Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Unprotected

Given the WP:ANI discussion. However, note that any future edit-warring on a BLP will undoubtedly mean the restoration of the full protection. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive-3

I moved the lengthy prior discussion to Archive-3 [1]. --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the archiving. There is an on-going discussion about a possible conflict of interest. None of the other threads seem too old either. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blanked the page Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3. In fact this should be deleted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not blank archives - We don't need all that disruptive nonsense from an indefd user on the talkpage of a living person, lets have a fresh start for the articles benefit. If you have COI worries, please take then to the COI noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whom did you ban? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 has been indefinitely blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was adding something to the WP:COI discussion, but because of multiple edit conflicts it got lost somewhere. As a conspiracy theorist I KNOW this all happened because you all want to hide the important TRUTH I wanted to reveal...

OK. I will take the issue elsewhere. Is this ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Article or topic ban for two users still relevant, or should I take the issue to WP:COI/N? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Without explaining what you want to achieve, how can anyone advise you as to the proper forum to go to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, appreciated Petri. - both those locations are available to re open/open discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New edits

Edit made: Removed unsourced libel accusing Klebnikov of anti-semitism. If citable, please re-add with proper citations. Otherwise, libel against an american hero whom many regarded as one of Russia's leading free speech proponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.169.43 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed phrase "Legality of his capital has been disputed though, and first official criminal charges appeared in 1999 under Evgeny Primakov's government" from lead

• The fitst part is misleading and unsourced
• The charges were dropped within a week. The episode is mentioned in the narrative. It has no place in the lead per WP:due weight--Kolokol1 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Libel tourism

I have restored a reference and a quote in another reference removed by user Off2riorob. I cannot see a point in removing references form existing text. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. As I said in the edit summary, this is way too much for a minor point in the article. Whether Berezovsky's libel case is an example of libel tourism, an often-cited example, a leading example, or whatever, the facts are in the article as to what Berezovsky did and the disposition of the case. The rest is remarkably tangential. We don't need a treatise on libel tourism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of the content of the article, as your comment would suggest, but about the presentation of the sources. However, if multiple reliable sources discuss libel tourism in the context of Berezovsky, then that section in this article may need expanding. At least needs protection from casual drive-by deletion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of libel tourism

This was removed from the article.

In 2000, the House of Lords gave Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov permission to sue for libel in the UK courts, raising legal questions relating to jurisdiction of the UK courts, and according to numerous scholars is the leading example of libel tourism, given that only 2,000 of the 785,000 copies sold worldwide were sold in the United Kingdom.

Why? In 2000 the House of Lords did give him permission to sue in UK courts for libel. And it is the leading example of libel tourism/terrorism. It has even been tabled in the house of lords itself. refer to this. Numerous scholarly legal sources state that jurisdictional issues arose from this approval. And it is the leading case of libel tourism/terrorism. All sources have been provided, I can add another hundred if you all like, which states it is the leading case of libel tourism. I have sourced and verified the information. The onus is on editors to do this, otherwise it can be removed from the article. You don't remove sourced information from the article. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment above (now we have this in two places, yay). I remove sourced info from articles all the time if it's not sufficiently relevant to be included in the article, as here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is very important. Berezovsky v Michaels was a landmark case in the use of libel tourism/terrorism, and is thoroughly studied. Refer to this and [2]. It is highly relevant that the House of Lords gave him permission to sue in the UK courts, and it is highly relevant that he took advantage of libel laws in the UK, which means that the defendant is in an almost unwinnable position. This use of libel tourism has been used by many others since Berezovsky v Michaels, hence the relevance of the use of libel tourism, and hence the relevance it raised jurisdictional matters, and hence the relevance of every thing else I wrote. If you have doubts, take it to WP:RSN, but you don't remove anything because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if as you assert it is "very important" and a landmark issue then it should have its own article away from this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. Even assuming it's an important issue for purposes of UK law, it is a side show for Berezovsky's life, which is what the article is about.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is pertinent. Why did he not choose to sue in the US courts? Where Forbes is published? That is another point that has been raised to Berezovsky's use of libel tourism. In fact, a Guardian article which is already in use in the article as a source, made reference to his use of libel tourism in relation to another libel lawsuit. The Guardian obviously saw it important enough to mention ten years after the fact. And don't use the WP:BLP line; what is stated in the article is FACT, not an accusation. I will be reinserting it, and if you have an issue with it, take it to the WP:BLPN or WP:RSN noticeboards. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be stubborn. The consensus is against inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. You wanted more sources, as per this, and I provided more sources, and gave you links above to Google, showing how relevant this is, and all of a sudden you want it removed. LOLOL. The mere fact that there are more sources indicates that this is obviously a very important part of the libel law suit against Forbes. You said it yourself. And I quote: "When you can support the article with cites, then you can "reinstate" it." You were saying? LOLOLOL. I'm not blind as to what is going on here, and none of you WP:OWN the article, neither do I, but you don't remove information just coz you don't like what it says. Which by the way was WP:NPOV. And don't think I am going to be bogged down in endless discussion. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a slim chance that this belongs in an article on libel - but it is rather irrelevant to the BLP here. In point of fact, many places allow libel suits even for a single copy sold in the jurisdiction, and, in a few places, for dissemination on the Internet with zero copies sold in the jurisdiction. [3] inter alia. Interesting stuff perhaps - but of no actual direct connection here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the libel tourism article, and for all the assertions of importance of the Berezovsky case, it's not mentioned there.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• note - User:Russavia has added this issue/content to the Libel tourism article at least removing the weight / desire to add it here/ to this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note, bbb23 tried to portray that because it wasn't in the libel tourism article, it can't be that important here. I merely added to the libel tourism article to refute that proposition. Now that it is in that article, it can be expanded upon there, because now that it is in that article, it only increaes the need to ensure it is in this article. Of course, now, I expect for you all to rush over like good little battlegrounders, and remove it from that article, and then use the same argument of it not being in that article. lol. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of it there is uncontested and in fact, supported as a more correct location. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, you are misinterpreting what I said. I said it doesn't belong in the Berezovsky article period. I also said that if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the libel tourism article. I then noted in passing that even though you claim the case is an important example of libel tourism, it wasn't in the libel tourism article. I did not say that by putting it in the libel tourism article, that means it belongs in the Berezovsky article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary here says otherwise. The deletion of multiple scholarly legal facts seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• note - User:Russavia has now requested input from the WikiProject Russia - Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Not a my favourite topic to meddle in, but really, if Berezovsky is mentioned in the whole bunch of sources connecting him to libel tourism, and there are no sources which defend the opposite view, why delete it from the article? Also, I should say that enforcing consensus by sheer numbers against all logic and posting inappropriate stuff on talk pages is not the way to handle contentious issues. GreyHood ^Talk 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, i removed reference to terrorism from the section subtitle. This is an unsourced strong allegation with serious ramifications. WP:BLP advises that such material should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Heap of sources

Here's a bunch of sources which can give us information on Berezovsky and libel tourism

