Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Anti-semitic Bias

The principal source used for many contentious statements in this article is the procuratorial book by Paul Klebnikov, the murdered Russian-American journalist and his articles in Forbes Magazine. Klebnikov's writings have been described as anti-semitically biased by independent observers in the mainstream media, such as the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jul/16/guardianobituaries.pressandpublishing) and The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/paul-klebnikov-550099.html). Here is, for example, a quote from a review in Haaretz: "Although Klebnikov assiduously avoids the word "Jew," an aroma of old, almost religious, anti-Semitism emerges from each page in the book" (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ogling-the-moguls-1.144261).

Unless Klebnikov's allegations can be independently verified they should be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the alleged personal features of Mr. Khlebnikov being them e.g. an irrational fear of Jews (anti-Semitism), fear of open spaces (agarophobia), substance abuse, etc. belong to his own article not to the article on the subjects. Khlebnikov wrote most of his articles for Forbes, quite a reputable publication with a good fact-checking facilities. At the time of publications Berezovsky was known as a litigious with almost unlimited financial resources and a good rapport with all siloviki organs of Russian Federation. We can safely assume that every Khlebnikov's work published by Forbes was triply fact checked by their fact checkers. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • In fact Berezovsky has sued Forbes for libel, and obtained a retraction. Repeating these libelous claims here contradicts NPOV and BLP policy Kolokol1 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The claim that Klebnikov is an anti-Semitist doesn't make any sense to me either. In none of his articles or books he points attention to (or even mentions, I think) the nationality of Berezovsky. Actually Klebnikov published a book "Conversation with a barbarian" in 2004, where he interviewed Chechen terrorist leader Khozh-Ahmed Noukhayev and provided his own opinion and discourse about nationalities afterwards, which was to a large extent anti-Islamic but there was not even a sign of anti-Semitism. With all due respect, some Israeli people have a habit of calling themselves victims of anti-Semitism when any Israeli person is accused of something, even if it actually happens without any anti-Semitic grounds at all. Like this case - all accusations are of criminal nature, and nationality isn't mentioned anywhere. deepdish7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The antisemitism of Klebnikov has been noted by reputable, independent third party sources quoted above. The very fact that his antisemitic bias has been discussed in three major newspapers is important in this context because Klebnikov's writings constitute the principal basis for contentious statements that make this article inconsistent with NPOV policy, inaccurate, poorly sourced and potentially libelous. I reinstated the POV tag, and will put back the passage on antisemitism that has been removed. deepdish7, please do not remove the tag before the issue is settled - it is against the rules.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • Those independent third party sources (which are not actually "major" newspapers) aren't related at all to Russia and cannot have reliable opinion on Klebnikov. I'd like to reiterate that some Israeli people start to shout 'Antisemitism!!!" every time an Israeli person is attacked, and no matter whether he's really guilty or not. Please do not execute vandalism and do not remove whole sections from the article, all of which are supported by media articles (from indeed _major_ newspapers such as Forbes Russia etc)

• • • • Moscow bureaus of Guardian and Independent, which noted Klebnikov's antisemitism, are in fact major independent sources on Russia, whereas Forbes, after being sued by Berezovsky, printed a retraction admitting that Klebnikov's allegations were groundless. What is important here, is not whether a particular user believes that Klebnikov was an antisemite, but whether reliable sources have noted antisemitic bias in his writings, which is the case.--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • Please provide links where Moscow bureaus of Guardian and Independent noted Klebnikov's "antisemitism". In any case they are not 'major' independent sources on Russia as opposing to say Vedomosti or Novie Izvestiya independent newspapers. After Berezovsky sued Forbes, in 2003 the court ruled, that Forbes remove ONLY ONE statement from the article, as it didn't have enough evidence to support the claim that Berezovsky arranged murder of famous anchorman and TV producer Vlad Listyev. The court DID NOT 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 PUBLISHED 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. Deepdish7 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • The references to Guardian and Independent, as well is to Haaretz noting Klebnikov's anti-semitism are at the top of this section. That you prefer Vedomosty and Novye Izvestyia to these two respected sources speaks for itself. Russia is the country notorious for political control over media, whereas Britain is not. Regarding Forbes, this is what was printed in the retraction: "(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". This retraction testifies for poor sourcing and potentially libelous character of your text.--Kolokol1 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I do prefer Vedomosti and Novie Izvestiya to Guardian and Independent for news on Russia. If you know Vedomosti is owned and controlled by WSJ and Financial Times, so it is indeed a reliable source. Britain is today notorious for its media using illegal ways of obtaining information and bribing policemen, so no reason for me to believe that it's better in any way than Vedomosti on view on Russia. Esp taking into account that Vedomosti has been criticizing Putin government significantly and from that one can understand that there's no state control over this newspaper. Besides, Britain and Russia have conflicting views over many things today and British press always supports any kind of opposition in Russia including criminals like Berezovsky, so biased sources like British press should not be trusted in this case. Forbes agreed to retract ONLY ONE claim related to Berezovsky arranging Listyev's (or someone else's) murder, whereas other accusations against Berezovsky remained in place. It does not testify libelous character of the text but simply the fact that Forbes didn't manage to gather enough evidence to prove this particular accusation, still other accusations were well supported and this is why the court didn't award Berezovsky victory over them. The court DID NOT order newspaper to remove the article, despite Berezovsky was asking for it in its claim. The fact that the court allowed Forbes to leave the article on the website with other accusations confirms that the court did not accept claim by Berezovsky but only agreed on it to a very small extent. And in general, article is simply peanuts comparing to the book in terms of number of accusations and evidence gathered against Berezovsky. So he simply decided not to sue Klebnikov because he had no chances to win the case in courtDeepdish7 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • From your above comment it is clear that you are on a mission to expose the criminality of Mr. Berezovsky and establish the superiority of Russia over Britain in matters of the rule of law and freedom of the press. While I do not question the sincerity of your zeal, Wikipedia is not a Kremlin propaganda outlet but an objective source of information. The allegations that you trumpet, have been objectively reviewed and rejected many times, be it the UK Government, which discounted them in the aslylum and extradition decisions, or the courts, which sided with Mr. B in three libel cases. Your campaign, in my view, is not conducted in good faith, and you resort to plain trickery, for example, when you talk about the arrest order in Brazil, but fail to mention that (a) it was issued as an extension of Russian claims, and (b) it was dropped a year later and the case was closed, and you removed my sourced comment to that effect. Or you push the story about the Dutch investigation, but somehow you fail to note that the only source of that info is Russian prosecuor's office, whereas the Dutch have never confirmed that. Not to mention the outrageous claim that Mr. B is a suspect in Litvinenko murder, while the only people who say that are in fact the murderers.--Kolokol1 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • From your actions it's quite obvious that you're getting paid by him to whiten his public image which is darkened by crime in the past (and possibly present). Wikipedia isn't Berezovsky's personal resource, neither it is controlled by British government hostile to Russia and friendly to criminals fleeing Russia including Chechen terrorists. You are not acting in good faith simply for the reason that you delete material composed by other people, instead of simply providing a link in rare cases where Berezovsky was able to win a court case (again only because it was in Britain, he's under investigation for money laundering in Switzerland and Brazil. In Brazil not in relation to his crimes in Russia at all but in relation to laundering money stolen in Russia through Brazilian football clubs.). Despite your vandalism actions all original text will be restored unless you provide your evidence in a way like normal users do here - by providing supporting links and text Deepdish7 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Libelous allegations regarding Litvinenko murder

The section on Litvinenko repeats statements in the Russian media, which were found libelous by a British court in "Berezovsky vs RTR" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm ).--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to edit the lead for BLP standard

In accord with the consensus above, I edited the lead section (which took me six hours) to address some of the criticisms, ridding it of biased, contentious and potentially libelous statements, removing non-functional and questionable sources, and adding some reliable references to mainstream Western media. Major work is needed on the body of the article to make it compliant with WP:NPOV and the policy on BLP. Not sure, if I will have time and energy. Readers beware: this remains an exceedingly opinionated and misleading text.--Kolokol1 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion - request for dispute resolution

User deepdish7 removed a version of the lead section, which I have edited for NPOV and BLP, and replaced it with an older version, restoring the text that has been much criticized as biased, poorly sourced and potentially libelous as can be seen from this talk page. Such removal is totally inappropriate. I reinstated my version, and invite members of the community to comment.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced potentially libelous statements

As per consultation with a legal expert I removed wrongful, poorly sourced and potentially libellous statements, which create an impression that the subject may have been involved in violent crime and linked to organised crime and terrorist organisations (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=442582893).

A summary of my edits follows. Each of them is properly referenced in the article.

1. Allegation that the subject may have been involved in the murder of Paul Klebnikov.

The subject has never been charged or been a suspect in the investigation in this case. The statement that Klebnikov "was afraid" of the subject, which is attributed to a third party, is a hearsay, which does not meet the BLP standard

2. Allegations that the subject may have been involved in the murder of Vladislav Listyev or was linked to mafia.

These allegations were the subject of a libel suit against Forbes Magazine in London, as the result of which Forbes made a statement in the open court and printed the following retraction: "(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". Therefore, repeating these disavowed allegations here is potentially libellous and contrary to BLP policy.

3. Allegation that the subject may have threatened Mikhail Fridman.

This allegation was the subject of a defamation suit in London, which has ruled that it was libelous. Therefore it should not be repeated here as per BLP

4. Allegations of plotting other murders.

The allegations from Alexander Lebed and Alexander Korzhakov were never followed by any investigation. Given the fact that both of them were prominent political opponents of the subject, repeating their groundless and potentially libellous statements here contradicts policy on BLP.

5.Allegations of links with terror groups, hostage trading and of funding terrorists.

These allegations, which are sourced to the smear campaign in the Russian state-controlled media, refer to the subject's official dealings with Chechens during his tenure as the Deputy head of Russia's National Security Council in the Yeltsin administration. These included hostage release negotiations, and funding of the separatist government under the provisions of the 1997 Peace Treaty, which the subject helped to negotiate. These allegations should be mentioned (I included them in the Allegations section) but not presented in a potentially slanderous form they were — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• All of those allegations are properly attributed and not represented as facts. Most of them are done at the time Berezovsky was a prominent member of the governing elite, not a dissident so the question of government-orchestrated attacks on a dissident are not particular actual there. I have restored the romavals Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• • You have reinstated poorly sourced, potentially libelous information, which I had removed. I removed the contentious text for the second time in accord with BLP policy and am reporting the issue to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boris_Berezovsky (businessman).--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • user Kolokol1 keeps executing acts of vandalism on the page. restored original page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion by Kolokol1 - request for dispute resolution

User Kolokol1 has removed several large sections of the article at his own discretion claiming they're "not supported" by proper links or are "libelous". when they're not represented as facts but only as allegations. when in fact he's using very doubtful links and opinions, such as claims by some Indian professor who can't have any idea about Berezovsky's life in Russia, etcetc deepdish7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I insist the the material in question is questionably sourced and potentially libelous - particularly in view of three successful libel suits brought about by the subject over these same issues. By reinstating the contentious material for the second time you are committing a major offence as per BLP policy. I am therefore reporting the matter to the BLP noticeboard and request intervention by the Wikipedia administration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I insist in turn that material in question is very well sourced. It doesn's assert any facts but passeds accusations, which have right to exist. By repeated vandalism you're committing a major offence as per BLP policy. I've also reported the issue to the noticeboard and hope that Wikipedia Administration in turn will prevent vandalism from being repeated on this page.Deepdish7 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of potentially libelous text by deepdish7.

