Jump to content

Talk:Bill Browder/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Citizenship

Why did he change from USA to UK? None of the sources seem to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.136.2 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

COI

I have tagged this article as a COI as Katie Fisher is oone of the Public relations employees for Hermitage Capital as seen here [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm not sure why this article has been closed under the pretense of neutrality. The entire first paragraph in the Criminal Charges section is blatantly false based on unreliable sources with obvious political agendas. The video for the first source has a caption that reads:"The film is about as shameless and hilarious British conquistador, head of the Moscow office of the offshore fund "Hermitage"" It would be wonderful if the editor who locked down the page, would look into the actual "neutrality" of the article as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkolga (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The documentary with the claims about Browder's corruption were made by Moskovskij Komsomolets, a Moscow-based daily newspaper with a circulation approaching one million. It is comparable to such English-speaking newspapers as Sunday Times or Independent.

Do not understand well your comment about "neutrality". The entire article is full of accusations against Russians with a mere reference to Browder's claims ("corrupt bureaucrats", "victims of crimes" etc.). Should the article be balanced, all accusations, including from both sides, should be well represented in the article. Deleting references to Browder's ALLEGED scams would be totally incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.134.208.162 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Video

I removed this video from the list of references and replaced it with something more appropriate. Generally we can't have a statement like "went to Stanford with X and Y" sourced off of a 45-minute video. I do believe it's a valuable thing to include in the article though, but I'll leave it to other editors to decide how. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your action. Of course, a reliable video can be used as a reference, but normally a time marker would be given so nobody has to watch the whole thing to verify it. A text source is always going to be preferable though. Yworo (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted to state prior to 13 February

Here's my attempt at an NPOV summary of what has happened here recently.

On 13th Februrary, an anonymous ip included highly inflammatory and biased material with claims of criminal behavior stated as if affirmatively proven. The wider story makes it clear that that's very from from a valid way for a Wikipedia entry to be written.

In response to this, someone apparently associated with the subject (a professional PR) tried to clean the article up. I make no judgments about the quality of her work, but merely note that given the rather vicious approach of the anonymous ip's, if there was any editing that we'd consider over-the-top here, we can understand why.

I've been contacted by a legal representative of the subject, who appears to be completely pleasant and reasonable, to request that we look into this. I think we should work to update the entry with the latest development, but we should stick to high-quality sources which are independent of the Russian government, as this appears to be a very high level political conflict and there are often concerns about smear campaigns conducted in poor-quality sources in such situations.

