Jump to content

Talk:Lev Parnas/Archive 1

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

add, family trust defrauding?

Per Giuliani associate can be questioned under oath about Republican money transfers, judge says Katelyn Polantz, CNN October 29, 2019

Parnas owes a family trust more than $500,000, which alleges that Parnas transferred the money to his corporate accounts, to the Trump PAC America First Action, to the National Republican Congressional Committee, and to Pete Sessions for Congress.

X1\ (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

More:

X1\ (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

add Parnas plans to cooperate with subpoenas issued by House after Trump denied knowing Parnas after he was arrested?

X1\ (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

add Republican donor, Trump supporter Long Island attorney Charles Gucciardo investing $500,000 in Fraud Guarantee ?

Gucciardo paid Giuliani on behalf of Fraud Guarantee; $250,000 in September, and October 2018. ... Fraud Guarantee, which does not appear to have any customers. X1\ (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

add Parnas "secret mission" ?

X1\ (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

use of term "felicitous" sarcastic?

Article refers to the company "Fraud Guarantee" as having a "felicitous" name. This sounds sarcastic, not really in fitting with standard scholarly style.

It could be better explained, but he named the company "Fraud Guarantee" to goose Google search results, so someone searching "Parnas fraud" would find the company and not the fraud he has committed.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

add Lev Parnas turns over thousands of pages to invesigators ?

regarding Impeachment of Donald Trump. X1\ (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Split

Snow close as split. There is consensus that they should be separate articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I think we should split this article. I know much of the background information overlaps but things are changing fast. Parnas was released on bail and his willingness to testify makes him unique. The two are acting independently now and treating them as one is no longer tenable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - This is just standard practice with biographies, especially those of living persons... not even sure we need to discuss this before it's implemented either as long-standing consensus would hold this shouldn't be controversial. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. They are two separate individuals with different histories. Being involved in an event together shouldn't mean merged BLPs. --Kbabej (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. For the reasons already cited. Bond Head (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Why is there one article on two subjects? Shouldn't each person have their own article? Bond Head (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2019
  • Support. One page for two people seemed like a bad idea when I first saw the page. (:-( Wish we'd jumped in sooner; seems logical to efficiently share mutual content between pages. Concern: how goofy/clumsy/unwieldy/inefficient/crazy-making split might become trying to use various transclusion techniques - implications of template this and template that… (I have near-zero experience; discovered transclusion term minutes ago, only browsed page.) OTOH, maybe WP transclusion used in gajillion other places I may not have noticed and it's a non-issue. In summary, would be great if transclusion experts would step in to make split transition - and future editing of shared/mutual content - go smoothly, have good user experience. TIAFYH Doug Grinbergs (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The very recent news surrounding Lev Parnas in particular have escalated him to the role of a central character in the impeachment proceedings. Forresthopkinsa (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per Forresthopkinsa immediately above. Mozzie (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as we know their role in the story is still as a unit, regardless of how they're choosing to address their legal issues. Manys (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The individual are each notable in their own right, irrespective of the substantial overlap in their stories. - MrX 🖋 15:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split. Include Maddow interview. Believable, earnest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFreudian (talk • contribs) 02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article be moved to Lev Parnas (deleting the redirect), editing as necessary to make it about him, and that the redirect Igor Fruman be expanded to an article using material copied from this article, with appropriate acknowledgment. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, +1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Political opponents?

So Biden is a plural now? Also this dates back before Biden even announced. Where is the intellectual honesty here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.9.97 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Joe and Hunter, Bidens plural. And everybody knew Joe was getting into the race before he announced, so Trump sent Giuliani when he could, it would seem. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, Hunter is not Trump's political opponent — he's the son of his political opponent. So if it is supposed to include Hunter, then the term needs to be changed, otherwise, the term should probably be singular. — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You really expecting any credibility from Liekipedia? They used Buzzfeed news as two of their sources.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Buzzfeed News is generally reliable, with attribution preferred. There’s a difference between Buzzfeed generally, and their news department. The former is not well-regarded for reliability in general, but the latter has improved dramatically in the past few years, including having extensive editorial oversight. To the point of it obviously now being considered a reliable source. A decade ago, it was a different story. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Spell check

Ukrainian-American bussinessman

should be businessman unless referring to kissing

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrassRootsGuy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GrassRootsGuy,  Fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If the article is Truly about Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, why no info on Fruman?