User deepdish7 repeatedly reinserts potentially libelous material, which is sourced to publications discredited in three separate libel suits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442733806&oldid=442598770

The matter has been reported to BLP noticeboard. In the meantime, I have restored the version, which is balanced and corresponds to NPOV.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reinsertion of potentially libelous material has occurred three times within the period of 24 hours. User deepdish7 is threatening to keep reinserting the contentious text (see below). This is happening notwithstanding the fact that over the past few years British courts three times have ruled for Mr. Berezovsky in his libel actions over the very same allegations that are made here.--Kolokol1

Wikipedia's policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard." I have removed the potentilally libelous allegations twice and have edited the text in accordance with the stated WP policy and I have duly reported the issue. I am reluctant to continue this game of removal and reinsertion and will let the potentially libelous version of the article remain for now to give Wikipedia a chance to review and resolve this potentially precarious situation--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We have reiterated several times already that material is very well sourced thus cannot be considered libelous. We will be restoring the original version of the page should Kolokol1 continue his actions, deleting each time large portions of material on the page at his own discretion without any acceptable justification. Deepdish7 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• your material and sources have been found libelous in a court of law in three separate instances. Repeating these allegations here puts Wikipedia in a legally precarious position. These attitudes may pass in Russia, where standards of law and fairness are underdeveloped, but they have no place in a reputable Western information resource--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • In 2003 the court ruled that Forbes remove ONLY ONE statement from the article, as it didn't have enough evidence to support the claim that Berezovsky arranged murder of famous anchorman and TV producer Vlad Listyev. The court DID NOT 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 PUBLISHED 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. Deepdish7 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • This is what Forbes has said in its retraction: "(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". The retraction is an admission of wrongdoing. It testifies for poor sourcing and potentially libelous character of your text too. That Berezovsky did not sue Klebnikov, after his lies have been exposed once is his choice. He still may choose to sue others who repeat those lies. Besides Klebnikov's allegations, which were retracted by Forbes, the contested text repeats slanderous allegations of threats of violence by Friedman, and by Russian media related to Litvinenko murder. Both were found libelous in British courts--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Forbes agreed to retract ONLY ONE claim related to Berezovsky arranging Listyev's (or someone else's) murder, whereas other accusations against Berezovsky remained in place. It does not testify libelous character of the text but simply the fact that Forbes didn't manage to gather enough evidence to prove this particular accusation, still other accusations were well supported and this is why the court didn't award Berezovsky victory over them. The court DID NOT order newspaper to remove the article, despite Berezovsky was asking for it in its claim. The fact that the court allowed Forbes to leave the article on the website with other accusations confirms that the court did not accept claim by Berezovsky but only agreed on it to a very small extent. And in general, article is simply peanuts comparing to the book in terms of number of accusations and evidence gathered against Berezovsky. So he simply decided not to sue Klebnikov because he had no chances to win the case in courtDeepdish7 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by user Kolokol1.

User Kolokol1 repeatedly deletes well sourced (with links to widely recognized newspapers such as Forbes magazine) material, and even whole sections of the page. Comes up with absurd and unfounded accusations of antisemitism to former Forbes Russia general editor. Will keep restoring the original version which corresponds to NPOV. reported issue to BLP noticeboard Deepdish7 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Neutrality tag

User deepdish7 keeps removing neutrality tag in clear violation of BLP policy, in view of this discussion--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have requested a review of this dispute in a letter to the Arbitration Committee mailed today. Pending their decision, I will let the potentially libelous material remain. However I will keep reinstating the neutrality tag, which is being repeatedly removed by the perpetrators.--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• We do not mind the neutrality tag to remain on top of the article, but will remove it after Arbitration Committee rejects your claim. We will also continue removing any traces of your vandalism over this articleDeepdish7 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the request for a Third Opinion made in regard to this matter since a claim has been filed with ArbCom and since Third Opinion is not authorized to give the requested relief. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruptive actions by deepdish7: reverts constructive edits

I note that user Off2riorob made another constructive attempt to edit the lead in accord with NPOV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442893832&oldid=442893526

However, even this good faith attempt was undermined by deepdish7, who reinserted his contentious version of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• As user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Off2riorob admitted himself on his page, he has been continuously breaching Wikipedia rules and ignores local standards of good behavior. He joined Kolokol1 in vandalism on this page. All attempts to erase original material from the page will be revertedDeepdish7 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow

I haven't looked at this article for years, but as of now it is really outrageous.

From the lead: He has also been accused by Russian authorities of being involved in the murders of several leading critics of the Putin's regime, including Litvinenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya, in an attempt to destabilize the country and discredit Putin. In response, Berezovsky – amongst others – has attributed the killings to the Putin regime as a means of political intimidation.

In response???? Not at all. It was not in response. It was quite the other way 'round. Particularly striking is the section "Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair", where only fringe views are presented, while the mainstream view, held, among others, by Scotland Yard, is not even mentioned.

• So if you want to mention the opposite view then the proper way is to post it in the same section, instead of deleting whole sections of the page and contributions of another user without any justification. To many people it isn't at all obvious who's behind Litvinenko's murder, and there's no such thing as 'mainstream' view hereDeepdish7 (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I second the request to submit the incredibly disruptive behavior of the SPA Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) to the attention of Arbcom, unless we finally get some admin with guts who is able to sort this out straight away. Colchicum (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. I have already referred this to ArbCom. Once the disruptive actions and bullying by user Deepdish7 - hopefully - cease, I undertake to edit the piece in accord with NPOV and BLP--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Third parties comment.

The conflict in this page has wide dimensions: from Wikipedia standards of fairness, anti-semitic bias and legal limits to badmouthing a living person, to the West's view of todays Russia, the mystery of Litvinaneko murder, and British foreign policy. Balanced comment from the community is sought--Kolokol1 (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide specific diffs demonstrating these issues? Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• On our side, the complain is vandalism performed by user Kolokol1, as well as claiming issues of 'antisemitism' (when actually there're no any at all here. all critics of Berezovsky wasn't based on nationality at all. In none of the links supporting evidence against him his nationality is mentioned). All user Kolokol1 is trying to do is to cover a criminal, remove all tracks of accusations against him in all countries where they exist, and his impaired reputation impaired by criminal cases and accusations. British foreign policy as well as West view's of Russia aren't an issue here, as majority of links supporting evidence and accusations against Berezovsky are sourced from Western press

In brief, what are the issues?

• What are the issues? I have received a random request for comment. Please summarize the main concerns re: this article. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I second this. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Outrageous vandalism by user Kolokol1. In some of his edits, like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442598770&oldid=442582893 he cut whole sections in the article shorting it around 3 times without any justification. This user should be prevented from destroying the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an issue: Is it fair to rebroadcast a lie - with a disclaimer?

The subject of this bio has won three consecutive libel suits over allegations of various misdeeds. The disputed sections repeat these allegations in minute detail, with a technical disclaimer that they have been actually rejected and/or retracted. Technically, everything is properly sourced, but is it fair? And is it legally sound from the standpoint of filtering potentially libel off these pages? To paraphrase the question, is it acceptable to print something false with a disclaimer that the source has been discredited?

In one case, Forbes had to print a retraction of Klebnikov's writings]], saying, ""(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". Yet, this is exactly how the article portrays the subject - as a Mafia member and a murderer - with a note, that the source admitted in a court that there was no evidence for this.

In another case, the article asserts that Mr. Berezovsky has engineered the murder of Alexander Litvinenko citing Russian media without even mentioning that UK is pressing for the extradition of someone else, Andrey Lugovoy for this murder. They fail to mention that Berezovsky has won a libel suit against Russian TV over this issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm ).--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC). Instead they quote the chief of Russia's secret police, the FSB - and call it a reliable source!

Wikipedia policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." Is this the case here? Comment from legal experts would be particularly welcome.--Kolokol1 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an issue: anti-semitic bias

With regard to the author of lies, which have been retracted by Forbes, Mr. Klebnikov, there is a well established record of accusations of him being anti-semitic, specifically related to his writings on Mr. Berezovsky (see references to Guardian, The Independent and Haaretz in the relevant section above). When rebroadcasting his lies, one should at least have the decency of mentioning this potential bias of the source.--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an issue: is Russian press more free that British?

The most controversial statements in the contested material are sourced to Russian publications. When this was pointed out to the authors with a suggestion to use international press instead, they responded that their sources are preferable to the Moscow bureaus of British newspapers because "Britain and Russia have conflicting views over many things today and British press always supports any kind of opposition in Russia including criminals like Berezovsky, so biased sources like British press should not be trusted". Russia's record in free speech is well known. Extending this logic, one could say that the Syrian, Iranian and Byelorussian press is the best source of objective information about their countries. I do not believe that Wikipedia should become Kremlin's propaganda outlet--Kolokol1 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an Issue: Style is the Substance

The article is written in offensive, demeaning, vulgar, sensationalist and primitive style more appropriate for a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Here are some examples:

• "his fearsome allies"
• "This court was populated with strange figures"
• "the most egregious of all the great ripoffs"
• "furtherance of his political intrigues*
• "the pickings were easy"
• "consumed by greed"
• "notorious Russian anchorman"
• "It may well be true"

This supposedly academic article is filled with irrelevant detail, aimed at building up the suspense of a cheap thriller, e. g. the following gruesome passage ostensibly supporting a totally groundless assertion that Berezovsky had something to do with the murder :

"On July 9, 2004, Klebnikov was attacked on a Moscow street late at night by unknown assailants who fired at least nine shots from a slowly moving car. Klebnikov was shot four times and initially survived, but he bled to death in the hospital because the ambulance took almost an hour to come, it had no oxygen bottle, and the hospital elevator that was taking him to the operating room broke.[24] Before he died, Klebnikov described that there were 3 assasins in the car, and that he never met any of them before". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted excess info

This was a stand-alone sentence in the "convictions, warrents" section:

"Prosecutors in Russia have accused Berezovsky of a host of crimes, including fraud, embezzlement and preparing a violent overthrow of Putin's government. Berezovsky denies all the allegations."

The subsection was also entitled "Warrents in Russia and Brazil". This hardly seems necessary, since there's already a section detailing the Russian convictions in detail just a few lines up - why say it again here? The Brazil stuff is good, though, and is not repetitive, so I just changed the title to say "Brazil" only, and deleted the extraneous sentence about Russia. Anyone got a problem with that?98.169.119.102 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oligarchy?

