Talk:Jim Mellon

COI concerns

Several times in the past, this article has been edited by single-purpose accounts that did nothing but add promotional material (donations, investments) or remove negative material (eg. anything related to the intersection of Mellon's business dealings with Russia and his support for Brexit, which drew significant coverage in the New York Times.) This was long in the past and the accounts seem to have been throwaways, but I'm noting here because for now I think it's best to trim back those parts (or at least the more weakly-cited ones) until / unless there's a bit more discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

U78u87 your actions here are causing me some consternation. You seem to be continuing the pattern that concerned Aquillion last year. First you added a reference [1] to the philanthropy section which only contains the briefest of mentions supporting the prose. Then you took issue with mentions of Mellon's business connections with Arron Banks. Repeatedly removing the content, first claiming "The career section and article is not about Arron Banks. Brexit is mentioned in the politics section" and then "Arron Banks having a stake in a PLC, and a stake in another PLC does not represent a long-term, significant business connection. If these companies were private and he was on the board, or involved in management that would be a fair assertion". I waited to see what you would do next. You then decided that the following content was unacceptable:

 His business ties to Russia, which strongly backed Brexit, have drawn scrutiny. Shortly after the Brexit vote, Mellon’s fund management company, Charlemagne Capital, purchased discounted stock in diamond-mining group Alrosa from the county's government at a significant discount; the New York Times said that this raised "new questions about whether the Kremlin sought to reward critical figures in the Brexit campaign."

While it certainly could be improved, you first modified it into this:

 Shortly after the Brexit vote, the OCCO Eastern European Fund, managed by a company co-founded by Mellon, Charlemagne Capital, purchased stock in diamond-mining group Alrosa from the county's government at a significant discount. The OCCO Eastern European Fund made an earlier investment in Alrosa in 2013.

A day and a half later, you returned to completely remove that prose claiming "BLP violation, Mellon had no involvement in the running of OCCO EE fund, and the Alrosa investments link to Brexit is unproven. Earlier investment in Alrosa by the same fund 2013". Your intentions seemed clear enough at that point that I reverted them all and took the opportunity to update the part about the links to Banks. More reversions followed with you again pointing to WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. As your justifications seem dubious, today I checked the sources and thoroughly researched the content, returning a modified version to attempt to address your concerns and add prose backed by additional sources I found:

 Following the Brexit vote, Mellon's business ties to Russia have drawn scrutiny. Only three weeks after the vote, one of the funds managed by Charlemagne Capital purchased discounted stock in diamond-mining group Alrosa from the county's government at a significant discount. As this offer had also been made to Banks, a report in the New York Times said that this raised "new questions about whether the Kremlin sought to reward critical figures in the Brexit campaign." Although Mellon founded Charlemagne and retained approximately 19% of its shares, and a non-executive director position, his representatives said that he was not involved in investment decisions, did not have prior knowledge of the acquisition, and did not benefit personally from the deal. Less than three months later, Charlemagne was sold to Fiera Capital for £40.7m.

But again you have reverted my edits, still claiming "Very clear WP:BLP violation, No direct business ties have been established between Mellon and Alrosa or Russia post-brexit in source. Alrosa investment link to Brexit is completely unproven + earlier investment in 2013. Possibly libelous WP:Libel". I struggle to see how any of that relates to the content above. Please enlighten me here.TiB chat 21:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove what you're saying about a person otherwise it's potentially libelous. I looked at the edit history and saw what was removed in the philanthropy section and restored some of it with an added reference. Arron Banks owning shares in Manx Financial Group and Webis Holdings (both of which are public companies), does not necessarily prove he has "long term, significant, business connections" with Mellon (as you stated in your edit summary).

The investment in Alrosa by Charlemagne capital has not been proven to be linked to Brexit, or Mellon. I looked at the sources. An investment was made in 2013, which casts serious doubt on the claim that the Alrosa investment was a "reward" for Brexit.

If someone is a minority shareholder of a company, they are not the company. Making a claim that Mellon had (post-brexit related) business ties to Russia in the politics section, and then supporting that assertion based on an investment that an emerging market fund manager (that is acting independently of Mellon), made in Alrosa, is potentially libelous. For that reason it was removed. U78u87 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your personal opinions and arguments don't matter; what matters is what the sources say; and they clearly support the statement that those actions have drawn scrutiny. The article didn't make the claims you say it does, but it cites sources that accurately state the fact that there was significant scrutiny and cause for concern. --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove what you're saying about a living person, otherwise it is possibly libelous. The sources that you're appealing to have been modified. When you study those sources it becomes quite obvious that the link between the investment in Alrosa by Charlemagne Capital and Brexit is unproven. What is also clear is that there is a difference between Charlemagne Capital and Jim Mellon. Any attempt at mixing these up and putting forth unproven and subjective opinions is possibly libelous. U78u87 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the burden of verifiability is on Wiki editors. The content you are removing is verifiable in reliable sources, and that is all that is needed. Any problems with libel are those of original publisher. As most of these sources are five-years-old and Mellon is doubtless familiar with the content, it seems rather unlikely that any legal action is pending. Feel free to link to the policy that says Wiki articles should only contain content that is proven.TiB chat 20:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A number of sources have themselves been modified or corrected. The sources that you are appealing to, do not support the assertions that were made in the article. You've made a number of assumptions about a lot of things in your edits. It is not my place to guess the probability of whether or not legal action is pending. I don't think the policy on libelous content needs to be explained. U78u87 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can understand it you seem to be arguing that my thoughts and the edit descriptions I use are part of the content of the article. Every word of the text, you last reverted, is completely supported by the referenced sources and does not break any Wikipedia policies. Your actions suggest you are certain any mention of this affair is unwarranted, but you are going to need some very solid evidence for that. I'm not averse to adding a mention of the 2013 Alrosa acquisition, but it certainly doesn't disprove anything. I can think of a thousand stories where the assassin was payed half up front and the rest afterward.TiB chat 19:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

References