I am also posting this note to the BLP noticeboard.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you explain to their lawyer that they should have saved themselves a lot of time and money and have contacted OTRS instead?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how this question is relevant to improving the article. Remember we are not here to be hostile to people who are concerned about being under attack in Wikipedia. We are here to write an encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
How long, on average, does it take to get a response from OTRS, little green rosetta? Most lawyers are subjected to clients who want results faster than that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It depends on the lawyer I suppose, but I'd put my money on OTRS wining that horse race. This is a 24/7 x 365 project after all. Jimbo would probably know more about this in any case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I think commons is close to their 30 day backlog limit and I assume it is similar here. I don't think there is much point asking Mr. Wales questions here that belong on his talk page. This page is for discussing the article and not how our OTRS system is fairing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I think by definition contact by a lawyer is a WP:NLT violation, I understand partly that Jimbo doesn't want to spend donor dollars fighting a lawsuit, but this raises a big overall question of the acceptableness of using Russian news sources at all. Is this just an exemption for moneybags or a blanket statement that Russian media is unreliable. I would rather see the article deleted then see our community sacrifice the values we work hard to uphold in verifiability and also neutral POV. A more neutral title is not persecution by the russian legal system, a more accurate is allegations of tax evasion, but to allow this to happen just because dude has a congress of lawyers damages the processes set up here and has wide ranging implications that effect every article that uses Russian sourcing. That being said I'm sure more experienced editors with BLP will figure something out this is just my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely mistaken. There was no legal threat. The main problem with asking a lawyer to contact us is that immature and silly Wikipedians may take it as an excuse to get nasty. Go back and look what the anon wrote. Go read the New York Times article. The article was viciously non-NPOV and it is our job to improve it, not to insult the victim.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you honestly think they were having a lawyer contact you to say hi? That's a classic walk softly carry a BIG STICK approach. We disagree on this. Moneybags was a poor choice of words but it's the concept of the issue behind it that I was trying to illustrate.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the use of which sources is very common on wp to keep a NPOV. I have seen it brought up with not using Israeli sources at a BLP article on a rabbi that denies the holocaust, not using huffpost type sources for allegations that haven't resulted in any charges against a member of a royal family, and not using obscure Vietnamese sources in a BLP article about a journalist that angered a few of them. If the sources are considered POV then those sources shouldn't be used. Contact by anyone in any form should be allowed as long as edits follow policy. I had a trained killer in a bar ask me to correct an article we have on them here. By the time I got to the article it had already been corrected and sourced. Just because he is a trained killer would that be considered a death threat by other editors? I can see how it would be but as Mr. Wales stated above, he was also "completely pleasant and reasonable".--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, our job with biographies of living persons is "to get the article right." That includes using the best sources possible. Russian mainstream newspapers aren't the best sources for reliable information about the government (those journalists who do write the truth about the government seem to die at an alarming rate, not unlike the lawyer in this article). We also need to put aside our own personal prejudices when editing articles, whether it be prejudice towards lawyers ("I think by definition contact by a lawyer is a WP:NLT violation"?!) or those with money ("moneybags"?!). We need to treat living people as people, even lawyers and 'moneybags'. First Light (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, First Light. There's no call for insulting the man. Hell in a Bucket, you are not behaving appropriately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be neutral and I agree one hundred percent with that. With respect to your comment that lawyers being human I disagree. Personal experience talking on that one ;) and I have a strong opinion of anyone that has to hire PR and Lawyers to manage their reputation. That's doesn't mean I would slant an article just because of that just a personal opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You must be hanging out with the wrong type. My only lawyer acquaintance is retired, having done civil rights work in the '60s, fighting prejudice perchance, and a very fine human being. First Light (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I can fully understand your point about lawyers. There was no mention of hiring PR or lawyers to correct this article but the way this section is worded I can see how many many would believe that is the case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Someone may want to recall that outing the identities of other editors who haven't themselves revealed them is prohibited, even if they used their name as their username (and there are thousands of people who share the name). Editors can be blocked even for inaccurately attempting to out editor identities. Yworo (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You can completely ignore what I've said and pretend otherwise but I would refer to Jimbos comment above where he even says that someone apparently associated with the subject (a professional PR) tried to clean the article up paid editing, the names themselves aren't important but if you want to choose what you ignore that is up to you. In this case though I didn't realize it was outing, so I will stop and just refer to Jimbos acknowledement Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reported your actions to Oversight. Yes, some professionals edited the article. No, we aren't permitted to out their identities on-Wiki. That can earn an immediate block, regardless of who you are outing or what they have done. And you've repeatedly reverted the removal of the information. Just sayin', that's not a good idea. Yworo (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to have fun. It's required that Oversight delete the revisions that link editors to specific real-world identities. Read WP:OUTING and the description of what has to be done to remove the information even from the page edit history. Yworo (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:OUTING "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest" please read and restore the previous comment. I have used a comment made on wiki, not redacted that stated that from the users own words. That I believe is not outing, but one hundred percent allowed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not touching it and I've already informed oversight of the diffs and we can let them decide, can't we? If you want to keep reverting, well, I'll take it to 3RRN as well. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at the link and the sockpuppet report, and I don't see anyone linking or otherwise revealing their own real world Identities - I only see you attempting to out them. The sockpuppet report will probably need to be revdel-ed as well, it's never necessary to attempt to show just who someone might be in order to show sockpuppetry. Yworo (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Yworo (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted twice a different comment which I would agree would have been outing and I have attempted in good faith to use a comment by the user themselves made on their own talkpage to discuss a COI whatever that COI may be and that comment was not unsourced. This comment is attributed to the user. That would be allowed as I said above I will not further make a mention of specifics found in a google search as that is a violation which should be oversighted with my apologies, the comments by the user should not apply though. I think you are distorting my attempt to fix my allegations to one within the community guideline. I did unintentionally out this person and that will not be repeated but if they make comments using the word we and claim personal knowledge of complaints of the nature of the subject of the article what else can that be other then a COI? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We just don't handle COI by proving who the person with the COI is. We do it by observing their behavior. COI is always pretty damn obvious. :-) Yworo (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)r
multiple e/c - People should note also that there is no policy against paid editing, if that did happen here. In fact, if they are correcting mistruths they are helping Wikipedia. WP:COI states that it's better to discuss it on the talk page, and disclose one's relationship with the subject, but that is only a suggestion. First Light (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that one hundred percent. Would you please comment on what that person has stated on their talkpage that does specifically use the word "we" and claims personal knowledge about the subject themselves. I think that my last comment only alleging a COI, not the two I reverted (and will not be repeated) does fall within guidelines and please explain to me how it does not meet guideline if it doesn't. I really want to know, more for my own personal understanding here cause I do understand that BLP is important and I want to be within guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked at that person's talk page, nor your allegations of COI, because I don't as a rule challenge or attempt to out people over potential COI. There is no policy against it. One can only suggest to editors with a perceived COI that it would be better if they discussed on the talk page. For those reasons, I simply don't look for COI and don't challenge people on it. I believe that the policies on NPOV and Verifiability are sufficient. First Light (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate if Yworo could answer since he is saying I was edit warring by inserting a different comment with a completely different source and saying I was still outing. I understand outing is a very serious issue and I want to refine my understanding so I don't violate it again. I will ask an admin to look into this not because I think action should be taken here but I think it important for my own development as an editor in BLP where I have limited exp. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Let it be, he's sincerely asking for some guidance about BLP, and how it's being applied here. First Light (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
TY for understanding, that's really all I'm asking at this point. Hell In A Bucket Hell in a Bucket 05:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Browder is currently persecuted in Russia. There are clear criminal charges against him and clear allegations about his possible involvement in tax evasion schemes. I do not understand why this information should not be made public and why any mention of this has been deleted: this information is already present in the Russian article! Hell in a Bucket saying that Russian media is bad source merely means that you are not promoting a fair coverage of specific topics. Being an nonpartisan user of Wikipedia, what I see here is that the website is used as a tool of propaganda and smear campaigns by those who have money. Unfortunately Russia is the target in the current case. Plutonius1965 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What region of Russia is he being prosecuted in, and can I have a diff to the article stating this information? In some parts of Russia the government and business interests work together closely, so that a commercial dispute can lead to somebody being prosecuted on trumped up charges. We need a reliable source to put this together, not a government-owned or influenced media rag that is repeating the "party line". When you start screaming that Mother Russia is being persecuted by all these editors conspiring to ruin her reputation, that makes me very suspicious about your motives for editing here. Wikipedia is not to be used as a tool for propaganda by either side. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, here is the link on criminal charges against Browder by Russia's state prosecutor office (http://www.rg.ru/2012/11/29/magnitsky-anons.html) published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta which is a daily record newspaper in Russia. If you do not like it you may check Russian daily Newspapers Vedomosti(http://top.rbc.ru/events/25/01/2013/842190.shtml), Commersant (http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2115105?isSearch=True) or RBC (http://top.rbc.ru/events/26/12/2012/838666.shtml). Do you seriously think that all these are "influenced media"?Plutonius1965 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they are bad sources, but it doesn't matter if I was if the community decides they are not. I am merely questioning if this is a knee jerk reaction from being contacted by a lawyer for the articles subject and what implications this means for the entire project. My only concern here is that the article is neutral and uses reliable sourcing to show what we write. I'm not sure how you thought that was my idea, if you read above it was actually a statement made by Jimbo regarding this..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Without being able to actually read those sources (translation anyone) I'd like to go out on a limb here and state that if they only say that Browser is under investigation, indictment, prosecution etc. then we can only state what is said. Persecution is quite a different animal altogether. I seriously doubt a state prosecutor is going to publicly state "hey, let's persecute this guy". A newspaper might come to that conclusion, but since that is an extraordinary statement, we would need extraordinary evidence to make any claims that Browder is indeed being persecuted.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You may use Google Translator to read the source articles. The text is simple. I perfectly agree with you that all information must be properly and accurately represented in the article. As of now, there are at least 3 omissions in the present article:
  • Browder is indeed PROSECUTED under Russian law for ALLEGED tax evasion (has been deleted)
  • Browder is ACCUSED of using a number of ALLEGED tax evasion schemes in Russia (has been deleted)
  • A slander court case by Russian officials has been filed against him in London High Court (see above)
  • Browder is trying to block a fair case in London
All of this, despite being widely covered in respected Russian media, has been gagged by Wikipedia founder after a call from Browder's lawyers. Furthermore, no evidence from other contributors has been presented that would prove that the proposed changes are false. Plutonius1965 (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't review the changes that Jimbo removed when he reverted the article, however I'm fairly certain he was correct insofar there were some WP:BLP (please read that link) issues with the article. I've asked an editor who speaks Russian to translate those articles for us, and to determine if they sources are respectable and suitable for inclusion in the article. If what you say is true that those sources are reliable and they mention that Browder is indeed being prosecuted then I find no valid reason for not including this in the article in some manner. However we are not going to turn this article into a hit piece against Mr. Browder designed to impugn his character. We will state the "facts" as presented by the source in a dry, neutral fashion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is indeed a good compromise. Clearly, certain information, while being accurate, would require a polish from native speakers to render it more neutral. Plutonius1965 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The charge sheets in russian government papers are Primary Sources, and we need to use sources that are both secondary and Reliable to show what he is being charged with. Every wikipedia will have different standards, but we need to go by the standards here at English Wikipedia. Because this has been covered extensively by very reliable mainstream english language sources, there is no reason not to use them to source the charges against Browder. I believe some of the sources used in the article already discuss that. In addition, I don't have time to go through these now, but here are a few very recent articles that cover the very current trial of the dead lawyer and Browder, both being tried in absentia of different types:
Those articles probably explain the sudden interest from Russia in our article here. First Light (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Here you are additional links to the criminal case launched against Browder end of 2012 on NTV (Russia) channel (http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/375117), Russian Journal "Expert" which is a sort of a Russian Newsweek (http://expert.ru/2012/11/29/odin-umer-drugoj-uehal/), Radio Voice of Russia (http://rus.ruvr.ru/2012_11_29/Delo-Braudera-Magnitskogo-ob-uklonenii-ot-uplati-nalogov-napravleno-v-sud/) and, finally, Interfax (http://www.interfax.ru/russia/news.asp?id=278182): "Indictment approved. Browder and Magnitsky accused of an offense under Part 2 art.199 of the Criminal Code (" Tax evasion on a large scale ") in the amount of more than 522 million rubles," - a representative of the State Prosecutor's Office said. I think this should now suffice and would be very much surprised if Browder's lawyers would again contest obvious truth.Plutonius1965 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph about the upcoming trial, from neutral and reliable sources. I agree that it deserves some mention. If editors here feel that there is need to show reaction to the trial's announcement, this from the Financial Times is notable:
"The posthumous trial of Sergei Magnitsky, the anti-corruption lawyer beaten to death in a Moscow jail, is not just the moment Russia’s legal system becomes the theatre of the absurd, but something worse. It is a show trial that harks back to the blackest days of the Soviet Union. Even in the Stalin era, however, such trials took place before defendants met their deaths in the dark recesses of the penal system, not after." —from Russian justice and theatre of absurd
First Light (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is beyond the absurd, there has been precedent for it in the past though sadly Cadaver Synod. If it's reliable I don't see why it can't be included in the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an editorial/opinion piece, though by a notable source, which makes it borderline. I'm trying to err on the side of caution with adding such things. First Light (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A phrasing could be comments and opinions in (insert country here) have described this as ... making it clear it's opinion and where it's from should help but I understand the issue you have there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Libel court case