What of this "oligarchy?" Who is in it besides Berezovsky and Alexander Litvinenko? When were they exiled? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the question, "(Please clarify - what is a rally standpoint shootoff?)" is a valid one, though it must be posted in the talk page instead of in the article itself.Iskabobbins 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko was not an oligarch! The term "Oligarchs" in Russia is used in reference to the few people who gained control of the majority of the national wealth after privatization in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soveit Union. Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky are prime examples. Litvinenko is nothing even close to that. He wasn't even moderately wealthy - he lived on Berezovsky's handouts.

NPOV & sources

The tone of this article appears to contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, & I have added templates to that effect. There are whole sentences like "Berezovsky's image among Russians is generally poor; many consider him the most unlawful and unethical of the oligarchs and blame him especially for the country's economic collapse", which require references and neutral rephrasing. There are many further minor examples.

I have made a few small changes to the article to move it towards NPOV but lots more needs to be done. I don't want to edit out all the information here, because I believe some of it might be useful with a proper encyclopedic style edit and some decent citations behind it. -- TinaSparkle 23:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From my own anecdotal evidence, that paragraph which you quoted is quite true. I'm not sure how it is POV to mention the general opinion among Russian citizens about him. I do agree that some acceptable source needs to be found for it, though. Esn 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainly, it's not POV if it's sourced or attributed. But I would probably have doubts about statements like "the most unlawful and unethical of the oligarchs" even if it is sourced. How is such a thing to be measured? Are there open, reliable opinion polls of the Russian people in which it is asked "Which oligarch do you consider to be the most unethical?" Surely it's a case of weasel words. Russia contains something like 150 million people and I doubt that any generalisation of their opinions would be useful or indeed possible. If there is reasonable evidence that Berezovsky is unethical, or specific allegations from a reliable source, let's have that rather than hearsay. -- TinaSparkle 13:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the unsourced POV material, if any sourcing can be found it should be restored -- J.L. 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

According to The Wall Street Journal, an opinion poll found that only 0.2 percent of Russians trust Boris. Unfortunately, WSJ archives are closed up unless you give them $ though. Aside from that, I haven't found any polls more recent than 2002 and in that poll it didn't show that many of those polled really disliked Boris. So, unless someone can get at that poll the WSJ is talking about, I think we are still without sources for now. If someone can find the time to dig further I think it would benefit the article greatly to get a better idea of what the general Russian populace really thinks of Boris. I'm getting conflicting results from my limited research so far. Cowicide 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You can still add the WSJ poll as a source if you know all the relevant information on how to find it. Wikipedia accepts payolla sources; the only condition is that they must exist somewhere. Lest we forget, there are still such things as libraries in the world. A source doesn't have to be accessible online. Also, if you can find a reliable article that talks about the poll, you don't necessarily have to link to the actual poll. Esn 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is widely known that Berezovsky doesn't have a 'generally poor' image amongst the Russians, but it is an 'abysmal' image. Anyone looking for sources to back up such statements and for inclusive in wikipedia might want to start at http://www.fom.ru/ --Russavia 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still problems here; there is a whole unsourced section about a living man that essentially brands him as a crook and a liar. That may be true, but since the Litvinenko poisoning, and recent assasination attempt, I vote for removing unsourced material and placing an edit lock on this article. This could be a first for wikipedia, insofar as there is a distinct possibility of it being used as a basic propaganda tool in a heated diplomatic exchange amid a spate of international assasination attempts. Real cloak and dagger stuff -- but wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. (anonymous norwegian, 13:21, 18 July 2007 CET)

The problems in the "Business and Political Life in Russia" section persist, and I'm almost in favor of just scratching those first two paragraphs, as there's but one source between them, and they make some controversial, clearly pointed claims about Boris, including two unsourced "allegedly"'s. The bit about his activity in Yeltsin's re-election campaign also should be cited, though this is well-documented, I'll try and dig up an appropriate reference, but the other allegations need some backing, or they'll be deleted forthwith. 98.169.119.102 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the statement "According to some sources, Berezovsky was also initially involved in car smuggling rackets." The reference here is a reader comment on Amazon to a film, which is a work of fiction - a totally inappropriate source.

Platon is Russian for Plato

Platon is Russian for Plato and it is also Greek for Plato. I think in the context here (a Russian changing his name) that it is more relevent to note that Platon is a Russian word.

Unsourced accusation of murder in BLP

Alex, could you please copy here a segment of text from cited article that accuses Berezovsky of organizing murder of Khlebnikov?

I found only the following:

"Soon after Vladimir Putin stepped into the presidency, Klebnikov and I met in New York. I told him he needed to watch his back with so much change afoot. He shrugged and said he was uniquely positioned to get to the heart of corruption in Russia. "Who else is going to do it?" he asked. I had no answer.

When Forbes announced Klebnikov would lead its new Russian publication and relocate to Moscow, I immediately feared for his safety. A few months later he was dead. I think about him, sprawled bleeding on the sidewalk, coughing his final words to a reporter colleague who found him dying.

Russia hasn't changed in the past decade and at this trajectory it won't be truly civilized for generations. Those who killed Klebnikov are killing today, plan to kill tomorrow, and know they'll roam free to kill for years to come. Hellbent on getting rich, they have no boundaries. Raised in a communist world devoid of morals, they have no soul."

There are no any accusations of Berezovsky here.Biophys 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May be you mean the following segment in the Introductory part:

"Had I run across billionaire Boris Berezovsky in my work with the Yeltsin administration? I hadn't. Klebnikov had recently been scratching the surface of Berezovsky's brazen get-rich-quick schemes. He was convinced there was much more to the oligarch. He was in town to investigate him as well as to cover the elections.

Berezovsky was one of several super-wealthy men who had back doors to Yeltsin's Kremlin. His popularity waxed and waned, but as he amassed wealth he gained unparalleled power. Experienced expatriates in Russia shared an essential rule: Don't cross these brutal billionaires, ever, or you're likely to go home in a box."

Here, author only tells that Russian oligarchs are dangerous. His conclusion is summarized in the end of the article: "Those who killed Klebnikov are killing today, plan to kill tomorrow, and know they'll roam free to kill for years to come. Hellbent on getting rich, they have no boundaries. Raised in a communist world devoid of morals, they have no soul." Right. Please see the List of Russian billionaires and Political groups during Vladimir Putin's presidency.Biophys 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

comment

“ He is one of the principal financial resources for civic groups and anti-Putin opposition through his International Foundation for Civil Liberties. ”

This passage isn't quite true imho. I don't know of mainstream opposition (democratic or not) parties that are supported by him. Moreover Kasparov and Kasyanov explicitly denied receiving such support [1]. Alæxis_¿question? 05:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He's widely believed to have heavily funded the opposition party in Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, and personally has declined comment on the issue. There are clear financial records of his transferring money to companies that then sponsored the party, however. It's going to be tough to prove, as foreigners cannot contribute to any campaign under Ukrainian law - hence anyone doing so would, of necessity, be thoroughly discreet about it. This doesn't change the fact that there's a general consensus that he did support the revolution through use of IFCL, though. Furthermore, he HAS been very vocal in his public opposition to Putin, so it should come as no surprise that he's involved in this sort of thing.98.169.119.102 (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dagestan war

“ Berezovsky asserted that he refused the offer, but "Udugov and Basayev 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" . A transcript of the phone conversation between Berezovsky and Udugov was leaked to one of Moscow tabloids on September 10 1999. ”

What is this supposed to mean? If Basayev-Stepashin conspiracy is something that Berezovsky 'asserted' then it should be written more clearly. If Berezovsky only asserted he refused the offer then all the following is irrelevant to this article imho. Alæxis_¿question? 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This direct citation is taken from the book by Goldfarb. This is not a direct citation of Berezovsky words. That is what Berezovsky said to Goldfarb. He said two things: (1) that he refused the offer (it could be described in more detail why and what exactly was the offer), and (2) about the conspiracy. He also said a lot of other things of course.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, I've missed the citation marks somehow... Alæxis_¿question? 16:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Converts from Judaism to Christianity"

What evidence is there that he was ever a practicing Jew? He was most likely a secular person as was dictated by the Soviet government. Unless you can prove Mr Berezovsky wore a kippah and went to shul prior to becoming Russian Orthodox, I'm removing him from this category. CommanderJamesBond (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is OR and should be removed.Biophys (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, I'm removing him from the "Israeli Jews" category because by Israeli Law he is not a Jew (because his mother's mother is not a Jew and because he converted to Christianity, he would not have "Jew" printed on his identity card or be counted as a Jew in the census). CommanderJamesBond (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands money laundering investigation

Now this is a bit awkward. It is true that the Dutch financial police sent people to Russia to investigate what the Russians had on Berezovsky. However, as soon as the news was published in the Russian media, the Dutch government immediately claimed that Berezovsky was NOT being prosecuted or even a suspect in the Netherlands.

Again however, things are not as not as simple as that: the Dutch financial police are indeed investigating some major handling (="heling") or money laundering (="witwassen") scheme, and Berezovski is indeed mentioned in the dossier. (It took me a hell of a time to find that out, but here is a respectable source in Dutch: [2]). Basically, that coupled with the "démarche" to Russia (one may think that the Dutch would normally find Berezovsky too hot a potato to handle) means that the Dutch DA (="Openbaar Ministerie") is not expecting to prosecute Berezovsky and the belief by some Russian media (one of which we quote here) that Berezovsky may also be put on trial (trail is a rather funny msiprint...) in the Netherlands, is probably (=almost surely) wishful thinking.

The problem with our article as it stands now, is that if we just change that, everybody having read the whole article, may think the Dutch must be doing it to help out Brazil. But that is not necessarily the case: e.g. Berezovsky seems still being investigated by the Swiss Bundesanwaltschaft: [3] and [4] (German wikipedia's Berezovsky article is also claiming the Swiss investigation continues!) In view of this, I think it may be preferable to combine the Brazilian accusation and this Dutch "angle" with the Swiss accusation into one new major heading (replacing the Brazilian and Dutch headings) on "International money laundering charges". The Weltwoche article also mentions Swiss financier Hans-Peter Jenni and Nikolai Glushkov. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. As a last edit, I added "involving Berezovsky" to the sentence about the Moscow Prosecutor. Without it, it looked like the Russian and Dutch journalists had been working together to embarass the Dutch prosecuting officials (I wanted to put that in my edit summary, but somehow it ended up being uploaded in an imperfect way, a version I was still editing to save text to say more). But that is not what happened: the Russian journalists heard something factual from the Moscow DA about Berezovsky, and embellished it to imply that he was also being investigated in the Netherlands (here I interpret "on trail" as "under investigation", "being prosecuted" or searched, like game or escaped prisoners being "trailed", and not as a misprint for "on trial" - but if Russian editors have arguments otherwise, no problem). The Dutch DA soon intervened to deny everything the Russian media had claimed, but Dutch newspapers soon found out that he/she had been denying too much: the name is mentioned in the dossier and the investigating team had gone to Moscow to find out what the Berezovsky case in Russia was about. (to know how much money was involved? to understand how the Russians think the moneylaundering was done?)

