Talk:Flavio Briatore/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Flavio Briatore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Two different stories

The article for John Barnard said he "left" Benetton , but the article for Flavio said that he was "fired." Two different stories. - Funkeh 20/3/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.140.42 (talk • contribs) 9:52 PM, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How do I determine what images should enjoy a promotional tag?

It seems to me that images on a team's official website are promotional in so far as they seem intended to fulfill one purpose: spreading the word. To wit, a promotional image tag reads as follows: 'This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.' (I know team websites aren't part of a literal 'press kit,' but it's also 2006, & the teams communicate with the press & public in many ways, some via electronic means.) I haven't been corrected on this point yet.

So why shouldn't an image from Flavio Briatore's offical website enjoy promotional status? What are the pictures there for? I'd be interested to hear what criteria I should use to determine if an image is indeed promotional. I would like to get it right.

-Erik Kennedy, 19.4.06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Kennedy (talk • contribs) 7:51 PM, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Geometra is not a land surveyor

Briatore got a diploma as a Geometra, literally somebody skilled in Geometry. This is a very popular and common diploma in Italy and Land Surveyor (whilst being the correct historic translation) is not a particularly appropriate translation, but unfortunately there is no direct equivalent in English of this "category" of person. Put bluntly, land surveyor suggests that his education had nothing to do with Formula 1, when in reality I would suspect that there are many Geomotra diplomates amongst Italian F1 teams. A Geometra, whilst being orientated towards being a "civil engineering technician" recieves a very broad technical education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin (talk • contribs) 5:25 PM, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Geometra

Geometra is not a lower degree of engineer, but it is orientated towards being lower degree of architect and they don’t really receive a broad technical education (especially no mechanics, chemistry, electronics etc). Literal translation would be "geometer or geometrician", even though it’s not an appropriate translation. Anyway it is a diploma (school-leaving certificate) about house and home furnishing design.84.222.112.95 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Giuby

Grammar needs to be improved

This article contains many grammatical errors, as well as poor sentence structure. It needs a lot of work.--jeanne (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, it's time to work, not just complain....

Benetton

Thanks to Benetton's unorthodox methods of franchising, the chain experienced a brief boom in popularity in the US where, by 1989, there were eight hundred Benetton stores. Briatore, having taken a cut of each franchising agreement, became very wealthy. Benetton was also known for its divisive and attention-grabbing advertisements. Briatore explained how they raised the company's profile: "We decided to do something very controversial that people would pick up on -- 50% of people thought it was great and 50% thought it was awful, but in the meantime everyone was talking about Benetton." As store owners began to complain of competition from other Benetton stores, the number of stores decreased to two hundred and Briatore began to look for a new busines

SHOULDN'T IT BE ABOUT BRIATORE? what has that got to do with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.114.112 (talk • contribs) 5:17 PM, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Convictions and WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP

The appearance today in the lead relating to 30yo convictions is giving them undue weight. Please reach consensus here for the changes. Mt king ^(edits) 05:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an extant, multiple conviction, which is mentioned in every major Italian source (including his autobiography). It is not 30 years old. There is no way it can count as WP:UNDUE as it is one of his most notable biographical facts, and has had a major effect on the shape of his life - even leading to a number of years as a fugitive. He's also been convicted more than once. I can't see how you can make an argument against its inclusion in the lead. Every other article on people with similarly major convictions, mentions them in the lead. His convictions are always noted in Italian discourse on Briatore. And they are even now very relevant to his career (for example, his being forced to stand down as QPR chairman in 2010 - due to his failing the Fit and proper person test). And in 2011, a major fraud investigation is currently ongoing in Italy. Avaya1 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

His notability stems from F1 and being banded from F1 by the FIA (since overturned) and NOT his fraud convictions. Mt king ^(edits) 05:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, unlike me, you've broken the three-revert rule, that you impolitely attached to my page. Briatore's notability is for various reasons, including F1 and his business career (the latter is highly connected to the fraud convictions), and for generally being one of the most famous people in Italy. His convictions are extremely notable, extant, and mentioned regularly in any Italian or French biographical sources. Therefore they are not undue, by the criteria of the sources upon which our article is based (and that's the criteria we use to decide on notability in wikipedia). The other rule that you invoke, BLP, is completely irrelevant, considering that the conviction is a reliably sourced fact handed down by the courts.Avaya1 (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not possible, I have only EVER made three edits to the page, try counting them !