I just read this article through, after searching for Igor Fruman and being redirected HERE. There is no info on Fruman in the article, to speak of. It's actually an article about Parnas, and should retitled and edited further to reflect that. As currently constructed, the article title does not reflect its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldmansker (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Short answer: reliable sources. He just hasn’t been written about as much as Parnas. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: Article has now been split. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. The article has been moved to Lev Parnas. The actual work of splitting the articles now needs to be done. Somebody needs to copy the material about Igor to Igor Fruman, noting in your edit summary that it was copied from here, and then rewrite this article to make it about Lev. @Coffeeandcrumbs, Coffee, Kbabej, Bondwonk, Doug Grinbergs, Forresthopkinsa, Mozzie, MrX, Another Believer, NickCT, and Symmachus Auxiliarus: Pinging people who wanted the article to be split. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I got things started. Feel free to copy more material over. I have also tagged both talk pages with {{Split from}}/{{Split to}}. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Good work! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Well done, Coffeeandcrumbs. And Melanie, I said “split” due to the edit summary. I hadn’t checked and compared the contents of the renamed article yet. I wrote the initial reply before I saw the more substantial changes. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Where's the infobox?

This isn't going to be Stanley Kubrick Part Deux, is it? Some Wikpedites do not want Kubrick's page to have an infobox and they've been fighting tool-and-nail against it for years. It's the post ridiculous edit war ever.

The talk page is bizarre - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanley_Kubrick.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Too much heresay

Reading this article, I see a lot of speculation and here say unsupported by fact. These unsubstantiated statements should be removed. Imthedude101 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Imthedude101, can you identify any specific speculation or hearsay that you think should be removed? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally have been trying to be careful about hearsay. I will not claim to be perfect. Please add Citation Requested to anything. For example a citation request was placed on a statement I wrote that the FBI had the Robert Hyde messages for months and failed to investigate until after the Maddow interview drew the nation's attention. I did indeed find a citation based upon the request and the page is stronger because of it. Please also be aware I am monitoring an interesting Twitter user who has been claiming the prosecution of Parnas by SDNY was specifically by Berman and under the direction of Barr to keep Parnas silent. I made no mention of this in the article since that was indeed largely hearsay until after news broke today that Parnas filed a motion for Barr to recuse himself. It wasn't until this broke into the news that element could be added to the page.

As the number one contributor to this page please feel free to message me directly with your concerns. Pbmaise (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas received $1 million from a Russian account in September, add just here?

Parnas (an account in Parnas' wife's name) received $1 million from a Russian account in September, according to a court filing; during the same month that Parnas and his partner Igor Fruman received the first request for documents from the Congressional committees investigating the Trump administration's actions in Ukraine. In the past three years, Parnas has received more than $1.5 million from Ukrainian and Russian sources.

X1\ (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Lev Parnas update:

X1\ (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The million dollar figure was added to the page and yesterday I added the "loans" made by Sargeant III to Parnas. Please add any additional funding found in the dedicated paragraph Money. If you have a question feel free to contact me. Pbmaise (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Protection of page

Lev Parnas, his evidence and his claims will be controversial especially during the trial in the Senate of President Trump. So far sabotage of the page has been minimal and rewrites that have been made without citation relatively few. This said protection is on the page Trump Ukraine Scandal and that page is now getting a fraction of the traffic as this page. I would like to nominate the page for protection level

Extended confirmed protected

For a period of two weeks. I have not yet made the request and solicit input from other editors. Pbmaise (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC) -->

  • I think this file has already removed from the page, and I nominated the file to be deleted from commons since it is fair use and fair use is not possible on Wikipedia. Pbmaise (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)-->

"There use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events"

The impeachment of the United States President and evidence that his personal attorney acting with Lev Parnas were trying to shake down the Ukrainian government certainly constitutes material illustrating a historically significant event. Therefore, the material can be used.