The Dutch Prosecutors denied to comment in order not to hinder the investigation at hand. Are they after inhabitants of the Netherlands who performed financial transactions in that country on behalf of the Jenni firms? =OR, of course. Further OR: if Berezovsky has no account in the Netherlands, as he claims, the Dutch FIOD is not going to prosecute him, the Russian media at least got that wrong. I do not know what Brazilian law says about it, but the problem for prosecutors in an international case like this is obviously "non bis in idem". Even Russia has a law on it: [5] Why should the Dutch go after someone already targeted by three other countries? ---Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and Berezovsky

It's not my work but I don't like this version as well. Could you please explain why WP:BLP doesn't allow us to say about his political affiliation with Litvinenko & Co. and about the charges against him (considering that everything that was/is written there is sourced well)? Alæxis_¿question? 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Litvinenko & Co" is not a political affiliation like "Communist Party". We need a balanced introduction per WP:BLP. The selective representation of only negative information in introduction of BLP is not acceptable. We can not simply tell about charges, without explaining another side of the story (all of that is highly controversial). So, I left only facts that are not "charged". If you can produce a more balanced version of the introduction, please do.Biophys (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, imho this version is also not ideal. One gets the impression that he fled to UK because he had gone into opposition. It should also be written that he's accused of various crimes here in Russia (and elsewhere). This is just a fact - we don't say whether these accusations are well-founded or not.

On a second thought mentioning Litvinenko and others isn't absolutely necessary in the intro. What needs to be mentioned is his after-emigration political activity. We should think about how to formulate this. Alæxis_¿question? 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous and not at all a valid argument. There is no other side of the story, it's factual information that he has arrest warrants out, and that he's under investigation. You can add "He denies all claims" if you like. (never mind I just did it for you)Krawndawg (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply telling "he denies this" is not good enough. So far I avoided editing the article, because this person is very controversial, to tell this politely.Biophys (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not good enough? Are there any other facts we're missing? Krawndawg (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course a lot of facts are missing - about his political activities, business, etc. There is an arbitrary selection of negative facts in the introduction right now. Hence this is against BLP policy.Biophys (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. It may be your POV that these are "negative" facts, but they are indeed facts, and thus there is no legit reason to remove them from the intro. Krawndawg (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two ways to fix the problem. Either we should fairly represent all "positive" and "negative" facts in introduction, or remove any "charged" facts which paint him as a criminal.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What positive facts are not mentioned there, in your opinion? Alæxis_¿question? 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What positive? He was allegedly a man who brought Vladimir Putin to power.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So this is a positive fact, yeah :) I have nothing against mentioning these allegations in the lead actually. Alæxis_¿question? 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this either. Anything factual and important should be added to the intro. Remember, add, don't delete, in order to achieve a NPOV. Krawndawg (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to support the apparent majority here. WP:BLP is a very serious matter, but the allegations are also very serious and well documented. Quite often - with non-public figures - it might be possible to wait until a conviction in court is reached before publishing this type of fact here - but BB is a very public figure (by his own choice) and is avoiding court proceeding by having left the country. Even in those cases, we could let documentary sources (e.g. "The Godfather of the Kremlin" BOOK) state their case.

Of course put in his own denials and all the "positive facts" but if they are not there... It is not the majority of editors who are at fault here. Let's try to read the facts in a Neutral POV, rather than report a POV that makes BB look neutral. Make sense? Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I have absolutely no problems with negative information in introduction. But then I will include more information there as time allows.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The final subsection on the alleged connections with the 2 assasinations looked unbalanced to me. there are lots of other people who have been accused, and Berezhovsky isn't the main suspect as far as I can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong. Smallbones (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If it looks unbalanced then add material (about Berezovsky) that will balance it. Don't remove well sourced material. The allegations are quite notable and relevant, there's no reason why they should be excluded from his article. Krawndawg (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not like Berezovsky, last edits by Krawndawg (some of them deleted by Smallbones) seem to be bad. Russian state-controlled media can hardly be regarded as reliable sources about Berezovsky. Just imagine that someone would write an article about "vrazina" (enemy of the people) Lev Trotsky using materials of Moscow show trails of 1930s. The "archenemy" Berezovsky is now described in Russian media almost as Trotsky in 1930s, or perhaps as Emmanuel Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four). Biophys (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Russian state-controlled media can hardly be regarded as reliable sources about Berezovsky." - Says who? Are you saying that their point of view should not be told? I suggest you read WP:NPOV. If you think the sources are unreliable bring it up here. I also added many western sources that completely backed up what the Russian ones said in my latest edits.

Berezovsky is equally put in bad light in western media. Perhaps you just need to come to terms that he's not a very nice guy. Our job here isn't to make a bad man look good or neutral, it's to present every relevant point of view and let the sources collectively tell the whole story, something I've done by using both Western and Russian sources. Again, if you have anything to add regarding Berezovsky, that perhaps equals out all the negative, please add it! Krawndawg (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? You painted him as "vrazina" Emmanuel Goldstein from Nineteen Eighty-Four. Fine. I am not an administrator to enforce WP:BLP policy.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What?? You're drawing connections between 1984 and current day Russia? That's funny, but also rather concerning - your personal views on reality (which in my opinion are quite out of touch) should not in any way influence what goes into or stays out of wikipedia. (That's a horrid comparison too. Goldstein really could have been a fabrication, whereas, as far as I know, Berezovsky is a real person who really does speak for himself and make his own accusations. He has admitted himself that he's out to get Putin, that's no state fabricated lie.)

Again, if you think the sources are unreliable I urge you to bring it up in above mentioned notice board. I'm not here to spread false information. I'm sure that the allegations are very real, and everything in that section is 100% factual. I wouldn't have inserted the information if I thought otherwise. Krawndawg (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what's the problem with (Russian) sources here. I agree that they have to be treated with caution. However state-controlled media are used as sources only two times in the article and each time to reference what some Russian official said. Imho it is absolutely normal to use them this way. Alæxis_¿question? 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, one could easily find sources in Western press in 1930s that Trotsky was a spy and plotted to kill all Soviet leaders. That is why I am talking about Emmanuel Goldstein from Nineteen Eighty-Four (Trotsky was his prototype).Biophys (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Again I don't understand what you want to say. Should we not mention that he's accused of killing Politkovskaya at all? If we should not - why? if we should - what kind of references should be used and what else should we write in that section? Alæxis_¿question? 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd suggest that everybody take a time out. The Politovskaya section does look unbalanced to me. Berezhovsky isn't the only person accused. WP:BLP does require some balance. We don't just want to report the FSB viewpoint. Smallbones (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually he is the only person officially accused so far (along with the people connected to him, who are mentioned.) I added that other third parties accused the Russian government of ordering the hit, but Biophy removed it, which I don't completely disagree with since that's not relevant to Berezovsky at all. Krawndawg (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

So is anyone going to actually make any suggestions or attempt to make it neutral? What information is missing, who's point of view are we not including? Krawndawg (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I made a few very minor changes to improve NPOV a little, but you reverted me twice. After that you ask: why neutrality tag? Biophys (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert you. I changed a couple NPOV details which I noted in the comment. The majority of your changes stayed, yet you promptly reverted my changes with no explanation; hence why I reverted back.

Now to explain that original edit of mine:[6]

• "Rabid critic of Putin" - Redundant. We know he's a critic of Putin, it is mentioned and implied already.
• "and others" - Russian authorities aren't the only ones who have made the accusation. This seems like a "scapegoat" POV push which you admitted to supporting.
• "Several attempts to assassinate him, allegedly by Russian agents, have failed." - This is a fabricated lie to, again, push your POV that he's a scapegoat. Only one assassination attempt was "allegedly" going to be done by Russian secret services, and even that one was officially dismissed as frivolous meaning it is no longer alleged. Berezovsky himself is the only one making this claim, hence why I changed it to say just that.
• "Swiss investigation" - Why delete this? Because it takes away from your POV that he's only picked on by the Russian government? This is notable, factual and important therefore it stays.

In all, you inserted a whole lotta unsupported original research, so I cleaned it up so to support the citations given in the rest of the article. Krawndawg (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Krawndag, who else accused him of murdering critics of "Putin's regime"? Alæxis_¿question? 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post[7]: "Kremlin supporters saw it as a conspiracy to smear Russia's reputation by engineering a spectacular murder." ... "Some people in Moscow see Berezovsky's involvement as another campaign to ruin Putin's reputation internationally." Krawndawg (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This [8] article says: "According to The Daily Mail, the British investigators, bringing the case on suspicion in deliberate poisoning of Litvinenko, are going to interrogate Boris Berezovsky who has reportedly bought a house in London for the former FSB officer." - meaning he was a suspect for the British authorities as well. Krawndawg (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with you here. Regarding your first source 'Kremlin supporters' != 'others'. We'd have to write 'by Russian authorities and Kremlin supporters' but that would sound strange imho. So I think we should leave only 'Russian authorities'.

You don't have to be a suspect to be interrogated - you can be just a witness. So we can't say that 'he was a suspect for the British authorities as well'. Alæxis_¿question? 07:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll concede that point, you're right; assuming we think of media as a type of "Russian authority". Krawndawg (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the tag since no one has made any suggestions in many days. If you want to put it back up, specify the problem. Krawndawg (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky started in business in 1989 under perestroika by buying and reselling automobiles from state manufacturer AutoVAZ. Officially, Berezovsky was called upon as an expert in development of optimized system of management of the enterprise. In 1992, a new middleman company, LogoVAZ, was created with Berezovsky as its president. LogoVAZ became an exclusive consignment dealer of AutoVAZ, enabling a scheme (named ReExport) in which cars were sold abroad and then bought back for sale on the internal market. Frequently, however, cars were not exported at all and the operations on export and import remained only on paper. In another shady business, May 1994, Berezovsky became head of the notorious Automobile All-Russia alliance "АVVА" ("АВВА" in Russian Cyrillic) and became known as the initiator of "the national car" project. This enterprise turned out to be merely a financial pyramid scheme, as shares of a nonexistent factory which has never been constructed were sold to the investors.

