Talk:Sergei Magnitsky/Archives/2013

Neutrality

I'm adding NPOV to this article. It's almost entirely based on US/British largely rusophobian media outlets - The Telegraph, The New York Times, The Spectator, The Washington Post - despite the existence of numerous other sources providing conflicting with this sources version of the history surrounding Magnitsky, as well as numerous interviews and presentations given by Investigative Committee officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.93.152 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any links? They would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note that "interviews and presentations given by Investigative Committee officials" aren't the most helpful sources for our purposes, as Wikipedia emphasizes secondary sources, rather than primary. You can read more detail at WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources, though, would be very welcome! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Since it's been a couple of weeks without further clarification, I'm removing the tag per Template:POV. If anyone returns and agrees with the above, however, please feel free to restore the tag and we can discuss the issue in more detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia emphasizes secondary sources, yes, but it doesn't forbid primary sources. It merely warns wiki-editors against editorising primary sources. In this case you can't avoid using primary sources considering that english media decided to compeletely ignore official position and instead base their reports entirely on Browder and his lawyers position. And since this article is based on english sources it completely ignores official position as well. That's what makes it WP:POV. You can clearly see difference between this article and, for example, article on Litvinenko case that pays lots of attention to British officials position and it's interpretation in media.37.190.56.110 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

http://ria.ru/press_video/20111208/511088403.html (if you have problems with original, same video reuploaded by youtube user: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP75mGcRL80). One hour fourty minutes long briefing by Investigative Committee of Ministry of Internal affairs. They talk about media spinning case in one direction. About media misrepresenting Magnitsky as lawyer, which is an issue in Russian media, that seem to be simply copying english reports. Magnitsky was a financial auditor, and that is completely separate specialization in Russia, yet media keep insisting that he's a "lawyer" (юрист). According to officials, Browder also knowingly participated in this misrepresentation. They also claim that Magnitsky has never actually done any independent anti-corruption investigation and that there's absolutely no proof that he has done so. Also they say that Hermitage fond's report (and from what I see, that's a fundament of english media reports) is lying in various instances. For example, claim that police used confiscated materials to change ownership of three companies was confirmed to be not true - seals on the documents used to change owndership and seals confiscated by police don't match. And so far and so forth. Another big part of briefing is detailed report on the tactics employed by Magnitsky in order to facilate tax avoidance fraud. 37.190.56.110 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• • If somebody unsigned believes that fighting official corruption and murder by Russian thugs is "rusophobian" , this is a highly peculiar viewpoint, which provokes a question: "What is to be deemed Russophilia" by the same token?Axxxion (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a plethora of various sources in the article, including russian media; all the views are presented as such, not as facts. If smb thinks there ought to be some other views, please add them.Axxxion (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That "other view" that isn't there is the point of view of Russian investigative officials. See link above.37.190.56.13 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Language concern

In July 2012, Vladimir Putin said that he was worried about the bill's impact on human rights abusers in Russia.[40]

Seems like loaded language to me, not to mention that it's entirely unsupported by what's in the cited article. 27.33.43.226 (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my comment but on reflection I'm a little amused by worrying about language niceties when talking about Putin. 27.33.43.226 (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I corrected that sentence. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal comments

What an amazing story. Should really be a movie.

Thinking of old laws...

"Debt Dies with the Man" doesn't cover it; the missing tax was deffered transfer not consumed debt. The kind many wealthy families today are using to avoid tax in the US.

"The Dead cannot offer a defense." But didn't Magnitsky's claims already get a trial?

Old laws (Greek Roman 1st 50 years) didn't much trust either litigants or the Judge either. And while many laws only vauguely refer to many of those good laws (or have them embedded in code parts) the ideas and legacy lives on.

I believe it's wild cases like this that early legal debates had problems with and fixed.

Note how both sides have been presented and both sides have been at times mistrusted until the trial. That in itself is good.

Legally. It's a question if the defendants protected or endangered the funds, or if all that was all a story. Being in the USA i'd have no idea, i know little of the legal part of the story.

Financially all countries have great debt posted, debt contests and monetary exchange values contested. This probably isn't the most important case considering. No reason for blacklists there.

As to prisoners, being in the USA, seeing terrible contditions of USA prison on TV and knowing our courts (fdc#4 09-2291) intimately, I have to side with (Russian officials) in being surprised the US would try making this a point of embarassment. On the other hand there has long been both plensantries and rivalry between, officials love to have some one else to blame. I wish i knew if Russia made intrigue movies depicting the USA as subvertive? The USA makes the opposite.