• The Financial Times - quote: "Sweet & Maxwell said the three cases that could be classed as libel tourism involved the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky and a Russian television broadcast, the Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich and an Italian newspaper, and the investment company LonZim and a banker it sued for slander and libel."
• Associate Professor in Law at Abilene Christian University - "In 1997 (Berezovsky) helped pave the way for wealthy foreigners to attack critical publication through the London courts when he successfully sued the American magazine Forbes, despite its slim circulation in Britain."
• The Guardian - Berezovsky is no stranger to London's law courts. In 1997 he sued the US magazine Forbes after it printed an article that asked: "Is he the Godfather of the Kremlin?" He won despite only 2,000 copies of the 785,000 sold worldwide having been purchased in the UK. That case is often cited as an example of libel tourism – foreigners taking advantage of England's libel laws, which tend to favour the claimant by putting the burden of proof on the defendant.
• The Independent - In another case, the House of Lords allowed Russians Boris Berezovsky and Georgi Glouchkov to sue the American magazine Forbes over an article about their business activities in Russia, which contained accusations of gangsterism and corruption. Around 780,000 copies of the magazine were sold in the United States, while only around 6,000 copies were accessed in print or via the internet in the UK. Forbes did not prove the allegations were true and settled the case.
• BBC - The UK's highest court, the House of Lords, has given Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky leave to bring a libel action against Forbes Magazine. Legal experts say the ruling could make England the world's top destination for libel litigation.
• Freedom House - Libel tourism is not a new phenomenon, but it is gaining traction and putting greater pressure on the free exchange of ideas. In the United Kingdom, the burden of proof lies with the defendant in such cases. This factor, combined with the UK’s image as a paragon of high jurisprudential standards, makes the country an attractive venue for plaintiffs seeking to silence critics. Those who sue successfully can obtain the validation and imprimatur of the UK courts, which carry considerable weight in public relations. The experience of Forbes magazine highlights the challenges presented by UK libel law. In 1996, Boris Berezovsky, one of Russia’s billionaire “oligarchs,” filed a claim against the magazine for an article entitled “Godfather of the Kremlin.” Berezovsky successfully sued Forbes in London, even though it is based in New York and sold only a modest number of copies in the UK.
• Bristows (law firm) - read it yourselves as cut and paste not work on this one
• Jewish centre for Public Affairs - Boris Berezovsky (a Russian) succeeded in persuading the House of Lords of his right to sue Forbes (an American magazine) 28 and Rinat Akhmetov (a Ukrainian) successfully sued Kyiv Post and Obozrevatel (two Ukrainian internet journals). 29 As the suits have multiplied, media accounts have acknowledged the importance of England as the libel plaintiff’s destination of choice.
• The New York Times - The exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky has used England's libel laws to take on a range of critics, including Forbes magazine. Berezovsky was party to the watershed suit in the late 1990s against Forbes that, among other things, signaled the critical role digital media would come to play in the libel tourism game. At the time, the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, cited Forbes' Internet readership as a crucial part of its argument on jurisdiction.
• Bloomberg - general libel tourism article
• Testimony before the US Senate - On the heels of Professor Lipstadt’s trial came the case that opened a new phase in the transatlantic free speech rift – lawsuits brought in England by plaintiffs who are not U.K. residents but who sue in that jurisdiction to exploit its plaintiff-friendly libel laws. The practice earned a neat nickname – “libel tourism.” In 1997, Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky filed suit against Forbes magazine in London over an article from the December 1996 issue of the magazine titled “Godfather of the Kremlin?”

8 The piece, written by Russian-American journalist Paul Klebnikov, portrayed Berezovsky as a man who, as Forbes pointed out in a related editorial, was followed by “a trail of corpses, uncollectible debts and competitors terrified for their lives.”9 Forbes argued that it made no sense to litigate a case involving a Russian plaintiff and a New York magazine in England, where a tiny fraction of the publication’s readers were located and which was not a focal point of the reporting. But the English courts would not loosen their grips on the suit, and Forbes eventually retracted the claims and settled the case rather than face trial. 10 Klebnikov was murdered on a Moscow street in 2004.

Those were found on the first 4 pages of a Google web search [4]

Google Book searches[5] and Google Scholar searches[6] return even more results. And even moreso which back up what was written in the article, that Berezovsky v Michael is the leading example of libel tourism, so much so that Berezovsky has used it on several occasions.

What is the problem with having this in the article? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To long didn't read - you appear to be in the wrong location, I suggest you go assert the high notability (the primary case) in th parent article and that will allow us to give correct weight in this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well if you didn't read you can't make any type of judgement call can you? There is a difference between rightfully protecting a BLP article from poorly or unsourced negative material, and whitewashing an article of information which is meticulously sourced to highest possible reliable sources. Unfortunately, the latter is occurring here. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever - today, you have been distributive and battle fielding , attempting to get anyone that you perceive as your opponent blocked , and I don't like that. Tomorrow , I will look at your desired additions with fresh eyes, I suggest you do the same. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ABC source - interesting, but just placing it here for my own reference for extra information to add into article. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC on libel case

Should the UK House of Lords permitting Berezovsky to sue for libel in UK courts, and the wide subsequent scholarly legal opinion that it create jurisdictional issues and was a leading example of libel tourism be included in the article? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Above at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism is further information for anyone interested in commenting. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Insufficiently relevant in a BLP The editorial judgement of "libel tourism" is not of value in the biography, but may be used in an article on that topic if it is found sufficiently notable as a topic. Elsewise, it is simply an opinion about a decision of the House of Lords, and not a decision about an actual act of the person about whom the article is about, and not really of much value here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • So what do you suggest? I have some 200 sources, ALL high quality, which specifically state that Berezovsky's law suit was the beginning of libel tourism, and you want us to write about it at libel tourism, but not link to libel tourism from this article? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to keep information out of articles. In addition, many sources (see above) state that Berezovsky is a serial user of libel tourism as a way to stifle negative press. Call him the Lee Kuan Yew of Russia/UK if you will. Of course it should be mentioned. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Libel is a serious legal issue. Wikipidia quite properly has developed a set of policies to protect itself and its subjects from it. By raising the issue of libel tourism in the context of a specific BLP, i. e. suggesting that a particular slander was not really a slander, and a retraction was not a true retraction, is a form of libel itself because it attempts to revalidate something which has been already found "legally libelous" in a court of law. I do not think this belongs to BLP--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I think we are going to have to put a COI notice on the top of the talk page, just to allow uninvolved editors know that you have a declared COI on this subject. Now, I will give you another lesson on how WP:BLP operates on WP. The Wikipedia:BLP#Tone of what inserted complied with policy. There was no Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise so that isn't relevant. Wikipedia:BLP#Attack_pages doesn't apply. I have already demonstrated that the information more than meets WP:BLPSOURCES. It wasn't poorly sourced as per WP:GRAPEVINE. WP:BLPGOSSIP also does not apply, due to the quality and quantity of the sources (Georgetown Law Journal, law professors, academic publishers and journals, etc). WP:BLPSPS also does not apply because the sources which one can find are peer-reviewed. Now here is what is relevant. WP:WELLKNOWN, and I quote "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." If you doubt the veracity of whether a source is reliable or not, you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN for further input on that particular source. In the case of Berezovsky, it is widely written by scholars (and note how I have not used a single Russian source for any of it!!) what was written, and what was presented was WP:NPOV, verifiable and sourced to high quality reliable sources. We are not here to engage in advocacy for one side or the other, and we aren't here to write attack articles, nor are we here to write puff pieces. We simply present the information as best we can in an NPOV way, and we let our readers decide on their own opinion. And what was presented, was done well within the confines of considering BLP policies. Additionally, in direct relation to Klebnikov/Forbes and Berezovsky, the assertions that Forbes retracted weren't found "legally libellous" in any court, because the two parties reached an out of court settlement, in which Forbes conceded to certain things due to the nature of English libel laws. Of course, this is all covered in those same academic articles. Has anyone cared to read any of them? But me I mean :) Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said before, I am connected with the subject, but not being paid for this. So please don't call me "paid propagandist" -- you are supposed to assume good faith, and accord me the same courtesy that I gave you on the same subject. My objective here is to have the false allegations removed from the article -- in full accord with WP:BLP. I stand by my view that rebroadcasting the retracted content - regardless on the jurisdiction where it has been retracted - is exactly what WP seeks to avoid when it calls for immediate removal of such material. In regard to libel tourism, this is totally irrelevant. I concede that the subject sought legal remedy in a jurisdiction where he had the highest chances of being successful - that is only natural. You could probably insert something like "he sued in UK, where libel laws are more claimant-friendly than in USA, and not in Russia, where legal standards are inferior". But this kind of discussion IMO really belongs elsewhere.--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I haven't called you a paid propagandist. I have said that you have a conflict of interest with the subject, and that COI shows. Nothing that you have said above accords anything being removed from the article. Again, I have long experience in editing BLP articles. As per the multitude of reliable and academic sources, libel tourism is totally relevant, and that is obvious by the fact that much has been written on it. Seeking legal remedy in a jurisdiction where people have highest chance of being successful is not natural. Refer to this from a Melbourne barrister, and an expert in internet defamation:

