Talk:Roman Abramovich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Further information: Talk:Roman Abramovich/Archive1
WikiProject Russia / Economy / Politics and law (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.


In the Russian "business" world, Roman Abramovich is one of the dirtiest players in the game [1]. I mean the man has a laundry list of criminal activity on his shoulders. He had to resign as governor due to all the corruption surrounding him.

a. He was arrested for theft of government property in 1992 Case No. 79067 for the large-scale theft of state property, Stolen Diesel fuel.

b. In 2005 he was indicated in a huge international loan fraud case using international money for a slush fund.

c. Abramovich has been indicated in illegal share dilution where he cheated London investers from a share of 50% down to 1%.

d. He has been indicated in anti trust and anti monopoly scams. He has been indicated in the “Aluminum Wars” in which 100 people have been killed in gangland fashion.

e. In 2008 he was indicated in bribery and blackmailing scandals threatening shareholders to sell their assets for less then they were worth, which he did to Boris Berezosky selling his net investment of 2 billion for about 650 million.

f. His partner greek billionare Constantine Alexander Goulandris admitted that he and Abramovich bribed numerous Russian officials for political favors and special treatment.

Claims of dishonest "business-partnership" with Vladimir Putin[edit]

Berezovsky has claimed that Abramovich and Vladimir Putin are “business partners” and this allegedly[original research?] allowed Abramovich to pursue some of his less known but illegal business- and other- practices at the cost of the Russian people and their assets.

I believe that this part of the article is a little bit scanadalous really, no where in the referenced article does it mention illegal activity. Furthermore, a member of the commnunity has even suggested that this is "original research". Surely this section should be considered for deletion, after all this is an encyclopedia and we are trying to create articles that people can trust. This section in my opinion makes a mockery of this and I think it should be either edited properly or deleted permanantly.

What do you think?Londonfella (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WT gave this a B grade for Bio?[edit]

That is the biggest load of non-sense I have ever read. The best this article is capable of is a D grade and that is pushing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthWay (talkcontribs) 14:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean come on people - it gets a B grade and a Libeous warning? On the same page? Someone needs to wake up TruthWay (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


A new external link has been added to article: The Guardian UK newspaper: 'He won, Russia lost'.

I just changed the birthdate from the 28th to the 24th based on information here Sairen42 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just read the articles on Abramovich and Khodorkovsky. There is a clear but sharp bias in favour of A. I have found the reading embarrassing, not because of this, but because I do not think it's a casual thing. 8 Nov 2006

from the article:

Abramovi is also the governor of a remote region within Russia, where he has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the area.

He spent millions of dollars to buy his election! (he literally bought every person in the district, by distribuiting products worth of a few hundreds dollars per person, so he got 85% of the votes in the election).

100% completely untrue. The region choose Mr Abramovich for Governor and he accepted - he never even ran when he was first chosen. Since then he has put millions into the area. Stick to something you know, and leave the libeous comments elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, he got his billionsk by getting the Russian industry for near-to-nothing. Somebody with a better knowledge of Russia should write about these, in order to get it more NPOV. Bogdan 12:08, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No matter what his motives where the fact of the matter is the article is accurate and less POV than what you are saying. SimonMayer 05:00 22nd February 2004

I would strongly disagree with that statement. This article has very little fact in it at all. Almost the entire article is made up of heresay and rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the article doesn't actually say where his money comes from (it mentions in about para 4 that he has a stake in Sibneft, but doesn't say what Sibneft is). Does anyone have the expertise to fill in the gaps? And is his Jewishness relevant enough that it needs to be mentioned in the first line? Harry R 13:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually yes it does. The article clearly states that he made his money by using illegal trades in the "Black Market". That statement is of course 100% completely untrue and should not be in the article. I removed that section only for some *&$$ to put it right back again. This article is highly offensive as written and based entirely on opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sibneft is one of the larger natural gas and pipeline companies in the Russian Federation. There is no particular reason, as I see it, NOT to mention his faith, so it is neither relevant no irrelevant.J.F.Oceanhahn 1930PST July 17 2004

The use of 'Jewish-Russian' in the first sentence implies that there is something fairly significant about him being Jewish. If he was Christian, atheist, or a member of one of the many other ethnic minorities in Russia (Tatar, Azerbaijani, Ukrainian) I doubt it would be mentioned so prominently. The first sentence should be the most important information; something like Michael Howard is a better model. Harry R 11:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Abramovich is also the governor of the remote region of Chukotka in Siberia, where he has pumped in hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the quality of life in the area."

-This is absolutely contrary to everything I've read about his dealings in Chukotka. Would whoever wrote this please cite a source for this piece of very dubious information.Palefire 01:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing dubious about that statement at all and is not only public record it is commonly known. There is no reason for him to cite any refence in talk pages for something so easily researched. In fact I would be interested in knowing what sources you have read that say otherwise. I certainly would not trust a source that says otherwise, but I still would like to be aware of the bad sources. TruthWay (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all. He is Jewish as you may know Jewish people support each other ( and good they do so ) and are very very Jewish oriented. Example you can NOT marry a Jewish girl if you are NOT a Jew. What I want to say is that the particular person had been supported by the Jewish community. The Fact is that the Jews know about money, its in their DNA. Of course the man has skils but if he was born non Jew or in Vietnam, Irak, Iran thinks would be different.

"the Jews know about money, its in their DNA." Wow, they've isolated the gene that makes Jews know about money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandible Claw 99 (talkcontribs) 10:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
All in all this is a very weak article, and creates a very clean picture of a very controversial figure. There are large chunks I'd like to edit out, but I've only deleted this sentence, which is patent nonsense:
"The move into football is seen as a diversification of his commercial interests out of Russia."
How could that be viewed by anyone as "patent nonsense". And you could please define "Patent" for me since your usage is non-standard and that may be the reason for the misunderstanding. If you are implying that it is not true then you will need some kind of justification other than you don't agree with it. The truth is that statement is an undisuptable fact and should not have been removed. If the line is still removed it should be replaced TruthWay (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seen by who?? If you think that Abramovich's aquisition of the companies owning Chelsea was an investment, then arithmetic isn't your strong point (he paid off their £80 mln debts and has splashed out £200 mln so far on new players - there's no way he's going to re-coup such expenditure). He bought Chelsea for his own personal amusement, and to gain some status and celebrity. Not as an investment. Palefire 18:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
First you need to read Wiki's guidelines on Personal Attacks. With that aside, even if we assumed he lost money buying Chelsea, which has not happened yet so no can be certain of the validity of the investment, the purchase can still be viewed as an investment. It is also worth noting that since you can not read Roman's mind you are not qualified to comment on his motives for buying the club. What we can go on is Roman's own quotes which have stated he bought it as an investment. That should be all the information we need in order to classify it as an investment. But if you add to the qoutes, his continued developement of Chelsea as a business and the public admission that he and the club have a set agenda on how to make the clubs value higher then it becomes obvious that it is an investment.
With that in mind I think it would be safer to leave out the personal attacks and with hold your opinion on the matter. TruthWay (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you know for sure that it was for amusement, status and celebrity? That there was no possible money laundering motivation, for example? Peoplesunionpro 02:20, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Money laundering motivation? How does that work? Do you call pouring money into a club money laundering? Anyway, what I said above is the consensus view among financial analysts.Palefire 23:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Consensus among Financial Analyst? Like who? I would love to see some proof of that. In fact I have followed Roman and have never once seen anyone in any profession make a public claim such as that one. In regards to Peoplesunionpro's comment it was clearly intended to be provocative but only accomplished a demostration of someone not understanding what money laundering is or how it works. Probably best to leave that comment as is TruthWay (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes, a more knowledgable person should shed more light on this highly controversial figure, to say the least, and i agree that this is indeed a very weak article written obviously by someone at the public relations office of abramovich. I din't remove the part where it mentions the charities, but most russians i ve spoken too consider this guy a ruthless, and this all too obvious attempt to canonize such a crook kinda sickened me, but in time people will come up with the details.