In May 2012 year Karpov launched libel and defamation proceedings in the London High Court against Browder and Jamison Firestone, managing partner of Firestone Duncan. Karpov sought to recover damages to his reputation from defamation in Foreign Policy article "Russian crime of the century"[1] and in the videos published on Browder's dedicated website related to the Magnitsky case[2]. Karpov's lawyers insist that while Browder’s quest to pursue those who killed Magnitsky might be legitimate, his campaign has wrongfully made false and highly defamatory claims against their client including that he is complicit in fraud, torture, kidnapping and murder.[3] He also requested an injunction on further defamation of Karpov. [4] Karpov's lawyers indicated that their client had not been involved in the investigation of the Magnitsky case, had taken no decision on Magnitsky's detention, whereas Magnitsky did not accuse him of anything during interrogations. They also said that the case had to be tackled in the British courts because the origin of the allegedly libellous videos is in the UK.[5]

A representative of Hermitage and Browder told the Russian daily Vedomosti that they were waiting for the opportunity to present evidence in a "fair court trial". However, in December 2012 in an announcement made by the defendants it was claimed that filing a suit in London should be considered as an "abuse of the right" and that the case should not be dealt in a British jurisdiction.[6][7]

A judge will decide whether or not to hear the case in the next few months.[8]

Please explain exactly what you want changed, in the form of "change X to Y". Camyoung54 talk 20:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This should be included in the article in its entirety. Change [EMPTY] with the text abovePlutonius1965 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This edit cannot be made because your content has a bunch of references that aren't references, and it presents a one sided summary of the Independent news article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-briton-who-took-on-sergei-magnitsky-network-faces-libel-case-in-uk-8466313.html). After reading the article I see that a police officer is suing Browder for slander, and that Browder's lawyers say the police officer has been doing terrible things. This lawsuit might merit a one or two sentence mention in Browder's biography summarizing the claims of each side. May I ask, are you somehow related to this case? Your focus on this one topic of editing has been laser-like. Wikipedia is not a venue for litigation. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have closed this edit request per the above comment. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoring early life and education section removed by Jimbo

I just reviewed the revert by Jimbo and while he did remove some of the "nastiness" for lack of a better word, he also removed what appears to be sourced and frankly benign information. The only possible contentious material is that his grandfather was a communist, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Any objections to restoring this section?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

He mentioned providing an explanation on the talk page. Please ask him for that first. There is no rush. Make sure you get all the facts and understand all concerns. There might be more than meets the eye. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure he's watching this; his explanation above seemed to be his revert point was related to the ip's entrance. But unless anyone has objection with the content of this section, I plan on adding it back in. It seems innocuous enough.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do it carefully and with reference to reliable sources (e.g. not those under the thumb of the Russian authorities), that should be fine. I think that in this situation we can reference the Economist, International Herald Tribune, or similar publications. The Russian media is unfortunately not independent of the government, so they are not reliable sources for a legal case made by the government against a major business figure. Jehochman Talk 03:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Little green rosette, please make sure that reliable Russian media sources are used otherwise the article will become biased. If you need help in guiding you which sources are independent and which ones are not, let me know. I have the impression that Jennochman seems to have a personal interest in not including it (perhaps he is directly linked to Browder).Plutonius1965 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman is not connected to Browder at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ho do you know? He is gagging Russian media sources like Browder himself.Plutonius1965 (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have known Jehochman for years - he's a well known and trusted Wikipedia editor. You, on the other hand, are a single purpose account whose single purpose here seems to be to attempt to insert poorly sourced negative information into this article. Why?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Mainly because I asked for his involvement here, as a scrutiny of my own conduct. I disagree with him more often then not but he does have a good idea of what we can use here and not. Please remember remember to WP:AGF, I stated at a different time that someone was connected to Browder for reasons I can't go into, however his only knowledge of this was me asking him for guidance on a policy issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no connection to Browder. Never heard of him until HiaB left a note on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Press sources...Anything truly notable about Browder will be covered by the UK press. His Wikipedia biography is not the place to document every twist and turn of his disputes in Russia. We can easily write a paragraph summarizing these disputes by referring to the English language sources that everybody can read and verify. We are the English Wikipedia. Our readers understand English. It is best to use sources they can understand. We could resort to Russian sources if (1) there was no coverage in English, and (2) the Russian sources were reliable. In this situation the subject is in a major dispute with the government of Russia. We cannot use media sources connected to the Government, directly or indirectly, because it is likely that their coverage would be biased. If you want to explain which sources in Russian have no government connection, we can consider them, but I think that the effort isn't worth it. We can do just as well using UK sources. Jehochman Talk 16:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree on (1) and (2). Unfortunately it is difficult to agree with you on the last point.
  • The entire English-speaking press is based on interviews with Browder alone. There is not any single mention of the position of the opponents! This guy is sued for slander in London and everybody takes his words for granted just because he speaks English! That means that by default the overal tone of the article is biased and runs counter Wikipedia principles. This is like writing an article, say, about ENRON on the basis of interviews with ENRON employees only!
  • "We are the English Wikipedia. Our readers understand English. It is best to use sources they can understand." - can you please confirm that it is forbidden to use foreign language sources in the English wikipedia?
  • "His Wikipedia biography is not the place to document every twist and turn of his disputes in Russia" - but it is already the case - why does the article go deep into the details of the Magnitsky case (see reference to the video where he speaks about Magnitsky's "ordeals").
  • On bias: the "The Economist has accused the Russian government of blacklisting Browder because he interfered with the flow of money to "corrupt bureaucrats and their businessmen accomplices" - here the Economist promotes a particular opinion on the basis of Browder's claims again. Why should not this be deleted?Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The Economist is a respected publication. They do not make accusations; they report news. I am shocked to discover that there are corrupt government officials (and businessmen) in Russia. Shocked! Jehochman Talk 23:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be very much appreciated if you could answer the aforementioned questions. While your feelings about Russia deserve compassion (although you seem never having been there), these are irrelevant to the current article. Re The Economist, could you delete the word "accused" in the following phrase please: "The Economist has accused the Russian government of blacklisting Browder because he interfered with the flow of money to "corrupt bureaucrats and their businessmen accomplices".[8]" Plutonius1965 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur with Jehochman regarding the sources. When we have multiple extremely reliable English language sources reporting this, we should use them. NPOV isn't about giving "both sides" their say. It's about using the most reliable sources possible to "get the article right." That's what we're doing here. When there are sufficient and extremely high quality English language sources, there is no need for the government influenced Russian language ones that aren't exactly held in high esteem in much of the world. First Light (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some very high quality sources that can be used to flesh out the article significantly.