Yes, it's a terrific case really, where two Russian businessmen again sued Dow Jones, the American publisher, in England, in relation to an article that had appeared in Forbes magazine, which is an American business magazine. In that case there were about 785,000 copies of the magazine in circulation, 13 of them had been sold in Russia and 1,915 of them had been sold in England. So they sued, they confined their claim, just as Mr Gutnik did, saying 'All we want is damages for the damage to our reputations which has occurred in England by reason of copies of the magazine being available in England.' And one of the judges in considering the matter, said 'Well it's a very strange circumstance. These Russian businessmen haven't sued in America, where most of the magazines were circulated, because they would probably lose there, and they would lose there because of the American guarantee of freedom of speech.' But then the judge said, 'They've chosen not to sue in Russia for an equally strange reason, because it might be thought that they would be too likely to win there, because of questions about the reliability and integrity of the Russian judicial system.' So in the end the English court said it was not inappropriate for them to be allowed to maintain their case in England. So it was a real case of libel tourism of the kind we've been discussing. But note they confined their case to the distribution of magazines occurring within England itself.

The legal and academic community calls it libel tourism, and Berezovsky's case is cited as THE case that opened the floodgates in the UK, for others to engage in libel tourism. The following is from a piece entitled Libel tourism or just redress? Reconciling the (English) right to reputation with the (American) right to free speech in cross-border libel cases and was published in the Journal of Private International Law:

Exercising jurisdiction is arguably less balanced and justified, however, where neither party has any significant link to the forum, publication is minimal there yet the tribunal has simply been chosen to provide relief which would otherwise be unavailable in the--more reasonably foreseeable--alternative forum. This situation arises in practice because in an increasingly globalised world there are politicians, sporting stars, business persons and other celebrities with truly multinational reputations. Such persons, particularly if they are US residents, may seek to avoid the strictures of the First Amendment by crossing the Atlantic to sue in a claimant-friendly jurisdiction such as England. Because such persons are "known" in England they have a reputation there to vindicate by litigation. It is this situation which is most commonly decried as "libel tourism" and appears to have received its strongest support from the 2000 House of Lords decision in Berezovsky v Michaels. (23)

In Berezovsky, a US publisher was sued in England in respect of an article allegedly defamatory of a Russian businessman, suggesting that he had been engaged in organised crime and corruption in that country. Two thousand copies of the article circulated in England as compared to almost 800,000 in the US and 13 in Russia. Despite the plaintiff having only limited connections with England--gained largely through business visits--a majority of the House of Lords allowed the matter to proceed on the basis that Berezovsky had acquired a reputation in the forum. Yet, as Lord Hoffmann noted in dissent, connections with a country and reputation therein are not at all the same thing. While Berezovsky had a "truly international reputation", his reputation in England "was merely an inseparable segment of his reputation worldwide". (24) The Berezovsky decision no doubt came as an even greater shock for writers and publishers in the US, operating under their liberal standards of free speech, since not only were there minimal publications in England but the claimant himself had such limited connections to the country. The impact of this case has been felt in number of subsequent libel cases in England, all involving US defendants and non-English claimants--some of whom were even US residents. Henceforth, such publishers must anticipate being sued in

England by anyone with an English reputation--an extraordinary burden and one which hardly balances the competing US and English interests referred to above. These cases, in which US claimants have sued US defendants in England, must particularly raise the ire of US media interests and free speech advocates. From their perspective, such actions likely, and in our view may justifiably, appear as a cynical attempt by US residents to forum shop internationally to evade their own freedom of expression laws--laws which, on other occasions, they themselves may choose to seek the protection of while at home.

Scholarly opinion trumps any editorial POV on such issues, and there is nothing WP:BLP violating in anything that was written, or which will be written. A great multitude of reliable and academic sources call it libel tourism, so we are able to do so as well, because the sources are there. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • Russavia, you are right, you did not call me a paid propagandist. Another likeminded editor did. But he was so similar to you that I inadvertently mixed you up. Apologies--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Responding to the RfC, I do not see how BLP applies: he is a public figure, it is directly related to his career, this was a major court case which had wide-spread publicity internationally, both in the press and in academic discussion. it's appropriate to include it both here, and at libel tourism, for it is one of the most notable examples of it, and perhaps the leading case in the UK. I can see no possible basis for including it. Considering what has been written elsewhere, it clearly can do no harm to him. Incidentally, I think we need an article about the case itself. I'm not sure whether we consider all HOL decisions in the UK notable, like we do SCOTUS in the US, but I think we should on the same basis--and there are many fewer of them. Regardless of that, this case is ,notable. I agree with Russavia's reading of the material and justification of the use of the term. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It needs, as a minimum , attribution, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My view is that this is not a BLP issue. Rather, it is a question of whether the material belongs in this article. I think we have to distinguish what may be notable to a legal doctrine as opposed to what is notable to a person. In this instance, even if the Berezovsky case became notable because of the legal issues raised, that doesn't mean it is worth mentioning in the Berezovsky article. (DGG, I think you misspoke in your comment ("I can see no possible basis for including it") - I think you meant the opposite.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fairly trivially this should be covered. Obviously to suggest that something found libellous is in fact true will in general be inadvisable. Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
  

Anna allegations

Kommersant isn't loading up for me here for some reason, but I do recall it saying the other day that the suspect mentioned that it was a person who couldn't return to Russia...which in turn has led to everyone saying it is meaning Berezovsky? If that is the case, this distinction needs to be made in the article. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Russavia, in regard to Anna Politkovskaya I replied to you elsewhere that Kommersant reported leaked information that a suspect in custody testified that Berezovsky "could have been" involved in Politkovskaya's killing. A spokesman of Memorial (society), a major human rights group, immediately voiced concern that the testimony could have been extracted by torture - based on prior history ([7]). Politkovskaya's colleagues at Novaya Gazeta discounted the allegation and the attorney for Politkovskaya family said that her clients "do not need an appointed perpetrator" as reported in the same story in Kommersant ([8]). The leak has not been officially confirmed and Berezovsky is not a suspect. Repeating allegations of murder here on that basis would be a blatant violation of WP:BLP--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Umm, you fail to see how WP:BLP works. I take it you aren't a member of Berezovsky's legal team, otherwise you would realise this. Kommersant is a reliable source. In fact, it is one of the most reliable Russian media sources there is. As to the allegation, from Kommersant:

По версии, которую Дмитрий Павлюченков сообщил следствию, переговоры о подготовке убийства Анны Политковской велись Лом-Али Гайтукаевым на Украине, поскольку предполагаемый заказчик преступления в то время был невъездным в Россию. От Лом-Али Гайтукаева Дмитрий Павлюченков узнал, что "работать предстоит по Политковской" и что за это будет хорошо заплачено. Причем вначале речь шла только о слежке, но потом от Лом-Али Гайтукаева якобы поступило указание — убийство должно быть совершено не позднее 7 октября (день рождения тогдашнего президента Владимира Путина), а еще лучше в этот день. На этом настаивал заказчик. До дня икс было еще несколько месяцев, поэтому, говорил Лом-Али Гайтукаев, спешить не надо, а лучше все хорошо подготовить. При этом Дмитрий Павлюченков не исключил, что заказ на журналистку мог поступить чеченскому "авторитету" от предпринимателя Бориса Березовского. Подтвердить эту версию защита экс-милиционера отказалась, а в следственном комитете ее оставили без комментариев.

In short, according to Pavlyuchenkov, and as reported by Kommersant[9], he was hired by a Chechen intermediary of "someone who couldn't enter Russia" to help order the assassination and that he said he was told he would be well paid. There were allegedly orders from the client that Anna was to be killed before 7 October, but yet preferably ON 7 October, because that day is Putin's birthday (queue Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday Mr President). Pavlyuchenkov also said that he thought from the beginning the client could have been Berezovsky, but the investigating committee wouldn't confirm this upon being questioned by Kommersant. Then...