I have been to Chukotka and worked with associates of Abramovich, and although most of the criticisms regarding the source of his wealth are correct, he's been very supportive of the region which was otherwise almost completely neglected by the Yeltsin and Putin governments, and people were on the brink of starvation under the previous governor, Nazarov. Sarah Hurst (BeringStrait) March 29, 2006

I edited out the paragraph attributed to That's like attributing information to The Sun (UK) or National Enquirer (US) and calling it fact. There were also some inaccuracies about Sibneft's privatization and the creation of RusAl (which was not acquired at privatization) which I corrected. In addition, I added a word or two about Chukotka where I've visited once and seen the massive construction effort since he became governor (one user commented earlier that he had bought election, but all the construction ocurred afterwards so that is inaccurate).

According to Roman Abramovich is now #15 among the richest people in the world, not #53, and his current net worth as $23.5 billion which at today's exchange rate comes to €17.2 billion. [1] Dick Kimball (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Abramovich a criminal?[edit]

Does anyone have more detail on the criminality involved in Abramovich's successes at taking huge shareholdings during the cowboy period of early Russian capitalism? In particular, also, why is that Putin has gone after some of the crooks from that period but not Abramovich, does he have something on Putin? Can anyone contribute on that? Also on the British government's indiference to allowing major international criminals like him to freely settle in London?

A lot of what you suggest involves conjecture and (as yet) unproven allegations. I'm not sure Wikipedia would be the place to record them. If you can find impartial sources then by all means add them. SteveO, 23:07, 23 April, 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to throw allegations of criminality around, then Wikipedia is entitled to expect the very highest quality of verifiable proof from you, since you would not only be laying yourself but the Wikipedia Foundation open to action for libel from the second wealthiest person in the UK. That is, we would require plenty of corroborative citations from respected sources otherwise not only would you be violating the WP:V policy but would probably fall foul of WP:OFFICE. I don't know where you're from, but point out that Abramovich would very likely avail himself of the English courts system, who take a very dim view of libel - there is no lower standard of evidence needed in cases involving public figures as there is in the US, and the law requires that the defendant (i.e. you and/or Wikipedia) prove the truth of every single word of the libel, otherwise the plaintiff wins. Since Abramovich has never been convicted, or, as far as I know, even charged with any criminal offence anywhere, I would urge you to be extremely careful in what you write in this area. -- Arwel (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The article already has libeous and completely unproven information in it. The article should be completely removed until it can be cleaned up, and containing only factual proven information. I am sad to say though, that so long as the British public can edit the article it will not remain unbaised and factual. Not sure what can be done about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought it very unlikely Abramovich would sue in the UK given the resultant publicity; the british press would go into overdrive mode. Also many similar allegations have been made in UK newspapers and Abramovich has not done anything about them. MarkThomas 08:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant if he will sue or not. Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture and since Abramovich has never even been charged, much less convicted, of a crime it is inappropriate to call him a "criminal". If you have problems with Russia's privatization system in the 1990s, fine, but since that was the (imperfect) law of the land at the time, you can't fault him or other "oligarchs" for having taken advantage of it. Moreover, while 3 oligarchs have been arrested or are in exile, there's over 30 Russian billionaires about which you are uninformed who are going about their business every day just like Abramovich. He is not the exception to the rule, but quite the opposite. 17:22 27 May 2006

Just a point.. I am under the impression the first poster asked if he was a criminal and whether there was any evidence to support such a claim! I am not a lawyer but i very sure that there is nothing wrong with asking if someone is a Criminal. The poster was not even suggesting we have a paragraph asking this question in the article, not unless anyone has any evidence. How about you read what the question was before you answer!!

The original title of this section was Abramovich as a criminal, asserting that he is. It was later changed (not by me) into a question. See here SteveO 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Me personally, if they guy turned out to be a criminal, i wouldnt be surprised. I mean, for god's sake, the guy has a freakin' battleship for a yacht armed with missile launchers, anti-photographer lasers and the ability to dive underwater - it's like something out of a James Bond movie. I mean, i know the guy is protective of himself just as anyone is, but personally, i think that boat of his would be better off in the hands of the russian navy - you could play pirate with a ship like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked by all these allegations about criminal activites. I mean, com'on people. He got rich in a completely legal way: by selling rubber duckies and baby dolls from his apartement. Seems legit to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article states "Roman Abramovich started his multi-billion-dollar business during his army service where he sold stolen gasoline ... A 2,000-ruble wedding present from Olga's parents ... was invested by Abramovich in smuggling of black market goods or contraband ... Abramovich soon doubled, then tripled, the investment, his confidence growing with each success in this smuggling business". Should these allegations of criminal acts be removed, or at least qualified as unproven? (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More Sources on Business Dealings[edit]

Just the facts here state by Roman himself:

1. Obtained Sibneft through paying off competitors.

2. Failed attempts to convince Ivan Litskevich, then the head of the Omsk oil refinery, to form an oil conglomerate (unfortunately he and the only witness soon died thereafter) just before Yeltsin approve

3. Mr Abramovich claims he had a “chance meeting” with Oleg Deripaska, his main competitor in the aluminium business. He said they spent from 5pm until 5am negotiating to merge their assets at the Balchug Kempinski hotel in Moscow and then signed the deal at his home at Sareevo Village. Mr Abramovich paid nothing other than the interest on a bridging loan for gaining a share of the aluminium business and called the deal


Also, the Mirror Online and Bloomberg report him saying that he paid tens, and even hundreds of millions of protection money to Berezovsky.

Jewish by religion?[edit]

Why is his religion listed as Judaism? What proof is there that he practices Judaism? I don't see a yarmulke on his head, I don't see him going to a synagogue. Just because he has Hebraic roots doesn't mean he keeps kosher or believes in the God of the Torah. Only a tiny fraction of Russian-born ethnic Jews, even the ones in Israel, actually practice Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderJamesBond (talkcontribs) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple because he claims to be Jewish. It is common practice to list a person religion as the one they claim since only the person themselves can know what is in their heart and minds TruthWay (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Did he ever publicly declare his religion ? Then it should be referenced. He comes from a culture that clearly separated Jews as a blood line and Judaists as a religion. The fact that he chairs Jewish social organizations is as relevant as his business partnership with Reverend Moon. If the statement on religion is unsourced, it should be removed. NVO (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence to suggest that he practices ANY religion. The article in Guardian offers no proof at all, because "Russian Orthodox New Year" is not a religious holiday. It is just another opportunity to drink vodka and have a good time. Why the British journalist refers to it as "Russian Orthodox" is beyond me. (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Snubbing by exclusive Tuscan restaurant[edit]

This is a really trivial episode. Why is this in an encyclopaedia? This should be deleted unless somone explains why it has to be here. Ground Zero | t 19:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • So if no-one is willing to explain why this section should be here, I'll delete it in a day or two. Ground Zero | t 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


This is written in a very opinion-pushing way. There is little attempt here to follow Wikipedia policy on a neutral point of view. I have removed some glaring examples, but this article needs much more work. Ground Zero | t 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to make this an encyclopaedia article[edit]

I have made a number of edits to bring this in line with Wikipedia policies:

I have removed links to plain Engnlish words and repeated links per WP:CONTEXT and to date fragments per WP:DATE. I have removed "self-links": linking "Roman Abramovich" in the "Roman Abramovich" article makes no sense. The link will not take the reader anywhere. I have also made the following edits:

"He was also accused of dealing in black-market goods in his early-days by his first wife Irina."

