Jump to content

Talk:Gennady Timchenko

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

Economist lawsuit

[edit]

Some commentators eg Wedomosti and Guardian have said that the Economist lawsuit was a big defeet for Timchenko. Can someone add links to these stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.139.170 (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurting The Economist to the point of publishing what in essence is a retraction can hardly be called a "defeat"; this does not happen frequently. As for the articles you mentioned, they appeared in multiple papers a day before the publication, have essentially identical text and therefore are most likely just a part of some PR action. In my book at least, Economist was caught spreading false rumors and forced to acknowledge it. 173.129.202.47 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a press release went out from both sides shortly after the settlement. That is not a "PR action" just standard practice. The fact that The Economist appears not to have paid any costs or damages and did not use the word "apology" in the material it published suggests that it was Timchenko who backed down, not the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.139.170 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a press release - check the articles yourself. Notice how few sources picked up the story altogether, and how desperately the authors try to spin the events (Guardian even used the word "drop" instead of "settle" in the lead). It is not at all clear that either the Economist or Timchenko did not pay, by the way - as the settlement agreements are typically confidential. Still, when was the last time the Economist made a retraction on this scale? - I do not recall. Since we both do not know the facts, it makes sense to stop arguing here. The article seems balanced as it is, even though the phrase about money can use some work, as there currently is no way to know, while the current wording hints that Economist did not actually pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.133.218 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not correct. A press release did go out--it is referenced eg in UK press gazette. Wikipedia should not state that the Economist apologised unless there is a clear source showing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.191.121 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye

[edit]

Private Eye magazine new edition August 6th 2009 published this article "Court Short". It is not available online but it is relevant to the subject of this article

"All Schillings's threats and billable hours merely produced an anodyne "clarification" in the current issue of the Economist, which offers no apology and makes no mention of paying a penny in costs or damages. In a carefully worded statement, the Economist just disowns allegations it had never made." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.185.10 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not British, so it amuses me to watch how the British journos are trying to spin the events. Outcome is very clear (and listed in the article):
  1. The Economist published an article, mentioning Timchenko
  2. When challenged, they produced an equivalent of "Oops", removed the challenged text, published a "clarification" (seems like you are opposed to words "retraction" or "apology", which in plain English are better terms for the piece published by The Economist).
At least as viewed from my vantage point outside of Great Britain, this can only be described as "victory" for The Economist with a tongue firmly pushing the cheek. Yes, the army was saved, but the battle was lost. For The Economist, this was a press equivalent of Dunkirk. Spinning it as El Alamein is better left to tabloids, not Wikipedia.
I am not British either but I do know that plaintiffs in a libel case like to get a grovelling apology and costs and damages as a result of their efforts. When they get this they trumpet the fact. Timchenko and Gunvor did not get this. The Economist would have resisted strongly publishing anything called an "apology" and the fact that they did not have to must be a significant victory. It seems to me that Gunvor's propagandists are trying to spin this as a victory, introducing unsourced mentions of "apology" when the facts are otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.185.10 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from The Economist Statement

[edit]

Let's keep the quotes from the statement by The Economist. In the British press there was an attempt to spin the settlement to hide the fact that The Economist was caught effectively spreading gossip. If you think that the spinners (like the "Private Eye") deserve to be quoted, at least leave the quotes from the actual statement in too (for neutrality you can also add quotes from the Russian media that spins in the other direction).

It is better to keep just the original wording, in my opinion: statement is short, and can be effectively quoted in the same amount of space that will be taken by the spinners. 75.37.160.157 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are that settling a libel suit after a few court hours with no damages, no costs and no apology is functionally equivalent to dropping the suit. It is clear from the Eye story (eg the insistence on silence) that the priority was not letting actual new revelations, not mentioned in the original publication, come out in court. This is not spin - but citing the full Economist clarification implying it's an apology is. As to spreading gossip: the Guardian notes publication of the same info by the Financial Times six months previously.[1] No libel suit that time. Rd232 talk 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how publishing the actual text of the statement can be putting spin on the things, while using account from the obviously biased British publication is not. For a neutral POV, it makes sense to have three sources: original statement (it is short and uses the word "regret" which is not an apology), spin of the British press (The Economist won? - only British can claim a victory after radically changing the article and publishing the statement that expresses regret - but they claimed the victory even after the Dunkirk :-), and the Russian press spin (Economist retracted and apologized? - it did neither). Please stop deleting the direct quotes at least. 75.37.160.157 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you're talking about WWII. Nor is there any basis for claiming bias. You are deleting secondary source interpretation (WP:PSTS) and presenting the clarification as if it was an apology. No to that. Rd232 talk 10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement (which for some reason you call a "clarification" in quotes - quotes are yours) was quoted verbatim, with the word "apology" nowhere in sight. So the removed text did not present anything "as if", unlike the wording you put back. The Economist stated regret - this was not an apology - and removed words about Timchenko from the article - but this is not a retraction. This is absolutely correct - so was not quote the actual words of the statement? 75.37.160.157 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is currently cited in the footnote. Your wording "as part of the settlement" and the general presentation of the statement [2] suggests some kind of climbdown, which is not the case. I've also corrected your description of Private Eye as merely "satirical" - it is a satirical slash current affairs magazine and the difference between the two types of content is very clear. The article in question is in the current affairs part. Rd232 talk 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "general presentation" was simply quoting pieces of the statement verbatim, with no comments. You objected to quoting the statement in full (and now to any quotes from the statement, it seems). If quoting the statement in full or in part suggests to you a climbdown - this is not my fault, and, perhaps, it was a climbdown :-) 75.37.160.157 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Returned "satirical" into place - this is the standard characterization of the Private Eye (I actually quoted the first sentence from the Wikipedia article :-). Changing the text of the article and publishing the statement is certainly a climbdown on The Economist side. A no-climbdown would be to leave the article as it was, with the "facts" (rumors, hints, insinuations - one can choose the noun depending on his/her opinion of the British press) intact. 75.37.160.157 (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You believe what you want to believe. Seems like we've about managed to agree on the article, which is the main thing. Rd232 talk 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with you on both the value of beliefs and this discussion close to being finished :-). It is actually amazing that both of us spent so much of our personal time on the subject we do not particularly care about (at least I can say so about myself). I originally thought that the subject is rather uncontroversial and quoting the Economist statement verbatim is sufficient, but obviously underestimated the British pride :-). I will add a couple of quotes from the Russian press later when I have time. Unlike the British press that closed its ranks in this case, there is actually a variety of opinions on the subject in Russian publications, and I plan to quote both pro-Timchenko and pro-Economist articles, both declaring resounding victory for their chosen side. While at it, the article is currently a mix of British and American spelling. I would prefer to switch to the American one. What do you think (about spelling, actually)? 75.37.160.157 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a question of pride. (Certainly Private Eye would prefer the Economist to go down in flames than for Timchenko to mysteriously back down with no juicy details forthcoming.) There's no obvious spelling preference from the subject (Russian businessman), so if spellings are mixed already, it doesn't matter much which one to pick. Rd232 talk 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests Timchenko didn't realise proceedings would be public. Oops. Rd232 talk 19:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timchenko did not file the lawsuit himself, he had (very British) professionals doing it. Assuming that his British lawyers did not understand the procedure is plainly ridiculous. 75.37.160.157 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly, which is why it makes a lot more sense to assume that Timchenko didn't know, and that his law firm believed he had nothing to hide, or at least nothing that would come out. Rd232 talk 10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very bold assumption with even less basis than the original Economist piece. Quoting it as gospel truth in Wikipedia without other secondary sources is an obvious POV bias. 75.37.160.157 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting adding that. I only raised it here as a point of reference. Rd232 talk 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you quote in the article suggest just that, so these rumors are already effectively added. I have no dog in the fight (no connections to press / Timchenko / pro-Putin or anti-Putin oligarhs / oil industry, etc.), so I will defer to you in this case simply to save my time as well as yours, but I still respectfully disagree :-) 75.37.160.157 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putin's buddy

[edit]

Here, at around 17 minutes, the Al Jazeera video says that Putin and Timchenko set up a judo club in St Petersburg in the 1980s, and that this connection is probably why Timchenko has been so successful in business. Worth mentioning.Malick78 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jew???

[edit]

Jew? Yes or no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.86.95 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Gennady Timchenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gennady_Timchenko&oldid=1209933573"