Talk:Mikhail Fridman

Untitled

jewish??

why not? What's your problem? --House1630 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Same question again also from my part: Why "ethnicity: jewish"? What information does this contribute? Why is "ethnicity" mentioned here whereas this seems not usual in other Wikipedia articles about living persons (as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.164.235.31 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

molba

dragi  gospodine  fridman 

pisem vam iz srbije,iz grada senta. procitala sam u novinama o vasem krstarenju tarom. mozda ce neko ovo smatrati drskoscu a ja,zena sa dvoje dece i u bezizlaznoj materijalnoj situaciji sansom za prezivljavanje. imam 39 god, naruseno zdravlje ,dvoje dobre dece supruga, nepokretnu svekrvu i dve kuce. i tu pocinje problem. do prosle godine mi smo bili jedna prosecna i srecna porodica. onda je moja svekrva dobila infarkt,za ciju operaciju nismo imali para a mesec dana nakon toga i izliv krvi na mozak,koji je neizleciv sto zbog srca sto zbog godina starosti. njena penzija nam od onda odlazi na lekove i pelene,posto joj je cela leva stana nepokretna. od nasih plata ne mozemo da placamo reziju za obe kuce a njenu kucu ne mozemo da prodamo jer lezi na velikom prostoru ( ima veliku bastu) a to ocigledno nikom ne treba. razmisljali smo da prodamo nasu a da se uselimo u njenu medjutim za adaptaciju nam treba mnogo para koje mi naravno nemamo. 500-1000 evra bi nas izvuklo iz krize. medjutim ja sam procitala da imate lanac maloprodajnih objekata pa mi je palo na pamet da otvorite jedan i u nasoj drzavi. kuca mog supruga sa dvorisnim prostorom je pogodna i za robnu kucu a i na dobroj lokaciji se nalazi.

ako smatrate da je ova ponuda drska ja vam se unapred izvinjavam .

u meni ovo pismo ,makar verovatno nista od svega toga nece biti i verovatno ovo vec spada u mastarenje, budi tracak nade za bolje sutra

                               puno pozdrava

“Children: Divorced (2 children)”

I am concerned that the article is confusing parenthood with matrimony. It may be offensive to certain people, especially childfree individuals who choose to marry as well as to parents who don't believe in the institution of marriage. I suggest that we modify the infobox so as to separate the two different concepts. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Friedman or Fridman?

While the name in the article is said to be Fridman, most of the time it uses Friedman. Is it Fridman or Friedman? ► robomod 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Russian name Фридман doesn't have an "e" after the "i", so the transliteration is Fridman. Nakonana (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Not just a former Foreign Minister

From the article: "On May 14th Carl Bildt, former Swedish Foreign Minister, was appointed..."

Well, yeah, he's also a former Swedish Prime Minister. Doesn't that trump the Foreign Minister post for notability?

So, my suggestion: "On May 14th Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister, was appointed..." Or possibly, for completeness: "On May 14th Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister and later Foreign Minister, was appointed..." But the latter is rather clumsy. --CRConrad (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Historical error

"His grandmother served as a business mentor, his family having owned a kitchenware shop in Lviv, prior to the 1917 revolution."

The above line refers to his family operating a business prior to 1917, and strongly implies that it ended due to the events of the 1917 revolution(s). This particular city changed hands during WW1, between the Russians, Germans, and Austrian-Hungarians a number of times, and at the end of the war it was actually part of a newly proclaimed Ukrainian Republic, which was subsequently taken by Poland. It didn't fall to the Soviets until the 1939 invasion of Poland.

So this statement about the revolution is quite curious.--203.206.164.182 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

UPE

This article was written entirely by Earflaps who was an undisclosed paid editor. As such, until the content has been checked as being verifiable and available sources have been reviewed to see whether anything has been "missed" from the article, the {{UPE}} should remain in place. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've been researching and Wikipedia-editing in the "Trump-Russia" field for some time now, and after making various additions/corrections to the Alfa-Bank article, I added the Fridman/Aven/Khan lawsuit about about the leaked Trump dossier to this article in May 2017: [1]. Since this article was therefore on my watchlist and radar, I noticed when User:NightShadow23 questioned the nationality claims about Fridman in this article in late December: [2]. I found substantiation for two of the three nationality claims: [3]; but since it was clear that the citations in this article were a mess: [4], I've been carefully going over every single one of them since then, fact-checking, correcting, copyediting, and removing fluff. I'll let you know when I finish and we can reassess. GreyGoose (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, SmartSE. I've completed a fairly exhaustive checking, overhauling, and updating of the article. Here is a summary of what I did:

• Checked every single fact and every single citation.
• Corrected any misinformation.
• Added any significant omissions.
• Removed any puffery or trivia.
• Saved additional links I found while researching to fix all of those problems, and checked them for pertinent info to add.
• Checked numerous news articles I have been collecting for over a year relating to the subjects of Trump-Russia, Russian oligarchs, and Alfa Bank.
• Did a Google search 2016 to present in order to update the article.
• Added the major events, activities, and controversies that were repeatedly mentioned in the hundreds of articles I skimmed, that were not already in the article.