This is a big accusation. Where is the source to support this?

"Despite his high profile around the world, strangely Abramovich makes virtually no public statements about his activities, including his outrageous success and riches, that none else was able to emulate until now, with no apparent-cause. He proceeded to become a multi-billionaire from being a penniless plastic-duck seller within a decade without any apparent-reason or cause."

This is just a personal attack; it does not even attempt to comply with the spirit of Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. "Strangely", "outrageous", "no apparent cause" -- all of these are inflammatory statements, not objective ones. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal attacks or rumour-mongering. It must strive to provide evidence and be objective.


Irony is in the eye of the beholder. Just state the facts, and let the reader decide for her or himself if it is ironic. You don't have to lead the reader around by the nose.

"Allegedly, many of the news-reports about this incident were quickly removed from top UK (* websites after some mysterious influence[3][4][5] (the references cited here were earlier live news stories but were quickly removed for some mysterious and undisclosed reason)."

This is all speculation and unsourced. It viaoltes Wikipedia's policies pn verifiability and original research.

Ground Zero | t 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The UK weblinks were deactivated because the story is untrue and they don't want to be sued for libel by one of the richest men in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

2004 investigations[edit]

"In 2004, Swiss criminal investigators abandoned an investigation into an alleged fraud involving a $4.8 billion loan from the IMF to Russia, in which Abramovich was one of the investigators' key suspects, after the United States and Russia refused to divulge information on the scandal[6][7][8]."

Okay, one of these sources is a soccer blog (#4). Blogs are not considered to be acceptable sources by Wikipedia because there is no level of confidence that the information is correct. Anyone can write anything in a blog, and it will probably stay there until somone threatens to sue. The fact that someone hasn't threatened to sue yet is no confirmation that the information is correct. When something is published by a book, magazine or newspaper publisher, there is a higher level of confidence that the publisher is afraid of getting sued for real money. There is no such control on blogs.

The second reference (#5) is also a blog that repeates the allegation word for word. The third reference (#6) is a response to someone's question posted by an anonymous person, who probably read one of the blogs.

We need a real source here. See WP:V. Ground Zero | t 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Important information being repeatedly deleted from this article, why?[edit]

There is no speculation or personal-attack on anyone; only the correct facts have been mentioned. I know too that this is an encyclopedia and not a playing-ground, and that there's no place for speculation. However, I don't know why the facts and correct info is repeatedly being deleted? Apologies for any accidental words/phrases. However, friends/members should keep in mind that any particular words/phrases that seem objectionable to some members and Wikipedia-friends may be happily removed or edited, but not the whole group of information or facts themselves, such as info under the sub-heading of the 2004 investigations. After all, that's what Wikipedia stands for - it represents free information, doesn't it? The article is well-referenced and more references and sources have been recently added, including a credible book that has detailed info and biography of Mr Roman. If you want to add more references or sources or other information, you're most welcome because that's the only reason that this article was added for peer-review so that people can contribute more. Alas, there were even pictures and photos of the Italian restaurant snubbing incident on the Net (including Mr Abramovich in his yacht in Italy), though I'm too lazy to upload them due to Wikipedia's red-tape. Regards to all. --Bugnot (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. The 2004 investigations are 'not well-referenced. Blogs are not generally valid references. My point about the Italian restaurant is that it is a minor incident, and really not worthy of being in an encyclopaedia. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are POV-pushing & not appropriately sourced for allegations of that magnitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to mention again that the edits are not POV-pushing and only correct info has been written. Actually, POV-pushing article was the original one. It was indeed a very weak article written obviously by someone at the public relations office of Abramovich. Almost everything mentioned in the article is now well-referenced. Please check-again:
  • About the points where "citation needed" is mentioned: These points are well-referenced by Ref#9 - Dominic Midgley and Chris Hutchins Abramovich. The billionaire from nowhere Harper-Collins, 2005 ISBN 978-0007189847 . Read the book, and you'll find all the info well-referenced.
  • About the Italian restaurant episode: Regardless of whether or not Abramovich was present is not the point. The real issue is how people relate to the likes of Abramovich. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would never have been included in articles like this because unlike Abramovich, they have made their money the old fashioned way through work. Abramovich stole every penny he made and then in order to protect his ill-gotten gains and avoid taxes he proceeded to set up offshore British Virgin Island slush funds to pay-off corrupt government officials, and various other criminal elements. Allegations have been made that Abramovich or his holding companies might be responsible for the huge speculation in global oil prices - just see $147 to less than $120 in less than a month - and it's WE who have to pay for oil. It's just like he's a burden on us, useful for nothing except for cleverly scamming others. Americans are paying round-about $4-a-gallon for gasoline (citation needed, eh? - some things are self-evident, ain't they?). ”Google “ROMAN ABRAMOVICH VOUCHERS” to see just how he made his billions. If not for Abramovich’s bagman relationship to Putin, he would have suffered the same fate as Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky. Truly, 'He won, Russia lost' but not for long. Probably, the fate that Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky suffered due to their high-crimes might be waiting to come sooner than later to him. Anyway, till then, who bothers? He might be enjoying his dubiously-gotten yacht, homes, and planes, and doesn't give a damn about what you and I think. Our aim is only to provide info for the other Wikipedia readers who might be interested till he gets "awarded" something by a court-of-law for his brilliantly-planned "success". Just plunder and loot the state, who bothers, eh? Regards.

--Bugnot (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ill gotten gains" "stole every penny" "corrupt government officials". Judging by your very partial views on the subject, I don't believe you are fit to be editing this article. You are very much POV-pushing. Anything you add that is not appropriately sourced will continue to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the above IP-address ( is a London (UK) address and is possibly an attempt by Abramovich himself or his staff to remove info from this article! Thwart these attempts!

Anyway, I wonder why did Abramovich personally need to do all these scams when he was initially a very good-person by behaviour (as mentioned by his first wife, Olga, in interview). He was also initially a good person and an intelligent business-man, I agree, because he managed to start a business selling dolls or toys (when everyone else around him in USSR wasn't even aware of what a business was!) and initially his aim was good: to earn money by giving something to society. He might be earning decent, if not outrageous, money at that time to have a decent living and savings. But even after being such an educated and well-mannered man, I wonder why did he later started scamming the people and the state. Over time, he could have achieved the same results through his intelligence and work that he has done fast and quick by cheating others. See Warren Buffett: he's also a share-holder and you can't deny the fact that many times he might have got similar opportunities to cheat others (read loans-for-shares and blackmail/theft). But still he didn't cheat others and has eventually become the richest man, though at 77, but he didn't scam others at least, and he is happy and very satisfied. Unlike Abramovich, he doesn't have to hide anything from others. But that takes hard-work and patience! I wonder whether even in private, Abramovich ever regrets or would ever regret his actions that caused him to lose his wife, his friend/mentor Borzovosky, and earned him a bad reputation as well as made him call a "cheat" by others, including his friend and mentor Borzovosky. As he was initially an educated, good person and an intelligent businessman, he could have definitely got his riches honestly too over time. Eventually, as history is evident, everything has a price. He might have been much better off, happy, and eventually rich without doing such misdeeds. --Bugnot (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my comments have been listed only on the discussion-page (where discussions can occur freely) and not in the original-article, so they're completely justified. Also, what I've written above is nothing but the truth. Actually, the original article (and not the current one) was a POV-pushing one which cited Abramovich as a "good person", "investing in good-causes in the region", "a very acclaimed philanthropist who likes to help others", etc. Criticising a person alone doesn't comprise POV-pushing; even excessively praising a person comprises POV-pushing, doesn't it? Seeing your comments above, I don't even deem you as appropriate, and misfit to edit this article. Let the knowledgeable and experienced editors/administrators do it. Regarding the refs, they've been given almost everywhere. I probably can't do anything if others try to repeatedly delete them to make this article a mess or towards a POV-pushing one.

