Talk:Alexander Mirtchev

Vandalism

User KazakhBT repeatedly adding negative information about living person, misconstruing news articles, and publishing contentious information about the subject. Edits no other Wiki pages: Just this one. With passion. Added a controversies section. It's encyclopedic and neutral. Yet KazakhBT is constantly adding in allegations of x y and z and seems bent on purporting his personal world view. Non Wiki like. Continuing to monitor page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelleLin (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

puffery

hello from Germany. I know this case because it was subject of investigative reports in Der Spiegel. I did a google of Dr. Mirtchev after seeing article about him in Forbes and saw this very positive profile and have now gone into history and see the talk discussion. I think is manipulative to not include historic accusations reported in the Wall Street Journal that put his activities in scrutiny. Just because it was years ago does not mean irrelevant. Halliburton's page includes investigations of years before. It is an encyclopedia not a listing of his credentials. The Forbes article (isnt it same publication where he writes?) shows he is aggressive in trying to blame others for negative media but he has drawn a large footprint if the Wall Street newspaper is to be believed--ranges from espionage of dissidents to laundering russian money and also treasurer of a dictator. He is currently serving on board of dictator's fund, yes? Why is this not mentioned? I see it on Mirtchev linked-in page cleverly written as "independent director of SWF" who does he think he is kidding around with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.22.186 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Mirtchev is pretty shady. He has money laundering and extortion charges brought against him, he is also a lobbyist for Nazarbayev. This has to be mentioned in the Wiki article. There is too much whitewashing going on in the media in general, at least Wiki should be a balanced source. I'll make appropriate additions to the article in the next couple of days.Cosainsé (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback about sources

It looks to me like the refs for this page were actually cleaned up. Forbes is still cited, along with other news outlets. The quote below leaves out that the allegations were never proven and the article was published in 2008, almost five years ago. I think the problem here is that the cited material and the whole Money Laundering diatribe and Controversies vitriol is that it violates Wiki's "Living Persons" guidelines about not publishing contentious information if it's not solid or seems politically heated from one perspective. (Look at the user's Talk page if you want to know if he's biased or not. So, I'm with RachelleLin on this one. As for the puff, I think this is pretty in line with other economists pages. It also just reads better than it did before and falls in line with Wikipedia's discourse.

Questions regarding sources

I think it is worth addressing some of the issues raised by a new account user:RachelleLin. Their reasons for reversion are:

Deleted erroneous information, added numerous references, updated sources, fixed references, corrected misinformation, added Academic and Policy Analysis Sections Fixed grammar in intro section. Added references and fixed bad coding in ref section. Cleaned up Controversies section. Author misquotes WSJ article, which is about Deripaska

The grammar adjustments were certainly helpful but the erroneous information they deleted was sourced from the WSJ, and everything else that was removed was from reliable sources. For example, the reason "Author misquotes WSJ article, which is about Deripaska" is not accurate. The direct quote from the source is:

The advisers include Alexander Mirtchev and Thomas Ondeck, who operate a Washington consulting firm called GlobalOptions Management. They are among the consultants who lawyers and government officials say are being investigated by the Justice Department and Manhattan D.A. for possible money laundering. A lawyer for their firm said they haven't been contacted by either Justice or the Manhattan D.A.

The remaining bits of the article that were changed look like a puff piece. For example,

Mirtchev is president of Krull Corp., USA, which describes itself as "a global strategic solutions provider, with a focus on new economic trends, economic security and emerging policy challenges." In his official biography at the Krull Corp. website, he is described as executive chairman of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies International(RUSI), board director and member of the executive committee of the Atlantic Council of the United States, and Wilson National Cabinet Member at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

...was changed to:

A renowned leader in economic policy and market democracy, Washington, D.C.-based Mirtchev has provided policy analysis to governments, agencies, law firms, international enterprises, and research councils. Mirtchev serves as Executive Chairman of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies International (RUSI), Board Director and Member of the Executive Committee of the Atlantic Council of the United States, and Wilson National Cabinet Member at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Everything else is very well sourced and a complete removal of such content seems improper KazakhBT (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced material

I find the removal of sources by [user:RachelleLin|RachelleLin] odd. They removed several highly-credible sources including:

• The Wall Street Journal (twice)
• Spiegel
• The Human Rights Foundation
• Forbes

I especially find the removal of the paragraph below strange. It is well sourced and directly mentions Alexander Mirtchev:

Money laundering

According to the Wall Street Journal, Mirtchev and Thomas Ondeck, whom the Journal identified as principals in the Washington consulting firm GlobalOptions Management, were among the advisors "being investigated by the Justice Department and Manhattan D.A. for possible money laundering."