Шеф-редактор "Новой газеты" Сергей Соколов допустил, что "старые идеи могли получить новую кровь", но, как считает он, заказчик убийства обозревателя его газеты находится не за границей, а в России. А адвокат детей госпожи Политковской Анна Ставицкая заявила "Ъ", что в "старом" деле указаний о причастности Бориса Березовского к убийству не было. С новыми материалами защиту не знакомили. В любом случае, сказала она, важны доказательства, а "назначенный заказчик в этом деле потерпевшим не нужен".

It is basically Sokolov of NG and Stavitskaya (AP's lawyer) saying that there is no evidence of Berezovsky being involved, and that the killer is in Russia. As to Cherkasov's claims, this is not a reliable source. It is a blog, grani.ru or not grani.ru, it is a blog, and a better source than that would be needed, i.e. one with a history of fact-checking and an expectation of such.

The information clearly belongs in the article, HOWEVER, we can not say, nor will we say, that Berezovsky is responsible. But we can describe the allegations. Exactly the same as how Kommersant and other reputable media outlets have done. That is how WP:BLP works on Wikipedia. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• You have just repeated in five paragraphs exactly what I had said in one (see above). This is an inference based on an unsubstantiated allegation based on a hearsay. Inclusion will contradict WP:BLP, which calls for immediate removal of such type of material.--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have provided the above for the benefit of anyone here who doesn't understand Russian, so that they are able to get an idea of the material. I suggest that you take on board what is written here. I have long experience in editing BLP articles, and I suggest that you ask at WP:BLPN whether your opinion is backed up by the BLP policy, because it is not. We describe disputes and allegations on Wikipedia, so long as they are NPOV, and so long as they are reliably sourced. User:Colchicum is an editor who has the same opinion as yourself in relation to many issues, but as you saw, he inserted the material into the article. Experienced editors know how to present negative material into articles, and nothing in BLP policy dictates that it needs to be removed. Your arguments are more WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety, so please ask at WP:BLPN, and get other opinion from neutral and uninvolved editors, and you will see that my comments above will stand up to scrutiny in accordance with BLP policy. The information goes back into the article. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • No, Russavia, this unsubstantiated slanderous allegation will not stand, and will be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" per WP:BLP.--Kolokol1 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My addition was: "Russian officials have long speculated that Berezovsky stood behind the assassination of another critic of the Kremlin, Novaya Gazeta jornalist Anna Politkovskaya, which took place on October 7, 2006. In April 2008 in an interview to Izvestia Dmitry Dovgy, a senior Investigative Committee official, later convicted of bribery and abuse of office, accused Berezovsky of ordering Politkovskaya’s assassination. Berezovsky denied the allegations. In Feburuary 2009 Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, charged with organizing the murder of Politkovskaya, testified before the court that the investigators had pressured him to falsely incriminate Berezovsky in exchange for a reduced sentence. In September 2011 it was leaked to Kommersant that the Investigative Committee had obtained testimony from former Moscow police officer Dmitry Pavlyuchenkov, a new suspect in the case, naming Berezovsky as the mastermind of the murder. However, Sergei Sokolov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, and Anna Stavitskaya, attorney for Politkovskaya's family, were highly sceptical about the veracity of the testimony. "

Note that this text doesn't assert that Berezovsky did something, it only describes notable claims, presenting them as opinions, not facts, and attributing them properly, so it would not be a BLP violation on Wikipedia's part. The claims may be false (and I think they are), but in any case they belong here because they are notable (because they are made by people whose opinions, unlike Klebnikov's, are of some consequence). Of course we can omit the recent spat of accusations as long as they are not yet confirmed officially, but I don't see why this would be helpful. Nobody is going to believe them, don't worry. A sentence like "A said that B had killed C" doesn't assert that B killed C, it only asserts that A make such a claim, which may be false (or not). Whether it is appropriate to include such a claim in Wikipedia articles depends on its notability. Now, if A is Klebnikov, we may (in fact must) ignore the claim, because it is just an opinion. But if A is some law enforcement official, it is notable. Colchicum (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Colchicum, I think that if we note every allegation against Berezovsky, this article will become very long. However, if there is a consensus that Politkovskaya angle is significant, then the full story should be told, including the following items (I will source them later):

• Putin personally hinted that the contract was placed by someone hiding abroad from Russian law [10][11]
• Head of the Investigative Commiite Alexander Bastrykin told journalists that they have no evidence of Berezovsky involvement [12][13]
• A prominent journalist Ilya Barabanov quoted a source saying that Putin ordered the killing of Litvinenko in retaliation - because he believed that Politkovskaya was murdered by Berezovsky[14][15]

-and so on. Frankly some line should be drawn here. We should not repeat every crazy allegation from the Russian press--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not going to report allegations by the press (or by Lugovoy, or by anonymous officials), only accusations made by specific significant officials in the government or the prosecutor's office/police, or their spokespersons. So Barabanov will not do. Please find sources for the other points (Putin and Bastrykin) and we will see what to do with them. Colchicum (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

False descriptions of Berezovsky in "Russian media" and incarnation of evil? PSML

From the same libel section, we have:

Berezovsky's meteoric enrichment and involvement in power struggles have been accompanied by allegations of various crimes from his opponents. After his falling out with Putin and exile to London, these allegations became the recurrent theme of official state-controlled media, earning him comparisons with Leon Trotsky[100] and the Orwellian character Emmanuel Goldstein.[101] While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is that of an incarnation of evil, "the most hated man" in Russia.[102]

This is largely original research. Who has compared Berezovsky with Trotsky? It's not state-controlled media. It is Andrei Piontkovsky, another anti-Kremlin activist who has come up with that analogy on his own. And who has compared him with Goldstein? Again, it's not any so-called state controlled media, but again, Piontkovsky himself has invented that analogy. This sentence as it is written is entirely original research at most, and entirely misleading at least. Now to the second part, I must admit I almost pissed my pants laughing at it. "incarnation of evil"? I mean honestly, who's responsible for this? 30 Rock might be looking for some writers, whoever you are, get in touch with them. Where exactly in this article does such "incarnation of evil" occur? This POV-ridden paragraph needs to be removed from the article almost in its entirety. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your characterization of Andrey Piontkovsky as an "anti-Kremlin activist" is false. He is a respected scholar, author and analyst. His opinion is particularly valid because he has been highly critical of Berezovsky. It is thrue, however, thet he is one of the few sources in Russia, who are not run by the Kremlin. Grani.Ru is a major liberal news and opinion portal, regularly read by more than half a million people. The BBC articlespeaks for itself.--Kolokol1 (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Um Piontkovsky is a political activist. He may be a scholar, but as of late he is known more for his activism than his scholarship. Again, the information will be removed as it is WP:SYN. You don't take separate statements and join them together to paint a particular POV, which is what the above is. 1 + 1 ≠ 3. Also, don't mischaracterise Russian media. Whilst TV is pretty much state controlled, there is a thriving media in Russia; the print media is very diverse, and is not state-controlled, and the internet, well, Russia is one of the most open internet societies on the planet where there is no government control. The BBC article does not speak for itself. An editor, who it is I don't know, has engaged in highly POV-original research by inserting "incarnation of evil" (PMSL still makes me laugh). The section will be removed once the article is unlocked, or at the very least written from NPOV which contains no original research. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You are threatening to remove an important section describing how the subject is viewed by the majority of the Russian public. The three sources cited are respected independent sources, which give essentially the same picture. There are no contrasting sources reporting that the subject is widely admired. I think that your threat is disruptive and urge you to reconsider.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation

In the section Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Libel_suits_in_UK can an admin please remove:

While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is that of an incarnation of evil, "the most hated man" in Russia.

