Talk:Alisher Usmanov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Accusations

The link I provided works just fine so I've reinstated the claims. I've also added a further link just to back up the claim.

[edit] moderator needed please ...

Its very clear that Alisher Usmanov's legal team are interfering with the content of this page - for the obvious reason of protecting the reputation of their client. However the function of Wikipedia is not a PR tool for the subjects of the entries. Its is bizarre that the main text omits any mention of Usmanov's conviction for six years' imprisonment for economic crimes in the 1980s. This had been relegated to the small section on Craig Murray's claims, though in fact not even the London lawyers Schillings deny that fact that Usmanov is a convicted criminal. In a memo to UK news organizations on August 30th the lawyers admitted that "Mr. Usmanov was imprisoned for various offenses under the old Soviet regime," while going on to deny that their client was guilty of the crimes for which he served prison time.

  • I've added a line to the main body of the text to touch on Usmanov's term in jail.--Sennaista 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues

I don't want to wade into a legal battle here but as far as I can tell, there are two issues here. One is Usmanov's imprisonment (verifiable) though for what crimes it is not entirely clear, but they appear to be economic-related, and subsequent pardon (verifiable, and even Craig Murray acknowledges this). The second is Murray's additional allegations about Usmanov which do not bear repeating here unless they can be proven. This is what has been reported in the papers:

Schillings, the lawyers acting for Usmanov, have been in touch with several independent Arsenal supporters' websites and blogs warning them to remove postings referring to allegations made against him by Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. - The Guardian
Last week, Usmanov’s lawyers were forced to write to the internet service provider which hosts Murray’s website demanding that it take down a posting referring to Usmanov’s business and personal life. In a letter his lawyers said: “Murray clearly has an axe to grind. [He] has made a number of grossly defamatory and completely unsubstantiated allegations about our client in his book Murder in Samarkand and on his website. - The Times

Both articles mention the fact he was convicted and then pardoned, so I can only assume it is safe to mention that in this article. What they don't mention is anything beyond that, so in order to keep in line with WP:BIO and WP:CITE this article should stay that way here as well, so I have edited the article accordingly. Qwghlm 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re the revert of my addition to the first line that he's a convicted criminal :- he is a convicted criminal. He's also a billionaire, and there aren't many billionaire criminals about. That's the single most interesting thing about him. I'm putting it back.I would also warn people to be very wary about the bonafides of people editing this page and debating on this talk page. Usmanov has already shut down several web sites in the UK that discussed him honestly.He can't shut wikipedia down, but we may assume he has people ready to protect his interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.97.62 (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the reason that your addition was deleted was because it was mentioned further down the page.--Sennaista 10:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The addition in the first line surely can't be justified if it is true that he was convicted of crimes which were essentially political. Andrei Sakharov was arrested many times, but he is not described as a convicted criminal. Of course the addition is entirely appropriate if he was convicted for offences which would generally be accepted as criminal in nature. At this point I'm not sure we've any way of knowing which category he falls in, but query whether it's POV to include an unqualified reference at the start of the article LeContexte 10:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

The article now says Usmanov studied banking in 1997; maybe that should read 1979? I've not changed it cause I have no source, but 1997 does seem implausibly late. Moyabrit 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily... query if anybody studied banking in the Soviet Union in 1979! LeContexte 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spent convictions

One for the wiki-lawyers: spent convictions are an interesting British law. Basically, after a certain period of time after you've been criminally convicted, e.g. 20 years, you can legally pretend that conviction didn't happen. So, if someone mentions in the newspaper that you're a past criminal offender, you can sue them for libel, because that conviction's "spent" and in legal terms it's as if it never happened, despite the fact it did happen.

What does this mean for Wikipedia's BLP policy? I presume it's following Florida/USA law, and besides Mr Usmanov's convictions can't be considered spent by the UK authorities because they're not UK-issued convictions. But still, it makes me wonder if we are free to refer to Mr Usmanov's former criminal status or not. I don't say this because I like Mr Usmanov and his thuggish lawyers, but because the tone of the page seems slightly negative to me, but I can't see anything specific that's uncalled for. 192.18.1.36 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct. If a conviction is "spent" then you are not obliged to disclose it in response to, e.g., a question at a job interview, on an insurance application form or during cross-examination in civil proceedings. You still have a criminal record, but it's an offence for the police to disclose this without authorisation. This does not prevent others discussing/disclosing your past criminal record, although they could be sued for libel if they act maliciously.
Also note that convictions for more than 2 1/2 years jail never become spent. LeContexte 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In other words, as an encyclopedia, wikipedia is fine to disclose this information. Anapologetos 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Not so. In this case, the rule on spent convictions is irrelevant as the alleged convictions were not in English courts. However any reference to convictions is potentially libelous under English law, and the burden of proof to show that any reference is true lies with the person making the statement. In principle, Usmanov could sue an editor who includes the information, wikipedia itself or its hosting companies. In practice, tracking down editors will be difficult (unless they make anonymous edits), and bringing an English libel suit against non-UK editors, wikipedia or its (presumably) non-UK hosting companies would be fairly pointless unless they have a presence/assets in the UK, as the US courts will not generally enforce an English libel judgment.
I would suggest that any UK editors making possibly false (or even just controversial) statements about living persons should be very careful
Needless to say, none of the above constitutes legal advice. LeContexte 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. IANAL, but I believe that, as you say, the rule on spent convictions is irrelevant, but as to UK editors, I do not believe that this is an issue. Yes, they might try to find the identity of an editor, but their is a significant amount of things that would have to fall in place, not the least of which would be the precedent of "libelilty" on a wiki--I believe this is all a move to sanitize this particular article...
Anapologetos 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no interest in the issue. Please assume good faith - my only edit to the article has been to correct a small typo.
If a UK editor could be traced (a big if) then legally there would be no obstacle to him or her being sued under English law for any defamatory material he or she added. Any communication of a statement is a "publication" for the purposes of libel law, and the precise form of the communication is not a relevant factor.
LeContexte 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From where was his pardon?

Okay, this is interesting. There's a Sunday Times article (apparently based on an interview by Alisher Usmanov) and they state that his convictions were quashed and his name cleared by Uzbekistan’s Supreme Court (possibly in 2000). I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this in relation to the statement that he was cleared after Gorbachev became president. (The fact that technically, the letter from his lawyers didn't say his pardon was by Gorbachev's administration doesn't help.) The Times article in question is not exactly unflattering to him, so while it may be wrong, I doubt it's deliberately libeling him (and I imagine that newspapers are being very careful about what they say). - makomk 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)