Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)#RFC on libel case

This one is essential reading before we all start arguing:

http://rbth.ru/politics/2013/04/12/boris_berezovsky_back_to_black_24971.html

144.136.192.55 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, you are just as guilty of POV pushing by your removal of the collections of other points of view from External links. Everyone appears to have their own axe to grind here, and that includes you. That's not how Wikipedia works. We include various points of view in the body of an article, and various points of view in the External links/Further reading sections. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

:Well. No "engagement" from Russavia, but the baton has been tossed to Collect. No change then. The usual so-called Wikipedians are eager to revert and delete, but REFUSE to discuss anything - while they INSIST others should. THEY can be "Bold", others must first go to the Talk page - where they'll make certain the "conversation" ever gets started. Brilliant. (But I do LOVE Russavia's cutesy little "Let's dialogue" replacement for her Talk page. Sarcasm is always so welcome here, isn't it? Why not just use "Talk to the hand" and be honest?)

• And now Collect, as always, has come to the "rescue" and decided, unilaterally, that these are not useful:
• {{Official|http://www.borisberezovsky.net}}
• [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/711022/Boris-Berezovsky Boris Berezovsky] at Encyclopædia Britannica
• {{C-SPAN|borisberezovsky}}
• {{Charlie Rose view|2912|Boris Berezovsky}}
• {{IMDb name|2281605|Boris Berezovsky}}
• [//worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85-48975 Works by or about Boris Berezovsky] in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Well, let's see. His official site. Yeah, I can see why THAT would be irrelevant. Encyclopaedia Britannica? Most people consider that the "gold standard" of non-crowd-sourced encyclopedias, well worth reading. C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, and IMDb? Oh right - let's NOT, by ANY means, encourage our readers to watch the man himself talking. And WorldCat? Books by the man himself, as well as books about him? Heavens! Readers might make up their own minds, as opposed to believing whatever this little "consensus" of "Wikipedians" (aka Russavia, who brags about to remove every single External link which presents anypresenting the "correct POV") believes. Can't have that! The sheep must be TOLD what to believe! No further reading allowed! They must be firmly instructed (Russavia again) to wade through all the tabloid junk in Google News - knowing full well they DON'T want to do that, which is why they came to Wikipedia in the first place. But you just keep on being snarky about our users, Russavia, and show as much contempt for them as you feel. Look guys, you're on your own. You clearly have Jimmy Wales's full support to excise Every Single Viewpoint other than your own from this article, and every other article, spinning them to your heart's content. Go for it. Destroy Wikipedia's reputation. Drive off more editors. And I hope you get EXACTLY what you have coming. Unfortunately, so will everyone else. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:Woot. The "as always" implies this IP has another name, I suspect. Meanwhile, use of such ELs has been discussed, inter alia, at WP:EL/N etc. And allowed. The Britannica etc. are not generally considered RS as they are tertiary sources. His own stie is SPS and also not specifically RS for Wikipedia purposes. Imdb has generally been held not to meet WP:RS. As long as the links are to impeccable reliable sources, the use is allowed on Wikipedia. And so I tried to keep all the WP:RS sources, which Russavia seemed to think should also be eliminated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::I've read the Jimbo Wales Talk page, and you never fail to disappoint. So now you claim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links EL Guidelines] don't apply to you? Not even Russavia had the nerve delete the guy's own official site. I changed the format to one I've seen used in other articles. I did NOT add it for the first time.You seem to have been at Wikipedia long enough to know the rules, and various strings of initials which you claim support what you do. With no links of course, as you obviously are intent on trying to intimidate me. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit", eh? Just who are you working for? 75.60.16.116 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Um -- Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not "bullshit" no matter your opinion. Collect (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) and note the specific caveat The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable which seems to be where there is a problem. Collect (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::The links have been deleted as per WP:ELNO #9. Please familiarise oneself with that WP:ELNO before inserting a collection of external links on WP. Any information contained within those links should be contained in the article, and only on very rare cases should there be external links to news sources and the like. The applies not only to this article, but all articles on WP. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::::And you are misusing WP:ELNO utterly. Under which specific claim do you assert that the links are improper? Since they are not misleading, not self-published, not a "news aggregator", not containing "malware", not with "objectionable amounts of advertising", that do not "require registration", not "inaccessible", not requiring a "plug-in", not a "search engine", not wikis, not on "general" subjects, not a manufacturer, not something linked through Wikipedia tools, links which are dead links, tracking or referral links, "navigation template" links, links to organizations mentioned in an article which are already thus linked or should be linked, or that this article is a "stand alone list"? I think I named all the actual ELNO possibilities, and none of them appear to apply. Perhaps you can find another reason? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::::It is not only a literal reading of WP:ELNO but also the spirit of what that guideline states. The links are in essence against the spirit of "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." That they are reliable sources is not part of the equation; what is part of the equation is that they are results to individual website searches. RS only applies to sources which are being used for information within the actual article. And as I stated as the TfD, where does it end? Why would a link to [http://en.rian.ru/tags/tag_BorisBerezovsky/ RIA Novosti] not be included, but we include CNN, Forbes, Bloomberg, etc? Or why not a link to [http://newstube.ru/theme/boris-berezovskij Newstube] with videos? Or what about a similar link to Kommersant, etc, etc. Or why not just allow anyone who is interested to use their own searches on something like Google, and find more information themselves, instead of us spoonfeeding them links which for all intents and purposes are already used as sources on the actual article itself? Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::Your problem is that none of the ELNO criteria are met by the examples given. Youtube etc. are not WP:RS but CNN etc. are generally accepted as RS, so that "example" fails miserably. Cheers - now try to find an actual WP compliant rationale. Collect (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have two observations/tentative requests regarding this.