I feel confident that the article is now reliable, accurate, and thorough. I believe the template can be removed. GreyGoose (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

SmartSE: What is the protocol for possible removal of such a template? Should there be a group discussion? GreyGoose (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreyGoose: Sorry about not responding to your previous ping. As you might have noticed I had another look at it but then got distracted. Thanks for all the work you've done one it, but I think it still shows the signs of being written for pay. E.g. Mikhail_Fridman#Writing_and_public_speaking - none of the sources show that these are important events in his life/career. A lot of the "Honors and awards" is also poorly sourced. Do you see what I mean? SmartSE (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I see what you mean. Maybe the "Writing and public speaking" should be deleted outright, since it is something that a lot of prominent businessmen do. As for the "Honors and awards", perhaps that could or should be trimmed, or the specific ones from globally notable publications or institutions could be moved to the career section and each one placed in the corresponding chronological placement. GreyGoose (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed four of the honors/awards -- the ones that were either non-notable or lacked bullet-proof citing. I don't know what to do about the "Writing and public speaking" section; you may want to delete it outright, or if you want me to delete it let me know. As far as the rest of the article, there's some chit-chatty stuff about his grandmother in the "Early years ... Alfa" section that can probably go, and the section on North Sea oil is longwinded -- stuff like the nice things people said in his defense can probably go. Beyond that, removing other things would be a judgment call that I do not feel qualified to make. (I'll give you a ping so you see this note: SmartSE.) GreyGoose (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Update to SmartSE (and anybody else): In addition to removing the trivial and poorly sourced awards, I decided to be bold and delete the grandmother stuff, the excess bloat in the North Sea Oil section, the high-school awards with no independent sourcing, an insignificant planned deal that fell through, and the entire "Writing and public speaking" section (I moved the only noteworthy item to the Career section instead). I think the article now bears another assessment. GreyGoose (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. That looks great. I'll remove the template. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tone/message control? London arrest & naming; kleptocracy cell; claims of anti-Semitism

Users wjemather and Peter Gulutzan seem to be bent on keeping intro of the article 99% positive even if the article as a whole is ~50% about the subject being connected to crime of some sort.

The current argument runs that Politico, a trusted source, references TASS, a sometimes-trusted (and not deprecated) source; ignoring that Yahoo! News, a trusted source, does not reference TASS; and both name Fridman as the one arrested in London.

When reverting my edit wjemather also conveniently removes reference to kleptocracy and to the fact that Fridman's claims of anti-Semitic Soviet university admission policy are just that - claims.

Odd, no? Elmenhorster (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I just went back several days and examined the history of this dispute and found some unfortunate edit warring by all parties. The original objection was justified, but when Yahoo! News and Politico were added to the refs, the objections lost their legitimacy, so the content should remain. We are not supposed to second guess what RS say. If Yahoo! News and Politico have synthesized Fridman's identity as the same as the person arrested, then that's on them and our only duty is to document that they have said that Fridman was arrested and why he was arrested. We are not authorized to question their decision in the absence of convincing counter arguments from other RS. Questions about the appropriate final wording can certainly be entertained, but outright deletion of the topic is really wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Criticism re: reverting duly taken; unfortunately it's the quickest way when on the move, but will be more mindful of this going forward. Elmenhorster (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: The problem is, (as explained below) the content being added went way beyond what was in the sources (also note: the first source is New Voice of Ukraine, not Yahoo News; and Politico cited an unreliable source for the information). The burden remained on those seeking to add content to ensure it complied with policy and that was not happening here; continued removal was absolutely justified by policy. Anyway, I have now fixed the content to avoid further disruption. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:Wjemather, User:Peter Gulutzan, User:Codyave, and Elmenhorster so we don't see more edit warring. The current content is properly sourced and justifies short mention in the lead. This is a significant development in his long history of unpunished.... (See the previous section in the article.) We do not write hagiographies or engage in whitewashing here. As I wrote above, the original deletion was justified, but more sourcing has undermined any excuses for deletion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster's accusations with respect to me are false. I never said anything about Politico, the edit summary of my only edit was "Undid revision 1126845950 by Elmenhorster (talk) It seems to me that the editor you reverted (Wjemather) was objecting about poor sourcing for a criminal accusation, which is a BLP concern, so WP:BLPUNDEL applies." (Elmenhorster re-inserted anyway.) Valjean's accusation that all parties have been edit warring is also false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My accusation seems to have been valid: Politico reference was already there, and Yahoo! News reference was added by someone else before I added Politico. So your support for Wjemather's reverts (and your own revert) were incorrect as per Valjean's argument as to why.