This is a violation of WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLPSTYLE, in that it is a complete overstatement and the source does not mention at all anything like "incarnation of evil"; it has been inserted into the article by User:Kolokol1 who has a conflict of interest in the article, in that he is admittedly connected with the subject. The assertion also that he is "the most hated man" in Russia, is somewhat relative in that it was a passing comment by Chubais. Whether the subject of the article agrees with the assertion or not, is irrelevant, it is puffery in the extreme. At the very least, the "that of an incarnation of evil" needs to be removed as a blatant BLP violation. It should not be in the article at all without a solid, reliable source. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• As is evident from the above discussion, the grossly negative image of the subject in Russia is a well-sourced fact, with no evidence otherwise. Perhaps, the words "an incarnation of evil" could be removed, leaving the phrase as follows:

"While he successfully defended himself in the West in four consecutive libel suites, his image in his homeland is grossly negative, "the most hated man" in Russia.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Russavia's reasoning, but I agree with his conclusion. I think the sentence should be removed entirely. It's not that it's puffery or that it doesn't conform to the source so much as it's one of those semi-topical sentences that both announces the four libel suits and injects opinion into the article at the same time. The sentence is gratuitous. The section should just describe the libel suits.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Embezzlement and whitewashing of this article

The article as it stands at the moment completely glosses over the embezzlement of millions of dollars from Aeroflot by Andava - a company of which Berezovsky and Glushkov were the major shareholders (around 35% each). It was the embezzlement of these funds by shady offshore entities that lead to charges being laid against the two. A lot of this information, as well as rulings in Switzerland against Berezovsky-related entities, has been removed from the article.[16] This is complete whitewashing of the article, given that it is the embezzlement by companies in which Berezovsky was a major shareholder that led to Berezovsky refusing to return to Russia. This is a great article which gives great insight into the embezzlement and how it all operated.

"Privatization in Russia goes through three stages, first, the privatization of profits; second, the privatization of property; third, the privatization of debts."

That quote gives great insight into how the oligarchs earned the "robber baron" monicker, and says much about how the embezzlement occurred.

The question is, why was this information removed from the article, given that the embezzlement of Aeroflot is core to Berezovsky's biography. This information will be added back into the article once unlocked.

And before anyone argues that it belongs in the Aeroflot article, as an "expert" in that area, Berezovsky/Andava/embezzlement is but a byline in the history of the company, yet it is core to Berezovsky's biography. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use what editors "know" but what reliable sources state. WP:BLP requires that the claims be about the person - not just about a company of which he was a shareholder. If the source states that the individual was convicted of embezzlement, then that refers to the person. Is this reasonably clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The passion and rhetoric are no substitute for fact. The Aeroflot case is a prominent part of the subject biography and is deservedly mentioned several times in the present protected narrative. The main milestones (quoted from the article) are as follows:

• "In 1995 he played a key role in a management reshuffle at Aeroflot and participated in its corporatization [17] with his close associate Nikolai Glushkov becoming Aeroflot's CFO."

• "In April 1999 Russia's Prosecutor General opened an investigation into embezzlement at Aeroflot and issued an arrest warrant for Berezovsky, who called the investigation politically motivated and orchestrated by his foe, Prime-minister Yevgeny Primakov.[18] The warrant was dropped a week later, after Berezovsky submitted to questioning by the prosecutors. No charges were brought.[19]

• "(In October 2000) Russian prosecutors revived the Aeroflot fraud investigation and Berezovsky was questioned as a witness.[72] On November 7, 2000 Berezovsky, who was travelling abroad, failed to appear for further questioning and announced that he would not return to Russia because of what he described as "constantly intensifying pressure on me by the authorities and President Putin personally. Essentially," he said, "I'm being forced to choose whether to become a political prisoner or a political emigrant." Berezovsky claimed that Putin had made him a suspect in the Aeroflot case simply because ORT had "spoken the truth" about the sinking of the submarine Kursk.[73] In early December his associate Nikolai Glushkov was arrested in Moscow ..."[74]

• "A Moscow trial in November 2007 found him guilty of embezzling nearly 215m roubles (£4.3m) from Aeroflot.The court said that in the 1990s Berezovsky was a member of an "organised criminal group" that stole the airline's foreign currency earnings. From London, Berezovsky called the tial, which sentenced him to six years in prison, 'a farce'."

In addition, three more items should be added, which I intend to do with appropriate sourcing when the article is unprotected:

• The initial conflict over Aeroflot arose from the irritation that Mr. Berezovsky's management team caused in the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, which Mr. Primakov headed before becoming prime minister, over firing of thousands of spies, who used Aeroflot as a front organization in Soviet times. (Nickolai Glushkov: Media Should Know Facts Before Investigators Do, Kommersant 23.11.2000)[20]
• Berezovsky revealed that the funds from Aeroflot that he allegedly embezzled were diverted to fund Putin's election campaign with Putin's knowledge and consent [21]
• In 2007 Russian charges re Aeroflot led to an extradition request to UK[22]. They were reviewed by British courts, found politically motivated, and rejected. Thus, there are two opposing legal views on these charges, even if one assumes for a minute the equality of the judicial standards in UK and Russia

I do not know of any other sourced facts about Aeroflot relevant to this BLP. The embezzlement charge has been prominently noted and put into context. Russavia, you are threatening to revert a balanced NPOV narrative into an attack piece in violation of WP:BLP. The whitewashing charge has no grounds, it is inflammatory rhetoric aimed at provoking other editors who are trying to work with you in good faith.This is disruptive behavior, for which another user has been blocked. Please do not do this --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Way forward

I think everyone agrees that Berezovsky is a controversial figure. There are many contradictory claims, counterclaims, etc. It is also undeniable that he became a target of a defamation campaign conducted by Russian state (publications in state-controlled or influenced media, and especially TV). How to deal with it? Let's use two standard suggestions per our policies.

1. Let's use secondary RS. I mean books by known authors.
2. Let's focus on factual information supported by multiple RS, rather than on opinion pieces about him. Can source X be used to provide views by person A about Berezovsky? Yes, it can, but we do not need opinion pieces, especially of defamatory nature. Biophys (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Existing WP rules and policies are basically fair and reasonable. I believe that if everyone involved scrupulously followed them to the letter - enforcement included - there would be no problem in having a good article with due weight given to all the controversies. The passionate opposition from certain quarters to the fair and balanced approach, in fact, makes this BLP a test case of whether the system works. I don't think any additional rules are needed.--Kolokol1 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I support Biophys position on this - clearly there are all sorts of allegations, we don't have a duty to report them. We have a duty to report about this person as high a standard as we can - in this case imo considering some of the dubious reporting standards about him that means raising our standards to keep such content out of the article. - simply report the actual details about him and keep the allegations out as much as is clearly possible. And harry thought he was behind the murder of jane as was added a couple of days ago is the type of content I am talking about, we need to consider carefully what we repeat in this BLP and we should imo keep it lean and focused. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't some harry, it was the Russian prosecutor's office. The allegations may be false, but they are notable and they are part of his biography. There is no need to hide the fact that the Russian officials have been fabricating cases against Berezovsky. Klebnikov's semi-fiction, on the other hand, should be kept out of this page. Colchicum (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Colchcum, in this case it was not the Russian prosecutor's office, it was an unattributed leak from "a source", about an alleged confession of a man in jail, which, according to human rights observers, could have been obtained under torture. It was never officially confirmed. The way it was leaked, picked up by Western well-wishers, and presented as a legitimate accusation smacks of a classic disinformation operation in the style of the old KGB.--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There were many more accusations before, voiced by Dovgy, Chaika and even Putin himself. See a section above. Don't worry, nobody is going to believe this bullshit. But it is notable that this disinformation campaign takes place, and there is nothing in Wikipedia policies that would prevent us from reporting it, as long as we don't endorse it. The latest spat of accusation can wait until it is officially confirmed, of course, but I don't see why this would be helpful. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I responded above in Anna Allegations. Actually I do not object. Perhaps a separate section on Politkovskaya should be included. I am simply concerned that this bio is turning into a book and will collapse under its own weight:-)--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Factsheet for "Berezovsky's role in Putin's Rise to Power"

