Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 1

Deleted excess info
This was a stand-alone sentence in the "convictions, warrents" section:

"Prosecutors in Russia have accused Berezovsky of a host of crimes, including fraud, embezzlement and preparing a violent overthrow of Putin's government. Berezovsky denies all the allegations."

The subsection was also entitled "Warrents in Russia and Brazil". This hardly seems necessary, since there's already a section detailing the Russian convictions in detail just a few lines up - why say it again here? The Brazil stuff is good, though, and is not repetitive, so I just changed the title to say "Brazil" only, and deleted the extraneous sentence about Russia. Anyone got a problem with that?98.169.119.102 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oligarchy?
What of this "oligarchy?" Who is in it besides Berezovsky and Alexander Litvinenko? When were they exiled? - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the question, "(Please clarify - what is a rally standpoint shootoff?)" is a valid one, though it must be posted in the talk page instead of in the article itself.Iskabobbins 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Litvinenko was not an oligarch! The term "Oligarchs" in Russia is used in reference to the few people who gained control of the majority of the national wealth after privatization in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soveit Union. Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky are prime examples. Litvinenko is nothing even close to that. He wasn't even moderately wealthy - he lived on Berezovsky's handouts.

NPOV & sources
The tone of this article appears to contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, & I have added templates to that effect. There are whole sentences like "Berezovsky's image among Russians is generally poor; many consider him the most unlawful and unethical of the oligarchs and blame him especially for the country's economic collapse", which require references and neutral rephrasing. There are many further minor examples.

I have made a few small changes to the article to move it towards NPOV but lots more needs to be done. I don't want to edit out all the information here, because I believe some of it might be useful with a proper encyclopedic style edit and some decent citations behind it. -- TinaSparkle 23:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From my own anecdotal evidence, that paragraph which you quoted is quite true. I'm not sure how it is POV to mention the general opinion among Russian citizens about him.  I do agree that some acceptable source needs to be found for it, though. Esn 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainly, it's not POV if it's sourced or attributed. But I would probably have doubts about statements like "the most unlawful and unethical of the oligarchs" even if it is sourced. How is such a thing to be measured? Are there open, reliable opinion polls of the Russian people in which it is asked "Which oligarch do you consider to be the most unethical?" Surely it's a case of weasel words. Russia contains something like 150 million people and I doubt that any generalisation of their opinions would be useful or indeed possible. If there is reasonable evidence that Berezovsky is unethical, or specific allegations from a reliable source, let's have that rather than hearsay. -- TinaSparkle 13:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I edited out the unsourced POV material, if any sourcing can be found it should be restored -- J.L. 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to The Wall Street Journal, an opinion poll found that only 0.2 percent of Russians trust Boris. Unfortunately, WSJ archives are closed up unless you give them $ though.  Aside from that, I haven't found any polls more recent than 2002 and in that poll it didn't show that many of those polled really disliked Boris.  So, unless someone can get at that poll the WSJ is talking about, I think we are still without sources for now.  If someone can find the time to dig further I think it would benefit the article greatly to get a better idea of what the general Russian populace really thinks of Boris.  I'm getting conflicting results from my limited research so far. Cowicide 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can still add the WSJ poll as a source if you know all the relevant information on how to find it. Wikipedia accepts payolla sources; the only condition is that they must exist somewhere.  Lest we forget, there are still such things as libraries in the world.  A source doesn't have to be accessible online.  Also, if you can find a reliable article that talks about the poll, you don't necessarily have to link to the actual poll. Esn 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is widely known that Berezovsky doesn't have a 'generally poor' image amongst the Russians, but it is an 'abysmal' image. Anyone looking for sources to back up such statements and for inclusive in wikipedia might want to start at http://www.fom.ru/ --Russavia 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still problems here; there is a whole unsourced section about a living man that essentially brands him as a crook and a liar. That may be true, but since the Litvinenko poisoning, and recent assasination attempt, I vote for removing unsourced material and placing an edit lock on this article. This could be a first for wikipedia, insofar as there is a distinct possibility of it being used as a basic propaganda tool in a heated diplomatic exchange amid a spate of international assasination attempts. Real cloak and dagger stuff -- but wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. (anonymous norwegian, 13:21, 18 July 2007 CET)

The problems in the "Business and Political Life in Russia" section persist, and I'm almost in favor of just scratching those first two paragraphs, as there's but one source between them, and they make some controversial, clearly pointed claims about Boris, including two unsourced "allegedly"'s. The bit about his activity in Yeltsin's re-election campaign also should be cited, though this is well-documented, I'll try and dig up an appropriate reference, but the other allegations need some backing, or they'll be deleted forthwith. 98.169.119.102 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the statement "According to some sources, Berezovsky was also initially involved in car smuggling rackets. " The reference here is a reader comment on Amazon to a film, which is a work of fiction - a totally inappropriate source.