Your intent is clear with this edit you removed the fact he had been released following an arrest, you wish to paint the subject in a negative way. Mt king ^(edits) 06:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No I removed that sentence (which I myself created a few edits earlier here), because I realised it's not in the source (which is a news article reporting his bail). He was released, but I've been trying to tidy the article and link the correct sentences to the correct sources. Your last reversion was pretty disruptive to the editing, because you removed some of the citations from the top of the page (which I had just formatted). By the way, I have a reversion left. If I revert the article now (I won't because I don't want to start some annoying edit warring), you'd break 3RR by changing it. Avaya1 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus clearly not in making the major change, I have restored the stable long term version until consensus exists for any change in it. Mt king ^(edits) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument for a consensus is simply incorrect and disingenuous. I added notable, very well sourced, additions, in a manner consistent with the precedent on many other biographical articles dealing with this exact issue (e.g. Jeffrey Archer, Conrad Black, Jonathan Aitken). We appear to be the only editors in this forum, therefore demanding a consensus is extremely disingenuous. You have to argue for your reverts here, by clearly explaining exactly how you derived them from the policy pages. You then started edit warring, by making blanket reversions, without any consensus behind your reversions. There's no consensus for the blanket reverts (note how your reversions remove all the sources, and much other information). You were also previously adding 3RR warning templates to my talk, which was strange and a bit uncivil considering that you didn't understand the rules for applying them. Then you argued, on your talk page, that I have negative intent behind my edits (which is purely subjective, and extremely uncivil). Finally, you have deleted the discussion that we had over this on your own talk page, without refuting any of the points made. The point of the talkpage, is that you're supposed to argue for your position, before disrupting constructive edits other editors are making.

You will need to re-read the edits and re-read the BLP policy page. Then try to explain how the current edits infringe on BLP (you will see that they don't infringe on BLP). The only policy you will find to support you is UNDUE. UNDUE is usually decided by what the reliable biographical sources deem to be significant. I can then find a lot of reliable sources in French and Italian that deem this to be one of the most significant biographical facts for this subject. Avaya1 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very simple, he is not notable for these convictions, they form a part of his life and should be mentioned in the body of the article, but mentioning them in the lead gives them WP:UNDUE weight. Mt king ^(edits) 01:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. A good lead will summarise the facts that are covered in the body of the article. My lead chronologically summarises the objective biographical events, which are covered in the body of the article, and which are considered noteworthy in the biographical sources (for the example, the conviction and fugitiveness takes up space in the subject's autobiography). The amount of coverage in the lead is representative of the coverage in the body of the article. Perhaps the lead can be improved by concisely adding some more facts to the outline, but not by removing the whole summary. (I follow WP:Lead)

2. The criteria you have invoked for notability appear to be subjective. Notability is not determined by subjective opinion, but by what the reliable sources consider to be notable. In this case, the convictions and fugitiveness are considered noteworthy in the sources. I understand that you might not think they are noteworthy enough to be the second sentence in the lead. However, I have written the lead chronologically. Therefore, they appear at the beginning. If you think there is another notable fact that occurred earlier in the subject's life, then feel free to insert it as the second sentence in the lead. I understand my earlier edits, where I wrote, "convicted fraudster" in the first sentence may have been undue (this is debatable, since the convictions are extant). However, at that stage of the edit war, you were justifying your reverts on completely different grounds (i.e. lack of sourcing). (I think the current edits wholly follow the policy of WP:Undue - please explain which part of the policy page they contravene)

