Talk:Rene Rivkin

Cause of death

218.214.136.5 08:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC) - Can we find out a canonical cause of death rather than say that he 'presumably' overdosed? The Coroner would have investigated.

Untitled

Also, this article mentions a 'malignant' brain tumour. If I recall correctly, it was a meningioma (not malignant). - This comment was written by Richardcavell before he had a login name.

---

"A subsequent police investigation concluded that the fire was caused by a staff barbecue held that afternoon." - I'm curious to where that information was obtained from. According to the coroner who investigated the fire the cause was inconclusive, sighting insufficient evidence. I could find no mention of any barbecue. To say that police "concluded" when the coroner said it was "inconclusive" is very misleading.

Illness

I recognise this is a touchy subject, but there are unexplained issues. It is now stated that Rivkin suffered from "bipolar disorder", but the independent examiner told the court it was only "mild hypomania" possibly caused by antidepressants (and other substances). Notably Rivkin hadn't been seeing a psychiatrist until his legal troubles. His brain tumour was called benign at the time but is now considered a contributing factor to his erratic behaviour. Furthermore in the media coverage there is no recognition that depressive and manic features are in fact opposite. While there might have been some scepticism at the time, his suicide seems to have buried them. However, there is no reason to see his suicide as anything but a reaction to ongoing criminal proceedings, financial ruin, social disgrace, and family breakdown. For this reason I have changed the article to be more circumspect about posthumous diagnosis.--Jack Upland 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminal label

I find it deeply offensive that the late Rene Rivkin could have his life reduced to a label as a criminal. He was convicted of a pretty minor count of insider trading over a $346 profit. There are many people who could be tagged this way who are not. This is very unfortunate. Adriantame 11:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with this category generally - particularly if the conviction is controversial. In Rivkin's case it's one of a number, however. And I don't agree that you can write the crime off as "pretty minor". Insider trading is so hard to detect and prove, but at the same time so damaging to the integrity of stock exchange, that any instance that comes to light is treated seriously. The assumption is that it is the tip of the iceberg. And the fact that Rivkin, as an experienced stock-broker, would engage in such a blatant act suggests this was habitual. And a bag-snatcher is still called a criminal if he only gets loose change.--Jack Upland 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of Jack's comments, except where he says one conviction "suggests this was habitual". There is no evidence of that. He was charged once and convicted once.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it shouldn't be taken seriously, insider trading is very serious. It is a corruption of market trading that enriches the powerful at the expense of those with less power. One of my former colleagues made millions from a blatant and outrageous case of it and he got a serious sentence.

Rivkin's offence was much less serious and I find reducing him to a screaming headline of "criminal" to be quite wrong and tabloidesque. He was certainly not a career criminal, as such a categorisation seems to imply. I agree with Jack that a bag-snatcher shouldn't be labelled this way either. Al Capone, is one thing, a person convicted once of a minor case ($400 profit) of insider trading is completely another. Adriantame 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the insider trading conviction ties in with the misconduct with the Rivkin Report and the shady dealings over Offset Alpine. My inference that it was habitual lies in the careless manner in which it was conducted - even after openly discussing the legal implications with the Impulse boss.

Your statement about Rivkin and supporters considering it a 'flimsy case' motivated by his 'high profile' is close to POV and a serious accusation against Australia's court system unsupported by evidence. Many 'criminals' complain about the case against them, but in this case it appears strong. I would argue that it took a blatant crime to bring him down - but this is just another POV.--Jack Upland 09:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of deleting references to Rivkin's conviction in the intro, if it's mentioned prominently in the article. I will restore the reference. If someone wants to remove it, please explain first.--Jack Upland 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I disliked the previous tone, but it is much better now. I should have known better than to remove it, and simply rephrased it -- though I stand by the removal of the "criminals" template, which definitely has no place in the article. —Often Shift 07:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole issue of labels is a problem with Wikipedia because they prejudice the content of articles.--Jack Upland 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal Wealth

Anyone know what his estimated wealth was? I been trying to figure this out but to no avail. Htra0497 13:56, 27 March 2006 (AEST)

Extraneous material

I've removed this passage which follows the sentence about Rivkin's parents:

(see Shanghai Russians). They made fortunes in Shanghai and had links with the East India Company. Many believe his family was linked with the Sassoon family companies and similar..

It seems irrelevant to his later life, unsupported, and I suspect intended to advance "conspiracy theories" (possibly Lyndon LaRouche inspired).

I've also removed this from the "Career" section:

He was often surrounded by a flock of young men of varying uses to him, including his driver Gordon Wood[1].

It really doesn't convey anything to anyone unfamiliar with the Caroline Byrne case - except the false imputation that he was gay.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Fail to see why this person warrants a biography page. Avocats (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess he was famous in Australia and became controversial.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)