The Journal indicated that Mirtchev and Ondeck were being investigated for a $9.75 million wire transfer sent "to Messrs. Mirchev and Ondeck's firm. The lawyer for the firm confirmed that it had provided $9.75 million of client services and said that, 'consistent with past practices, such services were for lawful purposes.' Mr. Mirtchev said he was contractually barred from discussing the transaction but said that he and his partners 'rigorously abide by all of the laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate.'"

The controversy section on Kazakhstan is, admittedly, too long; however, that is not cause to remove the section entirely, especially when it is well-sourced. I propose a section along the lines of what I have below:

Kazakhstan

Rakhat Aliyev, former son-in-law of the Kazakh president Nursultan Nazerbayev, had identified Mirtchev as the "point man for President Nazerbayev, not only in seeking to resolve his legal problems but in helping to manage some of the fortune he has accumulated in 19 years in power." Krull Corp. sent an email to the Nazerbayevs that included information about the U.S. travels of a rival political to Nazerbayev, as well as a report "analyzing the cell phone records of a Washington lobbyist for the Kazakh political opposition," which, according to Aliyev, had been provided to Nazerbayev by Mirthcev.

Nazerbayev hired GlobalOptions Management (GOM), a consulting firm for which Mirtchev is a co-owner, "with the goal of polishing the president's tarnished image" after it came to light that Switzerland had "frozen roughly $80 million in illegal kickbacks from the U.S. oil industry." In reports sent to Nazerbayev, "Mirtchev bragged about his direct contacts at the White House, the Justice Department and the FBI."ref name="spiegel" />

KazakhBT (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic writing

In an edit summary by [user:RachelleLin|RachelleLin], they wrote "Poorly written and un-encyclopedia like." Yet if one were to read the page as it stands now, it reads like a promotion.

The page previously read: "Mirtchev is president of Krull Corp…"

However, it now reads: "A renowned leader in economic policy..." and "Mirtchev is an accomplished academic…"

I think this strange. I also find it strange that the section on his professional activity was completely removed. The man is a professional consultant, so it seems odd that his page would have nothing about his profession. Perhaps a better title would be "Career"? After looking at a few comparable pages, that seems to be a more standard section title.

KazakhBT (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons

KazakhBT repeatedly adding in negative news about subject in articles that have little to do with him. KazakhBT, see Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy, which I've included for you below.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

The article from Der Spiegel is three pages and has one graph about Mirtchev. Seems author more concerned with Nazarbayev (see Talk page). Similarly, the WSJ piece is about Deripaska. The Forbes article author wants to site is likewise an OpEd piece by Thor Halvorssen, self-proclaimed film maker and voice of the people. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelleLin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you've brought this to the talk page :) though I am still waiting for your comments on the discussion above. Though I disagree with your edits, I am not going to revert you because I don't want to start an edit war. We should get these issues worked out on the talk page before the page gets any more contentious.

You are quoting from WP:BLP, but your interpretation confuses me. In order for the information to qualify for immediate removal, the information must be "unsourced or poorly sourced". The sources presented are:

• The Wall Street Journal (twice)
• Der Spiegel
• The Human Rights Foundation
• Forbes

I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Is it your position that:

1) The Wall Street Journal sources are notn reliable sources because they are mostly about Deripaska,

2) Der Spiegel is not a relaible source because it only has one paragraph about Alexander Mirtchev,

3) and, The Human Rights Foundation and Thor Halvorssen are not reliable sources in general.

Once we get this cleared up, I look forward to continuing this discussion. KazakhBT (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems like you only respond when I revert your edits, so, against my better judgment, I have done so. I am happy to engage you in the talk page. KazakhBT (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian and saw this dispute listed at the Third Opinion talk page. In cases of negative BLP information that we should default to non-inclusion if there is any question about the reliability of the source until those questions can be resolved. On just a quick examination, it appears to me that the WSJ and Spiegel sources appear to be reliable so long as they are not being misrepresented (and I did not check for that), but that the Foundation and Forbes sources are pretty clearly not reliable. The Foundation source is a self-published source and WP:BLPSPS says that primary sources cannot be used for representations about living persons. The Forbes piece is a blog by a non-staff blogger and Forbes terms and conditions, paragraph 3.1 here, says that "Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by Forbes." WP:NEWSBLOG does not, therefore, apply and WP:V says that it is not reliable. I have removed the Foundation and Forbes material as required by WP:GRAPEVINE. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Corrected and supplemented 17:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — TM