--Bugnot (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very obvious that someone (Bugnot) has a big axe to grind against Abramovich. This article was 75% negative material and much of sourced from inaccurate press reports. Worse yet, the way it was added in made the whole article read like a mess. I've edited a bunch out. I'll try to reorganize it when I have more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morybund (talkcontribs) 22:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Please take care of all edits by Morybund and IP# FYI, please see history of this page. Morybund and IP have deleted well-referenced material and none has taken action. At least, the well-referenced facts and information should be kept. Some IP-addresses doing this ([2]) are London (UK) addresses and are possibly attempts by Abramovich himself or his PR staff to remove info from this article. Full-protection is requested for this page after complete info-restoration. --Bugnot (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. Please stop using tabloid newspaper terms like "oligarch" and "tycoon". Thi is an encyclopaedia. Please use neutral, factual words. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. We are not trying to convince anyone of anything here, just report what we know.
  2. Don't type all in capitals. It's just rude. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

"... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...:
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

Ground Zero | t 10:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags[edit]

This article is now littered with so many "fact" tags that it looks ridiculous. I propose that those who want to keep the unsourced material in the article provide credible sources (see WP:SOURCES) by August 27. After that, the information will be removed. It, of course, can be added back if sourced at any time after that. Is everyone okay with that? Ground Zero | t 21:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object, although the timeline proposed may be too generous considering WP:BLP.
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]
-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm looking to bring about an article that will be acceptable to the parties involved. I don't want think going in and gutting the article will bring the edit wars to an end. I think a measured approach would be more effective in resolving this dispute. I don't disagree that the article is a hodgepodge of every factoid that can be found against him, some stuff that has just been made up, and a bunch of stuff that is really no directly relevant to him, and you will see from the edit history that I have been taking the hacksaw to it at times. but I think discretion is the better part of valour now. Ground Zero | t 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How about August 24 as a deadline? Ground Zero | t 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A case of balancing a potential edit war vs. BLP. The ArbCom seems to feel that BLP is very important. I don't know where the community consensus lands in a situation like this. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war with User:[edit]

I apologise for any inconvenience I had with this user on this article I accept the fact that it was my mistake.Alexnia (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is borderline Libel[edit]

This entire article is written based on unproven, rumor that is published in the UK papers. This "professional sources" clearly have motives that are not connected to fact. And just as those sources have their own motives it is clear the people editing this article follow the same thinking. Anyone who is familiar with the UK football community can easily spot the reasons for this.

The article is completely without factual information, is incredibly bais against Mr Abramovich and needs to be rewritten from the start to the finish leaving all emotional, self-motivated and unproven references out.

1) There is not proven history of the man ever dealing in the "black market"
2) The incident involving the train was completely dismissed and was proven a mistake despite what was printed here
3) Any reference to sensationalist sources, such as "The Times", "The Observer" and "The Guardian" should be documented as such and not be considered legitimate sources of factual information. That is the correct method accepted by Encyclopedia's. The truth is those "souces" should not be included at all.

See Wikipedia policy on a neutral point of view

I have twice tried to update the article stating why but Alexnia insist on reverting the changes and labelling them Vandalism despite me stating the reason for the changes. On top of that censorship Alexnia has warned he will ban me if I try to edit, correct or contribute to Wiki further (call it what you want).

There for I will leave the article in its current non-factual and libeous state and let the obviously more educated and informed Alexnia, or whoever, bring it inline with Wiki standards, since Alexnia is intent on stopping me from trying to be a productive and useful member of the Wiki community -- unsigned comment by User: August 22 2008

Actually, Alexnia was right: deleting properly sourced content just because you disagree with it is not acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia. This article is very controversial, as the edit history and talk page show. Engaging in an edit war is a waste of everyone's time: you won't win, and people who disagree with you won't win either. It is far better to present your arguments, and more importantly your evidence on the talk page, and resolve disputes here before making the edits.
If newspaper reports are wrong, then you must present verifable evidence that they are wrong.
You have an interesting and unique view that The Times, The Observer and The Guardian are sensationalist sources. These are the most respected newspapers in the UK, so you will not be able to get a consensus here amongst editors that they should not be considered legitimate sources of factual information. And since you will not be able to impose your unusual view, you can't win on this one.
I do not think that Alexnia or anyone is intent on stopping you from trying to be a productive and useful member of the Wiki community. I encourage you to register as an editor, and learn about Wikipedia's policies and codes of behaviour. That is the best way for you to become a productive and usefuyl member of the Wikipedia community. Ground Zero | t 13:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all no Alexnia was wrong. There was previous discussion and it was that discussion that I acted on. See Citing Source in the Wiki Guidelines which clearly state "Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it is about a living person), may be removed by any editor." Last time I checked Roman is alive and the sources where challenged.
I Wiki there is absolutely no need to provide verifable evidence they are wrong because that is not how a wiki works - if it did there would just be page after page of endless debates. In a wiki an article is written using creditable sources where needed. If those sources are not creditable then a discussion takes place and edits occur. just what happened. No where in that process does refutal occur and it never should
My point of view? Its hardly unqiue. Wiki's own guidelines state that sensationist sources should not be used or cited as fact. The actual wording is this "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - you will find that under "Verifiability" under the guildlines. Those "Sources" most definitely do not match that description. Those most definitely are not the most respected papers in the UK and I think I will let the majoirty decide the consensus, not you alone. It is commonly accepted on Wiki those are not valid sources, just as it is within the UK in general. Have you ever seen Oxford refer to one of those sources for support? No you have not. Who is trying to win anything? Maybe you, definitely not me. All I wanted to do was make the article less libeous and atleast reflect some reality. There is no proof any of those things happened, even in the "sources" listed
Now as far as your opinion of what Alexnia is trying to do. It is just that an opinion and one that is wrong. If someone removes your submissions and then list you for a ban that most definitely is someone attempting to stop you from contributing. That is a fact and no amount of baised opinion on your part can make that go away. Since I wrote that entry and the event took place Alexnia has taken action to reverse it but that does not make my comment incorrect. It does however bring into question your involvement here. Combine that with your intentionally disrespectful and abusive "interesting and unique" comment and it does not paint a pretty picture of you. All I did was try to make a very poor article better, and did so based on discussion on this talk page. The very reason the page is here.
As it stands we still have an article that has no factual merit and is very clearly written in a way to victimize Mr Abramovich. That is not the Wiki is intended to work and the article should be removed and corrected as was pointed out. That fact you are defending the article as it stands is not a good sign, the fact you are trying to list those "sources" as creditable may be even worse.
What makes you believe I am not an editor already? It could be that I have been an editor for over three years... I do not appreciate your sarcasm or your disrespectful comments

I did not intend to be disrespectful or to use sarcasm. I think you are misreading my comments, and am glad to have the opportuinity to clarify my intent. I assumed that you are a new editor because you do not sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) as Wikipedians do in order to indicate who has made the comments, even if they are unregistered.

