Talk:Bill Browder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

International expansion of article ?[edit]

E. g. (American Bill Browder discusses London's not-fit-for-purpose Metropolitan Police) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japarthur (talkcontribs) 13:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ziff bros.[edit]

Should the article not reflect he managed their funds?

The memo that Ms. Veselnitskaya brought to the Trump Tower meeting alleged that Ziff Brothers Investments, an American firm, had illegally purchased shares in a Russian company and evaded tens of millions of dollars of Russian taxes. The company was the financial vehicle of three billionaire brothers, two of them major donors to Democratic candidates including Mrs. Clinton. By implication, Ms. Veselnitskaya, said, those political contributions were tainted by “stolen” money.

Kremlin officials viewed the charges as extremely significant. The Ziff brothers had invested in funds managed by William F. Browder, an American-born financier and fierce Kremlin foe. Mr. Browder was the driving force behind a 2012 law passed by Congress imposing sanctions on Russian officials for human rights abuses.


--Wikipietime (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

50% cut?[edit]

re his 50% cut claim in the testimony, below is an excerpt from his book Red Notice:

"After Khodorkovsky was found guilty, most of Russia’s oligarchs went one by one to Putin and said, "Vladimir Vladimirovich, what can I do to make sure I won’t end up sitting in a cage?" I wasn’t there, so I’m only speculating, but I imagine Putin’s response was something like this: "Fifty percent." Not 50 percent to the government or 50 percent to the presidential administration, but 50 percent to Vladimir Putin. I don’t know this for sure. It could have been 30 percent or 70 percent or some other arrangement. What I do know for sure was that after Khodorkovsky’s conviction, my interests and Putin’s were no longer aligned."

Is there a source better than Mr Browder's imagination? I almost want this to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


It is obvious that Russia's infamous troll factory would have an interest in this article. Recent IP editing shows an extreme bias towards Russia and a movement to discredit Browder by inserting poorly sourced information. Should this continue I will bring the matter straight to arbitration, to subject the entire situation to close scrutiny. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

IP editor(s) have recently been attempting to insert poorly sourced and potentially irrelevant material to discredit Browder. Looking at the content of the article, it is obvious that Russia would want to attack this person online, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume that their typists are active here. We must be especially vigilant to protect this WP:BLP as Mr. Browder is still alive. I have semi-protected the page to suppress the worst of it. IPs, feel free to leave suggested edits here on the talk page and we will see if there is a consensus to make them. I have no preference about the content of the article other than that it adhere closely to the WP:BLP policy. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for bringing this matter to arbitration, although I'm not familiar with what that's worth. I checked out this article to see if there was any criticism against Browder. Nothing. I would expect Russian contributors to refer to the documentary by Andrei Nekrasov, because it got attention there but instead I find this comment. This is part of the climate of blanket anti-russian sentiment and it should not be allowed as a criterium. There are decent american sources critical about Browder but it should not be necessary to use them and Russian sources should do. And of course they are discrediting Browder.--Tuyzentfloot (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Arrest in Spain on Russian warrant[edit]

Bill Browder tweeted, with a picture from the back of a Spanish police car, that he was under arrest due to a Russian warrant. "In the back of the Spanish police car going to the station on the Russian arrest warrant. They won’t tell me which station"

"Urgent: Just was arrested by Spanish police in Madrid on a Russian Interpol arrest warrant. Going to the police station right now."

BBC "Bill Browder arrested in Spain on Russian warrant"

CBS "U.S. businessman, Putin critic, tweets arrest on "Russian" warrant"

The independent UK businessman and Putin critic Bill Browder arrested on Russian Interpol arrest warrant in Spain

I wonder if this should be placed under the conflict with Russia section. P37307 (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it would be better there Mcps39 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Reading the page again--the entire Russian conflict doesn't belong under the "early career" header either. I think it should either be it's own level 2 header, or under a new "mid career/2005-present" header --Mcps39 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The strangulation of Russian economy / Looting Of Russia[edit]

Critical books, films and articles are precisely the way we find out about abuse and malfeasance in our societies. Books like Alex Krainer: “Grand Deception: The Browder Hoax” and documentaries like Andrei Nekrasov “The Magnitsky Act" should be considered.

DMY format or MDY format?[edit]

This article goes back and forth, using both DMY and MDY format. Let's pick one. But which? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That is a tough one. If Browder was primarily an article RE an American or American interest, I would say MDY. Due to the international aspect of Browder, and his place of Nationality, even though he was born in Illinois, I am voting for DMY. P37307 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying Putin's $400 million to $400,000 statement[edit]

A revert (diff=850985632&oldid=850970092) to my edit said the clarification "Later, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office spokesman Alexander Kurennoy clarified that it was not $400 million, but rather $400,000." was not in the reference: It's in the sub-lead: "Browder donated $400,000 to US Democrats, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office says" 3rd paragraph:Browder has transferred $400,000 to accounts of the US Democratic Party, Kurennoy said. 4th paragraph: "Afterwards, our president asked us to correct the sum for $400,000 from $400 million," Kurennoy said." I hope this clarifies my edit. If not, I am open to discussion. P37307 (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:I forgot to notify you of the reasoning behind my edit and open discussion if necessary. P37307 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not see that Kurennoy referred to the "President"... I just ctrl+F for "Putin" and did not see the statement made by Kurennoy in the Putin context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate it. I went back and reread the reference. I thought maybe I copied the wrong link because I had two Tass tabs open when I did the edit. I agreed with your first revert because the editor didn't reference and knew I saw something on Twitter about it so I went searching for it. P37307 (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate source[edit]