Platon is Russian for Plato
Platon is Russian for Plato and it is also Greek for Plato. I think in the context here (a Russian changing his name) that it is more relevent to note that Platon is a Russian word.

Unsourced accusation of murder in BLP
Alex, could you please copy here a segment of text from cited article that accuses Berezovsky of organizing murder of Khlebnikov?

I found only the following:

"Soon after Vladimir Putin stepped into the presidency, Klebnikov and I met in New York. I told him he needed to watch his back with so much change afoot. He shrugged and said he was uniquely positioned to get to the heart of corruption in Russia. "Who else is going to do it?" he asked. I had no answer.

When Forbes announced Klebnikov would lead its new Russian publication and relocate to Moscow, I immediately feared for his safety. A few months later he was dead. I think about him, sprawled bleeding on the sidewalk, coughing his final words to a reporter colleague who found him dying.

Russia hasn't changed in the past decade and at this trajectory it won't be truly civilized for generations. Those who killed Klebnikov are killing today, plan to kill tomorrow, and know they'll roam free to kill for years to come. Hellbent on getting rich, they have no boundaries. Raised in a communist world devoid of morals, they have no soul."

There are no any accusations of Berezovsky here.Biophys 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May be you mean the following segment in the Introductory part:

"Had I run across billionaire Boris Berezovsky in my work with the Yeltsin administration? I hadn't. Klebnikov had recently been scratching the surface of Berezovsky's brazen get-rich-quick schemes. He was convinced there was much more to the oligarch. He was in town to investigate him as well as to cover the elections.

Berezovsky was one of several super-wealthy men who had back doors to Yeltsin's Kremlin. His popularity waxed and waned, but as he amassed wealth he gained unparalleled power. Experienced expatriates in Russia shared an essential rule: Don't cross these brutal billionaires, ever, or you're likely to go home in a box."

Here, author only tells that Russian oligarchs are dangerous. His conclusion is summarized in the end of the article: "Those who killed Klebnikov are killing today, plan to kill tomorrow, and know they'll roam free to kill for years to come. Hellbent on getting rich, they have no boundaries. Raised in a communist world devoid of morals, they have no soul." Right. Please see the List of Russian billionaires and Political groups during Vladimir Putin's presidency.Biophys 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

comment
He is one of the principal financial resources for civic groups and anti-Putin opposition through his International Foundation for Civil Liberties.

This passage isn't quite true imho. I don't know of mainstream opposition (democratic or not) parties that are supported by him. Moreover Kasparov and Kasyanov explicitly denied receiving such support. Alæxis¿question? 05:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He's widely believed to have heavily funded the opposition party in Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, and personally has declined comment on the issue. There are clear financial records of his transferring money to companies that then sponsored the party, however. It's going to be tough to prove, as foreigners cannot contribute to any campaign under Ukrainian law - hence anyone doing so would, of necessity, be thoroughly discreet about it. This doesn't change the fact that there's a general consensus that he did support the revolution through use of IFCL, though. Furthermore, he HAS been very vocal in his public opposition to Putin, so it should come as no surprise that he's involved in this sort of thing.98.169.119.102 (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dagestan war
Berezovsky asserted that he refused the offer, but "Udugov and Basayev conspired with Stepashin and Putin to provoke a war to topple Maskhadov..., but the agreement was for the Russian army to stop at the Terek River. However, Putin double-crossed the Chechens and started an all-out war". A transcript of the phone conversation between Berezovsky and Udugov was leaked to one of Moscow tabloids on September 10 1999.