3. The main issue with the article is the sourcing. I've been trying to improve the sourcing, and the formatting of the sources. When I started on the article, this was very bad. Please avoid blanket reverts that remove the all sources. I edit in a piece-meal way. When you revert all my edits, all the hard work I put into formatting the source is also removed. I don't understand the way you are editing. It makes sense if you're trying to stop vandalism, but you're undoing formatting and lots of other edits, because you think the balance of the lead is UNDUE. Avaya1 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None of the convictions are sourced to sources published at the time, they are only notable due to the later notability of the subject; this is very indicative of something being notable after the fact. They are a minor element to his life and should not be presented in the way you propose. You are trying to portray the subject in a negative way. There is no consensus for this change; you should revert.Mt king ^(edits) 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stating that I'm trying to "portray the subject in a negative way" is uncivil and also your subjective opinion. The edits are NPOV according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (if not, please show me where). The subject was a much reported upon figure during the 1980s, the convictions being a large part of his notability. The sources we use are recent, because those are sources that can be cited on the internet. However, I can cite many Italian sources from 1980s if you wish.Avaya1 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may be my "subjective opinion", but is supported by some of your own edits. There is no way you can claim that the subject of this article is primarily notable for those convictions he is not, to imply otherwise is contra to NPOV. Mt king ^(edits) 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your claims about my "intent" are a subjective opinion, which is not supported by the edits (the edits are not adding anything that's not in the sources). Constantly claiming that I have a negative intent is uncivil. The subject is not only notable for those convictions. But, as a fair representation of the sources, the convictions are presumably notable enough to constitute 1/7 of the sentences in the lead, as they do now. Avaya1 (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The changes made to the lead with out consensus need to be reverted, Flavio Briatore's notability is derived directly from managing the F1 team Benetton (later re-branded Renault F1) and the race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. To include details about 30 year old convictions and the word "fugitive" violates both WP:LEAD and WP:BLP it should read :

Flavio Briatore (born 12 April 1950) is an Italian businessman. He was manager or principal of Formula One racing team Benetton, later re-branded Renault F1 . He was also part-owner and chairman of London's Queens Park Rangers F.C. from 2007 to 2010. On 16 September 2009, Briatore was forced to resign from the ING Renault F1 team due to his involvement in race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. After the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) conducted its own investigation, Briatore was banned indefinitely from any events sanctioned by the FIA, although this ban was later overturned by the French Tribunal de Grande Instance.

I have no issue with the criminal convictions being refereed to the body of the article, providing they are not given undue weight. Mt king ^(edits) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The convictions are not 30 years old and the word "fugitive" surely violates neither LEAD or BLP- given that it is widely reported legal fact, considered to be notable in both the sources from now and the time. Also, the claim that Briatore's notability derives only from F1 (and from nothing else) is your subjective opinion, not the opinion of the sources. Why don't you answer my comments in the subsection above? Avaya1 (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." it can not be said that the convictions or the fugitive claim are the most important aspects of Flavio life can it ? Mt king ^(edits) 22:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The sentence says "a summary of its most important aspects" (plural, not singular). It's not necessarily the most noteworthy aspect, but it certainly seems to be one of the most noteworthy aspects, that would be reported in the introduction to an encylopedia entry. His business career, including the fact that as a fugitive he set up Benetton franchises in the United States, surely belongs in the lead. He was notable and reported upon multi-millionaire before he ever went near a race-track. I'll put in the request for comment now anyway Avaya1 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to contradict yourself there so can't quite see what point you are making. I still fail to see how you can claim that they come close to being the "most important aspects" in his life, when he dies the headline wont be "fugitive who set up Benetton franchises dies" it will be "Ex-F1 team boss dies" (maybe with the word disgraced thrown in). The version before was long standing and you have furthered no reason to change it other than it is covered in sources. So untill you do I ask that you restore the version as per the request posed to your talk page. Mt king ^(edits) 23:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on lead

1. We would appreciate input on the question of whether the lead (quoted below) is acceptable under the policies of WP:Lead, WP:Undue and WP:BLP. I believe that, in its current form, it does conform to wikipedia guidelines. User:Mtking, on the other hand, disputes this, and believes that the mention of "fugitive" violates wikipedia guidelines. We would both appreciate the opinion of other editors.

"Flavio Briatore (born 12 April 1950) is an Italian businessman. He started his career as a restaurant manager and insurance salesman. A fugitive[1] from Italy, he set up restaurants and then a number of successful Benneton franchises in the Virgin Islands and the United States. In 1990, he was promoted, by Luciano Benetton, to manager of the Benetton Formula One racing team which becameRenault F1 in 2002. From 2007 to 2010, he was part-owner and chairman of London's Queens Park Rangers F.C.. On 16 September 2009, Briatore was forced to resign from the ING Renault F1 team due to his involvement in race fixing at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. After the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) conducted its own investigation, Briatore was banned indefinitely from any events sanctioned by the FIA, although this ban was later overturned by the French Tribunal de Grande Instance."