Neutrality tag part deux

OK. How about any sources? A counter opinion - including by Berezovsky himself? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Did an article on Movladi Atlangeriyev

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fled to avoid arrest"

This is OR and POV. He was not officially charged at the time of his departure from Russia. If you think he was charged at this time, please provide some sources.Biophys (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC) He was granted the political assylum only much later, allegedly because a Russian agent tried to kill him in London.Biophys (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This source says: "Boris Berezovsky was one of the Russian oligarchs who acquired massive wealth by taking control of state assets after the fall of communism. When Mr Berezovsky, who controlled several banks and TV stations, was accused in Russia of defrauding a regional government of US$13m, he fled and moved to London, where he now lives under the name Platon Elenin." Krawndawg (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky was indicted for the first time in October 2001 (in the well-known Aeroflot affair rather than some mysterious defrauding of a mysterious regional government), almost a year after he fled Russia. Before that he was considered a witness only. There is no need to rely on hearsays reposted by the BBC without attribution. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the BBC is not to blame for that. Keep in mind that "accused" is a very vague term. You'd better find something with "charged" or "indicted". Colchicum (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I checked this using a more detailed and reliable source, book Death of a dissident, pages 232-233. It tells that Berezovsky was summoned as a witness in the beginning of November 2000, in the Aeroflot case (simultaneously with "Goose, who was accuzed of defrauding Gazprom of $300 million via a loan to NTV"). Berzovsky was in Nice and decided not to return to Russia, on the insistence of Goldfarb. The BBC article is obviously mistaken, as often happens in news reports. This BBC article is very short and does not explain anything about this mysterious defrauding of a mysterious regional government. Apparently, there was no such. He was apparently accused by Putin and C. of defrauding the Aeroflot (see Nikolai Glushkov) and only when he was already abroad.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you would think that book is a more reliable source. It was written by a friend of Berezovsky, one of the "London Circle" folk. Hardly neutral and certainly not more reliable than BBC, one of the most reliable media sources there is.Krawndawg (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then would you or the BBC be so kind to point out which regional government Berezovsky has allegedly defrauded and when he was charged? It shouldn't be difficult. Colchicum (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another BLP problem is the Alleged links to assassinations of Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya section. This needs to be shortened at least, but I am afraid of edit warriers... Biophys (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Politkovskaya section should be shortened per WP:UNDUE. The Litvinenko section is already pretty short and to the point. Krawndawg (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged funding of terrorists

I was browsing around Biophy and Pieter's favorite propaganda outlet Jamestown, and I came across this article. I don't have the time or will to get involved in editing right now, but these are some serious allegations by former rebel leaders/warlords that someone may want to know about and include in the article. "Baraev said he hoped Zakaev would break his ties with “the extremists’ breadwinner,” Boris Berezovsky.

Separately, Interfax on February 19 quoted another former rebel leader who switched sides, Magomed Khambiev, as accusing Berezovsky of financing Udugov and the late rebel warlord Shamil Basaev and of broadcasting “Wahabbi ideas.” Khambiev, who was defense minister in the separatist Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (ChRI) government under Aslan Maskhadov, charged that Berezovsky had financed “illegal armed unit” leaders “under the guise of paying ransoms for hostages” as well as the Kavkaz television channel, which he called a “Wahhabi mouthpiece.”

“Not only did Berezovsky provide the money for buying state-of-the-art equipment, but he also financed the TV channel’s work while "being perfectly aware that the channel propagated Wahhabism round-the-clock," Interfax quoted Khambiev as saying.

Khambiev also alleged that Berezovsky has “personally” handed Basaev $1 million upon arriving in Ingushetia after the first Chechen military campaign. “It greatly surprised and outraged me,” Interfax quoted Khambiev as saying. “I was surprised that someone representing a country hostile to Ichkeria and being a deputy head of its [Russia’s] Security Council should give money to Basaev. I asked Basaev why Berezovsky had given the money and why Basaev accepted it. He answered that Berezovsky was afraid of him and therefore paid the money," Khambiev said. He claimed that it later turned out that Berezovsky had given Basaev not $1 million, but $2 million while in Ingushetia." LokiiT (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Major POV issues

this page reads like it's come straight out of the kremlin!

i've lost count of the uses of 'allegations', 'alleged', 'supposed', 'controversy', 'according to (insert russian government official), etc...

terrorism, extortion, crime, political interference, even planning a civil war seem to appear as 'allegations' on this page - and with little or no direct response. for example, 3 paragraphs of various people denouncing him over the Politkovskaya and Litvinenko affairs and only a single line quote in response!

i'm sure there are plenty of 'allegations' against him, but as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV this needs a serious rewrite for neutrality Jw2035 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The objective of the NPOV policy is to encourage us to present the article by weighing all relevant viewpoints proportionately (not equally). The objective is not to make Berezovsky seem neutral. Feel free to add relevant, sourced information, but using NPOV as an excuse to remove reliably sourced content is against NPOV policy. Your opinion on whether or not someone (like Kadyrov) is a "reliable source" is irrelevant, as his allegations are not presented as fact, but as allegations, and they most certainly are notable. LokiiT (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is hardly neutral. How about removing "Death of Anna Politkovskaya" section? The accusations are so ridiculous and hardly notable in this article. We have a separate article, specifically about her assassination.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this for now. Is anyone who strongly feels this should be included back? Biophys (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporting terrorism accusations

I do not really object this edit. But you should know that such accusations actually came from Akhmed Zakayev. Zakayev blamed Berezovsky during the period between two Chechen wars as an official representative of Russian government at this time. He said the Russian government supported (through Berezovsky) a number of international terrorists in Chechnya (old KGB cadres from the Middle East according to him) in order to undermine Chechen government. I do not know if this is true, but that was something he claimed and can be easily sourced.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

cannot believe wiki allowed this article

As a completely unbiased observer, this article reads like RUSSIAN 101 on how to write a smear/discredit campaign. I cannot believe that Wiki allows this type of biased article. I am incredibly disappointed. I am also surprised Wiki isn't handling a libel suit on this one. This article reads like a slanderous piece of writing coming straight from the mouth of the FSB. The Litvinenko section ALONE was enough to make me curious how the very basics were excluded in the "involvement" of Berezovsky- in fact, it was widely reported that Litvinenko and Berezovsky were friends. The article seems to concentrate on quite a bit of hearsay and "excluding important facts" to bring readers to false conclusions. Once again, incredibly surprised and disappointed. If I had not done extensive research on this subject matter, I may have been biased against Berezovsky without the basic relevant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deviantdizzy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is "Russian 101"? Nonetheless, I think this article does a good job at representing all the notable aspects of Berezovsky and his affairs, and is in line with mainstream documented views. What would you like added to the article? (please supply reliable sources). As far as libel goes, there is nothing libelous in this article. Everything potentially contentious is properly sourced. LokiiT (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article has a serious debt of neutral and unbias statements. Claims are made as if they where dogmatic truths, specifically in the the section "Business Career in Russia". In over 100, only 8 references are made and, almost all of them refer to the same source. Boris Berezovsky is refered to as "Berezovsky" and Vladimir Putin as "Mr. Putin". This seems very bias. Also, there are several accusations a subjective data that I don't think belong in an information source such as Wikipedia, which aims to provide only proven facts and not opinions or engage in any backstage political games. I think this article should be seriously revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.144.139 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

-if you go to forbes website and type "berezovsky" and search you'll get a damn lot of articles which can be used as a source if necessary. they were just summed up in Paul Klebnikov book which is used as a source for part of "Business Career in Russia" section. Putin was only once referred as "Mr Putin", removed that. Again, all acusations are not on subjective data but come from official sources (including the book where everything is sourced). Unfortunately the book is only available for free in Russian language. But if you could buy it and read in English you'd see that everything in the book is referenced, and you'd just get a better understanding of how Berezovsky earned his millions. deepdish7 (talk) 28 May 2010

Anti-semitic Bias

The principal source used for many contentious statements in this article is the procuratorial book by Paul Klebnikov, the murdered Russian-American journalist and his articles in Forbes Magazine. Klebnikov's writings have been described as anti-semitically biased by independent observers in the mainstream media, such as the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jul/16/guardianobituaries.pressandpublishing) and The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/paul-klebnikov-550099.html). Here is, for example, a quote from a review in Haaretz: "Although Klebnikov assiduously avoids the word "Jew," an aroma of old, almost religious, anti-Semitism emerges from each page in the book" (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ogling-the-moguls-1.144261).

Unless Klebnikov's allegations can be independently verified they should be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the alleged personal features of Mr. Khlebnikov being them e.g. an irrational fear of Jews (anti-Semitism), fear of open spaces (agarophobia), substance abuse, etc. belong to his own article not to the article on the subjects. Khlebnikov wrote most of his articles for Forbes, quite a reputable publication with a good fact-checking facilities. At the time of publications Berezovsky was known as a litigious with almost unlimited financial resources and a good rapport with all siloviki organs of Russian Federation. We can safely assume that every Khlebnikov's work published by Forbes was triply fact checked by their fact checkers. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • In fact Berezovsky has sued Forbes for libel, and obtained a retraction. Repeating these libelous claims here contradicts NPOV and BLP policy Kolokol1 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The claim that Klebnikov is an anti-Semitist doesn't make any sense to me either. In none of his articles or books he points attention to (or even mentions, I think) the nationality of Berezovsky. Actually Klebnikov published a book "Conversation with a barbarian" in 2004, where he interviewed Chechen terrorist leader Khozh-Ahmed Noukhayev and provided his own opinion and discourse about nationalities afterwards, which was to a large extent anti-Islamic but there was not even a sign of anti-Semitism. With all due respect, some Israeli people have a habit of calling themselves victims of anti-Semitism when any Israeli person is accused of something, even if it actually happens without any anti-Semitic grounds at all. Like this case - all accusations are of criminal nature, and nationality isn't mentioned anywhere. deepdish7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The antisemitism of Klebnikov has been noted by reputable, independent third party sources quoted above. The very fact that his antisemitic bias has been discussed in three major newspapers is important in this context because Klebnikov's writings constitute the principal basis for contentious statements that make this article inconsistent with NPOV policy, inaccurate, poorly sourced and potentially libelous. I reinstated the POV tag, and will put back the passage on antisemitism that has been removed. deepdish7, please do not remove the tag before the issue is settled - it is against the rules.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • Those independent third party sources (which are not actually "major" newspapers) aren't related at all to Russia and cannot have reliable opinion on Klebnikov. I'd like to reiterate that some Israeli people start to shout 'Antisemitism!!!" every time an Israeli person is attacked, and no matter whether he's really guilty or not. Please do not execute vandalism and do not remove whole sections from the article, all of which are supported by media articles (from indeed _major_ newspapers such as Forbes Russia etc)