Also, you have just simply repeated your view that the Times, etc., are not credible. You have not provided any evidence to support the widely-held view that these papers are credible. The Times is, after all, considered to be the UK's "newspaper of record". Ground Zero | t 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the poster. GroundZero you were being disrespectful and judging by this talk page there is good reason to believe you intended it - he/she should be offended.
He/She makes a very good point also about your reasoning for trying to defend Alexnia and the article when directing comments to him/her but yet you speak out against the article when answering others. It can not be both ways
He/she is also correct that the "Times" ect are not credible sources and in this very page you agree with him "news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"
It would appear to me that your arguing with him simply for the sake of it, and it is not constructive at all.
I gather he tried to clean up the article and his submissions were removed. He has a valid point - why are they not put back?
He probably does not sign his comments because Wiki will not allow him to, as any long time Wiki person knows it is not possible from many addresses. Aside from that maybe he simply did not want to. The signature is hardly important in the discussion. That also just sounds like an excuse for you actions after the fact.
I believe you should apologize and the entire debate should end TruthWay (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Italic text===Black market accusation=== I have reviewed the statement that "He was also accused of dealing in black-market goods in his early-days by his first wife Olga." that the anon editor finds objectionable.

This statement is problematic for tthe following reasons:

  1. An accusation made by anyone that is not backed up formal legal charges and/or concrete evidence is pretty meaningless: anyone can accuse anyone of anything. that does not make it appropriate to include in an encyclopaedia article.
  2. A likely bitter ex-spouse is not a good source.
  3. One of the two sources provided is a discussion forum, which is not a valid source.
  4. The other source is a Guardian article that does not mention Olga or black market activities

I think this statement should be removed.

Anyone agree? Ground Zero | t 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. It seems like someone just added it to "fuel the flames" a bit anyway. Rumours that aren't well referenced don't really belong in a biographical encyclopedia article anyway. Althoug, attempting to class the whole article as "libelous" is also quite ridiculous considering the reliable sources of most of the content. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have also just reviewed the section and the poster had already removed the entire section. The poster had that removal correct since the entire paragraph builds from a line of false history about Abramovich, which starts with opening sentence.
What I can not believe is that GroundZero has debated with the poster over it, insulted him and now proposes to do exactly what the poster had already done.
That is not the only part of this article that is exceptionally prejudiced though, the poster also had it right when he called for entire rewrite. That is the correct course of action but until then the paragraph - not line, should be removed.
TruthWay (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To survive the aluminium wars, mettle was needed - The Times quotes:

In a BBC investigation into Mr Abramovich's wealth, the reporter John Sweeney noted that, after the oligarch emerged at the top of the trade, the murders stopped.

Mr Sweeney memorably asked a Russian editor: “Is Mr Abramovich more powerful than the gangsters?” The Russian paused, then smiled: “Good observation.” Mr Abramovich has admitted he had a good working relationship with Vladimir Putin when he was President.

--Bugnot (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugnot your opinions have no place in an encyclopedia no matter your motives and the amount of people who agree with you. Urban Myths are commonly believed by the majority - that does not however make them correct. If you want to prove something then expend the effort that research and legal action requires, until then I suggest you keep your opinions to forums that they are correct and intended.
As it stands it is a fact Abramovich has never been arrested or found guilty of any wrong doing there for your allegations of murder, illegal trading, corruption and lack of morals against Abramovich are libel and have no place on Wiki.
If you respect Wiki then you should retract your statements. If you do not respect Wiki you should not be posting here or writing articles.
You decide for yourself what is right, I do not purpose to tell you what to do TruthWay (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugnot has provided a reliable source for the black market comment, so I have revised the article accordingly. Ground Zero | t 20:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its absolutely hopeless and the acceptance of these "sources" from the admins is a joke. You might as well allow him to make any libeous remarks he wishes - oh wait we have. I wash my hands of it because this article and its disussion page are obviously beyond reason
The worst part of it is this - that "Source" besides not being credible as Wiki defines it, does not even contain a quote of that source of information, which everyone knows in literary terms means it is unsupportable. So we take an unsupportable comment, in an editoral page (which is not a acceptable refence source), which is written in an unrespected source and suddenly it becomes "a reliable souce" and the page gets edited. Unbelievalbe And stop editing my post in the talk page when there is no reason to do so TruthWay (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is the statement from the Wikipedia article:
"The Times has reported that he was a market trader selling black market toys before his association with Boris Berezovsky."
Here is the sixth paragraph from the Times article that is used as a reference:
"Mr Abramovich set himself up as a black-market street trader selling toys, before becoming the bagman to Boris Berezovsky, a Kremlin favourite and business aide to President Yeltsin. When Mr Berezovsky adopted too high a public profile, the Yeltsins are said to have turned to Mr Abramovich for discreet help."
I think I have accurately captured what the Times reported. This article is in the "Europe News" section of the the Times online, and not in the "Comment" section. It is a newspaper article, not an editorial.
As noted elsewhere, WP:SOURCES accepts newspaper articles as adequate sources. Ground Zero | t 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
One last comment. This is why it is hopeless. So long as we have a admin sitting on the page making sure the article can not be rewritten so that it is objective and not leading it will never be a decent article. You are doing just that. You can link to Wiki guidelines all you want but until you actually apply them as they are intended it is pointless. If someone picks out every negative point they can possible find (completely truthful - or in this case questionable), throw them together and create an article that has a negative point of view intentionally then the article is bad and should be rewritten. Its that simple and anyone considered fit to edit let alone admin should be aware of that
Now before you start trying to comment you need to read what people have written. The source that was listed when I commented was not the Time and it was an editorial. Just because you or someone else changed it means little. That aside an editorial can be in the news sections and even the source your paraphrasing right now is an editoral and my comment said that statement does not rely on a quote. Meaning the source article does not rely on a quote. That in the world of writing is commonly referred to as not happening or unsupportable. And if a piece of writing contains open statements like that without any listed source then the article becomes an editoral. Fact
But as has been stated many many times in the talk page already by me, you and many others - single lines are not the problem with this article. It is the fact almost the entire article is written to convey a negative message about Roman that does not reflect the legal realities of his life or the situation. That is a problem because if not for your involvement the article would already be corrected and we could be moving on. Instead you block any attempt to correct the article.
Now that really is all I am going to say about it because it is obvious you get off on arguing with people, and you inaccurately believe yourself good at it. I do not have the intention to waste my time arguing with you, and that is exactly what is happening. If it were discussing the article, then the recommendations that people are making would be considered and implemented, but that is not happening. You are standing in the way of that and arguing with anyone who tries to differ.
Your motives on this are questionable since it is very unclear why you would be resolved on stopping anyone from rewriting this article so that it has the non-baised point of view that Wiki is suppose to strive toward
TruthWay (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to TruthWay[edit]

I will respond to your questions about the content of the article.

I am attempting to help improve the article through careful review of points that are contended by different editors. In this cse, the anon editor made a whole bunch of edits without explaining them, so I reverted. On closer inspection, I agree that this line should be deleted, and am seeking a consensus here in order to avoid an edit war.

With respect to the rest of the paragraph, it seems to be sourced from Komsomolskaya Pravda, a newspaper. So I do not see the rationale for removing it, and I cannot support your poisition on the rest of the paragraph.

As for the rest of the article, as you will see above, I have proposed deleting all statements that have been tagged with the "fact" tag after giving people a couple of days to come up with sources. I think that this raft of deletions will go a long way to cleaning up the article, and addressing the issues that you have raised.