Please comment/amend sourced facts for a new subsection of the article:

• Putin's meteoric rise in the course of only one year from relative obscurity to the presidency of Russia has been attributed to his endearment with the Family, under Berezovsky's tutelage. By the end of 1999 the Family persuaded Yeltsin to name Putin his political successor and nominate him for presidency [23] [24]

• Berezovsky's acquaintance with Putin dates back to the early 90'es, when he, as the Deputy Mayor, helped Logovaz establish a car dealership in St. Petersburg. 9780743281799/Baker-Peter-and-Glasser-Susan/custserv-ebooks.php?s=1&PAGE=adobe|"Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution" By Peter Baker, Susan Glasser Page 52-53

• Later Berezovsky took Putin skiing with him in Switzerland. [25]

• In February 1999, when Berezovsky's political standing looked uncertain because of his clash with prime-minister Evgeny Primakov over Aeroflot, Putin, then Director of FSB, made a bold gesture by showing up at a birthday party for Berezovsky's wife. "I absolutely do not care what Primakov thinks of me", Putin told Berezovsky on that night. That was the beginning of their political allianace. Baker Peter and, Glasser Susan (2005). Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution. New York: Simon&Schuster. pp. 52–53. ISBN 9780743281799.[26]

• According to the Times, Spanish police discovered that Putin had secretly visited a villa in Spain belonging to Berezovsky on up to five different occasions in 1999. [27]

• In mid summer 1999 the Family dispatched Berezovsky to Biarritz, were Putin was vacationing, to persuade him to accept the position of prime minister and the role of heir apparent [28][29]

• On August 9 Yeltsin sacked the government of Sergei Stepashin and appointed Putin prime minister amid reports that Berezovsky masterminded the reshuffle [30]

• In the end of 1999, Berezovsky was instrumental in creating in just a few months and funding the Unity party with no ideology other than its support for Putin. [31] [32]

• Later he disclosed that the money to fund Unity were taken from Aeroflot with Putin's knowledge and consent [33]

• Berezovsky campaigned as Putin's loyalist and in December 1999 won a seat in the Duma from the North Caucasian republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessia [34]

• During the Duma election campaign of 1999 his ORT TV became an extremely effective propaganda tool for the Putin camp using agressive attack reporting and programming to degrade and ridicule Putin's rivals, former Prime Minister Evgeny Primakov and Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Unity got surprisingly high score in the elections paving the way to Putin's election victory in spring 2000. [35] [36]--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is all supported by RS (also look in the book "Death of Dissident"), but you need a coherent text, not a fact sheet. One must also explain what does it mean "Yeltsin's family" [37]. Perhaps we even need a separate article on Yeltsin's family. Biophys (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You are right, this should be rewritten as a narrative, but I intentionally first put it as bullet points to give everyone an opportunity to contest these items one by one. Regarding the "Family" , the article, as it stands now, has two subsections, "2.5 The Kremlin Family" and "2.6 Conflict with Putin and emigration". 2.5 clearly explains what "Family" is. Chronologically the proposed section, "Role in Putin's Rise to Power" should go right between them, which would make a special definition of the "Family" unneccessary--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you are talking about could be best described in a separate article, something like Operation "Successor", see book "Corporation" by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky. Biophys (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we are trying to write the biography of Berezovsky, not Putin. Berezovsky's role in creating Putin is an important part of this bio, but must be reflected here only inasmuch it concerns Berezovsky. Obviously, it should also be reflected in the biography of Putin himself. However, Berezovsky was not alone in bringing Putin to power. "Operation "Successor" is more about Putin than Berezovsky, so it does not belong here. I would not use Felshtinsky books, just as Goldfarb's and Klebnikov's as a primary sources, because they are all biased. There are plenty of independent sources.--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is currently protected, so you might wish edit something else. All sources are biased. I am usually looking for a book written by the best expert(s) on a specific narrowly defined subject. Good luck. Biophys (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "all sources are biased"? Major Western newspapers, which I used here, are not biased at all. Books written by loyalists or enemies of the subject, are. Books such as "Kremlin Rising", by Baker and Glasser, the two Washington Post correspondents in Moscow, are not--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

An author (e.g. a Western journalist) study the subject, comes to certain conclusions, and describes the subject in a certain manner that can be extremely biased (e.g. a lot of reports by US media are extremely biased and misleading because authors do not understand the subject). The problem is not the bias, but the knowledge. For example, Solzhanitsyn knows Gulag subjects much better than Applebaum who never even was there. Same would with biologist who study certain subjects his entire life versus a fresh PhD student. Biophys (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Western journalists in major newspapers are subject to fact-chechking editorial policy, and constrained by liability for slander. Russian sources are generally not, and very few of them care about professional reputation because standards are different. Paid journalists are an exception in the West and a rule in Russia. To use you science analogy it is like comparing a publication in a peer-reviewed journal or in your private blog. With regard to books, many of them, like Felshtinsky or Goldfarb do not source their research at all. Klebnikov's possible bias has been discussed enough. I would rather rely on The New York Times and BBC than on these questionable sources--Kolokol1 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As it appears that none of the facts or sources above are contested, below is the new section re-written in the narrative style for inclusion into the article. Please comment. We will then request an admin to add it to the page--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made some minor grammatical and stylistic changes to the text below. I cannot comment on whether it is complete but it seems well-sourced and is clearly notable enough to merit inclusion. Quite right to discuss significant further content on this talk page in view of the controversies.Videsutaltastet (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} There are two endorsements of the material as RS and no objections (see above), which I take for consensus. Please insert the text below as a separate subsection, immediately after Subsection "2.5 The Kremlin Family" and before "2.6 Conflict with Putin and emigration". Thanks--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

INSERTION BEGINS

Role in Putin's Rise to Power

Putin's meteoric rise from relative obscurity to the Russian presidency in the course of a few short months of 1999 has been attributed to his intimacy with the "Kremlin Family" (see above) as a protege of Berezovsky and Yumashev. By the end of 1999 the Family had persuaded Yeltsin to name Putin his political successor and candidate for the presidency.

Berezovsky's acquaintance with Putin dated back to the early 1990s, when the latter, as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg, helped Logovaz establish a car dealership. They enjoyed friendly relations; on occasion, Berezovsky took Putin skiing with him in Switzerland.

In February 1999, when Berezovsky's political standing looked uncertain because of his clash with prime minister Evgeny Primakov over Aeroflot, Putin, then Director of the FSB, made a bold gesture of friendship by showing up at a birthday party for Berezovsky's wife. "I absolutely do not care what Primakov thinks of me", Putin told Berezovsky on that night. That was the beginning of their political allianace. According to the Times, Spanish police discovered that on up to five different occasions in 1999 Putin had secretly visited a villa in Spain belonging to Berezovsky .

In mid-July 1999 the Family dispatched Berezovsky to Biarritz, where Putin was holidaying, to persuade him to accept the position of prime minister and the role of heir apparent. On August 9 Yeltsin sacked the government of Sergei Stepashin and appointed Putin prime minister, amid reports that Berezovsky had masterminded the reshuffle

Putin's principal opponents were the former Prime Minister Evgeny Primakov and the Mayor of MoscowYuri Luzhkov, backed by the alliance Fatherland-All Russia. To counter this group in the Duma elections of 1999, Berezovsky was instrumental in the creation, within the space of a few months, of the Unity party, with no ideology other than its support for Putin. Later he disclosed that the source of Unity's funding, with Putin's knowledge and consent, was Aeroflot. In the 1999 election Berezovsky campaigned as a Putin loyalist and won a seat in the Duma, representing the North Caucasian republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessia.