2. We would additionally appreciate any help from other editors to help edit the article in general. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose for the reasons stated above. Mt king ^(edits) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Note : As Avaya1 edit warred to get his version of the lead; he is only able to claim it as Current as he failed to restore the lead to the version prior to his changes as requested by User:EdJohnston here. Mt king ^(edits) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved copy editor: The lead is supposed to summarize the importance of the topic and the contents of the article. One thing quite often misunderstood is that the lead should not contain any independent information – that is to say that anything in the lead should be further developed within the article. I find that since his status as a fugitive is mentioned in the article, a brief mention of it in the lead is appropriate and not WP:UNDUE. However, the lead as written right now is somewhat ungrammatical. I would suggest rephrasing this part to read something like:

While a fugitive from Italy, Briatore became involved with the early global expansion of Benetton stores, opening several stores in the Virgin Islands and United States."

Also, it's preferable not to put citations in the lead, but inline with the full expansion of the concept wherever it is in the article. I appreciate it was probably inserted here due to the conflict over the lead, but every statement in a lead should be verifiable, so they are assumed to be cited within the main article. I hope this commentary helps! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree; that there is any need to mention any criminal activity in the lead, why change it now, nothing has changed, it is not an important aspect of his life. Mt king ^(edits) 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You're free to disagree, but when by far the majority of the opening section (Early Life and Benetton Career) deals with charges of criminal activity, convictions, and his fugitive status, I think a brief mention in the lead is reasonable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority of editors disagree with you MtKing, why did you just revert. Also the purpose of request for comment is to ask for comments from other users, not to fill up the section with your own comments, which are already repeated above. Avaya1 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

one more editor agrees with your view. Mt king ^(edits) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to RFC bot: I think "fugitive" in the lead is only usable if explained. In the proposed text it is not, which is confusing to the reader. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment The subject's status as a fugitive is explained in detail and properly referenced in the main body of the article. His criminal activities are documented in multiple sections and make up fully half of the first section. Under the circumstances, MoS/Lead section is clear: briefly mentioning both criminal activities and fugitive status in the intro is exactly the right thing to do, it simply needs to be written in a neutral style with an eye to due weight. This seems to have been done fairly well by Avaya1 so I would suggest either restoring that version, or compromising on new wording that contains the same basic information. Doc Tropics 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Assuming that no-one is disputing that the convictions occurred, then yes they should be mentioned briefly. The lead is a summary of the whole article, not just of what is currently most newsworthy. Agree with Livitup that the version proposed by Avaya isn't great, though. My suggestion would be something like: "Convicted in Italy on several fraud charges in the 1980s, Briatore left the country and ... etc" 4u1e (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WMF involvement

See WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive166#Flavio Briatore. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I know nothing about any legal challenge put forward, there are a number of points which are contested by the subject, some sourced, others not. I'll be removing the unsourced ones, and making a few other tweaks. I'll likely be back here at some point in the future to discuss matters further. Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some unsourced information and some information only attributed to a blog site - www.F1Fanatic.co.uk - If anyone has any issue with the removals, please do discuss them here, I'm striving for accuracy. Worm^TT(talk) 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Pyrope, I'll get back to the convictions, I'm discussing that with the other editor, I didn't realise I'd removed them. Regarding the restaurant, my pigeon italian did not read it that way and it has been asserted that the restaurant was sold. I'll ask them for confirmation that it was sold rather than closed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you confirm that this was written by Joe Saward, that it has editoral oversite and conforms with our reliable source requirements? The subject constests the facts mentioned. Worm^TT(talk) 16:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The about page doesn't look promising. Worm^TT(talk) 16:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Worm. F1Fanatic seems to have culled much of their information from his bio at GrandPrix.com. This work was compiled and written by Joe Saward some years ago (although he no longer writes for them) and his standing for truth is unsurpassed in the F1 community. To me, this OTRS request seems more like a hagiographic rewriting of history rather than a serious claim of untrue statements. Pyrop e 17:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