What is this supposed to mean? If Basayev-Stepashin conspiracy is something that Berezovsky 'asserted' then it should be written more clearly. If Berezovsky only asserted he refused the offer then all the following is irrelevant to this article imho. Alæxis¿question? 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This direct citation is taken from the book by Goldfarb. This is not a direct citation of Berezovsky words. That is what Berezovsky said to Goldfarb. He said two things: (1) that he refused the offer (it could be described in more detail why and what exactly was the offer), and (2) about the conspiracy. He also said a lot of other things of course.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Sorry, I've missed the citation marks somehow... Alæxis¿question? 16:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Converts from Judaism to Christianity"
What evidence is there that he was ever a practicing Jew? He was most likely a secular person as was dictated by the Soviet government. Unless you can prove Mr Berezovsky wore a kippah and went to shul prior to becoming Russian Orthodox, I'm removing him from this category. CommanderJamesBond (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is OR and should be removed.Biophys (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, I'm removing him from the "Israeli Jews" category because by Israeli Law he is not a Jew (because his mother's mother is not a Jew and because he converted to Christianity, he would not have "Jew" printed on his identity card or be counted as a Jew in the census). CommanderJamesBond (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands money laundering investigation
Now this is a bit awkward. It is true that the Dutch financial police sent people to Russia to investigate what the Russians had on Berezovsky. However, as soon as the news was published in the Russian media, the Dutch government immediately claimed that Berezovsky was NOT being prosecuted or even a suspect in the Netherlands.

Again however, things are not as not as simple as that: the Dutch financial police are indeed investigating some major handling (="heling") or money laundering (="witwassen") scheme, and Berezovski is indeed mentioned in the dossier. (It took me a hell of a time to find that out, but here is a respectable source in Dutch: ). Basically, that coupled with the "démarche" to Russia (one may think that the Dutch would normally find Berezovsky too hot a potato to handle) means that the Dutch DA (="Openbaar Ministerie") is not expecting to prosecute Berezovsky and the belief by some Russian media (one of which we quote here) that Berezovsky may also be put on trial (trail is a rather funny msiprint...) in the Netherlands, is probably (=almost surely) wishful thinking.

The problem with our article as it stands now, is that if we just change that, everybody having read the whole article, may think the Dutch must be doing it to help out Brazil. But that is not necessarily the case: e.g. Berezovsky seems still being investigated by the Swiss Bundesanwaltschaft: and (German wikipedia's Berezovsky article is also claiming the Swiss investigation continues!) In view of this, I think it may be preferable to combine the Brazilian accusation and this Dutch "angle" with the Swiss accusation into one new major heading (replacing the Brazilian and Dutch headings) on "International money laundering charges". The Weltwoche article also mentions Swiss financier Hans-Peter Jenni and Nikolai Glushkov. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. As a last edit, I added "involving Berezovsky" to the sentence about the Moscow Prosecutor. Without it, it looked like the Russian and Dutch journalists had been working together to embarass the Dutch prosecuting officials (I wanted to put that in my edit summary, but somehow it ended up being uploaded in an imperfect way, a version I was still editing to save text to say more). But that is not what happened: the Russian journalists heard something factual from the Moscow DA about Berezovsky, and embellished it to imply that he was also being investigated in the Netherlands (here I interpret "on trail" as "under investigation", "being prosecuted" or searched, like game or escaped prisoners being "trailed", and not as a misprint for "on trial" - but if Russian editors have arguments otherwise, no problem). The Dutch DA soon intervened to deny everything the Russian media had claimed, but Dutch newspapers soon found out that he/she had been denying too much: the name is mentioned in the dossier and the investigating team had gone to Moscow to find out what the Berezovsky case in Russia was about. (to know how much money was involved? to understand how the Russians think the moneylaundering was done?)