During the Duma election campaign Berezovsky's ORT TV served as an extremely effective propaganda machine for the Putin camp, using aggressive attack reporting and programming to denigrate and ridicule Putin's rivals, Primakov and Luzhkov, tactics strongly criticized as undue interference with the media. But Unity got a surprisingly high score in the elections, paving the way for Putin's election victory in spring 2000.--Kolokol1 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

INSERTION ENDS

• I will give the Brezovsky-Putin section ~ 24h so all active editors could have their say and unless significant objections are presented I will insert it to the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Well the article is semiprotected now, you can do your changes yourself Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Role in the 1999 invasion of Dagestan

So, "in 1999 Putin had secretly visited a villa in Spain belonging to Berezovsky". Something is missing (let's add it?). Here is it: Biophys (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Several press reports alleged that Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Voloshin and GRU general Anton Surikov met with Shamil Basayev in France in June or July 1999 to plan the Dagestan incursion . Allegedly, Udugov proposed to start the Dagestan war to provoke the Russian response, topple the Chechen president Maskhadov and establish new Islamic republic made of Chechnya and Ingushetia that would be friendly to Russia. A transcript of the conversation was published in Moskovsky Komsomolets in September, 1999.. Surikov was allegedly a GRU curator of Basayev during the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict..

.

Too many 'alleged' for my liking. This isn't a simple 'Change X to Y' - which is the purpose of {{edit protected}} - please, discuss/reach consensus and request then. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

When we talk about a living person and potentially damaging rumors extra "alleged" would not hurt. Agree about the issue being a separate matter. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a separate issue. So I put it into a new section. Please file it as a separate Editprotect request similar to the above. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC). The article is only semiprotected now. Please go ahead Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Berezovsky-Udugov conversation was directly confirmed by Berezovsky himself in Goldfarb's book and de Waal interview, and is therefore notable. We already have a paragraph on this sitting in the bottom of the "Kremlin Family" subsection. I agree that it should be moved to a separate subsection entitled "Role in the 1999 invasion of Dagestan" (which I just did).--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most controversial and least understood episode in Berezovsky's activities in this period was his phone conversation with Movladi Udugov in the spring of 1999, six months before the beginning of fighting in Dagestan. A transcript of that conversation was leaked to a Moscow tabloid on September 10, 1999 and appeared to mention the would-be militants’ invasion. It has been subject of much speculation ever since. As Berezovsky explained later in interviews to de Waal[54] and Goldfarb,[25] Udugov proposed to coordinate the islamists' incursion into Dagestan with Russia, so that a limited Russian response would topple the Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov and establish a new Islamic republic, which would be anti-American but friendly to Russia. Berezovsky said that he disliked the idea but reported Udugov's ouverture to prime-minister Stepashin. "Udugov and Basayev," he asserted, "conspired with Stepashin and Putin to provoke a war to topple Maskhadov ... but the agreement was for the Russian army to stop at the Terek River. However, Putin double-crossed the Chechens and started an all-out war."[25]

In regard to the alleged Voloshin-Basayev meeting could you please tell how Satter and Dunlop exactly source this allegation. For example, Lilia Shevtsova in her book clearly states that this was a rumor circulating in Moscow. {http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l-1mIBMVZ_UC&pg=PA411&lpg=PA411&dq=berezovsky+basayev+voloshin&source=bl&ots=zSG6ime6VJ&sig=QkDiIwwvIOjHdVhWDyuIfcouMts&hl=en&ei=mtGCTtLDL4yb1AXhgumuAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=berezovsky%20basayev%20voloshin&f=false]. Felshtinsky-Pribylovsky mention rumors of Basayev meeting Voloshin through Surikov without naming Berezovsky. Moreover, they do not provide any source and stress that there are no confirmed facts. We cannot repeat rumors.--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I will check sources and possibly make some changes later. If something was described as rumors in some sources, but as a real thing in other multiple RS, this may be included, although I am not sure yet about this particular claim. P.S. Yes, the meetings themselves are somehow disputable, but the involvement of Berezovsky is even more questionable, and he denied this. Biophys (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to Dunlop publications are broken. Of course there is this, this (- even published in book) by Peter Dale Scott, but I am not sure about using this source. Biophys (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at these sources. They seem quite fishy to me, not to mention that even they do not say anything other than repeating what they themselves call rumors and allegations. So far it looks that B's conversation with Udugov is an established fact, whereas Basayev-Voloshin link, a conspiracy theory. We should not lose focus here - unlike Berezovsky, who was a private person, Alexander Voloshin at the time was Yeltsin's Chief of Staff. If we allege that he met with Basayev in his official capacity - with Berezovsky present, or without - this is first of all an allegation concerning Voloshin and Yeltsin, not Berezovsky. Voloshin is alive, so there will be BLP issues here. We should be very careful--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I just checked "Darkness at Dawn". Satter quotes an article by Vitaly Tretiakov that Dagestan war was a provocation by Russian secret services, but tells really nothing about B. Yes, this is not supported by sources with regard to B. Someone else was doing this.Biophys (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hence he had no role in Dagestan war, or at least this can not be supported by RS. Remove this section? Biophys (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. The episode is notable, but the title was misleading--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Kremlin Family section needs to be expanded--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge two subsections

I merged the subsections on the Family and Purin's rise into one, to make the narrative smoother and more logical--Kolokol1 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem very smooth. There is no logical connections between some paragraphs in this section. Biophys (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 court case in London

There is a new court case in London this week.

• Russian tycoons face off in London court

I wonder why this case is litigated in England. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Although your wondering is pretty much incorrect usage of wikipedia talkpages, its a simple situation - Berezovsky is a British asylum granted subject and Abbram has a legal and personal life in the UK also its unbelievable that there is any other location possible. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The matter of jurisdiction of this case has been the subject of a major legal battle between them that lasted over three years. Berezovsky, who wanted to litigate in London won. According to news reports, the major point of contention is whether Abramovich held Berezovsky's stake in Sibneft in trust. In Russian commercial law there is no notion of a trust, so there would be no case in Russia. We do have a brief mention of this case in the article. I do not think that it should be reflected here in any depth until it ends in December. WP is not a newsmagazine.--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think POV label can be removed by now. If anyone has objections, let's discuss and fix remaining problems. Biophys ([[User

talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 01:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Kolokol1 has a major conflict of interest, and since it is clearly obvious that their interest in the article was a whitewashing PR effort in the lead up to the trial, I have made it very clear that there is a COI on the article, by placing the tag on the article. This is in no small part due to the fact that Kolokol1 stated on numerous occasions that they would be removing negative (yet reliably sourced) information from the article. The hatchet job even more evident due to the fact that Kolokol hasn't edited in any major fashion since the trial began. Any edits by Kolokol1 to the article should be discussed on the talk page before being enacted, and should only be acted upon by editors who do not have a connection, in one way or the other, to the subject in question. I would also suggest that editors go thru Kolokol's edits with fine-toothed comb and check for overt PR POV pushing. I had to have some BLP-violating information removed, and the rest of the article is obviously prone to Kolokol1's advocacy efforts. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. The editor with the alleged COI has not edited the article in over a year. Thincat (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

External links / Further reading

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 website
  • Boris Berezovsky at Encyclopædia Britannica
  • Appearances on C-SPAN
  • Boris Berezovsky on Charlie Rose
  • Boris Berezovsky at IMDb
  • 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 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 RIA Novosti not be included, but we include CNN, Forbes, Bloomberg, etc? Or why not a link to 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)

