Talk:The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes

Sourcing problems

Enormous parts of this article are entirely unsourced. Other parts are sourced to tweets, consortium news and other non-RS. The entire synopsis section advances the film's claims and allegations without any secondary RS to substantiate that the claims are meaningful at all (WP:DUE) and more importantly, to add the context needed to evaluate the claims put forth. The claims have implications for WP:BLP and might also violate WP:FRINGE. That's precisely why WP:RS are needed, and why Wikipedia should not regurgitate at length the storyline of the film. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I added {more citations needed} tag and removed all references to Twitter. The two references to Consortiumnews.com were previously removed. Please identify "other non-RS" so that I may address those as well. KalHolmann (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Synopsis

There is now no synopsis, which is unusual for a Wikipedia article about a film. I propose the following as a starting point, which concerned editors may find helpful when preparing a synopsis to improve this article. KalHolmann (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

[BLP-violating "synopsis" removed]

That's way more synopsis than is WP:DUE - I like the idea of an article on a controversial documentary touching on what reliable sources said about the controversy surrounding its content. And if you can find an RS suggesting that Browder is suppressing the documentary I'd certainly support inclusion. But that's a lot different than a blow-by-blow of every interview and salacious detail.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FILMPLOT for guidance on how to write a Plot/Synopsis section. --NSH001 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

NSH001, thanks for your link to WP:FILMPLOT. I was stopped in my tracks, however, by paragraph four, which reads, "The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced."

The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes has had no general release. The synopsis I wrote that was removed by another editor was based on the 125-minute streaming video (2018), cut from the film's original 152 minutes (2016).

In this instance, does having no general release mean we can have no synopsis? Or, if we may have one in another section, how would that section be titled and would "appropriately sourced" acquire a different meaning than relying on the primary source of the film itself? I'd really appreciate your advice. KalHolmann (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have written precisely one film article, (Asmaa), so I am not an expert on writing film articles. But it seems clear to me that the present streaming version is the closest we're going to get to a general release, at least for quite a while, so in my opinion it would be OK to write the synopsis based on the version that anyone can see, since that is the only version available for verification. You should obviously make that fact clear in the synopsis. --NSH001 (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed text

Background. WP:FILMPLOT, part of English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, provides specific guidance on synopses within film articles.

• Sources.

"Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source."

"Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary."

• Length.

"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words."

• NPOV.

"If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article."

• Content.

"The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."

• Release.

"The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced."

Draft. In accordance with the guideline quoted above, I offer the following draft for consideration and amendment by interested editors. As it stands, this draft is 698 words in length. KalHolmann (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Synopsis

The film combines reenactments, on-camera interviews, and other documentary footage. Its director, Andrei Nekrasov, is also its star, appearing as narrator, interviewer, and engaging with his actors.

Nekrasov recalls when he first heard of Sergei Magnitsky and of Magnitsky's boss, Bill Browder, in 2009. For championing Magnitsky as a whistleblower, Nekrasov hails Browder as "one of the bigger defenders of human rights in my country. Fighting for the memory of Magnitsky, the hero of my future film, Browder stood up to some very dangerous people, and so he himself was a hero in my eyes."

Nekrasov spends six months in 2010 filming and editing, closely adhering to Browder's version of events. Interviewed by Nekrasov in Finland, Browder recounts his 1996 move to Moscow, where he launched the Hermitage Fund and became the country's largest foreign investor, investing $4.5 billion in Russia. "It all went very, very well," Browder allows. That is, until June 2007, when eight men, faces cloaked behind balaclavas and brandishing assault rifles, raid Hermitage's office, kicking and beating employees. Demanding that the safe be opened, they remove articles of incorporation and corporate seals pertaining to the three companies through which Hermitage invested in Russia.

In response, Browder enlists "the smartest lawyer [sic] we knew." After investigating, Sergei Magnitsky informs Browder that he no longer owns his companies, which have been reregistered. Moreover, Magnitsky believes corrupt police officials illegally reconfigured the firms to apply for a huge tax refund. Recognizing the danger, Browder urges Magnitsky to leave the country. Instead, Sergei reports the massive fraud to the authorities. Three policemen who answer directly to one of the accused officers then arrest Magnitsky at home. "I'll be back," he tells his wife and children as he is led away. He never returns.

At this point, Nekrasov is unsure how to stage the moment of Magnitsky's death. As filmed, riot guards swarm into Sergei's cell, handcuff and thrash him with rubber batons for 1 hour 18 minutes until he dies. Nekrasov agonizes over what he perceives as uncompelling forensic evidence to support this rendering.

Meanwhile, an international human rights campaign heats up, condemning Russian officials for Magnitsky's death. Nekrasov interviews Marieluise Beck, German member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which had commissioned the most in-depth investigation into the Magnitsky affair. Asked why the story has become so big, she extols Sergei Magnitsky as "a shining light of justice and democracy." But she adds that Bill Browder, "with his vast means—access to parliamentarians, governments and the media—has made it, I understand, the task of his life to ensure Sergei Magnitsky is not forgotten." Andreas Gross, a PACE rapporteur and author of its Magnitsky report, admits he investigated the case "with the help of Browder." When Nekrasov hands him a Russian document, Gross says he'd always relied on translations from Browder's office "because I don't read, understand Russian myself."

