in Chechnya, so he is an extremely reliable source in this case. It is fully fair to state his opinion here, just because he is a Head of Chechen Republic! By removing text sourced by Kadyrov and Klebnikov you are simply performing acts of vandalism Deepdish7 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We have already been through all that, and I believe, have found an appropriate way to treat Klebnikov, namely the way he is treated in the currently protected version.

  • 'WE' haven't been through all that, as my account was unfairly blocked (while yours wasn't while you engaged in the very same edit warring) in August, which you leveraged as you could to rewrite everything on the page as much as possible. I'm definitely going to restore sections that you blatantly cut, and there's nothing you can do about it Deepdish7 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be very happy to hear any constructive argument against that.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, one should use as many RS as possible, and the book by Khlebnikov is not neutral by any accounts. But the stories involving Berezovsky are highly complicated and must be properly explained. Consider the Aeroflot affair as a relatively simple example. What it was all about? When Nikolai Glushkov was appointed as a top manager of Aeroflot in 1996, he found that the airline company worked as a "cash cow to support international spying operations": 3,000 people out of the total workforce of 14,000 in Aeroflot were FSB, SVR, or GRU officers. All proceeds from ticket sales were distributed to 352 foreign bank accounts that could not be controlled by the Aeroflot administration. Glushkov closed all these accounts and channeled the money to an accounting center called Andava in Switzerland. He also sent a bill and wrote a letter to SVR director Yevgeni Primakov and FSB director Mikhail Barsukov asking them to pay salaries of their intelligence officers in Aeroflot in 1996. Not surprisingly, Glushkov has been then imprisoned on charges of illegally channeling money through Andava. But this is all currently described as embezzlement of money by Berezovsky... Biophys (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The book by Klebnikov is clearly a WP:RS. I don't think there is a problem with using information from it. Nanobear (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Biophys: ::Indeed, the Aeroflot affair is complicated, and personally I tend to agree with Glushkov's version. However, this is still only a version, which comes from an interested party, just like Klebnikov. That is why I would rather stick to the facts chronologically:

  • Klebnikov is not an "interested party" here. There's only one "interested party" in our discussion - Kolokol1. As it has been pointed out, it is highly likely that he's being funded by Berezovsky, so in the first place it's him who's "interested" here, and he has absolutely no rights and grounds to accuse Klebnikov of being "interested party" Deepdish7 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) Berezovsky was briefly accused of embezzlement in Aeroflot in 1999, but then the charge was dropped after a week.

(b) He was again accused of the same thing in 2003. These charges were the basis of the first extradition request to UK.

(c) British authorities rejected these charges as politically motivated and granted him asylum.

(d) He was convicted on these chаrges by a Russian court in absentia in 2007.

These are indisputable facts, which should be mentioned. All the rest is POV and has no place here. Anyone else, any thoughts?--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Nanobear: Above I laid out reasons why Klebnikov cannot be considered RS. Please read it and explain substantively why these reasons should in your view be discounted, not just "I do not think". If we do not come to a consensus on Kleblikov here, we risk another edit war, but we should try to avoid it at least.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Just a few things on the side:
    rumafia.com which is all but a RS was used for citing Klebnikov's views. We can't do that.
    Now citing his book directly could be an option as long as it is clearly attributed to him; But: We might run into cherry-picking and wp:synth when his book and opinions are not mentioned and discussed in a third source.TMCk (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Khlebnikov's book is certainly a reliable source for opinions of Mr. Khlebnikov that are notable and worth to be included (in moderation). The source is obviously the paper edition of the book but pointers to any online versions (even on rumafia site) are of benefits to the readers who do not have access to the paper version of the book. I guess Khlebnikov can be used as a RS for a few noncontroversial facts (like the date of Sylvester bombing, etc.). He cannot be a reliable source on obvious speculations like hidden connections of Berzovsky with Chechen mafia, etc. nor on matters that are inherent subject of opinions like evaluation of results of Yeltsin's rule, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Banning Deepdish or Kolokol1?

The above outbursts by Deepdish7 speak for themselves. It is pointless to talk to him -- he is a wikikiller on a mission. I certainly do not have time for this nonsense. Along with other responsible editors I have put a lot of effort into writing a balanced and sourced alternative (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=450509807). This is a work in progress, but it cannot continue when it is destroyed as soon as it is posted. I am not here to wage a war of attrition with the Kremlin propaganda machine.

  • As everyone has seen, it's you here on a mission a part of Berezovsky propaganda machine. Your statements that I'm working for Kremlin do not make any sense. Black Kite could easily check that, because a part of my contributions were done from my work IP (I'm sure he has my IP addresses as he banned me for using additional account to report on Kolokol1), which is quite far from Kremlin and Russia actually.Deepdish7 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For the administrators, there are only two options left: to ban Deepdish7 for good or to let his attack article stand in violation of every WP policy. Let us see what happens when the article is unblocked on Sept. 28--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You are violating wiki policies here in the first place, by performing multiple acts of vandalism. Whenever pointed by other users that something is inappropriate, I correct my point of view and accept when other people edit my contributions. You, in contrast, do not want to accept any arguments. It is starting to be seen even by people who initially confronted me here, such as Bbb23. The reason is again simple - it's not because you don't speak English and don't understand what you're told. It's simply because you are the interested party in this discussion, which I'm currently submitting a report of as was suggested below Deepdish7 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I regretfully agree; this will doubtless prompt Deepdish7 to call me a stooge (though I doubt any of my edits could be called biased either way, and not a few have simply been to restore some sense of English idiom to his own contributions). Until Deepdish7's latest edits the article was shaping up well - clear structure, significant reduction (though perhaps not elimination) of weasel words, good clear English. There was a section which talked about Paul Klebnikov's book, and this could reasonably have been expanded with some further detail, which Deepdish7 might have sought consensus on. Klebnikov - as a figure in the story - should be used as a source with extreme caution. Instead, he decided unilaterally to reintroduce BLP violating material - the very material which quite properly led Kolokol1 to seek consensus for a new structure. Deepdish7's attitude, not least his use of bad language about other editors (and incitement to edit war on the Russian talk page), is perplexing to say the least.Videsutaltastet (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I still haven't heard ANY explanation on WHY material I used violates BLP in any way. Kolokol1 did not "seek consensus" but just blatantly reverted my edits - this is what you call "consensus"??? I'm not inciting an edit war on Russian talk page, I just pointed attention of other users that an interested party is working on Berezovsky's website towards whitening of his reputation and removal of all negative information about him. Which I though was something worth noting on Russian talk page as wellDeepdish7 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I object, and the opinion of WP:SPAs on such things should be taken with a grain of salt.