• • • • Moscow bureaus of Guardian and Independent, which noted Klebnikov's antisemitism, are in fact major independent sources on Russia, whereas Forbes, after being sued by Berezovsky, printed a retraction admitting that Klebnikov's allegations were groundless. What is important here, is not whether a particular user believes that Klebnikov was an antisemite, but whether reliable sources have noted antisemitic bias in his writings, which is the case.--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • Please provide links where Moscow bureaus of Guardian and Independent noted Klebnikov's "antisemitism". In any case they are not 'major' independent sources on Russia as opposing to say Vedomosti or Novie Izvestiya independent newspapers. After Berezovsky sued Forbes, in 2003 the court ruled, that Forbes remove ONLY ONE statement from the article, as it didn't have enough evidence to support the claim that Berezovsky arranged murder of famous anchorman and TV producer Vlad Listyev. The court DID NOT 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 PUBLISHED 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. Deepdish7 (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • The references to Guardian and Independent, as well is to Haaretz noting Klebnikov's anti-semitism are at the top of this section. That you prefer Vedomosty and Novye Izvestyia to these two respected sources speaks for itself. Russia is the country notorious for political control over media, whereas Britain is not. Regarding Forbes, this is what was printed in the retraction: "(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". This retraction testifies for poor sourcing and potentially libelous character of your text.--Kolokol1 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I do prefer Vedomosti and Novie Izvestiya to Guardian and Independent for news on Russia. If you know Vedomosti is owned and controlled by WSJ and Financial Times, so it is indeed a reliable source. Britain is today notorious for its media using illegal ways of obtaining information and bribing policemen, so no reason for me to believe that it's better in any way than Vedomosti on view on Russia. Esp taking into account that Vedomosti has been criticizing Putin government significantly and from that one can understand that there's no state control over this newspaper. Besides, Britain and Russia have conflicting views over many things today and British press always supports any kind of opposition in Russia including criminals like Berezovsky, so biased sources like British press should not be trusted in this case. Forbes agreed to retract ONLY ONE claim related to Berezovsky arranging Listyev's (or someone else's) murder, whereas other accusations against Berezovsky remained in place. It does not testify libelous character of the text but simply the fact that Forbes didn't manage to gather enough evidence to prove this particular accusation, still other accusations were well supported and this is why the court didn't award Berezovsky victory over them. The court DID NOT order newspaper to remove the article, despite Berezovsky was asking for it in its claim. The fact that the court allowed Forbes to leave the article on the website with other accusations confirms that the court did not accept claim by Berezovsky but only agreed on it to a very small extent. And in general, article is simply peanuts comparing to the book in terms of number of accusations and evidence gathered against Berezovsky. So he simply decided not to sue Klebnikov because he had no chances to win the case in courtDeepdish7 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • From your above comment it is clear that you are on a mission to expose the criminality of Mr. Berezovsky and establish the superiority of Russia over Britain in matters of the rule of law and freedom of the press. While I do not question the sincerity of your zeal, Wikipedia is not a Kremlin propaganda outlet but an objective source of information. The allegations that you trumpet, have been objectively reviewed and rejected many times, be it the UK Government, which discounted them in the aslylum and extradition decisions, or the courts, which sided with Mr. B in three libel cases. Your campaign, in my view, is not conducted in good faith, and you resort to plain trickery, for example, when you talk about the arrest order in Brazil, but fail to mention that (a) it was issued as an extension of Russian claims, and (b) it was dropped a year later and the case was closed, and you removed my sourced comment to that effect. Or you push the story about the Dutch investigation, but somehow you fail to note that the only source of that info is Russian prosecuor's office, whereas the Dutch have never confirmed that. Not to mention the outrageous claim that Mr. B is a suspect in Litvinenko murder, while the only people who say that are in fact the murderers.--Kolokol1 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • From your actions it's quite obvious that you're getting paid by him to whiten his public image which is darkened by crime in the past (and possibly present). Wikipedia isn't Berezovsky's personal resource, neither it is controlled by British government hostile to Russia and friendly to criminals fleeing Russia including Chechen terrorists. You are not acting in good faith simply for the reason that you delete material composed by other people, instead of simply providing a link in rare cases where Berezovsky was able to win a court case (again only because it was in Britain, he's under investigation for money laundering in Switzerland and Brazil. In Brazil not in relation to his crimes in Russia at all but in relation to laundering money stolen in Russia through Brazilian football clubs.). Despite your vandalism actions all original text will be restored unless you provide your evidence in a way like normal users do here - by providing supporting links and text Deepdish7 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Libelous allegations regarding Litvinenko murder

The section on Litvinenko repeats statements in the Russian media, which were found libelous by a British court in "Berezovsky vs RTR" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm ).--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to edit the lead for BLP standard

In accord with the consensus above, I edited the lead section (which took me six hours) to address some of the criticisms, ridding it of biased, contentious and potentially libelous statements, removing non-functional and questionable sources, and adding some reliable references to mainstream Western media. Major work is needed on the body of the article to make it compliant with WP:NPOV and the policy on BLP. Not sure, if I will have time and energy. Readers beware: this remains an exceedingly opinionated and misleading text.--Kolokol1 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion - request for dispute resolution

User deepdish7 removed a version of the lead section, which I have edited for NPOV and BLP, and replaced it with an older version, restoring the text that has been much criticized as biased, poorly sourced and potentially libelous as can be seen from this talk page. Such removal is totally inappropriate. I reinstated my version, and invite members of the community to comment.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced potentially libelous statements

As per consultation with a legal expert I removed wrongful, poorly sourced and potentially libellous statements, which create an impression that the subject may have been involved in violent crime and linked to organised crime and terrorist organisations (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=442582893).

A summary of my edits follows. Each of them is properly referenced in the article.

1. Allegation that the subject may have been involved in the murder of Paul Klebnikov.

The subject has never been charged or been a suspect in the investigation in this case. The statement that Klebnikov "was afraid" of the subject, which is attributed to a third party, is a hearsay, which does not meet the BLP standard

2. Allegations that the subject may have been involved in the murder of Vladislav Listyev or was linked to mafia.

These allegations were the subject of a libel suit against Forbes Magazine in London, as the result of which Forbes made a statement in the open court and printed the following retraction: "(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". Therefore, repeating these disavowed allegations here is potentially libellous and contrary to BLP policy.

3. Allegation that the subject may have threatened Mikhail Fridman.

This allegation was the subject of a defamation suit in London, which has ruled that it was libelous. Therefore it should not be repeated here as per BLP

4. Allegations of plotting other murders.

The allegations from Alexander Lebed and Alexander Korzhakov were never followed by any investigation. Given the fact that both of them were prominent political opponents of the subject, repeating their groundless and potentially libellous statements here contradicts policy on BLP.

5.Allegations of links with terror groups, hostage trading and of funding terrorists.

These allegations, which are sourced to the smear campaign in the Russian state-controlled media, refer to the subject's official dealings with Chechens during his tenure as the Deputy head of Russia's National Security Council in the Yeltsin administration. These included hostage release negotiations, and funding of the separatist government under the provisions of the 1997 Peace Treaty, which the subject helped to negotiate. These allegations should be mentioned (I included them in the Allegations section) but not presented in a potentially slanderous form they were — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• All of those allegations are properly attributed and not represented as facts. Most of them are done at the time Berezovsky was a prominent member of the governing elite, not a dissident so the question of government-orchestrated attacks on a dissident are not particular actual there. I have restored the romavals Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• • You have reinstated poorly sourced, potentially libelous information, which I had removed. I removed the contentious text for the second time in accord with BLP policy and am reporting the issue to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boris_Berezovsky (businessman).--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • user Kolokol1 keeps executing acts of vandalism on the page. restored original page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion by Kolokol1 - request for dispute resolution

User Kolokol1 has removed several large sections of the article at his own discretion claiming they're "not supported" by proper links or are "libelous". when they're not represented as facts but only as allegations. when in fact he's using very doubtful links and opinions, such as claims by some Indian professor who can't have any idea about Berezovsky's life in Russia, etcetc deepdish7 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I insist the the material in question is questionably sourced and potentially libelous - particularly in view of three successful libel suits brought about by the subject over these same issues. By reinstating the contentious material for the second time you are committing a major offence as per BLP policy. I am therefore reporting the matter to the BLP noticeboard and request intervention by the Wikipedia administration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I insist in turn that material in question is very well sourced. It doesn's assert any facts but passeds accusations, which have right to exist. By repeated vandalism you're committing a major offence as per BLP policy. I've also reported the issue to the noticeboard and hope that Wikipedia Administration in turn will prevent vandalism from being repeated on this page.Deepdish7 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of potentially libelous text by deepdish7.

User deepdish7 repeatedly reinserts potentially libelous material, which is sourced to publications discredited in three separate libel suits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442733806&oldid=442598770

The matter has been reported to BLP noticeboard. In the meantime, I have restored the version, which is balanced and corresponds to NPOV.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reinsertion of potentially libelous material has occurred three times within the period of 24 hours. User deepdish7 is threatening to keep reinserting the contentious text (see below). This is happening notwithstanding the fact that over the past few years British courts three times have ruled for Mr. Berezovsky in his libel actions over the very same allegations that are made here.--Kolokol1

Wikipedia's policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard." I have removed the potentilally libelous allegations twice and have edited the text in accordance with the stated WP policy and I have duly reported the issue. I am reluctant to continue this game of removal and reinsertion and will let the potentially libelous version of the article remain for now to give Wikipedia a chance to review and resolve this potentially precarious situation--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We have reiterated several times already that material is very well sourced thus cannot be considered libelous. We will be restoring the original version of the page should Kolokol1 continue his actions, deleting each time large portions of material on the page at his own discretion without any acceptable justification. Deepdish7 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• your material and sources have been found libelous in a court of law in three separate instances. Repeating these allegations here puts Wikipedia in a legally precarious position. These attitudes may pass in Russia, where standards of law and fairness are underdeveloped, but they have no place in a reputable Western information resource--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • In 2003 the court ruled that Forbes remove ONLY ONE statement from the article, as it didn't have enough evidence to support the claim that Berezovsky arranged murder of famous anchorman and TV producer Vlad Listyev. The court DID NOT 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 PUBLISHED 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. Deepdish7 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • This is what Forbes has said in its retraction: "(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". The retraction is an admission of wrongdoing. It testifies for poor sourcing and potentially libelous character of your text too. That Berezovsky did not sue Klebnikov, after his lies have been exposed once is his choice. He still may choose to sue others who repeat those lies. Besides Klebnikov's allegations, which were retracted by Forbes, the contested text repeats slanderous allegations of threats of violence by Friedman, and by Russian media related to Litvinenko murder. Both were found libelous in British courts--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Forbes agreed to retract ONLY ONE claim related to Berezovsky arranging Listyev's (or someone else's) murder, whereas other accusations against Berezovsky remained in place. It does not testify libelous character of the text but simply the fact that Forbes didn't manage to gather enough evidence to prove this particular accusation, still other accusations were well supported and this is why the court didn't award Berezovsky victory over them. The court DID NOT order newspaper to remove the article, despite Berezovsky was asking for it in its claim. The fact that the court allowed Forbes to leave the article on the website with other accusations confirms that the court did not accept claim by Berezovsky but only agreed on it to a very small extent. And in general, article is simply peanuts comparing to the book in terms of number of accusations and evidence gathered against Berezovsky. So he simply decided not to sue Klebnikov because he had no chances to win the case in courtDeepdish7 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by user Kolokol1.