Nekrasov again interviews Browder, now in London in 2015. The director expresses doubts about Magnitsky being first to report the tax fraud, and poses evidentiary questions that Browder feels are better left for lawyers to answer. Ending abruptly, Browder rises from his chair and warns the still-seated Nekrasov, "You better be careful about going out and trying to do a whole sort of thing about Sergei not being a whistleblower. It's not going to do well for your credibility on this show. I mean it's just not true. This is sort of the subtle FSB version and it's just trying to cast aspersions."

Undeterred, Nekrasov delves further, finding no confirmation of police violence against Browder's employees or that Magnitsky was murdered. He discovers what he considers evidence "that Magnitsky and other Browder's lieutenants had been involved in the reregistration they later called theft," and that several of those who helped facilitate the fraud subsequently "died under suspicious circumstances." All of which intensifies his qualms. "Does it not matter," Nekrasov asks, "that someone with a motive [Browder is shown onscreen] to divert attention from a white-collar crime was actually using compassion for a cover-up?" In closing, the director wonders, "Will democracy survive if human rights—its moral high ground—is used to protect selfish interests?"

Proposed alternative

The film combines reenactments, on-camera interviews, and other documentary footage. Its director, Andrei Nekrasov, is also its star, appearing as narrator, interviewer, and engaging with his actors.

Nekrasov spends six months in 2010 filming and editing, closely adhering to Browder's version of events. Interviewed by Nekrasov in Finland,[1] Browder recounts his history of dealings in Russia from 1996 until June 2007, when eight men, faces cloaked behind balaclavas and brandishing assault rifles, raid Hermitage's office, assaulted employees and stole articles of incorporation and corporate seals pertaining to the three companies through which Browder's fund invested in Russia.

In response, Browder enlists Sergei Magnitsky, who informs Browder that he no longer owns his companies, which have been reregistered. Moreover, Magnitsky believes corrupt police officials illegally reconfigured the firms to apply for a huge tax refund. Recognizing the danger, Browder urges Magnitsky to leave the country. Instead, Magnitsky reports the massive fraud to the authorities. Three policemen who answer directly to one of the accused officers then arrest Magnitsky at home.

Nekrasov then attempts to stage a re-enactment of Magnitsky's death but says he finds the forensic evidence to poorly support this interpretation.

Meanwhile, an international human rights campaign heats up, condemning Russian officials for Magnitsky's death. Nekrasov interviews various people within Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) regarding this campaign and frames the interviews to suggest that Browder was leaned on by PACE as a primary source for details of Magnitsky's deth.

Nekrasov again interviews Browder, now in London in 2015. The interview becomes antagonistic until Browder says, "You better be careful about going out and trying to do a whole sort of thing about Sergei not being a whistleblower. It's not going to do well for your credibility on this show. I mean it's just not true. This is sort of the subtle FSB version and it's just trying to cast aspersions."

After the interview, Nekrasov continues his investigation, saying that he found no evidence to support the accepted narrative surrounding Magnitsky's death. He discovers what he considers evidence "that Magnitsky and other Browder's lieutenants had been involved in the reregistration they later called theft," and that several of those who helped facilitate the fraud subsequently "died under suspicious circumstances." He concludes by implying Browder might be the responsible party for this string of deaths as a cover-up for white collar crime.

Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223, I dispute your final sentence, "He concludes by implying Browder might be the responsible party for this string of deaths as a cover-up for white collar crime." Did you watch the same 2018 video cut that I did? In that version, Nekrasov did not "imply" that Browder might be responsible for those suspicious deaths. KalHolmann (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't watch the video at all. I just tried to condense what you wrote down to something a bit more appropriate for length and keeping out unnecessary salacious details. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case. KalHolmann (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am what you would call a neutral editor with some experience shortening written works. And I think the whole thing about narrating out Nekrosov's implications with Browder's face superimposed fails WP:DUE and imperils WP:NPOV - I hope you see I'm actually kind of on your side in that I think that there should be a synopsis at all. I just proposed that your version was too long and not well balanced by Wikipedia standards.Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

External links

I don't see the relevance for the nachdenkseiten.de external link. (138.190.132.27 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC))

I concur and have removed the disputed link. KalHolmann (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

consortium news is not a reliable source so removed their quote.

Hi, @BetsyRMadison

I would like for you to elaborate more on the title.

For you the CNN and all derivative media are reliable source???

You defines "reliable source", the media, that excretes the BS, from mount olympus in Washington, when they say "we have from a reliable source", is that it???

Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The complete statement in my edit summary speaks for itself: "consortium news is not a reliable source so removed their quote. See talk page Sourcing Problems" (here [1]). BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement hinting at bias

The line "Now Nekrasov had made a film featuring extensive interview footage of Browder and challenging his single-handed control of the Magnitsky narrative." reads like propaganda and seemingly alleges that Browder had total control over the circumstances leading to the Magnitsky Act being passed. I would propose that this be rewritten neutrally or removed. Thoughts? 100.16.5.2 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)