cheers for the link... More reading to do Worm^TT(talk) 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As for La Repubblica, the article states "... che chiuderà dopo poco per debiti." My Italian runs to a smattering of restaurant grade phrases, but the word "debiti" would seem to be unambiguous. Looking at Google Translate a reasonable contextual translation into English seems to be "... would close shortly thereafter due to debts." Pyrop e 17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My first question for the lawyer would be "Have you had success in the Italian courts against the publisher Aliberti Editore, with respect to their publishing the recent book 'Il signor Billionare; ascesa, segreti, misteri e coincidenze'"? If the answer is no, then they can go sling their hook. The fact that two years after publication that La Repubblica piece is still online, which contains far more inflammatory and possibly defamatory material than our article ever has, suggests this is legal smoke blowing. Pyrop e 17:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Pyrope. Thanks so much for the link to Grandprix.com, I'm much more happy with it as a resource than F1fanatic. To give you an idea, the person I am dealing with has put forward 17 issues with the article. Some are well sourced, and I am challenging them on those facts. Others appear to be unsourced (or were only sourced to F1Fanatic), and so I removed them. It appears that many of the issues might be a case of semantics, where there is either a small misinterpretation in translation. They also seem like very odd things to change, if they are true. I'll put assertions that I'm not going back to them on down below. Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The restaurant "Tribula" closed due to excessive debt: Looking further, I'm seeing multiple sources which said the restaurant had to close - so I will be going back to them on that.
Briatore moved to Milan and worked in the Italian stock exchange - F1fanatic states he worked in the stock exchange, though Grandprix.com states he worked on the stock exchange. The OTRS message asserts that he worked "in the financial group Finanziaria Generale Italia." Which fits with Grandprix.com, but not so much F1Fanatic's version.

I'd agree that the GrandPrix.com phrasing seems to be more accurate, and is likely the fault of F1Fanatic in misinterpreting the difference between working in an exchange (implying on behalf of the exchange company) and on the exchange (which implies work as a trader on behalf for an independent company).

I've updated to say who he worked for and changed the word to "at".

Briatore purchased the ailing Ligier team to acquire its stock of Renault engines. This is contested, I believe that it is the "motive" that is being complained about. I'd suggest changing the sentence to "Briatore purchased the ailing Ligier team thereby acquiring its stock of Renault engines"

Either way "stock" is the wrong word to use. These engines were not stockpiled by the team, but Ligier had a supply contract with Renault that Benetton did not. A year after the purchase this contract transferred from Ligier to Benetton, that much is true and makes no assumptions regarding motivation. Either of "Renault engine contract" or "Renault engine supply" would be better.

Right-o, I've updated, let me know what you think.

FIA regulations, however, did not permit him to own the team, so he sold it to Walkinshaw: Again F1Fantatic and Grandprix.com differ, but neither state that he was not permitted to own it, nor that he "sold" it to Walkinshaw. The OTRS ticket asserts "at the end of the 1994 season Briatore acquired the French team Ligier, restructured it completely and two years later the team drove to victory at the Monte Carlo GP with Panis. In 1997 Briatore sold Ligier to Alain Prost." I'm not sure how best to restructure the sentence, but it's not supported by any of the sources.

Walkinshaw had at least 50% of Ligier at some point, this much is supported by Walkinshaw's obituaries, but it is certainly true that the team was never sold in its entirety. Operational management of the team was in Walkinshaw's purview, so Briatore claiming credit for Panis' Monaco victory is a bit rich.

I agree, and wasn't intending to give credit for Panis' Monaco victory. Rather than worrying about who owned what, I've made it clear that he passed operational management of the team to Walkinson, which matches the source and your comments.

The ticket asserts that he bought Minardi, restructured it and sold it to Rumi - denying the attempted sale to British American Tobacco. Do we have any other sources for this sale?

Again the GrandPrix.com article states unequivocally that he tried to sell to BAT. Yet again this is a reputable piece, written by a long-standing Formula One specialist journalist, and has been publicly available for at least five years now.

Certainly, I just wondered if there were news reports at the time of the attempted sale at the time. I haven't seen anything but the Grandprix.com piece. It's impossible to disprove an assertion like that with a source, so I would have preferred the assertion based on more than one source. I'll keep looking.

The ticket asserts he was not fired by Benetton, but instead it was by mutual agreement. Grandprix.com says that he was "dropped" which I think is probably more accurate than fired, with less negative overtones.

"Mutual agreement" is a very weaselish phrase. GrandPrix.com also uses the term "ousted". Either way, both "ousted" and "dopped" imply that the decision was made by Benetton and that Briatore didn't have much choice in the matter. The final agreement may have been mutual, but the decision certainly doesn't seem to have been.