 * The Dutch Prosecutors denied to comment in order not to hinder the investigation at hand. Are they after inhabitants of the Netherlands who performed financial transactions in that country on behalf of the Jenni firms? =OR, of course. Further OR: if Berezovsky has no account in the Netherlands, as he claims, the Dutch FIOD is not going to prosecute him, the Russian media at least got that wrong. I do not know what Brazilian law says about it, but the problem for prosecutors in an international case like this is obviously "non bis in idem". Even Russia has a law on it: Why should the Dutch go after someone already targeted by three other countries? ---Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and Berezovsky
It's not my work but I don't like this version as well. Could you please explain why WP:BLP doesn't allow us to say about his political affiliation with Litvinenko & Co. and about the charges against him (considering that everything that was/is written there is sourced well)? Alæxis¿question? 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Litvinenko & Co" is not a political affiliation like "Communist Party". We need a balanced introduction per WP:BLP. The selective representation of only negative information in introduction of BLP is not acceptable. We can not simply tell about charges, without explaining another side of the story (all of that is highly controversial). So, I left only facts that are not "charged". If you can produce a more balanced version of the introduction, please do.Biophys (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, imho this version is also not ideal. One gets the impression that he fled to UK because he had gone into opposition. It should also be written that he's accused of various crimes here in Russia (and elsewhere). This is just a fact - we don't say whether these accusations are well-founded or not.
 * On a second thought mentioning Litvinenko and others isn't absolutely necessary in the intro. What needs to be mentioned is his after-emigration political activity. We should think about how to formulate this. Alæxis¿question? 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely ridiculous and not at all a valid argument. There is no other side of the story, it's factual information that he has arrest warrants out, and that he's under investigation. You can add "He denies all claims" if you like. (never mind I just did it for you)Krawndawg (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply telling "he denies this" is not good enough. So far I avoided editing the article, because this person is very controversial, to tell this politely.Biophys (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it not good enough? Are there any other facts we're missing? Krawndawg (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course a lot of facts are missing - about his political activities, business, etc. There is an arbitrary selection of negative facts in the introduction right now. Hence this is against BLP policy.Biophys (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not making any sense. It may be your POV that these are "negative" facts, but they are indeed facts, and thus there is no legit reason to remove them from the intro. Krawndawg (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two ways to fix the problem. Either we should fairly represent all "positive" and "negative" facts in introduction, or remove any "charged" facts which paint him as a criminal.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What positive facts are not mentioned there, in your opinion? Alæxis¿question? 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What positive? He was allegedly a man who brought Vladimir Putin to power.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So this is a positive fact, yeah :) I have nothing against mentioning these allegations in the lead actually. Alæxis¿question? 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this either. Anything factual and important should be added to the intro. Remember, add, don't delete, in order to achieve a NPOV. Krawndawg (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have to support the apparent majority here. WP:BLP is a very serious matter, but the allegations are also very serious and well documented.  Quite often - with non-public figures - it might be possible to wait until a conviction in court is reached before publishing this type of fact here - but BB is a very public figure (by his own choice) and is avoiding court proceeding by having left the country.  Even in those cases, we could let documentary sources (e.g. "The Godfather of the Kremlin" BOOK) state their case.
 * Of course put in his own denials and all the "positive facts" but if they are not there... It is not the majority of editors who are at fault here. Let's try to read the facts in a Neutral POV, rather than report a POV that makes BB look neutral.  Make sense?  Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, I have absolutely no problems with negative information in introduction. But then I will include more information there as time allows.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The final subsection on the alleged connections with the 2 assasinations looked unbalanced to me. there are lots of other people who have been accused, and Berezhovsky isn't the main suspect as far as I can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong. Smallbones (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it looks unbalanced then add material (about Berezovsky) that will balance it. Don't remove well sourced material. The allegations are quite notable and relevant, there's no reason why they should be excluded from his article. Krawndawg (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I do not like Berezovsky, last edits by Krawndawg (some of them deleted by Smallbones) seem to be bad. Russian state-controlled media can hardly be regarded as reliable sources about Berezovsky. Just imagine that someone would write an article about "vrazina" (enemy of the people) Lev Trotsky using materials of Moscow show trails of 1930s.  The "archenemy" Berezovsky is now described in Russian media almost as Trotsky in 1930s, or perhaps as Emmanuel Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four). Biophys (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Russian state-controlled media can hardly be regarded as reliable sources about Berezovsky." - Says who? Are you saying that their point of view should not be told? I suggest you read WP:NPOV. If you think the sources are unreliable bring it up here. I also added many western sources that completely backed up what the Russian ones said in my latest edits.


 * Berezovsky is equally put in bad light in western media. Perhaps you just need to come to terms that he's not a very nice guy. Our job here isn't to make a bad man look good or neutral, it's to present every relevant point of view and let the sources collectively tell the whole story, something I've done by using both Western and Russian sources. Again, if you have anything to add regarding Berezovsky, that perhaps equals out all the negative, please add it! Krawndawg (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? You painted him as "vrazina" Emmanuel Goldstein from Nineteen Eighty-Four. Fine. I am not an administrator to enforce WP:BLP policy.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What?? You're drawing connections between 1984 and current day Russia? That's funny, but also rather concerning - your personal views on reality (which in my opinion are quite out of touch) should not in any way influence what goes into or stays out of wikipedia. (That's a horrid comparison too. Goldstein really could have been a fabrication, whereas, as far as I know, Berezovsky is a real person who really does speak for himself and make his own accusations. He has admitted himself that he's out to get Putin, that's no state fabricated lie.)