That said, I hope I did not come across as accusatory. What I saw was 2 editors reverting in contravention of Wikipedia's policy. That's all. Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith, and I generally do. Elmenhorster (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Your accusation was not "valid" with respect to me, and even if it had been it would belong on a different forum such as WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The content being repeatedly added still does not accurately reflect what has actually been reported in reliable sources. BLP policy puts the burden on those adding content, not those removing it. Anyway, the content is still bad (contrary to policy) and needs fixing (or removing). The lead is especially problematic, stating in WP voice "He was arrested...". Even the section, which states "Fridman was reportedly detained and arrested..." is not as accurate as it should be. The identification of the person detained/arrested has (as far as I can tell) not been officially released or otherwise made public. Cited sources attribute identification to "according to two sources of NV" (original New Voice of Ukraine article republished by Yahoo) and TASS. Finally, casting aspersions is totally unacceptable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be decrying your inability to edit the article in a way that would sufficiently reconcile your preferred subset of Wikipedia's rules (BLP) and the less abstract, more concrete subset of Wikipedia's rules about which sources are good (and how good), and the fact that, to quote Valjean, "we are not supposed to second guess what RS say".

Being vigilant in the context of this article being originally written in its entirety by a paid editor (Earflaps) is more than warranted. Whether you interpret two thrifty words ("Odd, no?") as casting aspersions or not is a matter of interpretation. I think you're being too generous. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm simply trying to assist you in understanding policy. To repeat, it is not acceptable to reinsert problematic material in a BLP – the burden is not on those removing it to fix it; the burden is on the one wishing to add the content to ensure it meets policy. Anyhow, I have fixed it now. Please read the policies and try to understand the problem so you do not repeat it in future. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove Yahoo! News, the least questionable of the references? Elmenhorster (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You do understand that Yahoo! News was simply republishing, without any addition or comment, the original New Voice of Ukraine article that I replaced it with? Or did you not actually read the source(s)? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...You replaced a trusted source with a source that is not even listed? Elmenhorster (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't understand. There has been no change in the source. Please read WP:RSP#Yahoo News with respect to syndicated content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Elmenhorster, what do you mean by "listed"? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

New Voice of Ukraine is not on Wikipedia's list of reliable sources. I understand that list can never be complete, but for me Yahoo! News (RS) running an article is a stamp of reliability (YN do not put their byline on anything like PR Newswire). There is value in that byline. I fear choosing a relatively unknown Ukrainian source among alternatives may lead to his arrest being removed altogether a few edits down the line due to (yet again) the source being unreliable, and the editors would be justified. We should preserve RSs in articles whenever we can. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Where is that list? (I have my own list here.) If you're referring to WP:RSP, that's just a list of sources that someone has complained about, forcing the community to place a sort of classification on them. Sources not on that page have never seriously been questioned. One can always start a thread at WP:RSN to get a ruling on some source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure Elmenhorster means Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Of course, there is no single glossary of every single accepted reliable source and Elmenhorster is acting in bad faith by insisting exclusion from the RSP list inherently means unreliability. However, I would caution not to use New Voice of Ukraine without in-text attribution as their reporting does not appear to have much English MSM acknowledgement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not insisting, in fact I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that other editors (in the context pf paid editing of this article in the past) may have a convincing excuse of removing the arrest fact altogether a few edits down the line.

(If only Pbritti slowed down his vendetta - engagement on the Reuss article has led them to follow me around other articles I've edited and purposefully misinterpreting my intentions.) Elmenhorster (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To return to the point above; RSP reflects community consensus on sources that have been repeatedly (and often) brought up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard in order to avoid needless repetition of discussions. The consensus at RSP on YN is that "syndicated content (such as the NV article here) should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source". That is to say that republishing by YN has no effect on the reliability of the original source; i.e. if NV is unreliable, any of their articles republished by YN remain unreliable. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the unnamed sources of NV remains questionable.
Also, you must stop attacking other editors. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Elmenhorster should stop making personal attacks. They are currently blocked so they can't answer right now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

REBOOT

Swiss NZZ Mediengruppe claims that a photo of house from the NCA raid resembles Fridman's house which would support that it's him. However, NZZ also states that the Alfa Bank denies Fridman's involvement.

Link: https://www.nzz.ch/international/michail-fridman-londoner-polizei-verhaftet-ungenannten-millionaer-ld.1715403

The relevant sections are the 3 paragraphs following the header "Alfa-Bank dementiert". Google Translate does a good job translating the sections into English, if someone wants to check/add the information. Nakonana (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nakonana. I have made this as a new section. Please change its heading so it briefly describes your purpose or point here. I'm not sure about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant it as an addition to the discussion whether it in fact was (or wasn't) Fridman who got arrested in London, because people were debating whether the section about the arrest should stay on the page or be removed since no reliable sources have identified the arrestee as Fridman and thus linking the arrest to him would be speculative. The linked news paper claims to have compared photos of the arrestee's house and Fridman's house and it appears to be the same house. But Alfa Bank denies that it was Fridman who got arrested, according to NZZ.

The information from NZZ is not too different from the other sources, so it might be not relevant to be added. I just wanted to add more support to leaving the "arrest in London" section on page.

(Sorry the mobile version of the talk page is rather restrictive and I can't edit the heading.) Nakonana (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)