If there are outstanding issues at that point, please identify them on the talk page and solicit the views of other editors before making changes. This is the only way that useless edit wars can be avoided. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no intentions of making any changes. The reason for that is simple - I agree that so long as people (and someone above is correct - the British people more so) are open to edit this page it is a waste of time. There is simply to much debate. If the entire article was to be rewritten in Professional Encyclopedia style the article could be fine.
However, Wiki long ago retired that style in favor of a more informal one that invites this type of debate and as such so long as Roman is involved in English Football the page will carry a negative and thinly disguised attack on him. I really see no chance this article can survive and be objective and factual. Just look at the type of arguements being offered as supported evidence and "sources". The type of points being made are simply to uneducated and baised to be reasoned with.
That aside the first sentence is the basis of that entire paragraph, if you remove the one line the rest will cease to make sense. However the entire article is clearly from a Point of View, that is anti-Roman which is why I suggest a rewrite
TruthWay (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags/removing unsourced statements[edit]

As I proposed above, I have now remove unsourced statements that have been marked with "fact" tags.

This information can be restored if cited references are provided. Please see WP:SOURCES for information on what constitutes an acceptable source. Thank you.

I noticed that in some cases, the sources did not support what was claimed int he article, and I have made adjustments accordingly. I have not checked all of the referenced statements, however, and more work should be done in this area.

It seems very likely that this article suffers from undue weight.

WP:NPOV has this to say about undue weight:

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements....
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

While it seems pretty clear that the Abramovich fellow is a nasty piece of work, it may be that repeating ad nauseum each of his peccadilloes undue represents him as being a bad egg, and that a more balanced perspective on him would repesent him as an aggressive business type, but not one out of his league. I don't really know, and hope that other editors can help improve this article.

Until it is unprotected, requests for changes can be posted on the talk page and handled by me or another administrator. Ground Zero | t 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty nasty piece of work? Based on what? Exactly my point about your neutrality thought out the entire incident. The man is not a "nasty piece of work" and unless you have any, I mean any legal proof of that statement you really have no business as an admin making it.
Why even ask "comments? Objections?" when you are ignoring everyone that does not agree with your negative opinion of Roman?
I move that a competely neutral admin be appointed to this article or the ones currently blocking attempts to correct remove themselves.
Any comments or objections to that? TruthWay (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The edits that I have made were based on whether or not the statements were sourced or not, and not on my opinion of the man. Many or most of the statements that I removed were critical of him. If you are able to find an another administrator willing to take over improving this article, I would gladly recuse myself. So far, no one has. Ground Zero | t 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a request on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for assistance in improving this article. Ground Zero | t 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea, let the community take it over as Wiki was intended. If that proves not to work, as it probably would then another route could be taken. You have proven you are not neutral in this matter - you should remove yourself with or without another admin but be certain of this - there is absolutely nothing special about admins, they are just editors with elevated privileges. If an admin can edit this article successfully so can an editor. That actions that are taking place regarding this matter are not in the spirit of Wiki if you do not believe me check Jimbo's page directly. Save that I will personally email him if it is believed to be the right action to take TruthWay (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The article was protected - not by me or even at my request - in order to stop an edit war, which was wasting everyone's time. This is one of the usees of protection. You can apply to have protection lifted if you want. When protection is lifted, the best way forward will be to discuss edits on the talk page before making them, or another edit war will ensue, and the article will be protected again. I have seen this happen many times. Unilaterally deleting sourced material on the basis that you do not accept the sources will be controversial, and will probably be revreted by other editors. Ground Zero | t 19:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Black market activities[edit]

The bit about him selling toys on the lack market is misplaced, in my view. While black market selling of toys is an illegal activity, in the 1990s Russia, black market selling was commonplace. It is likely that many Russians would be guilty of this relatively smaller crime. I have moved it from the "Illegal activities" section to "Early life" where I think it fits better. Comments? Objections? Ground Zero | t 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Market selling implies illegal activity. There is absolutely no proven record of Roman ever taking place in any such activity. Nor is there any proven record of Roman ever selling ducks or many other things that have been claimed. In Roman's own autobiography he outlines his career and that of his fathers. That source would be considered definitive by Wiki's guidelines since the man is still living and approved the publication.
There is not now and there never has been any legal proof that contradicts the autobiography therefor this article as written is Libel and I will say this yet again - it should be removed and rewritten. Anything on this page that does not correspond with his autobiography, unless not covered, should not be entered here unless it was backed up by undisputable facts.
Since many do not seem to understand what an undisputable fact is let me clarify. An undisputable fact is one that is not subject of conjecture, contains no opinions such as the editorials and loose sources that are being cited in this article. Undisputable means that it would legal stand up to any scrutiny. So far this article does not cite any such source.
So, with that said, the admins have made many mistakes up to this point - here is a chance to rectify that situation
Remove any section of this article that could be considered up for debate by anyone. Leave it that way until facts can be entered. The sections we can support right now are as follows: The Intro, Early Life and Education, Governship (albeit after being completely written to remove the non-neutral and leading Quote), Politcal Career (rewritten just stating the facts, IE public record), Chelsea FC (but again just the facts - complete rewrite), the various Footballs (rewritten just facts), family as is, Art - Homes - Boats and Planes (as is) Everything else should be removed, not edited, simply removed because they have no place in this article
TruthWay (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested in hearing the views of someone more familiar with Wikipedia's policies on biographies than I am about User:TruthWay's proposal. The views of editors who are not TruthWay or me are going to be the only way we can resolve this. Ground Zero | t 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at WP:BLP and other policies. A few points to consider:

1. TruthWay's argument that "There is absolutely no proven record of Roman ever taking place in any such activity.... Anything on this page that does not correspond with his autobiography, unless not covered, should not be entered here unless it was backed up by undisputable facts." is not supported by WP:BLP. In particular, WP:WELLKNOWN clearly permits allegations:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
Complete and absolute non-sense. This article is built on the premise of nothing but allegations that is a completely different story. What is more, the sources are not well documented as has been mentioned repeatedly. Because this is a Bio of a living person the rules are a little different. NOTE the warning at the top of this discussion page TruthWay (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2. TruthWay's argument that the Times is not an acceptable source is contradicted by WP:SOURCE:

"Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press."
There remains a question, however, about whether the references used are from news articles or from opinion columns. WP:SOURCE say this:
"However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."
The references that I have reviewed are, in my opinion, news articles, and not opinion columns, TruthWay's arguments about reporters not provided cited references notwithstanding.
There is no question regarding where the story came from and I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN SINCE YOU DO NOT READ WHAT OTHERS SAY - THE SOURCE WAS CHANGED AFTER I WROTE THAT, IT WAS THE GUARDIAN BEFORE. Also, you are STILL missing the point - even the links you are posting are talking about supporting information, not the main source of the article. Non of those sources are sufficent to build an article on when the person already has a autobiography out which contradicts what those sources say. Also, for what seems like the 100th time saying this, those statements are libeous, claiming Roman has done illegal things, which this is no LEGAL proof of. There for by Wiki's own guidelines they can not be included TruthWay (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3. WP:BLPSTYLE has this comment about balance in a biographical article:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."
I am concerned that there is a weighting in this article, as I have noted above, that is too heavy towards allegations about shady business practices. I would like to hear the views of other editors (TruthWay has already provided his/her views in great detail above.)
Lets make this clear - there is only one country in the entire world where the man is viewed and potrayed as in this article - the United Kingdom. That should be telling you something. The man is not from the United Kingdom and as pointed out over and over again, he has released an autobiography which is extremely important in this discussion TruthWay (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Use of his autobiography as the starting point: WP:BLP says:

"... subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."
I do not know whether his autobiography was published by a reliable third-party publishing house. Even if it is, the style guide does not say that an autobiography must be treated as authoritative (reliable yes, authoritative no): people often write autobiographies (or have 'autobiographies' written for them) in order to explain themselves, or improve their public image. It is expected that they will not cover all of the events of their lives, and it can be expected that they may not cover parts of their lives about which they are not proud or which they would prefer to cover up.