This one is the Daily Mail so more tabloidy than I'm happy with as a source for Wikipedia but potentially useful background reading:

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This one as well!
--Plutonius1965 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

Plutonius1965, your recent addition violated WP:BLP and had to be reverted. Sources used for biographies of living people must be the highest quality - those clearly were not. In addition, to misrepresent one of the sources already in the article to state that Browder "fled" the country is both dishonest and a violation of WP:BLP. Additions to the article should be discussed, and use mainstream reliable sources. First Light (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Browder indeed fled the country because he does not want to be prosectured in Russia but agree the wording might be slightly strong. The reference to the Russian Ministry of the Interior is a an original and thus reliable source when it comes to the announcement that he would be put on the international wanted list and reference to the exact reasons why he was not allowed to purchase Gazprom shares. Does not see a problem with that. The information is verifiable and there is a reference to the original source which in this case is a press release of the authority involved in an investigation. Or should this be first published in Financial Times before it becomes reliable? Do not think so. Plutonius1965 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Browder was "was expelled from Russia in 2005 and declared a threat to national security"[9] and "stripped of his Russian visa in 2005 on unspecified national-security grounds."[10] At least according to reliable sources, which is what we use here on the English Wikipedia. Also the European Parliament has declared that the trial "is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system."[11] We've already discussed the requirement (see discussion above) to use mainstream reliable sources, not Russian government sources. First Light (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding new paragraphs - NPOV - Sources

It is proposed to include the following paragraphs in the text, all of the comply with NPOV.

REPLACE THIS:

In February 2013, Russian officials announced that Browder and Magnitsky would both be put on trial for evading $16.8 million in taxes. Both men will be tried in absentia.[12] Furthermore, as announced in March 2013, Russian authorities will be investigating Browder illegally obtaining Gazprom shares worth $70 million by his company Hermitage Capital. The investigation will be focusing on whether he violated any Russian laws when his fund, Hermitage Capital, used Russian companies registered in the region of Kalmykia to purchase shares in the gas monopoly between 2001 and 2004, gain a seat on the board, and to exercise influence over its decisions. At the time, according to the Russian law, foreigners were barred from directly owning Gazprom shares. Browder admitted seeking influence in Gazprom but denied any wrongdoing.

Browder said that he believes the trial is in response to the United States passing the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists Russian officials involved in Magnitsky's death from entering the U.S. As claimed by The Financial Times, this trial is deemed to be the first in Russian history over a dead defendant.[14] Amnesty International described the trial as “a whole new chapter in Russia’s worsening human rights record” and a “sinister attempt to deflect attention from those who committed the crimes he Magnitsky exposed.”[15]

WITH THIS:

In February 2013, Russian officials announced that Browder and Magnitsky would both be put on trial for evading $16.8 million in taxes. Both men will be tried in absentia.[12] Furthermore, as announced in March 2013, Russian authorities will be investigating Browder illegally obtaining Gazprom shares worth $70 million by his company Hermitage Capital. The investigation will be focusing on whether he violated any Russian laws when his fund, Hermitage Capital, used Russian companies registered in the region of Kalmykia to purchase shares in the gas monopoly between 2001 and 2004, gain a seat on the board, and to exercise influence over its decisions. At the time, according to the Russian law, foreigners were barred from directly owning Gazprom shares. Browder admitted seeking influence in Gazprom but denied any wrongdoing.[13]