Deepdish7, a few words of advice. Attempt to concentrate on content only -- for the most part you have. Don't allow others to rile you up, it will only end up getting you topic banned, and you obviously don't want this. Keep focussed and concentrate on the content only. But this advice goes not only to you, but to others as well.

Also Kolokol, the issue has been raised of you having a conflict of interest. Are you going to comment on that? --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept that I have an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively, to which you probably would not agree as a self-proclaimed "Russophile" and a prolific writer on behalf of the Russian foreign service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia )--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
That begs the question as to what exactly your "interest" is. Just saying you want Berezovsky to be treated "fairly" is no more than any Wikipedia editor would say about any BLP. As for Russavia, there is no inherent conflict in being a Russophile and editing Russian articles. In addition, there is no indication that Russavia writes "on behalf" of anyone. Be careful of your accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I have no idea on whose behalf Russavia has written all those articles about Russian embassies around the world or is creating PR material on matters of interest for the Kremlin administration and other departments of the Russian government. I am simply saying that he is as much SPA as anyone. For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care. I will not disclose my identity because I do not want to get a dose of Polonium in my tea.--Kolokol1 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no comparison between 'your edits and Russavia's. You have about 1,200 edits, and Russavia has about 79,000. Although Russavia started editing in 2005, he didn't start in earnest until 2007. In glancing at his edits, although many of them are Russian-related, he also appears to have a heavy interest in airline/airplane-related articles. There's no way you can call him a WP:SPA. As for you, you edited first for a few days in 2006, then nothing until 2008, at which time you made 4 edits to the Berezovsky page. After that, you didn't edit until July of this year, at which point you've made edits to several Russian articles, but Berezovsky stands out as the main article you've been involved in. I have no comment about your identity after your melodramatic comment. Lemon is usually safer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The impressive body of Russavia's edits does not negate the fact that the bulk of his work on WP, as is evident from his personal page, is devoted to creating information material about Russian Ambassadors, Russian Embassies, Foreign trips of Russian president, the bio of Russian presidential spokeswoman, etc. He may be doing this out of obsession with the Russian government trivia, of course, but prima facie it looks like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry. No offense. Re Polonium, no melodrama whatsoever. A real thing, believe me, I know what I am talking about )--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Kolokol, that fact that you have admitted you are directly connected with these "activists" shows that you do indeed have a real conflict of interest. Me, on the other hand, I've been accused of being in the KGB (lol), the FSB, GRU, MID, MVD, and occasionally in the gay mafia, however, I can assure you that none of that is true. It really doesn't bother me, I have put up with such shit on WP for such a long time now, all because I am not here to engage in advocacy, unlike many other users. But having said that, do you like this letter I received from Russian government? How on earth did I manage to get that? Back on point. If you have a COI, which you have confirmed you do, please read WP:COI and associated information, and conform with it. --Russavia Let's dialogue 23:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Kremlin.Ru, my god! That explains it. So, I guessed right. No, you are no KGB, in the old days they would've called you 'a fellow traveller'. You have as much COI, my friend, as I do. I wonder what letters Deepdish has in his treasure chest.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
ahahahah that was nice) Deepdish7 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "I accept that I have an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively" adds even more to already very strong evidence of him probably being connected party in this article Deepdish7 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This is simply wrong page. If they want to discuss WP:COI problems, we have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If they want to complain, we have WP:AE (this probably fits WP:DIGWUREN). But I would strongly discourage both sides from doing this and discussing any personal matters anywhere. Just edit something else, and no one will call you SPA. Biophys (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree and have made this point before on this page, but this page has become a free-for-all, so normal boundaries of what is appropriate and what is not have been thrown out the window.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
And it exactly became like that in August when Kolokol1 came here and started his vandalism actions. The matters simply got worse and worse as the time went by Deepdish7 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please look up and learn what is considered vandalism on wiki before throwing out wild accusations.TMCk (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
If you don't consider blanking whole sections of the page vandalism, then he has definitely violated the Wikipedia deletion policyDeepdish7 (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b "Berezovsky Blames Putin For Chechen War"IWPR Report, 25 February 2005
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Goldfarb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ “Berezovsky. Putin. West.
 By George Soros” Moskovsky Novosti February 2000
  4. ^ "Russia: Yeltsin Pledges Fair Privatization -- An Analysis" Radio Free Europe 9 August 1997
  5. ^ "Russian Reformer's Credibility Undercut by Scandal" The New York Times 17 November 1997
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Soros2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ http://www.barricades.ca/articles/3_2/Boris_Berezovsky.htm
  8. ^ http://www.russiajournal.com/node/4816
  9. ^ "Russia's 'most hated' tycoons" BBC News 8 April 2003
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)/Archive_3&oldid=451878527"