• Suing Abramovich appears to have been Berezovsky's undoing. The judge obviously concluded that Berezovksy's testimony was a pack of lies. The WP article states that the trial basically came down to Berezovksy's word against Abromovich's; so evidently, Berezovsky didn't have any evidence supporting his allegations before he filed the suit. So why did he sue Abramovich? It would be nice if the article provided some insight into that. Was Berezovsky's fortune so depleted that he sued Abramovich in a desperate attempt to replenish it? According to all accounts, Berezovksy was crushed by the ruling. That suggests that he expected to win (why else would he sue?), which in turn means that he was overconfident. Why was he overconfident? Was it because of his past successes in similar situations? A book will doubtless eventually come out that explores these issues, but maybe someone can find a helpful source now.

• There is a main article Berezovsky v Abramovich, but it is shorter than the section on the suit in the Berezovsky article. So is a separate article on the law case really needed? The notability of the case is apparently that it was the "largest civil court case in British legal history", but the "main article" doesn't even mention that. – Herzen (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I ran across [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/boris-berezovsky-wasn-t-larger-than-life-after-all.html an opinion piece] at Bloomberg that may be helpful here. To quote from it:

:It isn’t clear how much money Berezovsky ever had because all we know about his assets is based on what Berezovsky said himself. He repeatedly claimed, for instance, that he owned a stake in Sibneft, an oil company created from state assets as a result of his tireless lobbying efforts. Yet Roman Abramovich, the owner of record, has denied since the 1990s that Berezovsky had a stake. Similarly, Berezovsky claimed he owned part of the aluminum giant Rusal (now United Co. (486) Rusal), yet this was never recorded, either.

:In 2007, Berezovsky sued Abramovich for $5.6 billion, claiming Abramovich had coerced him into selling both stakes cheaply when Berezovsky fled Russia after a falling-out with Putin in 2000. Last year, a court in London ruled on the case, issuing a scathing denunciation of Berezovsky’s claims. Abramovich managed to prove he had never bought any stakes from Berezovsky but instead paid him off for political protection.

Berezovsky's claims were actually pretty incredible, and the article should make this more clear. The court's Executive Summary is sufficient for this purpose.) Berezovsky claimed that he and Abramovich had an oral agreement that he owned part of Sibneft and RusAl, which was made 16 years prior. Who makes oral agreements about ownership of billions of dollars of property? As the Bloomberg piece notes, Abramovich actually owned the shares. Thus, Berezovsky had to prove, by his court testimony alone (and that of some witnesses who stood to gain financially if Berezovsky won, something that Berezovsky attempted to conceal from the court) something that was inherently highly implausible. Thus, we are back to the issue of overconfidence. To quote from the Bloomberg piece again:

:His publicity efforts, in the end, were more impressive than his actual achievements. He managed to monetize his connections, but he was easy to wipe out because of the murky nature of his business. “The main thing that prevents us from considering Berezovsky a successful manipulator is that he proved rather easy to beat,” [http://www.colta.ru/docs/17623 wrote] columnist Kirill Rogov this week on Colta.ru.