I need to follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation Pbmaise (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)-->

  • I removed both files from the page and nominated both files for deletion owing to the fact that they are "fair use" and fair use is not possible on wikipedia-->
  • On the other hand I just finished reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content these items constitute non-free content and this type of content is specifically permitted under certain circumstances. Underneath these wikipedia guidelines,

"There use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events"

The impeachment of the United States President and evidence that his personal attorney acting with Lev Parnas were trying to shake down the Ukrainian government certainly constitutes material illustrating a historically significant event. Therefore, the material can be used.

I need to follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation Pbmaise (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Language skills of Parnas not very relevant?

Today, I removed uncited line about how well Parnas can speak Russian and Ukrainian. I don't think it is relevant to the article. If someone wants to add it back please do so with citation. Pbmaise (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In section about January 15, 2020 Rachel Maddow interview, this sentence appears:

"Elements of the interview including time lines that were cross-checked by some news organizations against event records such as the date Pence announced he would not be going to the Ukraine."

Huh? Did writer mean to say that "elements of the interview" were corroborated by news organizations matching Parnas' allegations against known events, such as Pence's cancellation of his trip to Ukraine?

This sentence needs: 1. A missing verb 2. Clarification and/or rewrite Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input will rework. Pbmaise (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In Maddow interview paragraph. I changed word corroborated to supported and simplified further. Thank you for other assistance working on this paragraph Pbmaise (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Caution about surveillance and possible threat to Ukrainian Ambassador

Many conspiracy theories are on the internet that purport that there is more to this. I wish to caution other editors to not be tempted to introduce conspiracy theory but to keep with well sourced contributions. For example it appears to be an established that Hyde was in communication with someone from Belgium. That is something that can be attributed with citation. This caution was specifically prompted by a website that compared the text messages of Parnas to the phone records of Giuliani and Pompeo. The implied claim here is that both Giuliani and Pompeo were aware of these messages between Parnas and Hyde real time.

I would like other editors to review this website that can be found at: https://www.americanoversight.org/messages-to-parnas-suggest-yovanovitch-surveillance-happened-same-week-as-giuliani-pompeo-calls

These people are not exactly 2 bit conspiracy artists and were responsible for many of the freedom of information requests that brought the very records they are comparing to light.

I will propose some text here with a link later today. Any comment by other editors is greatly appreciated.Pbmaise (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I haven't developed this topic further. If anyone wishes to develop this further, please do not add anything to the page without seeking input here. Place your proposed text below. Remember to be careful about adding original research. If you elect to go down this avenue, I suggest beginning with the closed door testimony of Ambassador Yovanovitch and how she reported that she was told that there were concerns for her safety coming from the 7th floor. See the links on her web page to read the actual statements she made. The 7th floor is a reference to the State Department Building where all top officials have their offices. Then stop. Do not go down the rabbit hole linking conversations of Giuliani with Pompeo as a possible explanation as to why the State Department was concerned. It is true American Oversight makes this comparison, however, this is a single source and has not to my knowledge been picked up by the main stream press. All you can do as an editor is watch the press and see if the story develops further. Pbmaise (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Tape of Trump and Parnas conversation

There are now four different places the page mentions the tape of Trump and Parnas talking about firing Marie Yovanovitch.

I have left all references stand and cleaned them up. They should however, be consolidated. The first mention is now in the opening paragraph and someone added it to help counter Trump's denial. Personally, I don't think this particular spot of the article is necessary. The best place I see to put the information is in the paragraph about activities in the Ukraine. Then since Parnas made it a claim in the interview a simple mention of the claim. Thoughts?Pbmaise (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

An anonymous user has now removed the first mention of the tape from the opening paragraph. I am inclined to let it go and not revert this deletion especially since I already mentioned there were already other mentions of the tape elsewhere in the article. Pbmaise (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lev_Parnas/Archive_1&oldid=1223700040"