I agree that mutual agreement is the wrong term, just giving you an idea of the issue. I'll change it to dropped and see what they say.

So that gives you an idea of what I'm trying to sort out on the ticket. I think you've been happy to leave 2 changes I made, and there's 5 further ones above, which I think are reasonable. That leaves 10 that I'm going back to them on. Legal puffery or not, I'd rather this was sorted out so that everyone was happy. Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point, and I did indeed leave alone those points that seemed either poorly justified or entirely unsupported. The changes may well seem to be odd, but they also seem to be scrubbing away as many negative connotations as they can, that aren't supported by numerous, highly reputable sources. Passages that might suggest that Briatore isn't the all-conquering business titan that I imagine he'd like to think he is. I hope you don't mind, but I interleaved my specific responses to the points as laid out above. Pyrop e 19:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Specific responses are good. I'm sure I'll be back with more in the future. Briatore clearly has a reputation and the article does reflect that. Unfortunately, we've got to keep in mind BLP, and that the biography on wikipedia is likely to be replicated across the web - so we want it to be accurate and neutral. I'm not trying to create a Briatore sanctioned biography, but I am trying to remove falsehoods which creep in over time! Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Those changes look fine to me, I think you handled them very well indeed. Interested to hear what the response is. Thanks for the barnstar btw; I find it mildly ironic that it appears directly under a section where I moan vociferously about the bureaucratic behemoth that Wikipedia has become... ;-) Pyrop e 19:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A few more changes

Having had some further discussions over OTRS, I would like to raise a few more changes. Some of these may be controversial so I'd like to raise them here first. Per above, I'll bullet them, feel free to respond to split the post up. Worm^TT(talk) 11:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed "dropped in favour of" to "replaced with" which my contact feels has less negative connotations [1]. I personally feel it's the other way round, but do not have any issue with the change. Either way, it is clear that it was Benetton's choice, per above discussion.
One of the issues raised is that of the prison sentences. I've been provided with court documents, which confirm that the sentences were reduced by the Court of Appeal in the 80s, before being expunged by an amnesty. In 2010 Briatore was "rehabilitated" by a court in Turin. Now, I don't believe the initial sentences should be removed, they were widely reported, but at the same time the appeals system should not be ignored as this will mean the information is inaccurate. Are people alright with me updating the article to accurately reflect what happened? Any suggestions as to how this should be handled would be appreciated.
Finally, there's a disagreement over "Force Blue", the yacht. It's not owned by Briatore himself, but by a company Autumn Sailing Ltd, in which he invests. He then contract's the yacht out. Although it has been reported by some newspapers that it's "his" yacht, the newspaper's I've found stating it absolutely are more "gossip" newspapers. See [2] for a summary.

I have no issues with most of the changes you suggest. If the sentences were later reduced on appeal then the article should reflect that, and the amnesty is already mentioned. As for the yacht, the article that you cite records things accurately, in brief, that the yacht was seized because investigators strongly suspected that while Force Blue was officially 'owned' by Autumn Sailing it was in fact the property of Briatore. A Supreme Court ruling in 2012 upheld the seizure, and apparently found no evidence that Briatore was actually paying for use of this 'chartered' yacht (see here) and that wiretap evidence, admitted in court, suggested that the apparent evidence of commercial activity may have been coordinated by Briatore (see here). Other articles (e.g. Daily Mail; MegaYacht News) on the same subject mention the accusation that even if genuinely foreign owned and registered it was still evading VAT charges for the fuel it bought while in EU waters, and that if actually owned by and operated dominantly for the private use of Briatore and his family then it may have been evading even more taxes. From what I see the yacht is still under the seizure order, and is being operated commercially at present only under a very substantial bail payment. The issue is far from closed. Pyrop e 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the convictions part. I agree with you on the yacht issue - I was under the impression it had been released from the seizure, but investigations into Tax evasion were on going. My point was not that the issue was closed, but rather that Wikipedia is giving an inaccurate impression of the situation. I'll have a bit of a think about how best to update the article. Worm^TT(talk) 09:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Also updated the yacht part. Do let me know what you think. Worm^TT(talk) 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Interview

Flavio Briatore. Keep your mind fresh http://en.newstyle-mag.com/interview/flavio-briatore-keep-your-mind-fresh.html
Luvstuss (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)