The link in the quote above is illuminating as well, for those who read Russian. – Herzen (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the cause of Mr. Berezovsky's death being suicide is now under investigation by the British authorities. I also heard that a wire was discovered wrapped around his throat, but my source on the latter is second-hand. Dick Kimball (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

:Wikipedia has a strict policy against hearsay. Do you have any reliable sources to contribute? LokiiT (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

::It's been two months without a word and his body has been buried. I think it's safe to assume the investigation is over. LokiiT (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

::Ilgiz, the link you supplied is not a mainstream source, and it's not a widely supported view. Moreover, it was written over a month ago with no follow ups. Time to let go of the conspiracy theories for once, sometimes people who lose everything really do end up killing themselves. LokiiT (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

::: I argue for unbiased itemization of existing opinions in this article rather than making conclusions. "Suicide by hanging" did not gather wide-spread acceptance to receive a prominent spot in the article. That Earth moves did, in the context of other articles. --ilgiz (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: Wikipedia does not strive to represent all viewpoints evenly. Fringe conspiracy theories with no evidence, that aren't even represented by the mainstream media, do not get mention. The official cause of death has been stated and the investigation has been concluded; his body has been buried. If new evidence comes out at some point in the future, we will worry about it then. Until then, wikipedia cannot be used as a vehicle for conspiracy theories. LokiiT (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

::::: The "cause of death" might guess the immediate cause but not the actor. The AP article by your "suicide by hanging" edit does not say that it was suicide. My change[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29&diff=557743463&oldid=557613478] removed a generalization that did not come from the reference. Yuli Dubov expressed disbelief in an opinion that Berezovski killed himself, http://www.sovsekretno.ru/articles/id/3559/ --ilgiz (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Maybe we should remove the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun from wikipedia because some individuals refuse to believe this to be true. Your're not being rational here; all evidence points to suicide. There is no ongoing investigation, which means that the burden of proof is on you to present evidence against suicide. Certain individuals close to him not believing is not evidence. LokiiT (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::The reason to believe that Berezovsky's death was a suicide was that he was broke, so, given his values, he had nothing more to live for; whereas no one (e.g. Russia) had any reason to kill him, since he was not capable of stirring up any trouble anymore. Still, as far as I know, it is unusual to find the body of someone who has hung himself lying on the floor, which is apparently what happened in this case. Not getting that part of the story straight can be chalked up to the incompetence of the English police and press however, I'd say, as opposed to the finding of death by suicide being wrong.

:::::::I have never seen such a long lead in a Wikipedia article, by the way. – Herzen (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&diff=863953622&oldid=855139586 this edit] was about.

Berezovsky has apparently attempted to organize assassinations, but he has failed those attempts. It's evident from the following exchange between Petr Aven ("А") and Stanislav Belkovskiy ("Б") in Petr Aven's book "Время Березовского":

{{Quote

|text=Б: Понимаете, я исхожу из того, что граница между добром и злом проходит не между разными людьми – она проходит внутри одного человека. И внутри меня она тоже проходит, и внутри Березовского она проходила. Ведь не случайно убийства ему практически не удавались.

А: Он просто ничего организовать не умел, поэтому и не удавались.

Б: Ну, с одной стороны так, а если сказать по-другому, то Господь Бог не давал ему совершить этого страшного греха. Господь уберег его. Это значит, Господь Бог его пожалел и оценил некие плюсы, которые в нем были. Я не Господь Бог, конечно, но я могу эту логику транслировать и на себя. Я оценил его плюсы настолько высоко, что позволял себе закрыть глаза на его минусы, тем более что ни в каких авантюрных проектах я не участвовал.

}}

It was 1990s Russia. If you disagree with that information, you are rewriting history.

Document hippo (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

:Yes, there were various rumors and mutual accusations of oligarchs who did not like each other, but we need books by 3rd party historians to include such significant and highly controversial claims. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

:: The claims by Korzhakov are specifically mentioned in a history book by Paul Klebnikov — a journalist murdered for his writing.

:: That said, I think you have a point as regards the controversial aspects of some of the cited information, so I have added the denials of Korzhakov's information by Boris Berezovsky. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion! I believe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29&type=revision&diff=897628585&oldid=897621321 the updated revision of that section] currently meets the standards of Wikipedia. -- Document hippo (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I am sorry, but you did not improve the sourcing at all. You only added that Berezovskiy dismissed this claim. Yes, obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My edition was reverted for apparently not being constructive but I tried to make it consistent with other articles. JohnLogan1600 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)