User Kolokol1 repeatedly deletes well sourced (with links to widely recognized newspapers such as Forbes magazine) material, and even whole sections of the page. Comes up with absurd and unfounded accusations of antisemitism to former Forbes Russia general editor. Will keep restoring the original version which corresponds to NPOV. reported issue to BLP noticeboard Deepdish7 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Neutrality tag

User deepdish7 keeps removing neutrality tag in clear violation of BLP policy, in view of this discussion--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have requested a review of this dispute in a letter to the Arbitration Committee mailed today. Pending their decision, I will let the potentially libelous material remain. However I will keep reinstating the neutrality tag, which is being repeatedly removed by the perpetrators.--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• We do not mind the neutrality tag to remain on top of the article, but will remove it after Arbitration Committee rejects your claim. We will also continue removing any traces of your vandalism over this articleDeepdish7 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the request for a Third Opinion made in regard to this matter since a claim has been filed with ArbCom and since Third Opinion is not authorized to give the requested relief. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruptive actions by deepdish7: reverts constructive edits

I note that user Off2riorob made another constructive attempt to edit the lead in accord with NPOV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442893832&oldid=442893526

However, even this good faith attempt was undermined by deepdish7, who reinserted his contentious version of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• As user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Off2riorob admitted himself on his page, he has been continuously breaching Wikipedia rules and ignores local standards of good behavior. He joined Kolokol1 in vandalism on this page. All attempts to erase original material from the page will be revertedDeepdish7 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow

I haven't looked at this article for years, but as of now it is really outrageous.

From the lead: He has also been accused by Russian authorities of being involved in the murders of several leading critics of the Putin's regime, including Litvinenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya, in an attempt to destabilize the country and discredit Putin. In response, Berezovsky – amongst others – has attributed the killings to the Putin regime as a means of political intimidation.

In response???? Not at all. It was not in response. It was quite the other way 'round. Particularly striking is the section "Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair", where only fringe views are presented, while the mainstream view, held, among others, by Scotland Yard, is not even mentioned.

• So if you want to mention the opposite view then the proper way is to post it in the same section, instead of deleting whole sections of the page and contributions of another user without any justification. To many people it isn't at all obvious who's behind Litvinenko's murder, and there's no such thing as 'mainstream' view hereDeepdish7 (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I second the request to submit the incredibly disruptive behavior of the SPA Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) to the attention of Arbcom, unless we finally get some admin with guts who is able to sort this out straight away. Colchicum (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. I have already referred this to ArbCom. Once the disruptive actions and bullying by user Deepdish7 - hopefully - cease, I undertake to edit the piece in accord with NPOV and BLP--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Third parties comment.

The conflict in this page has wide dimensions: from Wikipedia standards of fairness, anti-semitic bias and legal limits to badmouthing a living person, to the West's view of todays Russia, the mystery of Litvinaneko murder, and British foreign policy. Balanced comment from the community is sought--Kolokol1 (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide specific diffs demonstrating these issues? Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• On our side, the complain is vandalism performed by user Kolokol1, as well as claiming issues of 'antisemitism' (when actually there're no any at all here. all critics of Berezovsky wasn't based on nationality at all. In none of the links supporting evidence against him his nationality is mentioned). All user Kolokol1 is trying to do is to cover a criminal, remove all tracks of accusations against him in all countries where they exist, and his impaired reputation impaired by criminal cases and accusations. British foreign policy as well as West view's of Russia aren't an issue here, as majority of links supporting evidence and accusations against Berezovsky are sourced from Western press

In brief, what are the issues?

• What are the issues? I have received a random request for comment. Please summarize the main concerns re: this article. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I second this. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Outrageous vandalism by user Kolokol1. In some of his edits, like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=442598770&oldid=442582893 he cut whole sections in the article shorting it around 3 times without any justification. This user should be prevented from destroying the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an issue: Is it fair to rebroadcast a lie - with a disclaimer?

The subject of this bio has won three consecutive libel suits over allegations of various misdeeds. The disputed sections repeat these allegations in minute detail, with a technical disclaimer that they have been actually rejected and/or retracted. Technically, everything is properly sourced, but is it fair? And is it legally sound from the standpoint of filtering potentially libel off these pages? To paraphrase the question, is it acceptable to print something false with a disclaimer that the source has been discredited?

In one case, Forbes had to print a retraction of Klebnikov's writings]], saying, ""(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". Yet, this is exactly how the article portrays the subject - as a Mafia member and a murderer - with a note, that the source admitted in a court that there was no evidence for this.

In another case, the article asserts that Mr. Berezovsky has engineered the murder of Alexander Litvinenko citing Russian media without even mentioning that UK is pressing for the extradition of someone else, Andrey Lugovoy for this murder. They fail to mention that Berezovsky has won a libel suit against Russian TV over this issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm ).--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC). Instead they quote the chief of Russia's secret police, the FSB - and call it a reliable source!

Wikipedia policy clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." Is this the case here? Comment from legal experts would be particularly welcome.--Kolokol1 (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an issue: anti-semitic bias

With regard to the author of lies, which have been retracted by Forbes, Mr. Klebnikov, there is a well established record of accusations of him being anti-semitic, specifically related to his writings on Mr. Berezovsky (see references to Guardian, The Independent and Haaretz in the relevant section above). When rebroadcasting his lies, one should at least have the decency of mentioning this potential bias of the source.--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an issue: is Russian press more free that British?

The most controversial statements in the contested material are sourced to Russian publications. When this was pointed out to the authors with a suggestion to use international press instead, they responded that their sources are preferable to the Moscow bureaus of British newspapers because "Britain and Russia have conflicting views over many things today and British press always supports any kind of opposition in Russia including criminals like Berezovsky, so biased sources like British press should not be trusted". Russia's record in free speech is well known. Extending this logic, one could say that the Syrian, Iranian and Byelorussian press is the best source of objective information about their countries. I do not believe that Wikipedia should become Kremlin's propaganda outlet--Kolokol1 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an Issue: Style is the Substance

The article is written in offensive, demeaning, vulgar, sensationalist and primitive style more appropriate for a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Here are some examples:

• "his fearsome allies"
• "This court was populated with strange figures"
• "the most egregious of all the great ripoffs"
• "furtherance of his political intrigues*
• "the pickings were easy"
• "consumed by greed"
• "notorious Russian anchorman"
• "It may well be true"

This supposedly academic article is filled with irrelevant detail, aimed at building up the suspense of a cheap thriller, e. g. the following gruesome passage ostensibly supporting a totally groundless assertion that Berezovsky had something to do with the murder :

"On July 9, 2004, Klebnikov was attacked on a Moscow street late at night by unknown assailants who fired at least nine shots from a slowly moving car. Klebnikov was shot four times and initially survived, but he bled to death in the hospital because the ambulance took almost an hour to come, it had no oxygen bottle, and the hospital elevator that was taking him to the operating room broke.[24] Before he died, Klebnikov described that there were 3 assasins in the car, and that he never met any of them before". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List all the concerns then agree to protect page except for appointed editor who will standardized the article to WP protocol.

I have been randomly requested to give comment on the issues. Here are some comments: Protect the page from all comments except an appointed editor who will standardize the article to WP protocol. As I have looked over the concerns, it is possible to make the article more representative of Wikipedia's NPOV. I think it is important to trim back the alleged but unproven or non-judicially determined material. Does anyone claim that Boris Berezovsky is innocent of all charges? What can we agree upon regarding facts? Those facts should be listed. Let's try to compile a list of agreed upon facts and then work to have the article reflect that consensus. If Berezovsky has been charged, that is a fact. If there was no court decision, that is a fact. All of the slanting words, usually adjectives, need to be discarded and neutral words should be put in their place, eg. "notorious" could be replaced with "well-known." It seems that Berezovsky is a notable person and this article can reflect that. Notice the development of the Al Capone article. Certainly we can do as well for this Berezovsky article. (Is this a fair comparison? I had not heard of Berezovsky before this random invite to comment.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I second your suggestion to list all facts and appoint a neutral editor, and I will try to cooperate. To begin with, the analogy with Al Capone is misconstrued, even though this article has been trying to put him in the same league. Berezovsky is not a gangster but a businessman turned politician who was a prominent member of the previous regime, and fled the country in fear of political persecution by the present regime. This is the legal view taken by British courts. He is sought on economic charges by Russia, which the UK believes are politically motivated. These are the facts. There is a larger dimension of a fierce anti-British propaganda campaign in support of Russian position, as evidenced by hundreds of press reports. I suggest that all the facts be listed in a chronological order, with sources, and the disagreements discussed systematically, point by point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DonaldRichardSands. Thank you for agreeing to sort this out. Let us try your approach. I suggest to structure the good article and list the facts by the following subsections:

• • Lead
  • Early Life
  • Scientific Career
  • Business Career
  • Political Career
    • In Russia
    • Abroad
    • The Asylum and Extradition Controversy
  • Crime Allegations and Libel Suits
  • Wider Impact
  • Writings by him
  • Major writings and works of art about him

Any objections?--Kolokol1 (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good structure. The last section seems particularly important, as the sources used are obviously highly contentious; these controversies can be recorded here without contaminating the rest of the article. I would suggest that the books of Klebnikov and Goldfarb should be used as little as possible in the main text of the article, as accusations of bias can reasonably be made against both. Klebnikov's alleged antisemitism was reported in the reputable international media (it is rather crass and ill-informed for one user to malign the British press when the recent scandals relate exclusively to the tabloid press and were exposed by the Guardian, one of the sources under discussion here). Equally important, Klebnikov is part of the story: Berezovsky was accused of his murder, and has fought libel suits to refute his allegations. The fact that the chief allegations of his book were retracted by Forbes suggests that this book is not a source to be relied upon. Goldfarb is entirely open about his association with Berezovsky. On a practical note, neither of the books is free online.Videsutaltastet (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoffman is the most authoritative work on the subject, and if any book needs to be used, I suggest this one.Videsutaltastet (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Videsutaltastet and Kolokol1, I agree that the suggested structure is good. In another section I suggested a chipping away at current wording. I am changing my mind. Why not set up a kind of Sandbox (sub page?) article where we can try out the new structure and cut and paste from the current article where advisable? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What's an Issue: a Hidden Political Agenda of the Russian Government

In the discussion above, the authors clearly state that they are on a mission to discredit the "British government hostile to Russia and friendly to criminals fleeing Russia including Chechen terrorists". The back drop to this dispute is the propaganda war waged by the Kremlin against UK to get even for providing safe heaven to Mr. Putin's political opponents (http://www.economist.com/node/10553024) and to spin control the PR disaster of the Litvinenko affair. I strongly suspect that this article is in fact a part of disinformation campaign waged by the Russian government to advance its foreign policy goals.--Kolokol1 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kolokol1, I can agree that this Berezovsky article may have caught the interest of the Russian government. Perhaps the Russian government has an agent interested in spreading disinformation, who knows? However, this is not of interest to those of us wishing to help standardize the article. The Russian government must also follow Wikipedia protocol, even as you and I must. Our goal is to not 'worry' about who is interested in the article (the more interested readers, the better for Wikipedia) but rather to pay attention to all valid issues and develop the article into a good article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi again, Kolokol1, you wrote: authors clearly state that they are on a mission to discredit the "British government hostile to Russia and friendly to criminals fleeing Russia including Chechen terrorists". I cannot find this quote anywhere. What is its source? Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is in the last comment in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Anti-semitic_Bias Kolokol1 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Kolokol1. The author of that quote wrote:

"Wikipedia isn't Berezovsky's personal resource, neither it is (is it) controlled by British government hostile to Russia and friendly to criminals fleeing Russia including Chechen terrorists."