I hope that editors can work together to improve this article in the context of Wikipedia's policies and guides.Ground Zero | t 20:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the publisher is creditale. is helpful in that matter. It does not have to be definitive source but when the option is between Libeous claims of illegal activity that are unproven in a court of law and autobiography which was on the best sellers list and released from a notable and respected publisher the choice should be obvious for anyone
But what do we go with the Libeous unproven claims of illegal activity which is only documented in editorials, or for those without dictionary access, articles which are based on the authors opinion and do not cite the source articles criteria of proof. And all the "sources" listed the authors have no proof of any kind of their allegations and are merely stating opinions. Everyone who has followed this is fully aware the only reason they are getting away with it is because Roman is in the UK, if he were still residing in Russia it would not be tolerated. Of course if Roman were still in Russia the UK media would treat him like all the other oil barons, which is to say they would not write about them at all. Sometimes in life you have to consider peoples motives and apply some common sense. TruthWay (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I have a problem with this statement (emphasis added):

In 2003, Abramovich was named Person of the Year by Expert, a Russian business magazine. He shared this title with Mikhail Khodorkovsky who was later convicted for fraud and tax evasion.

The addition of the phrase in bold appears to be a clear attempt to prove "guilt by assosication". The fact that Khodorkovsky was later convicted of anything isn't relevant to an article about Roman Abramovich unless we are trying to imply that he hangs around bad people. Even if we were, we fdon't make implicaitons here, we just state facts. But in this case, the only connection between the two of them is that they were named "Person of the Year" by a magazine. There is no mention of them having any business meetings, or even of ever having met. Khodorkovsky's legal problem hav no bearing on Abramovich and simply do not belong here. Ground Zero | t 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Being ranked next to Khodorkovsky is an honor, not guilt. NVO (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thwarting attempts by London IPs[edit]

There were recent attempts to spam this article[3][4] by IPs and both belonging to London (check at ), Abramovich's current residence and these attempts were correctly thwarted by TheRedPenOfDoom. Suggestion is to block these particular addresses and other addresses in their range as previous attempts have also been made by these addresses. --Bugnot (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to look at the rules of Wikipedia. See especially What is Not Vandalism, Assuming Good Faith & Conflict of Interest. You can't demand someone be banned because you don't agree with their edits. Judging by your comments above, you are not fit to be editing the article. it is clear you have something personal against the man.

You have cobbled together every scurrilous internet & tabloid rumor about the man, and displayed them in a way which shows him negatively at every turn. For instance, the Uli Hoeness quote: you missed out the part where he talks about Bayern winning less than they used to - that is his real gripe with Abramovich & Chelsea. He was happy with the old European order with Byaern at the top of the table. But you've portrayed him implying that Abramovich is a mafia don who rigs petrol prices.

This article is a disgrace. It is libellous, misleading, inadequately sourced & biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is again a London IP address ( See . The article IS adequately sourced. Actually, judging by your comments above, including those against many other reputable administrators, like GroundZero and TheRedPenofDoom as well as many others, it seems that actually YOU are not fit to be editing the article. it is clear you have something personal FOR the man. It's absolutely right and perfect according to Wikipedia policies to mention right- as well as wrong- doings of the people on their respective pages. What to talk about Mr. Abramovich, even a personality like Bill Gates has his wrong-doings, viz. Antitrust law violations, mentioned clearly on his Wikipedia page.

--Bugnot (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have only dealt in facts. You are the one who is pushing your opinion of Abramovich into the article. Most of the wrongdoings here are ALLEGED and UNPROVEN. Microsoft's violations were proven in a court of law. The claims against ABramovich are from his rivals and British tabloid editorials. For truth, just count the number of times alleged and claimed are used here. These are weasel terms to besmirch a person with a statement which has no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abramovich allegedly bought up blocks of vouchers from oil workers

alleged explicit or implicit coercive threats or intimidation

Boris Berezovsky alleged in 2008 that Abramovich harassed him

this allegedly allowed Abramovich to pursue some of his less known but illegal business- and other- practices

alleging that it was cheated out of its Russian assets

It alleges that another of Roman Abramovich's companies Sibneft, illegally diluted Yugraneft's interest in their joint-company

Berezovsky has claimed that Abramovich and Vladimir Putin are “business partners”

Berezovsky is said to have sold his stake in Sibneft for $650 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear London user:

  1. First of all, you're not signing your comments due to which it seems that you're either afraid of something or are hiding something. And why do you write in such an, literally, insulting and fighting manner? And that too for an unknown person? If he's not "unknown" to you, which most probably seems true due to your great "affection" for him, then you most probably are from Mr. Abramovich's PR dept. If so, beware. Neutrality of the article is maintained as of the current-version, it's you who are trying to disrupt it and won't succeed in such ulterior motives. Don't try to disrupt the neutrality of the article which is currently maintained.
  2. Secondly, Wikipedians who've contributed to this article have nothing personal against Mr. Abramovich. You can't write only good-things about a person, just as you can't write only bad things about a person. All the so-called (actually your so-called) "claims" and "allegations" have been checked time and again by other reputed and well-known Wikpedia administrators, such as GroundZero, TheRedPenofDoom, and others. I hope you'd agree with the fact that to maintain neutrality anywhere (not just for article), both sides should be considered, and as I and other reputed users have stated and verified again and again...and again that only well-referenced and well-established sources have been trusted upon and quoted in this article, nothing else. Just see at Boris Berezovsky's article, and you'll be amazed to see for yourself just how "clean and good-deeds mentioning" this article is as compared to articles of other oligarchs.
  3. Thirdly, most probably none can prove, at least probably not in a Russian Court of Law, wrong-doings against a person who personally "vetted" the President of Russia himself. The only court which might do justice is the UK court (personal-opinion) in the current case.
  4. And, fourthly, for example, and unfortunately (for Mr. "all-good, God-fearing person" Abramovich) (FYI, see article):
  • "Russia's antitrust body said Wednesday that Evraz Holding — part-owned by Kremlin-friendly businessman Roman Abramovich — has breached anti-monopoly rules, overcharging customers for coking coal."
  • Paying Bribes was admitted by Roman himself in his court-papers that he submitted.
  • He was actually arrested for theft in his early days as is proved by court and police-records.