 * Again, if you think the sources are unreliable I urge you to bring it up in above mentioned notice board. I'm not here to spread false information. I'm sure that the allegations are very real, and everything in that section is 100% factual. I wouldn't have inserted the information if I thought otherwise. Krawndawg (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what's the problem with (Russian) sources here. I agree that they have to be treated with caution. However state-controlled media are used as sources only two times in the article and each time to reference what some Russian official said. Imho it is absolutely normal to use them this way. Alæxis¿question? 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, one could easily find sources in Western press in 1930s that Trotsky was a spy and plotted to kill all Soviet leaders. That is why I am talking about Emmanuel Goldstein from Nineteen Eighty-Four (Trotsky was his prototype).Biophys (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again I don't understand what you want to say. Should we not mention that he's accused of killing Politkovskaya at all? If we should not - why? if we should - what kind of references should be used and what else should we write in that section? Alæxis¿question? 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd suggest that everybody take a time out. The Politovskaya section does look unbalanced to me. Berezhovsky isn't the only person accused. WP:BLP does require some balance. We don't just want to report the FSB viewpoint. Smallbones (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually he is the only person officially accused so far (along with the people connected to him, who are mentioned.) I added that other third parties accused the Russian government of ordering the hit, but Biophy removed it, which I don't completely disagree with since that's not relevant to Berezovsky at all. Krawndawg (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
So is anyone going to actually make any suggestions or attempt to make it neutral? What information is missing, who's point of view are we not including? Krawndawg (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. I made a few very minor changes to improve NPOV a little, but you reverted me twice. After that you ask: why neutrality tag? Biophys (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert you. I changed a couple NPOV details which I noted in the comment. The majority of your changes stayed, yet you promptly reverted my changes with no explanation; hence why I reverted back.

Now to explain that original edit of mine:


 * "Rabid critic of Putin" - Redundant. We know he's a critic of Putin, it is mentioned and implied already.
 * "and others" - Russian authorities aren't the only ones who have made the accusation. This seems like a "scapegoat" POV push which you admitted to supporting.
 * "Several attempts to assassinate him, allegedly by Russian agents, have failed." - This is a fabricated lie to, again, push your POV that he's a scapegoat. Only one assassination attempt was "allegedly" going to be done by Russian secret services, and even that one was officially dismissed as frivolous meaning it is no longer alleged. Berezovsky himself is the only one making this claim, hence why I changed it to say just that.
 * "Swiss investigation" - Why delete this? Because it takes away from your POV that he's only picked on by the Russian government? This is notable, factual and important therefore it stays.

In all, you inserted a whole lotta unsupported original research, so I cleaned it up so to support the citations given in the rest of the article. Krawndawg (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Krawndag, who else accused him of murdering critics of "Putin's regime"? Alæxis¿question? 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Washington Post: "Kremlin supporters saw it as a conspiracy to smear Russia's reputation by engineering a spectacular murder." ... "Some people in Moscow see Berezovsky's involvement as another campaign to ruin Putin's reputation internationally." Krawndawg (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article says: "According to The Daily Mail, the British investigators, bringing the case on suspicion in deliberate poisoning of Litvinenko, are going to interrogate Boris Berezovsky who has reportedly bought a house in London for the former FSB officer." - meaning he was a suspect for the British authorities as well. Krawndawg (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with you here. Regarding your first source 'Kremlin supporters' != 'others'. We'd have to write 'by Russian authorities and Kremlin supporters' but that would sound strange imho. So I think we should leave only 'Russian authorities'.
 * You don't have to be a suspect to be interrogated - you can be just a witness. So we can't say that 'he was a suspect for the British authorities as well'. Alæxis¿question? 07:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll concede that point, you're right; assuming we think of media as a type of "Russian authority". Krawndawg (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed the tag since no one has made any suggestions in many days. If you want to put it back up, specify the problem. Krawndawg (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky started in business in 1989 under perestroika by buying and reselling automobiles from state manufacturer AutoVAZ. Officially, Berezovsky was called upon as an expert in development of optimized system of management of the enterprise. In 1992, a new middleman company, LogoVAZ, was created with Berezovsky as its president. LogoVAZ became an exclusive consignment dealer of AutoVAZ, enabling a scheme (named ReExport) in which cars were sold abroad and then bought back for sale on the internal market. Frequently, however, cars were not exported at all and the operations on export and import remained only on paper. In another shady business, May 1994, Berezovsky became head of the notorious Automobile All-Russia alliance "АVVА" ("АВВА" in Russian Cyrillic) and became known as the initiator of "the national car" project. This enterprise turned out to be merely a financial pyramid scheme, as shares of a nonexistent factory which has never been constructed were sold to the investors.