• The author doesn't seem to be stating this as personal opinion. This is a small matter, perhaps, but it illustrates how we really need good will to make progress on this Berezovsky article. If we are going to make progress we need to identify paragraphs in the article which need revising, one at a time probably. This could take a lot of time, effort and good will. Are you ready? When the other author comes back, is it possible to collaborate with good will for the sake of this article? Meanwhile, how do you suggest we proceed? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid much of the article is skewed beyond repair. Look at the section "Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair" and compare it to Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko (which is not perfect, but still much more neutral). Is it a fair summary? Colchicum (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that this article is beyond repair, if we go about it in a cool and professional manner, stick to WP policies on sourses, BLP and NPOV, and have a neutral third party such as DonaldRichardSands as a mediator. I pledge full cooperation. However, I suggest that first we must agree on restructuring the article (see above). The current structure has a built-in procuratorial agenda, and would be indeed difficult to repair--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest that we chip away at the problem sections. Sooner, or later, if there is problem with the whole outline of the article, it will become obvious. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, if you insist. Let us try with Litvinenko (see below)--Kolokol1 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair" and compare it to Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko

Let's compare as suggested by Colchicum (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Berezovsky article section states:

Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair

Main article: Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, Theories

Many publications in Russian media suggested that the death of Alexander Litvinenko was connected to Berezovsky.[89][90] Former FSB chief Nikolay Kovalev, for whom Litvinenko worked, said that the incident "looks like the hand of Berezovsky. I am sure that no kind of intelligence services participated."[91] This involvement of Berezovsky was alleged by numerous Russian television shows. Kremlin supporters saw it as a conspiracy to smear Russian government's reputation by engineering a spectacular murder of a Russian dissident abroad.[92]

After Litvinenko's death, traces of polonium-210 were found in an office of Berezovsky.[93] Russian prosecutors were not allowed to investigate the office.[94] Russian authorities have also been unable to question Berezovsky. The Foreign Ministry complained that Britain was obstructing its attempt to send prosecutors to London to interview more than 100 people, including Berezovsky.[95]

• The highlighted and italicized sections match sections of the main article on Litvinenko's death.

• Let's test our ability to work together by examining this section. First, we probably should examine the sources to determine if they really support the statements associated with them. (As you can see, this kind of paragraph by paragraph assessment will take time. I suggest that the article remain protected and that when we gain consensus on a section that we ask an admin to make the changes in the article without removing the protection.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But it is clear from the main article that the main suspect is Andrey Lugovoy, protected by the Russian authorities, and the British believe the Litvinenko case to have had some Russian state involvement. The section doesn't summarize this fairly and seems to promote the fringe theory that Berezovsky was behind the poisoning. There are such theories, of course, but they are fringe. This is a blatant violation of NPOV, BLP and other policies. Colchicum (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Colchicum, I agree that the Berezovsky connection is very weak. The quote of Kosachyov by the Washington Post is a speculative "could have". Are there grounds for raising the allegation in this article on Berezovsky? Was the speculation common in Moscow? The article mentions television shows but no citation is given. Would anyone be opposed to removing the Litvinenko section altogether. Or, balancing it with the fact that Litvinenko and Berezovsky seemed to have respected each other? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Litvinenko was a close associate of Berezovsky, so his poisoning is relevant here. But it shouldn't be connected to the rest of the article as if Berezovsky was somehow implicated. The right way to balance this would be to provide the story of their relations and the mainstream version of the murder (i.e. that of the British investigators) first. Something along these lines: Litvinenko was a friend/associate of Berezovsky (how, when, etc) – and this is why this story has a place here. He was poisoned, as Scotland Yard believes, by Lugovoy, quite probably with the Russian state assistance/on its order. Lugovoy hides in Moscow. Some people there (who have no access to the crime scene and a lot of interests, by the way, so don't give undue weight to their rants) point at Berezovsky instead in their speculations. And this story certainly should not have anything like "Involvement in smth" as its title. Colchicum (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Let me try to summarize the facts in the Litvinenko issue, as it relates to Berezovsky, and see whether this is challenged by anyone.

• • Alexander Litvinenko, one of Berezovsky's closest associates, was murdered in London in November 2006, using a rare radioactive poison Polonium 210. British authorities have charged a former FSB officer Andrey Lugovoy and demanded his extradition, which has been rejected by Russia(http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/05/russia-britain-litvinenko-idUSL0536765420070705). Several Russian diplomats were expelled from UK over this case(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2087274.ece).
  • While the UK government is officially silent, there are credible allegations that the murder was sponsored by the Russian state. These allegations came from the "sources in the UK government" according to the BBC(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html), officials of the US Departments of state, as revealed by Wikileaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-alexander-litvinenko-murder), and were reflected in a 2008 resolution by US Congress (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/litvinenko.html).
  • An alternative theory that the murder was orchestrated by Mr. Berezovsky with the aim of "framing" the Russian government, has been raised in the Russian state-controlled media, by Mr. Lugovoy (http://www.kommersant.com/p770507/r_530/Litvinenko_Lugovoi_Berezovsky/ ) (http://rt.com/news/lugovoy-says-hes-been-framed-for-litvinenko-murder/ ), and Russian officials (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article653549.ece) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800446_2.html). Mr. Berezovsky has won a libel suit against Russian State Television over these allegations in 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8559543.stm).

There is nothing more to it. If there is no objections, I move to vote on it: accept or reject--Kolokol1 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• We seem to be working at the same time on this. For me, two ideas come to prominence: 1) Create a sub-page which would allow us to test out a new structure or outline of the whole article. 2) Assess specific facts, such as we have done with the Litvinenko information.

I agree--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the Litvinenko info, I support Kolokol1's summary. The wording needs major work, of course. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

9 Involvement in Alexander Litvinenko affair: checking citations

Citation 91 Citation 91 is the same as citation 84 in the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning article

Citation 92 This next sentence gives us an opportunity to assess its citation:

• "Kremlin supporters saw it as a conspiracy to smear (the) Russian government's reputation by engineering a spectacular murder of a Russian dissident abroad.[92]"
• The citation is: Russian Billionaire's Bitter Feud With Putin A Plot Line in Poisoning The Washington Post Retrieved on April 6, 2008

• Does the Post article say this? The Post article says:

"Some people in Moscow see Berezovsky's involvement as another campaign to ruin Putin's reputation internationally. Litvinenko 'had close contacts with some of the Russian oligarchs who fell from grace, including Boris Berezovsky, who lost the opportunity to buy off the authorities with his stolen money,' Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian parliament, told reporters last month. 'They did not want to put up with it and could have staged a deliberate action against Russia.'

• Kosachyov's "could have" quote is rather weak. The Post article goes on to quote Berezovsky thanking Litvinenko for saving his life earlier. (I have a hard time believing that Berezovsky would kill Litvinenko.) I would suggest that the sentence under examination be reworded. Perhaps something like this:

The Washington Post quoted Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian parliament, as saying that Berezovsky could have staged a deliberate action against Russia by killing Litvinenko.

Citation 93

After Litvinenko's death, traces of polonium-210 were found in an office of Berezovsky.[93]

93 Hall, Ben (November 28, 2006). "Polonium 210 found at Berezovsky's office". MSNBC. Retrieved 2006-12-01.

This is now a dead link. Other sources are available; such as, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/28/russia.politics

The facts don't seem to be in dispute.

Citations 94-95

After Litvinenko's death, traces of polonium-210 were found in an office of Berezovsky.[93] Russian prosecutors were not allowed to investigate the office.[94] Russian authorities have also been unable to question Berezovsky. The Foreign Ministry complained that Britain was obstructing its attempt to send prosecutors to London to interview more than 100 people, including Berezovsky.[95]

• This paragraph only gives the Russian perspective, it fails to Report how the UK authorities viewed matters. Source #95, the London Times, suggests that the Russian's cooperation in Litvinenko's death investigation was being linked by Russia to the extradition of Berezovsky.
• This section should report on the standoff between Russia and the United Kingdom over Litvinenko's death and Berezovsky's political asylum. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about P0-210 found in B's office is misleading, because it is taken out of context. The truth of the matter is that the police knows EXACTLY who and how left the trace.

• There are in fact two Polonium trails that have been found in London, which have been timed by the police to the minute using cc TV, and other means. One trail was left by Litvinenko. It started on November 1, after his meeting with Lugovoy in a hotel bar where the poson was administered. The other was left by Lugovoy (and his friend Dmitry Kovtun). It started on October 15 in Lugovoy's hotel room, when he opened the container with the poison for the first time. Both trails go through the office of Berezovsky, but are clearly distinguishable from each other. Litvinenko left traces in the copy room, which he visited on November 1 after his meeting with Lugovoy. Lugovoy contaminated the reception and a sofa in Berezovsky's study, when he visited on October 31. Both trails have nothing to do with Berezovsky. He was not contaminated.(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terminal-Spy-Alan-Cowell/dp/0385614152 ; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Dissident-Poisoning-Alexander-Litvinenko/dp/1847391079 ; http://www.amazon.co.uk/KGBs-Poison-Factory-Lenin-Litvinenko/dp/1848325428/ ). The point is that Berezovsky was never a suspect in the British investigation. He was a suspect in Russia's investigation, but not on the basis of Polonium trails.Obviously this information belongs to the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko article but not the Berezovsky article. I am therefore moving not to include the info re Polonium in B's office in Litvinenko section at all. If my view is not accepted, then we should come up with some unambiguous language, which would clarify the issue, not cloud it.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian authorities have also been unable to question Berezovsky. The Foreign Ministry complained that Britain was obstructing its attempt to send prosecutors to London to interview more than 100 people, including Berezovsky.

• This is not true. They questioned Mr. B all right (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62870679.html). Perhaps we should add a point about this into my summary, something like "After L's death Mr B was questioned as a witness both by the Scotland Yard, and visiting Russian prosecutors"--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary

I suggest that we keep the section discussing Litvinenko's death but that its focus be redirected to the diplomatic tangle between Britain and Russia rather than any accusation against Berezovsky's part in Litvinenko's death. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. The diplomatic tensions between UK and Ru over Berezovsky started in 2003, when UK gave him (and Akhmed Zakayev) asylum and refused to extradite him on economic charges. This should be of course included in B's bio but not in the Litvinenko section. The tangle re Litvinenko (including exspulsion of Rus diplomants and visa restrictions for Ru officials) started in 2007 over Russia's refusal to extradite a murder suspect - Mr. Lugovoy. It has nothing to do with Berezovsky and should be discussed in the Litvinenko and Lugovoy articles. These are two different tangles. To my knowledge, neither Russia nor UK ever linked Berezovsky to Lugovoy extradition officially or unofficially. Speculations about that in the press are irrelevant.

My point is that there is nothing more to the Litvinenko poisoning connection in Berezovsky's bio than I have listed in my summary above, namely, (1) that B and L were associates and close friends and (2) Russia - and most Russians - suspect B of murdering L, in spite of the common sense and the findings of the Scotland Yard. Everything else about Litvinenko belongs elsewhere--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)