In its March 2013 press release the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs indicated that foreign investors registered in the Russian Federation were required either to obtain permission from the Federal Commission of Securities Market of Russia and the Government for the purchase of Gazprom shares on the domestic stock market, or to buy American depositary receipts on foreign stock exchanges where the price was much higher. Browder had neither.[2]

As announced by RT, the Russian judiciary will put Browder on the international wanted list immediately after criminal charges are officially brought against him. [3]


Browder said that he believes the trial is in response to the United States passing the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists Russian officials involved in Magnitsky's death from entering the U.S. As claimed by The Financial Times, this trial is deemed to be the first in Russian history over a dead defendant.[14] Amnesty International described the trial as “a whole new chapter in Russia’s worsening human rights record” and a “sinister attempt to deflect attention from those who committed the crimes he Magnitsky exposed.”[15]

--Plutonius1965 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No. We need to use reliable sources, which paint an entirely different picture. See the section just above this. Regarding Russia putting him on a wanted list, that was refused by Interpol. Further, the article doesn't go nearly far enough in presenting the facts around the lawyer's murder. The "Russian Presidential Human Rights Council concluded that he was a victim of criminal negligence. There is evidence that a beating by prison guards may have killed the chronically ill prisoner"[12] and "A Kremlin human-rights commission said in 2011 that Mr. Magnitsky was beaten and deliberately denied medical treatment, leading to his death."[13] Again, we need to use Reliable Sources as already discussed above. The ones I'm using here and just above are "Wall Street Journal," "Newsweek," "BBC," etc. Not Russian government mouthpieces. First Light (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/20/russia_s_crime_of_the_century
  2. ^ http://russian-untouchables.com/eng/
  3. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-briton-who-took-on-sergei-magnitsky-network-faces-libel-case-in-uk-8466313.html
  4. ^ http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/8431931/brauder_uhodit_ot_suda_s_karpovym_v_londone_ego_ishod_mozhet
  5. ^ http://www.compromat.ru/page_32950.htm
  6. ^ http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/8431931/brauder_uhodit_ot_suda_s_karpovym_v_londone_ego_ishod_mozhet
  7. ^ http://www.compromat.ru/page_32950.htm
  8. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-briton-who-took-on-sergei-magnitsky-network-faces-libel-case-in-uk-8466313.html
  9. ^ Newsweek
  10. ^ Wall Street Journal]
  11. ^ BBC
  12. ^ BBC
  13. ^ Wall Street Journal


First Light, what you say is incorrect and is a wrong interpretation of Wikipedia policies.


On the Wikipedia policy on sources
Wikipedia:Third-party sources policy allows using primary sources, although with caution:
"Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Press_releases)
Specifically, when a primary source may cause a conflict of interest, Wikipedia policy states the following:
"When there is a potential conflict of interest, identifying the connection between the source and topic is important, such as by saying "A study by X found that Y." Rather than excluding such non-independent sources from a page, it is often best to include them, with mention of how the source is connected to someone with an interest in the topic." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Press_releases)
On Primary Sources:
‘’Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.’’
Therefore, RT and the press-release of the Russian Ministry of the Interior are primary sources. They are allowed to be used but with clear reference to the source and without distorting the content.
The indicated paragraphs shall therefore be included unless Wikipedia policies are changed in between.


With regards to the source that you have just indicated:
  • Vedomosti is an independent Russian daily which is published jointly with the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-11/prokhorov-s-rbc-says-it-s-not-in-talks-to-buy-stake-in-vedomosti). This newspaper is a reliable tertiary source within the meaning of Wikipedia rules and is acceptable.
  • The Independent is a British newspaper which has nothing to do with the Russian government, although it is owned by a Russian national.
  • Compromat.ru: is a website which merely published articles made elsewhere. If the articles listed on the website are in a reliable tertiary source – it is allowed to be used. The links that you mention refer to articles published in Vedomosti.
  • http://russian-untouchables.com/eng/ - is a primary source funded by Browder himself to present his one-sided view on the Magnitsky case and cannot be fully reliable. Please note that a libel court case is pending with regards to its content.
  • BBC is a public British source financed by the UK government. Browder is a British national which means that there might be a ‘’conflict of interests’’ according to Wikipedia rules, similarly to RT when presenting the Russian opinion.
Wall Street Journal and Newsweek – OK.