Other allegations are also well-supported and referenced and verified time and again by other reputed users. Have faith, if Mr. Abramovich hasn't done anything wrong he'll come out all right, and all the so-called "allegations" will be done away from here in such a case. However, if these "allegations" are true and are proved in a court of law later (time changes), everybody has to pay the price, justice is ultimately done, and Law is King of All. As such they're going to stay here. I can write nothing more.--Bugnot (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. It's hard not to be insulting when you keep implying I have links to Abramovich for disagreeing with your attempts to paint him in the worst light possible. It is obvious what you are doing with this article.Any libellous, inadequately sourced & misleading claims will be removed.
  2. From your comments above it is clear you have something personal against the man & are not fit to be editing his article. The user Ground Zero called Abramovich "a nasty piece of work". Very impartial. Your `well-referenced and well-established sources` are allegations by his rivals and articles from trashy UK newspapers.
  3. Thank you for proving my point. Many of these claims can't be proven yet theyre in the article regardless, masked with weasel terms like `allegedly` and `claimed`.
  4. More fluff. I never claimed Abramovich was a saint on earth & and it is stupid for you to imply i did. He was also cleared of the theft charges. Fact remains that Abramovich has never been found guilty of these alleged crimes in any world court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Boris Berezovsky, Roman's "friend", for the truth.--Laitrapmi (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 7.5 million people living in London. There are also 13 professional football teams, probably quite a few people who have an interest in the man. Stop trolling the article Bugnot. You aren't helping the reputation of wikipedia. Alexsapples (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

40-person private army? LOL![edit]

It may be outrageous by European standards, but a 40-strong "army" is not really strong. Assuming that you need 5 to 6 guards for manning a single station on a 24/7 basis, 40 men = 6 to 8 stations (less if you consider the need for management, logistics, drivers etc.). It's enough to secure a 100-meter yacht at the public pier, or a mid-sized food store, but that's it. 1 Abramovich = 5 corner groceries. NVO (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

External links and refs[edit]

POV section - Effect of the 2008/2009 financial crisis[edit]

The language in this section is clearly opinion - what is unclear is if the opinion is supported by someone in the source in which it needs to be more accurately attributed to the person making the claim, or if it was the opinion of Wikipedia editor and should be re-written in a more neutral fashion. But I dont read German well enough to make the call.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman's Fortune.[edit]

The articles references a German article which has no place as a source on the ENGLISH version of wikipedia. Additionally, CNN reports that he has lost 3 billion from his fortune, which is hardly 'most of his fortune' as that would require it to be over 50%. Of course 3 bil is a lot of money, but not to a man who has so much.

I will be taking these changes out of the article. Alexsapples (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

help me pleas[edit]

hello excuse me i dont speak much english. my name is ehsan from iran can you help me? can you get me a teams ? thank you. 00989173087726 tell —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

please i am a young footballer of 15 years old can you get me into chelsea youth team


In a later article "Roman Abramovich & Chelsea FC - correction and apology", The Times says: "On January 18 we published an article under the headline "Abramovich wants to sell Chelsea". We now accept that this was not true and that Mr Abramovich was not looking to sell his interest in the club. The article was not meant to suggest that either he or Chelsea FC had lied over his intentions in relation to the club. We have removed the article from the website and apologise to Mr Abramovich and Chelsea." So, please do not hang the title "Abramovich wants to sell Chelsea" any more. Newone (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

2000 Rubles = 1000 GBP ???[edit]

Was that not the time the Soviet Ruble was (practicaly speaking) at par with Pound Sterings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) the blianer roman abravomich — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Governer of Chukotka[edit]

In the section about being Governer of Chukotka, it may be worth mentioning that in 2004 there were reports that under his leadership Chukotka gave Abramovich's own company Sibneft tax breaks in excess of US$450 million. ref: Abramovich region found bankrupt, BBC News 21 May 2004.
Samcol1492 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Loans for shares[edit]

Links to a page that does not define it. Needs to be defined in this page or another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WSJ resource, regarding Boris Berezovsky and petroleum (oil)[edit]

Russian Tycoons Face Off in Court NOVEMBER 7, 2011 by GUY CHAZAN (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lithuanian Jewish or Russian Jewish?[edit]

Roman's grandparents were part of the Lithuanian Jewry, thus he can be said to hail from Litvaks or be one himself. It is not a distant connection either - Roman used to spend his summers with his grandparents in Lithuania as a child. It is a fact missing in the article (although I admit not a very important one) but I doubt whether he can be identified with Russian Jews. A fellow Jewish Russian oligarch, Mikhail Brudno, asked for and received asylum, again, in Lithuania, although he was not even born there. Thus I think it would be at least as correct to refer to Roman as a Lithuanian Jew. If not, it would be still fair to include a reference to his Lithuanian Jewish roots, just like in the biographies of Lithuanian Jews who migrated West and not East, like Al Jolson, say, or Laurence Harvey. Somehow Lithuanian Jews tend not to become British or American Jews upon migration West. Upon migration to Russia on Wikipedia they tend to become Russian Jews, although Russia started hosting a prominent Jewish minority only after it occupied Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1795, and passed laws preventing Jewish migration to Russia proper. I understand that it is a case requiring specialist knowledge, but as it applies to many individuals on Wikipedia, perhaps it would be worth having a more uniform policy of referring to the national origin of those persons. At the moment it seems that quite a few Jews have become Russian Jews only by virtue of overzealous (and perhaps slightly nationalistic) editors, although not so much on the English Wikipedia as on the Russian one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarunas.a (talkcontribs) 21:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

khazarians are khazarians ...

its not important, if he come from russia or where else ...

khazarians are khazarians ... a tribe defined by arthur koestler — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


This award from 2003 seems to be better placed in 3.2 (Governor). Objections? --Oakhonor (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

I have removed several uncited claims, and tagged other uncited claims with {{citation needed}}. Please only re-insert or insert claims together with cites from reliable sources. I left several unsupported claims which should have supporting cites added or else removed shortly. For more information see WP:BLP. -84user (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

From old Lada to the most expensive yacht in the world[edit]

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Eclipse, the yacht of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich is the most expensive and the largest in the world. He bought it two years ago for $ 1.2 billion. For half a meter longer than the yacht owned by Dubai Sheikh Mohammed, ruler of Dubai. Eclipse has a swimming pool 16 meters long, the largest pool ever made ​​on the yacht. Pool can be covered, and then turns into a dance floor. Management per yacht for 30 guests who receives it is necessary, according to the Croatian daily 24 hours, 70 crew members. Abramovich roof in the bedroom is made of glass so that he and his girlfriend Daria could see stars. Yacht Eclipse is a real warship: a missile defense shield, anti-paparazzi laser, two heliports, a submarine, a bullet-proof glass ... Roman Abramovich likes to brag that it is still 1998 with his then wife Irina was riding in Lada. (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yacht docking[edit]

Why is the docking of his yacht important enough for the lead? He has many residences, many cars, etc. all in different places, and I don't see them in the lead section. The lead is supposed to summarise important article-wide content, not trivia. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Monitoring on all Wiki Page's < Roman Abramovich> . prohibits download, damaging stored Wiki Page's. Why ? He has won court battle ! (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is being Jewish that important?[edit]

I deleted it being on the first line of the "family" section - it was depressing :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that in this edit you removed worthwhile biographical material. Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

roman abramovich is khazarian ... not jewish[edit]

roman abramovich is of khazarian ancestry and of khazarian descent ... he has no semitic parents ... abramovich is khazarian ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

roman abramovich is khazarian ... not jewish[edit]

roman abramovich is of khazarian ancestry and of khazarian descent ... he has no semitic parents ... abramovich is khazarian ...

you are lying, if you say, he is jewish ... he is khazarian ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


When did this happen? And why is it not covered in the article? Murry1975 (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

2012"At one stage the young oil trader considered becoming a British citizen after going game shooting on a visit to the country"
I cant find any, other than a non-RS ethnic-celeb site, and a mention on a forum that in 2013 he would have qualified for UK citizenship. Murry1975 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Forbes Russian only. Murry1975 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit added it with "Included reference to his British nationatlity (he is currently a naturalised citizen of the United Kingdom", no source for application or approval of citizenship. Removed. Murry1975 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute with Kolomoyskyi[edit]

This entirely section is based on a single passage from a Putin interview. We usually do not consider politicians as reliable sources. When, where and what was in the deal we do not know. There is no confirmations what the event took place nor any opinions from the other side. I suggest to remove the section per WP:BLP as poorly referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)