User: Brigadabg (talk) keeps adding material relating to The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes, which is critical of Bill Browder, sourced to the Facebook account of the production company/rights holder. I have now reverted on the basis of WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:IRS, WP:SPS (self-published source) and possible WP:COI. The issue has not been covered by a reliable, third party source and so the notability of what the other editor insists on including has not been demonstrated. Philip Cross (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed two of three disputed references. Although I've let the one to Facebook stand for sake of discussion, I believe this final reference fails the WP:SELFSOURCE requirement that the material be neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Coming from the film's production company, it is both self-serving and, more importantly, raises WP:REDFLAG as an exceptional claim supported purely by this self-published source with an apparent conflict of interest. "Any exceptional claim," the policy states, "requires multiple high-quality sources. … This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." KalHolmann (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, I find that each of the two letters from attorneys posted on Facebook by Piraya Film, and cited as a source for our saying "Bill Browder managed to remove The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes from Vimeo," is emphatically marked Not For Publication, Strictly Private & Confidential. Piraya Film does not explain how they acquired these documents, nor do they justify publication in defiance of the senders' explicit direction. This raises serious WP:BLP legal issues that, I believe, require immediate removal of that sentence from this article. I have accordingly done so. KalHolmann (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Even tho it's not for publication, the fact that it's all ready out there, should mean that we don't pretend that we are strauses and can't see it, many articles of ex. Snowdens revelations or Wikileaks publications are also not for publishing and confidential. If it's part of public knowledge we should be able to learn about it on wikipedia! Brigadabg (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I am among the top 6 editors of Edward Snowden, both by number of edits and by added text. I can assure you that we have never cited Facebook as the source of publication of even one of Snowden's global surveillance disclosures. Come up with a better source from someone without an obvious conflict of interest. KalHolmann (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, is that if you watched the movie, they meet with a parliament member of the European Parliament, who says that the magnitsky campaign was orchestrated by Bill himself through his contacts in the media, so none of the "reliable" media is taking this thing up because Bill Browder goes around and tells everyone that they are supporting "russian propaganda" if they publish things against him, if you look at the history of this movie, Bill has sued several parties who try to air the movie, which doesn't make this story something out of the ordinary when it comes to Bills attempts to stop the movie Brigadabg (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I not only watched the video, I wrote the Wikipedia page The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes. I rather imagine I know more about this than you do. But that's entirely irrelevant. Just show us a single, reliable, unconflicted source. Your tap-dancing here is wasting my time. KalHolmann (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Nice!!! well i hope you know what you are doing because i don't like Bill getting away with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigadabg (talkcontribs) 22:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned by your comment "i don't like Bill getting away with this". Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. And Browder didn't necessarily do anything wrong; I think you need to check your bias because Wikipedia adheres to the policy of neutrality. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Big parts of the media are also calling Snowden and Assange a russian agent these days, and refuse to publish things from them, does that mean that wikipedia should stop too? Brigadabg (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The media writes about Snowden and Assange. What reliable sources are there to back up your claims on Browder? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The way Karl Holmann reframed my sentence to "Piraya film claims" is a perfectly neutral statment just bringing someone relevant claim, we do that all the times on Wikipedia articles, the only problem seems to be that Piraya is bringing "confidential" documents to the table, but that shouldn't stop us from mentioning it on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigadabg (talkcontribs) 23:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
You misrepresent me: 17½ hours after I "reframed" your sentence in a more neutral way, I removed it entirely on grounds of WP:BLP. Here is greater specificity: per WP:BLPSOURCES, "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." In my judgment, the contentious material I removed was likely to be challenged and required immediate action. Nothing about that has changed. KalHolmann (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes and the way you reframed it was perfect in terms of neutrality, actually liked it better than my text, but when the movie is mentioned on this article about Bill, then it should also be allowed to mention if the production company claims that Bill has taken down the video, it's their claim, Bill can make another claim regarding this matter and we can post that here too. Brigadabg (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
we actually did the least neutral by removing their claim Brigadabg (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't need dueling accusations. What we need is confirmation from Vimeo, as reported by WP:RS, that they deplatformed the video due to pressure from Browder's lawyers. KalHolmann (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
i'm pretty sure that Vimeo sent this letter to Piraya, just because Bill signs a letter with confidential, doesn't automatically mean that he has a right to confidentiality. When you send a DMCA or takedown notice, you don't have a right of confidentiality, even if you mark you letter as "Cosmic Top Secret" Brigadabg (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
if we can't maintain for sure what the facts are, if Bill stole the money, or the Russian police as he claims, then dueling accusations are exactly what we need, and one day when we have the facts straight, then we publish the facts below the dueling accusations Brigadabg (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
you are kindof double-thinking, because on the one hand you saying that we can't bring Pirayas claims because the letter is marked as confidential by Bill, on the other hand you'r saying we need confirmation from Vimeo, but we should be able to bring Pirayas claims as you formulated them, without a direct confirmation from Vimeo, it's relevant in this case Brigadabg (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Everything i wrote is confidential btw, just so you know, i have claimed confidentiality now, so this talk page should be made unpublic :) you can't just do that when sending a DMCA; the movie rights holders have a right to know who filed the DMCA Brigadabg (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)