On your comments
  • “Interpol refused to put Browder on the international wanted list’’ – what the press release says is that there is an intention to put him on the international wanted list. Furthermore, your claim is unsourced. Please provide citation on the Interpol rejection in March 2013.
  • “The article doesn't go nearly far enough in presenting the facts around the lawyer's murder” – Magnitsky’s death and Browder alleged tax evasion are two different cases. No original research please.

--Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment here: It makes no sense whatsoever to say that The Independent is owned by a Russian national but has no bias or COI, and three lines later claim that the BBC has that simply because Browder is British. You have evidence of neither. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course it does. BBC is a state-owned source and that is why by default it is a primary source. Similar to any Russian government-owned sources. The Independent is a third-party source which is not affiliated to any party in the conflict.Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are suggesting that the BBC is partial and has a COI issue because Browder is British, and in the same breath claiming that The Independent (somehow) absolutely is not. Again, I am requesting you provide proof of this. It's you making the assertions, not me. As far as I know the BBC is a reliable source in most things, whether the subject is British or Brazilian. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Plutionius, hardly any reliable sources are taking these charges seriously. "Macabre Show Trial" is what a reliable source calls it that has no ties to the subject (British) or to Russia. Others here have pointed out that the Russian sources are clearly not reliably independent of their government. U. S. sources can arguably be said to have no ties to either the British subject or to the macabre Russian show trial, and they too are calling this whole thing a sham trial, and also tying together Magnitsky's murder and Browder's trial. Consensus is against you on presenting the Russian charges as anything but tit for tat on Browder and Magnitsky. First Light (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Plutonius, what's your connection to the Russian state? The tone of your comments is consistent with a sub rosa PR campaign. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jenochman, your comment does not concern the topic and is as a personal attack. If you continue, you may be blocked.
First Light, your comments (“hardly any… source”, “others have pointed out” etc.) are weasel words . Please check the relevant page, should you have doubts.
What is contested on the current article is that certain English-speaking sources, while being considered as “reliable”, are in reality primary and secondary sources which are related to the subject (Browder) and therefore are inclined to promote only one opinion (e.g. www.russianuntouchables.com). On the other hand, it is argued that not all Russian sources are owned by the Russian government; but even if they are and report about a particular new fact, these can still be used, although with caution, according to Wikipedia guidelines on third-party sources.
What has been said by Jenochman and Firstlight about “all Russian sources being unreliable” is a personal opinion, constitutes an original research and is forbidden.
It is repeated what the subject matter of the present discussion is:
  1. The paragraphs above originating from RT and on the press-release of the Russian Interior Ministry are primary sources. Primary sources are allowed to be used in Wikipedia on condition they are directly referred to the original text and are not distorted. If a group of observers believes that a certain legal procedure is a “show trial”, it does not mean that the trial does not exist and details about it should not be mentioned.
  2. Russian daily Vedomosti is an independent tertiary source similar to Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and others. It is suggested that any reporting from Vedomosti should be allowed.
Unless clearly grounded arguments against these two points are provided, the proposed paragraphs shall be included in the text.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Plutonious, are you working for the Russian government or anybody else who has an interest in this dispute? It looks very much by the nature of your edits that you are importing a real world conflict into Wikipedia. This is forbidden. Please stop. Jehochman Talk 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Primary sources may be used if not self serving, however primary sources such as the one you are presenting appear to be of dubious quality. We would need corroboration to include this source in a BLP. But don't take my word for it, ask at RSN (reliable sources noticeboard) for a third opinion.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rosetta, will do! First constructive feedback! --Plutonius1965 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

New updates on Hermitage Capital Management and Browder's arguments on his Gazprom purchase

A number of modifications have further been made. The text has been rendered more neutral. If you have any comments, feel free to post on the talk page. But please without insults and edit wars. --Plutonius1965 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The name of William Browder appears in the Venona papers, but this William Browder is apparently the grand uncle of the contemporary William Browder, i.e. the brother of Earl Browder, head of the American Communist Party, himself the grandfather of the current William Browder.

More information in this academic paper. - User:Lachambre June 13, 2006

Curiously, these Browders all have fathers, grandfathers, uncles but no mothers. Earl Browder was not only the Chief communist in the States in his time, he also ran a large espionage network for Moscow and his wife known as Kitty Harris was a roving agent, between China, Berlin, London, the States. Reading Harris' biography is a worthwhile exercise and Browder, yes .... 144.136.192.37 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Browder/Archives/2013&oldid=1136319463"