Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:32, 22 September 2011 editBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,096 edits →Use of libel tourism/terrorism: live witih consensus← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:40, 22 September 2011 edit undoRussavia (talk \| contribs)78,741 edits →Use of libel tourism/terrorism: commentNext edit →
Line 60:		Line 60:
	There is a ''slim'' chance that this belongs in an article on libel - but it is rather ''irrelevant'' to the BLP here. In point of fact, many places allow libel suits even for a single copy sold in the jurisdiction, and, in a few places, for dissemination on the Internet with ''zero'' copies sold in the jurisdiction. ''inter alia''. Interesting stuff perhaps - but of no actual direct connection here. Cheers. ] (]) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)		There is a ''slim'' chance that this belongs in an article on libel - but it is rather ''irrelevant'' to the BLP here. In point of fact, many places allow libel suits even for a single copy sold in the jurisdiction, and, in a few places, for dissemination on the Internet with ''zero'' copies sold in the jurisdiction. ''inter alia''. Interesting stuff perhaps - but of no actual direct connection here. Cheers. ] (]) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
	:If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the ] article, and for all the assertions of importance of the Berezovsky case, it's not mentioned there.--] (]) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)		:If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the ] article, and for all the assertions of importance of the Berezovsky case, it's not mentioned there.--] (]) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
			::What consensus? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. You wanted more sources, as per , and I provided more sources, and gave you links above to Google, showing how relevant this is, and all of a sudden you want it removed. LOLOL. The mere fact that there are more sources indicates that this is obviously a very important part of the libel law suit against Forbes. You said it yourself. And I quote: "When you can support the article with cites, then you can "reinstate" it." You were saying? LOLOLOL. I'm not blind as to what is going on here, and none of you ] the article, neither do I, but you don't remove information just coz you don't like what it says. Which by the way was ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:40, 22 September 2011

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Russia: Economy Start‑class High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boris Berezovsky (businessman) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Unprotected

Given the WP:ANI discussion. However, note that any future edit-warring on a BLP will undoubtedly mean the restoration of the full protection. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive-3

I moved the lengthy prior discussion to Archive-3 . --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the archiving. There is an on-going discussion about a possible conflict of interest. None of the other threads seem too old either. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blanked the page Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3. In fact this should be deleted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not blank archives - We don't need all that disruptive nonsense from an indefd user on the talkpage of a living person, lets have a fresh start for the articles benefit. If you have COI worries, please take then to the COI noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whom did you ban? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Deepdish7 has been indefinitely blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was adding something to the WP:COI discussion, but because of multiple edit conflicts it got lost somewhere. As a conspiracy theorist I KNOW this all happened because you all want to hide the important TRUTH I wanted to reveal...

OK. I will take the issue elsewhere. Is this ANI thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Article or topic ban for two users still relevant, or should I take the issue to WP:COI/N? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Without explaining what you want to achieve, how can anyone advise you as to the proper forum to go to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, appreciated Petri. - both those locations are available to re open/open discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New edits

I removed phrase "Legality of his capital has been disputed though, and first official criminal charges appeared in 1999 under Evgeny Primakov's government" from lead

The fitst part is misleading and unsourced
The charges were dropped within a week. The episode is mentioned in the narrative. It has no place in the lead per WP:due weight--Kolokol1 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Libel tourism

I have restored a reference and a quote in another reference removed by user Off2riorob. I cannot see a point in removing references form existing text. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. As I said in the edit summary, this is way too much for a minor point in the article. Whether Berezovsky's libel case is an example of libel tourism, an often-cited example, a leading example, or whatever, the facts are in the article as to what Berezovsky did and the disposition of the case. The rest is remarkably tangential. We don't need a treatise on libel tourism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of the content of the article, as your comment would suggest, but about the presentation of the sources. However, if multiple reliable sources discuss libel tourism in the context of Berezovsky, then that section in this article may need expanding. At least needs protection from casual drive-by deletion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of libel tourism/terrorism

This was removed from the article.