I agree with TM here about the reliability of sources. I made changes to the page today, keeping the references to WSJ and Spiegel. But also narrowing down the subsections of the "Controversies" section - which I kept. The articles make allegations; they don't state facts, and the Spiegel mentions the subject all of two times, and not in a negative light. I more accurately summarized the articles, cleaned the references, and removed multiple references to the same WSJ over and over again about different subjects so that it is simply applied once, to the relevant statement. --RachelleLin — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelleLin (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to assume good faith but it's getting increasingly difficult. Your edit summaries are misleading and you are removing a great deal of well-sourced information for no reason.

I added this page to the third opinion noticeboard because I thought bringing someone else in would help us resolve these issues, but it seems like we only managed to give you a false sense of consensus.

Your argument against the WSJ article is that I improperly summarized the article's contents. You completely rewrote the section, introducing weasel words at virtually every opportunity WP:CLAIM. While the WSJ piece is about Deripaska, it's also about the people who are laundering his money.

Directly from WSJ:

Mr. Deripaska has been working with a small group of advisers in Washington and London who have helped him deal with inquiries and lawsuits over his alleged ties to organized crime, according to business records and interviews with people involved in the work. The advisers include Alexander Mirtchev and Thomas Ondeck, who operate a Washington consulting firm called GlobalOptions Management. They are among the consultants who lawyers and government officials say are being investigated by the Justice Department and Manhattan D.A. for possible money laundering. A lawyer for their firm said they haven't been contacted by either Justice or the Manhattan D.A.

Records show that $9.75 million from the wire transfer went to Messrs. Mirtchev and Ondeck's firm. The lawyer for the firm confirmed that it had provided $9.75 million of client services and said that, "consistent with past practices, such services were for lawful purposes." Mr. Mirtchev said he was contractually barred from discussing the transaction but said that he and his partners "rigorously abide by all of the laws and regulations of the countries in which we operate."

And this is from the second WSJ article, which was inexplicably removed in the last edit by RachelleLin:

The original shareholder of Krull UK after its founding in 1996 was Mr. Mirtchev -- the man Mr. Aliyev describes as Mr. Nazarbayev's point man -- according to U.K. records. (Krull isn't related to Kroll, the large consulting and investigative firm that is a unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos.)

Mr. Aliyev also displayed what appeared to be a report analyzing the cellphone records of a Washington lobbyist for the Kazakh political opposition. Mr. Aliyev said that Mr. Mirtchev provided President Nazarbayev with this report. Mr. Nazarbayev "was very much impressed when Mr. Mirtchev brought the copies of mobile and office phone" records, Mr. Aliyev said in the interviews. U.S. law prohibits unauthorized disclosure of phone records.

Mr. Mirtchev isn't just a political adviser to the Nazarbayev family but one of its key financial managers, according to Mr. Aliyev and others with knowledge of the family's affairs. The Nazarbayev family has at least hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in banks around the world, according to Mr. Aliyev, an assertion that is seconded by current and former U.S. foreign policy officials. Last year, the Kazakh government named Mr. Mirtchev an adviser to the country's sovereign-wealth fund.

Brian Shaughnessy, a lawyer for Mr. Mirtchev, said in a letter that Mr. Aliyev's claims "are false and have clearly been manufactured as part of a public smear campaign secretly mounted by your source, a convicted criminal and a fugitive from justice...in an attempt to regain political power."

Later, Mr. Shaughnessy added: "Mr. Mirtchev has never contacted anyone in any branch of the U.S. government, U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws, or political parties or conducted 'investigations' on behalf of the Republic of Kazakhstan or senior officials of Kazakhstan." In addition, Mr. Shaughnessy said that Mr. Mirtchev "has never moved any money to any accounts on behalf of the government or senior officials of Kazakhstan."

According to U.K. corporate records, one financial backer of Krull UK is a Kazakh banker who sits on the board of the Kazakh telephone company. That banker, Aigul Nurieva, is also an investor with the Kazakh prime minister in a company in Singapore, records show. Ms. Nurieva helps Mr. Mirtchev manage offshore assets of the Nazarbayev clan, according to Mr. Aliyev and to others with knowledge of Nazarbayev family finances.

Your argument against Der Spiegel is that it doesn't mention Mirtchev in a negative light and that it only mentions him in two paragraphs. You changed the content of the reference to "A 2009 article in Spiegel Online referenced Mirtchev as an extremely well-connected door opener in Washington." Again, this makes it very hard for me to assume good faith, but I will continue to try.

I'll quote from Der Spiegel directly so there is no confusion:

The lobbyists, senior veterans from the intelligence and military community, are identified in a 2003 report by the consulting firm Global Options Management (GOM).

The Nazarbayev clan hired GOM with the goal of polishing the president's tarnished image. Company officials did not answer questions submitted by SPIEGEL. In 2002, when it was revealed that Switzerland had frozen roughly $80 million (€59 million) in illegal kickbacks from the US oil industry, and when the term "Kazakhgate" was used in Washington to refer to unsavory practices in dealings with Kazakhstan, the GOM strategists came into play. Alexander Mirtchev, the Bulgarian-born co-owner of GOM, is seen as an extremely well-connected door opener in Washington. In reports to the Kazakh president, Mirtchev bragged about his direct contacts at the White House, the Justice Department and the FBI.

I will continue to try to resolve this issue peacefully. In the meantime, I will replace the material post-TransporterMan removal. KazakhBT (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I also couldn't help but notice the unexplained removal of the Reuters source listing him as the director of Kazakhstan's sovereign wealth fund. There was no mention of this in the article summary. Is this a disputed fact?

...and director of the sovereign wealth fund of Kazakhstan.

- KazakhBT (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversions

I am trying to remain civil and I am trying to avoid constantly reverting the edits of RachelleLin, but I don't know what other options I have. The last 2 reversions [1][2] were unexplained, removing well-sourced information for no apparent reason. They were also misleadingly tagged as "minor edits".

I am especially confused about the removal of the Reuters source, listing him as the director of the sovereign wealth fund of Kazakhstan. Is this a disputed fact? I know I'm supposed to WP:AGF so I will continue to do so. KazakhBT (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If RachelleLin is unhappy with Reuters you can possibly quote the Samruk-Kazuna site itself: http://www.sk.kz/fund_directors. Though I see that the Reuters link is back up. Cosainsé (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

How can anyone stand this?

It is scandalous that wikipedia is being manipulated in this way. It is a public matter and noted in some of the world's most importan media that this man is the financial bagman for the dictator of Kazakhstan.

I'm not an editor and I am likely not going to be fighting this battle but I was astonished to see the level of puffery in this article with ZERO mention of this man's extensive dark history. And the idea that he is distinguished is laughable. He has zero academic accomplishments. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Can someone see if the people editing this article are working at some PR firm? Looking at their use histories they are all singularly focused on cleaning up this page. Does Wikipedia not have standards?

Thanks for allowing me to vent. It is insane that this doesn't reflect the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.208 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy Analysis

The content of this section makes no sense for this header, it's basically listing out other roles and media outlets Mirtchev has appeared in. I propose breaking out the career section into the appropriate categories Academic, Professional (non-Academic) and a media/publications/writings type section. Not new content, just shifting existing. Thoughts? --Monstermike99 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't get why there's a separate section for "Policy Analysis". Wouldn't it make sense for this information to be folded into the section dealing with "Career"?--Vistawhite (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both users here. I do a lot of BLP and the rule of thumb on a good BLP page is to roll these things under a /Career/ heading. This is too scattered. Someone should tackle the other formatting issues like expanding the info box and creating better citations at some point as well. I will postpone throwing a tag on this if people can get to fixing it all soon. Rjp422 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, made the changes. A lot of the career lines are unsourced and I will find them and feel free to add yourselves. Also, I'm thinking the Media section needs to be updated since this BLP is in the news alot. Let me know what you think --Monstermike99 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think those changes make sense. When I have some more time, I'll see if I can help find sourcing for some of that stuff.--Vistawhite (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section?

The Controversy section really should be consolidated into one section -- I'm not sure why "Kazakhstan" has to be its own sub-section, as those details don't seem to be directly related to the country per se. So they should be moved together, if this section even should remain.

To that end, some (or all) of this just seem like opinion and something that might not belong here at all. The section was created by a couple of Wiki accounts (Jack Molter and Antoni Nutini) which appear to be have been recently created and both are currently suspended as Sock Puppets, and thus may have ulterior motives in promoting and defaming in this entry. So given the history of these creators, I am inclined to remove it. If I am wrong here, please speak up. --Stlamanda (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)