Violation of Wikipedia Deletion policy

This means all contentious claims must be specifically sourced per WP:RS and also no "original research" (such as "he has not contested the book") are permitted per Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• If there was any libel case against the book, please prove it. Otherwise assume the book has not been contested in court (which I bet you know never happened). Thank you80.4.251.95 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• • You fail to understand how WP:BLP works. Please do not try reinserting the violation again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Another misuse of a source to back a claim which it does not back will infact get reported on the proper noticeboards. Wikipedia is not a game room - the intent is to use reliable sources for what they state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • User Collect has been edit warring and removing well sourced material. Someone please report him to the noticeboard. Thank you 80.4.251.95 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Um -- READ WP:BLP please. The material is not "well-sourced" if the claims ARE NOT IN THE SOURCE. Shouting done quite deliberately in this case. Collect (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • The source reads "Klebnikov did not calm down after the court process and wrote a whole book about the notorious oligarch titled “Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism.” Berezovsky did not take any legal action against Klebnikov after such a publication" (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/19-08-2005/8781-berezovsky-0/). So as you see it confirms that Berezovsky never contested the book in court. I see this page is operated by a gang of Berezovsky supporters who indeed whitewash the page big time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.251.95 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Um -- I fear you think there is a requirement to sue someone who is "judgement-proof" in the legal vernacular? No such obligation exists. Nor does the fact that a person does not sue someone who is judgement-proof mean anything more than what 99.9% of lawyers would advise. On Wikipedia it is called "Do Not Feed The Trolls. Too many calories on this page already. Collect (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
            • It is just your judgement. As far as material is sourced, it has full right to be present on the page. The fact that you deleted it, means you have violated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy 80.4.251.95 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(OD) OMG - I canna believe this claim. Collect (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think any policy were violated with the deletion or restoring this is just style and deciding that is notable and that is not. I think after a long paragraph about Forbes litigation it is fair to add information that Klebnikov repeated and elaborated his allegations in the books. The info about the books been not contested but I reformulated it in a way to not make an appearance that it is equal to Berezovsky admission they are true Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Malicious user reverted your change again. We need to report him to ANI for continuous violation of Delete policy to ban him 170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Death?

Someone User:Helios256 has added a claim, that Berezovsky has died today. I just heard the same rumor, but have not yet looked for reliable sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The source is here.

• "Умер Борис Березовский". Gazeta.ru. 23 March, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The original source of the information is said to be a Facebook status update by his son-in-law. I still want to see confirmation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Now confirmed.[38] --Racklever (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Institute name

The institution where Berezovsky was employed before the 1990s, Russian: Институт проблем управления, is best translated as the Institute of Control Sciences, see the official website.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The science seems to be control theory, not mind control :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouster

Would anyone mind if I replace the various instances of the non-English "ouster" with "ejection"? Back-forming a noun out of the verb "to oust" is doubtless very clever but it's vile and cacophonous. JohnHarris (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, don't mind me! :) You could also try "ousting". Harfarhs (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a couple of phrases which indicate the writer's/ writers' first language is probably not English.

There is this sentence: "A prominent critic on the global stage was the leftist billionaire George Soros...". To me this appears to be biased and if someone's got the guts to take out the 'leftist' I'd find that appropriate. It is a matter of record that Soros is as capitalist as they come e.g. pound sterling speculations, causing the Asian financial crisis (I also lost a bit of money there although in the end, the Australian taxpayer reimbursed me through tax deduction/capital loss. Soros profited there as well, which you could phrase as 'profiting at the cost of the Australian taxpayer'.) Soros likes to do 'thinking' on societies, but there is nothing leftist there at all. If Soros had any leftist leanings he would sponsor ducumentaries and/or support the leftists in Latin America or elsewhere, or some such like. Talking about more justice is all very well, but people with that kind of money can be expected to actually do something - that is if they want to be taken seriously. Would someone delete the word 'leftist' as it relates to Soros?

144.136.192.55 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yelena Gorbunova

In the box we habe Yelena Gorbunova (1996–2012; separated), but http://rt.com/news/berezovsky-lawsuit-lover-641/ say Gorbunova live for 2o years with Berezovsky (1992-2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkmart (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

High Court case against Abramovich

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 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,” 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)

Suicide

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[39] 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4135.html#8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2013/03/24/did-boris-berezovsky-kill-himself-more-compelling-did-he-kill-forbes-editor-paul-klebnikov/?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/berezovsky-abramovich-summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927152103/http://russiatoday.strana.ru/en/biz/business/lead_com/2222.html to http://russiatoday.strana.ru/en/biz/business/lead_com/2222.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018131218/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19830922&id=PgItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CM8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1182,738895 to https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19830922&id=PgItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CM8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1182,738895
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111114124705/http://www.newstatesman.com/200603270039 to http://www.newstatesman.com/200603270039
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022063253/http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=12973 to http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=12973
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150104054110/http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=4627 to http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=4627
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140301121345/http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=16850 to http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=16850
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150104054114/http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29360 to http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29360
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120901014033/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jHmUh7mdoYCEo-ueq8KT6AK3SjNg?docId=N0289921346369684515A to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jHmUh7mdoYCEo-ueq8KT6AK3SjNg?docId=N0289921346369684515A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102002017/http://www.ncrp.org/AR-100605-MoscowTimes.asp to http://www.ncrp.org/AR-100605-MoscowTimes.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110131213611/http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/54792/ to http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/54792/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070824130508/http://www.themoscowtimes.com:80/stories/2007/07/19/001.html to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/07/19/001.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081122041852/http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/368821.htm to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/368821.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080218090027/http://www.mirror.co.uk:80/news/topstories/2008/02/15/georgian-billionaire-badri-patarkatsishvili-had-severe-heart-disease-inquest-hears-89520-20320519/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/15/georgian-billionaire-badri-patarkatsishvili-had-severe-heart-disease-inquest-hears-89520-20320519/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130329204006/http://www.forbes.com:80/sites/markadomanis/2013/03/26/was-boris-berezovsky-murdered-the-evidence-says-no-but-luke-harding-says-maybe/ to http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/03/26/was-boris-berezovsky-murdered-the-evidence-says-no-but-luke-harding-says-maybe/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022063253/http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=12973 to http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=12973
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111113160313/http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/russia/moscow/the-beliy-gorod/the-glazunov-gallery.aspx to http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/russia/moscow/the-beliy-gorod/the-glazunov-gallery.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106021133/http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/russian-tycoon-buried-brookwood-cemetery-4721731 to http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/russian-tycoon-buried-brookwood-cemetery-4721731
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711205733/http://www.auto-worldwide.com/manufacturers/avtovaz/ to http://www.auto-worldwide.com/manufacturers/avtovaz/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808052239/http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4332.html to http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4332.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233006/http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5807 to http://www.russiajournal.com/node/5807
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609135210/http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000%2F5%2F1%2F42928 to http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000%2F5%2F1%2F42928
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629131748/http://www.cdi.org/russia/Johnson/7027-17.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7027-17.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231649/http://www.russiajournal.com/node/3898 to http://www.russiajournal.com/node/3898
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323130829/http://www.russiajournal.com/node/4816 to http://www.russiajournal.com/node/4816
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2013/03/24/did-boris-berezovsky-kill-himself-more-compelling-did-he-kill-forbes-editor-paul-klebnikov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328102213/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/post-mortem-shows-russian-tycoon-died-hanging to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/post-mortem-shows-russian-tycoon-died-hanging
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151227002731/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130324/berezovsky-was-down-would-not-bow-putin-allies to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130324/berezovsky-was-down-would-not-bow-putin-allies
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20130523104111/http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2013/03/24/did-boris-berezovsky-kill-himself-more-compelling-did-he-kill-forbes-editor-paul-klebnikov/?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925203716/http://www.hot.ee/f/festivaal/press_us.htm to http://www.hot.ee/f/festivaal/press_us.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102154742/http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Taylor.pdf to http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Taylor.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127224508/http://www.kommersant.com/p507811/r_1/The_Prosecutor_Digs_in_the_Dirt/ to http://www.kommersant.com/p507811/r_1/The_Prosecutor_Digs_in_the_Dirt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430081549/http://www.kommersant.com/p-10534/Berezovsky/ to http://www.kommersant.com/p-10534/Berezovsky

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160528051146/http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=87058&p=166 to http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=87058&p=166
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509141727/http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4379.html to http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4379.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808053145/http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4339.html%23 to http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4339.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329095007/http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-M99HCA6KLVRB01-3KCRSUMC6RCK16JT40CJRN98LU to http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-M99HCA6KLVRB01-3KCRSUMC6RCK16JT40CJRN98LU

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Assassination requests

Not really sure what 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":

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 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)

Opening to the page

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)