In 2000, the House of Lords gave Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov permission to sue for libel in the UK courts, raising legal questions relating to jurisdiction of the UK courts, and according to numerous scholars is the leading example of libel tourism, given that only 2,000 of the 785,000 copies sold worldwide were sold in the United Kingdom.

Delta, George B.; Matsuura, Jeffrey H. (2008). "Jurisdictional issues in cyberspace". Law of the Internet. Vol. 1 (3rd ed.). Aspen Publishers. pp. 3â92. ISBN 0735575592. Berezovsky is the leading case in what has come to be known as "libel tourism {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); C1 control character in |pages= at position 3 (help)
Crook, Tim (2010). "Defamation law". Comparative media law and ethics. Taylor & Francis. pp. 240â241. ISBN 0415551617. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); C1 control character in |pages= at position 5 (help)
Taylor, Daniel C. (November 2010). "Libel Tourism: Protecting Authors and Preserving Comity" (PDF). Georgetown Law Journal. 99. Georgetown University: 194. ISSN 0016-8092. Retrieved 23 September 2011.
Cite error: The named reference guardianmarch2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference shuddup was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Why? In 2000 the House of Lords did give him permission to sue in UK courts for libel. And it is the leading example of libel tourism/terrorism. It has even been tabled in the house of lords itself. refer to this. Numerous scholarly legal sources state that jurisdictional issues arose from this approval. And it is the leading case of libel tourism/terrorism. All sources have been provided, I can add another hundred if you all like, which states it is the leading case of libel tourism. I have sourced and verified the information. The onus is on editors to do this, otherwise it can be removed from the article. You don't remove sourced information from the article. Russavia 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment above (now we have this in two places, yay). I remove sourced info from articles all the time if it's not sufficiently relevant to be included in the article, as here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is very important. Berezovsky v Michaels was a landmark case in the use of libel tourism/terrorism, and is thoroughly studied. Refer to this and . It is highly relevant that the House of Lords gave him permission to sue in the UK courts, and it is highly relevant that he took advantage of libel laws in the UK, which means that the defendant is in an almost unwinnable position. This use of libel tourism has been used by many others since Berezovsky v Michaels, hence the relevance of the use of libel tourism, and hence the relevance it raised jurisdictional matters, and hence the relevance of every thing else I wrote. If you have doubts, take it to WP:RSN, but you don't remove anything because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Russavia 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if as you assert it is "very important" and a landmark issue then it should have its own article away from this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. Even assuming it's an important issue for purposes of UK law, it is a side show for Berezovsky's life, which is what the article is about.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is pertinent. Why did he not choose to sue in the US courts? Where Forbes is published? That is another point that has been raised to Berezovsky's use of libel tourism. In fact, a Guardian article which is already in use in the article as a source, made reference to his use of libel tourism in relation to another libel lawsuit. The Guardian obviously saw it important enough to mention ten years after the fact. And don't use the WP:BLP line; what is stated in the article is FACT, not an accusation. I will be reinserting it, and if you have an issue with it, take it to the WP:BLPN or WP:RSN noticeboards. --Russavia 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be stubborn. The consensus is against inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a slim chance that this belongs in an article on libel - but it is rather irrelevant to the BLP here. In point of fact, many places allow libel suits even for a single copy sold in the jurisdiction, and, in a few places, for dissemination on the Internet with zero copies sold in the jurisdiction. inter alia. Interesting stuff perhaps - but of no actual direct connection here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the libel tourism article, and for all the assertions of importance of the Berezovsky case, it's not mentioned there.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? LOLOLOLOLOLOL. You wanted more sources, as per this, and I provided more sources, and gave you links above to Google, showing how relevant this is, and all of a sudden you want it removed. LOLOL. The mere fact that there are more sources indicates that this is obviously a very important part of the libel law suit against Forbes. You said it yourself. And I quote: "When you can support the article with cites, then you can "reinstate" it." You were saying? LOLOLOL. I'm not blind as to what is going on here, and none of you WP:OWN the article, neither do I, but you don't remove information just coz you don't like what it says. Which by the way was WP:NPOV. --Russavia 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories: