|WikiProject Central Asia||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Stub-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
To the individual who wrote a within-article critique of the article, please post on discussion board. In reponse to your comments, the Christian Science Monitor article you're referencing (Nov 9, 1989) does ascertain Roger was kidnapped. It does NOT however say what he did with his Middle-Eastern shares besides mention he "lost many of his financial acquisitions hereafter." As I was trading on the BSE that day, I happen to know he sold them at 39.3. Granted, he may have had to share the profits with the same criminal elements who kidnapped him and threatened his life at Hamra.
Roger tamraz is a federal fugitive, does anyone know where he is.
The article on Roger Tamraz is distorted and untrue. It is impossible to prove negatives -- he did not bribe the President of Turkmenistan, he doesn't speak Turkish, he has the same accent everyone has who grows up in Egypt and speaks English, French and Arabic from birth, he hasn't spent untold profits on all manner of bribes. The more interesting story would be how and why a Middle Eastern businessman was kidnapped and tortured by the predecessors of Lebanese Hezbollah. (see Christian Science Monitor March 1989) How a recent Harvard Business School graduate working for Kidder Peabody in Beirut rescued a banking system. (NYTimes 1976) All of Mr. Tamraz's projects have recieved coverage in respectable news publications. The Senate report quoted in the Wikipedia article is a Republican rebuttal to a democratic report. Readers should be aware that these reports are higly subjective and used for political purposes - in this case a forum to defame Bill Clinton. At least read to Democratic report to see the other side. The only way for this article to make sense is to have the whole thing re-written. Stoplibel 12:55, March 1, 2007 (originally posted on a separate page but moved here by Andre (talk))
The article is full of nonsense. For example, it says that Tamraz partnered with Ozer Ciller to open dozens of casinos in Turkmenistan. A simple Google search turns up an interview with Tamraz in the Turkish Daily News in which he states unequivocally that he never met Ozer Ciller, and another search will tell you that there are only two casinos in Turkmenistan (a small, poor country). This is the sort of article that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock, like the article about that guy who was supposedly involved in all the assasinations.
This article has severe sourcing problems; nearly all of it seems to have been written from unevaluated primary sources. I've trimmed it down a lot and am considering completely stubbing it. Please add good sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple I picked up at random are:
- Washington Post profile of Tamraz, compiled from staff reports. Dated March 4, 1998
- PBS Newshour transcript, "Tamraz Testifies", September 18, 1997
There's clearly no shortage of secondary sources, even online, so there's definitely a good, well sourced article to be written, without resort to original research from primary sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Copied from my user talk page:
- I noticed you've deleted wholesale an awful lot of the article. Although this was necessary in some cases, I think you were a little heavy with the deletion. Might it be worth it to retain bare-bones versions of the deleted sections? Andre (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I take this comment in good part. I've no doubt that there is much that needs to be written about this fellow, which isn't currently in the article. Please take this as a "stubbing down" of the article performed solely in order to ensure that we write it from the abundant secondary references rather than (as a journalist might do) from the primary references. Whilst the primary references are of extraordinarily high quality, I feel that we should not take it upon ourselves to interpret them while other public sources exist that show how they were interpreted at the time. This is where I draw the line on original research. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This reads like a white-wash P.R. ad for Tamraz; read the US Congress report on him
There are plenty of reliable sources that are critical of Tamraz. It appears that his lackeys have taken control of this article. Review the earlier versions, or do some quick googling for a deeper and more critical view. For starters, read the 1998 report from the U.S. Congress. E.g.: "Roger Tamraz ... is presently wanted by police in at least two countries. A naturalized American citizen, he has been ordered by a French court to pay the equivalent of some $57 million in connection with the collapse of a French bank and faces an Interpol arrest warrant for allegedly embezzling between $154 and $200 million from the failed Al Mashreq Bank in Lebanon, of which he had been the chairman. In June 1995, Tamraz ... was also sentenced in absentia to 15 years in prison by a military court in Lebanon. Tamraz has also been closely involved in business dealings with Libya's state-controlled National Oil Company... It should be noted ... that Tamraz had long aspired to playing a role in the formulation of United States foreign policy in areas of the world in which he had business interests--and had long sought to use political fundraising as the means by which to do so. As he saw it, political contributions were a time-tested means to high office in the United States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This article reads like a businessman with a rich, full life has current business interests. Surely there is more to be said about this guy that can be verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)