Neutrality tag part deux
OK. How about any sources? A counter opinion - including by Berezovsky himself? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Did an article on Movladi Atlangeriyev
--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fled to avoid arrest"
This is OR and POV. He was not officially charged at the time of his departure from Russia. If you think he was charged at this time, please provide some sources.Biophys (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC) He was granted the political assylum only much later, allegedly because a Russian agent tried to kill him in London.Biophys (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This source says: "Boris Berezovsky was one of the Russian oligarchs who acquired massive wealth by taking control of state assets after the fall of communism. When Mr Berezovsky, who controlled several banks and TV stations, was accused in Russia of defrauding a regional government of US$13m, he fled and moved to London, where he now lives under the name Platon Elenin." Krawndawg (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Berezovsky was indicted for the first time in October 2001 (in the well-known Aeroflot affair rather than some mysterious defrauding of a mysterious regional government), almost a year after he fled Russia. Before that he was considered a witness only. There is no need to rely on hearsays reposted by the BBC without attribution. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the BBC is not to blame for that. Keep in mind that "accused" is a very vague term. You'd better find something with "charged" or "indicted". Colchicum (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * O'K, I checked this using a more detailed and reliable source, book Death of a dissident, pages 232-233. It tells that Berezovsky was summoned as a witness in the beginning of November 2000, in the Aeroflot case (simultaneously with "Goose, who was accuzed of defrauding Gazprom of $300 million via a loan to NTV"). Berzovsky was in Nice and decided not to return to Russia, on the insistence of Goldfarb. The BBC article is obviously mistaken, as often happens in news reports. This BBC article is very short and does not explain anything about this mysterious defrauding of a mysterious regional government. Apparently, there was no such. He was apparently accused by Putin and C. of defrauding the Aeroflot (see Nikolai Glushkov) and only when he was already abroad.Biophys (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would think that book is a more reliable source. It was written by a friend of Berezovsky, one of the "London Circle" folk. Hardly neutral and certainly not more reliable than BBC, one of the most reliable media sources there is.Krawndawg (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then would you or the BBC be so kind to point out which regional government Berezovsky has allegedly defrauded and when he was charged? It shouldn't be difficult. Colchicum (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another BLP problem is the Alleged links to assassinations of Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya section. This needs to be shortened at least, but I am afraid of edit warriers... Biophys (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Politkovskaya section should be shortened per WP:UNDUE. The Litvinenko section is already pretty short and to the point. Krawndawg (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged funding of terrorists
I was browsing around Biophy and Pieter's favorite propaganda outlet Jamestown, and I came across this article. I don't have the time or will to get involved in editing right now, but these are some serious allegations by former rebel leaders/warlords that someone may want to know about and include in the article. "Baraev said he hoped Zakaev would break his ties with “the extremists’ breadwinner,” Boris Berezovsky.

Separately, Interfax on February 19 quoted another former rebel leader who switched sides, Magomed Khambiev, as accusing Berezovsky of financing Udugov and the late rebel warlord Shamil Basaev and of broadcasting “Wahabbi ideas.” Khambiev, who was defense minister in the separatist Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (ChRI) government under Aslan Maskhadov, charged that Berezovsky had financed “illegal armed unit” leaders “under the guise of paying ransoms for hostages” as well as the Kavkaz television channel, which he called a “Wahhabi mouthpiece.”

“Not only did Berezovsky provide the money for buying state-of-the-art equipment, but he also financed the TV channel’s work while "being perfectly aware that the channel propagated Wahhabism round-the-clock," Interfax quoted Khambiev as saying.

''Khambiev also alleged that Berezovsky has “personally” handed Basaev $1 million upon arriving in Ingushetia after the first Chechen military campaign. “It greatly surprised and outraged me,” Interfax quoted Khambiev as saying. “I was surprised that someone representing a country hostile to Ichkeria and being a deputy head of its [Russia’s] Security Council should give money to Basaev. I asked Basaev why Berezovsky had given the money and why Basaev accepted it. He answered that Berezovsky was afraid of him and therefore paid the money," Khambiev said. He claimed that it later turned out that Berezovsky had given Basaev not $1 million, but $2 million while in Ingushetia.''" LokiiT (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Major POV issues
this page reads like it's come straight out of the kremlin!

i've lost count of the uses of 'allegations', 'alleged', 'supposed', 'controversy', 'according to (insert russian government official), etc...

terrorism, extortion, crime, political interference, even planning a civil war seem to appear as 'allegations' on this page - and with little or no direct response. for example, 3 paragraphs of various people denouncing him over the Politkovskaya and Litvinenko affairs and only a single line quote in response!

i'm sure there are plenty of 'allegations' against him, but as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV this needs a serious rewrite for neutrality Jw2035 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The objective of the NPOV policy is to encourage us to present the article by weighing all relevant viewpoints proportionately (not equally). The objective is not to make Berezovsky seem neutral. Feel free to add relevant, sourced information, but using NPOV as an excuse to remove reliably sourced content is against NPOV policy. Your opinion on whether or not someone (like Kadyrov) is a "reliable source" is irrelevant, as his allegations are not presented as fact, but as allegations, and they most certainly are notable. LokiiT (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article is hardly neutral. How about removing "Death of Anna Politkovskaya" section? The accusations are so ridiculous and hardly notable in this article. We have a separate article, specifically about her assassination.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this for now. Is anyone who strongly feels this should be included back? Biophys (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporting terrorism accusations
I do not really object this edit. But you should know that such accusations actually came from Akhmed Zakayev. Zakayev blamed Berezovsky during the period between two Chechen wars as an official representative of Russian government at this time. He said the Russian government supported (through Berezovsky) a number of international terrorists in Chechnya (old KGB cadres from the Middle East according to him) in order to undermine Chechen government. I do not know if this is true, but that was something he claimed and can be easily sourced.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

cannot believe wiki allowed this article
As a completely unbiased observer, this article reads like RUSSIAN 101 on how to write a smear/discredit campaign. I cannot believe that Wiki allows this type of biased article. I am incredibly disappointed. I am also surprised Wiki isn't handling a libel suit on this one. This article reads like a slanderous piece of writing coming straight from the mouth of the FSB. The Litvinenko section ALONE was enough to make me curious how the very basics were excluded in the "involvement" of Berezovsky- in fact, it was widely reported that Litvinenko and Berezovsky were friends. The article seems to concentrate on quite a bit of hearsay and "excluding important facts" to bring readers to false conclusions. Once again, incredibly surprised and disappointed. If I had not done extensive research on this subject matter, I may have been biased against Berezovsky without the basic relevant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deviantdizzy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is "Russian 101"? Nonetheless, I think this article does a good job at representing all the notable aspects of Berezovsky and his affairs, and is in line with mainstream documented views. What would you like added to the article? (please supply reliable sources). As far as libel goes, there is nothing libelous in this article. Everything potentially contentious is properly sourced. LokiiT (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?
This article has a serious debt of neutral and unbias statements. Claims are made as if they where dogmatic truths, specifically in the the section "Business Career in Russia". In over 100, only 8 references are made and, almost all of them refer to the same source. Boris Berezovsky is refered to as "Berezovsky" and Vladimir Putin as "Mr. Putin". This seems very bias. Also, there are several accusations a subjective data that I don't think belong in an information source such as Wikipedia, which aims to provide only proven facts and not opinions or engage in any backstage political games. I think this article should be seriously revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.144.139 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

-if you go to forbes website and type "berezovsky" and search you'll get a damn lot of articles which can be used as a source if necessary. they were just summed up in Paul Klebnikov book which is used as a source for part of "Business Career in Russia" section. Putin was only once referred as "Mr Putin", removed that. Again, all acusations are not on subjective data but come from official sources (including the book where everything is sourced). Unfortunately the book is only available for free in Russian language. But if you could buy it and read in English you'd see that everything in the book is referenced, and you'd just get a better understanding of how Berezovsky earned his millions. deepdish7 (talk) 28 May 2010