Talk:Robert Maxwell/Archives/2020

Tabloid journalism...

This whole article needs editing to lift it above the level of the tabloid press.

Just for starters:

“Maxwell had a flamboyant lifestyle, living in Headington Hill Hall in Oxford, from which he often flew in his helicopter, and sailed in his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine.”

He sailed a yacht from Headington Hill Hall ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:6D28:1395:B502:BF1D (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I came across this article by accident and reacted to that the legal term "fraud" and "fraudster" was used to describe Robert Maxwell. I tried to make a few changes but these were immediately un-done by a fellow Wikipedia contributor. However as I am a person of principle (and I want Wikipedia to remain a serious encyclopedia) I feel that I must take a stand for what is appropriate language and what kind of statements/accusations a encyclopedia can make about a person. The term "fraud", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud, clearly states that: "Proving fraud in a court of law is often said to be difficult.[citation needed] That difficulty is found, for instance, in that each and every one of the elements of fraud must be proven, that the elements include proving the states of mind of the perpetrator and the victim, and that some jurisdictions require the victim to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence". The term "fraud" is a legal conclusion, verdict, concerning an individuals guilt of having committed this offence. Until a court of law has arrived at the verdict that the accused person is guilty as charged, the person is not fraud guilty of fraud, nor is he a fraudster. This is not about Robert Maxwell, this applies to everyone, and I have seen this mistake in other Wikipedia articles so I think it's something worthy of a higher opinion in the Wikipedia "universe". What I write here is really not a matter of opinion, but a matter of semantics and law. The word fraud has a meaning. Just because a Wikipedia editor believes it to be so - doesn't make it so until proven in a court of law. In this case we can not say more than that Robert Maxwell was suspected of fraud after his death. Maybe he had an explanation to give why taking the money wasn't wrong, illegal or his fault. But we will never know this since he died. The sources that the "fraud" reference is basing its fraud-claims on are still not more than a one-sided opinion by the accusing side, the defense as it may have existed, is not presented because these are books and articles written about a contemporary financial scandal and such books are almost always one-sided and made to sell as many books as possible before the news cycle moves to other topics. Ubbe nationell (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not the High Court: the same standards do not apply. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I still don't agree with the idea that it's acceptable to write that someone is guilty of a crime if a court has not determined that it was a crime and the person was guilty. It's not being a "high court" for an encyclopedia to demand that there must be grounds for claiming that a person has committed a crime. That is in my view a minimum that is expected of a encyclopedia. I was hoping that higher ranking editors would step in and move this discussion from Robert Maxwell to discussion the concept of calling people criminals without a court verdict on Wikipedia more generally. In cases such as Robert Maxwell's there are other ways to describe that he was accused/suspect of etc fraud, without making it a definite conclusion. Ubbe nationell (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Roger. We work mostly with reliable sources, and yes, WP is not a legal platform. If the fraud happened, it is irrelevant that in the subject's lifetime he was convicted or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC))

I am sorry, I really don't follow your logic here: Do you really mean that if a fraud happened it's not necessary with a court verdict to decide who did it!?? Do you know why we don't write that his sons were fraudsters, though they were very involved in their fathers business? Because there was a trial and they were not found guilty, that's why. But with your logic, we should call them fraudsters because a fraud happened. If we don't write "fraudster" after a court verdict of "not guilty" how can we write about someones guilt without a court verdict of "guilty"? Or is a person supposed to be considered guilty until proven innocent on Wikipedia? This doesn't make sense and I hope this can be decided on a principle level by higher ups on Wikipedia. It's a Rabbit Hole and someone really should decide on this. Ubbe nationell (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have searched for a Wikipedia policy on claiming that people are guilty of crimes and I have found the following: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". However, this is written in Wikipedia Article: "Biographies of living persons" regarding guidelines when writing a biography about a living person. I intend to seek further clarification on this subject. Ubbe nationell (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Fred West [1] Martinevans123 Ianmacm Snow Rise FriendlyRiverOtter Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you wanted to prove me wrong, but if you read the article about Fred West you can read the following about Rose: "Rose is believed to have killed Charmaine shortly before Fred's prison release date of 24 June 1971. She is known to have taken Charmaine, Anna Marie and Heather to visit Fred on 15 June. It is believed to be on or very shortly after this date that Charmaine was murdered." It says "believe to have killed..." which is what I also think is the correct way to describe a situation if you don't have a verdict that it's a established fact. It also fits with the guidelines I referenced below. Thank you. Ubbe nationell (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The case you sent me was a very long and complicated case. I am sorry, but it doesn't change my position at all, no one should be called a criminal unless a court has ruled. It's not the end of the world to add a few "suspected of", "believed to have" when describing a person who is possibly or even likely guilty - but no court has ruled. I honestly don't understand why you are insisting that claiming someone is guilty when a court hasn't ruled is such a important thing? Why not err on the side of caution? I see that some of you who signed off on this are experienced editors but that doesn't mean that I can't be right about this. It's not personal to me, am a lawyer by trade, so I think these matters are important on a principle level. And I would love to hear from higher ranking Wikipedia members on the issue as I think it's really important. Ubbe nationell (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I have searched for a Wikipedia policy on claiming that people are guilty of crimes and in Wikipedia article about "Biography of living people" I have found the following:

"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". "Public figures In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." (this last example seems to be close to the situation about suspicion of having committed a crime)

However, as I have noted above, the above is written about living persons, and in the case of Robert Maxwell he obviously isn't that. However I intend to seek further clarification on this subject. Ubbe nationell (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Break for Convenience

I'm not sure the precise reason why I was pinged, but I will give my perspective on the policy issues nevertheless. I'll preface this by saying that I do believe Ubbe nationell does appear to be engaging in a good faith effort to try to argue this point within policy, and that there has been a paucity of response to his arguments. This then, is an effort to try to get everyone on the same page: I don't have a firm conclusion as yet as to whether the description is appropriate, but it suffices to start by addressing the project's policies and editorial norms. Ubbe, you are correct that the policy subsection WP:BLPCRIME does ask editors to consider the necessity and appropriateness of a particular label, particularly when we are writing prose in Wikipedia's voice. However, the very reason that language is written in that kind of tone of suggestion is that editorial decisions here are more directly governed by other, much older and more fundamental policies, such as WP:NPOV (WP:WEIGHT in particular), WP:NOR and WP:RS.

In short, while BLPCRIME (and BLP generally) advise editors to carefully consider what is being said in a piece of prose in a particular context, that advice is somewhat a redundancy in that it is a mental calculus experienced editors always try to keep in mind. At the end of the day, however, the project's editorial guidelines make overwhelmingly clear that whether a particular label is appropriate (especially to be said without in-text attribution) is a call that must be made based on what the weight of the opinions of the sources suggest. There need not be an absolute consensus, but any label that can be reasonably viewed as contentious should only be used if it is fairly representative of what the WP:reliable sources say about a matter--what you or I deduce or determine to be the truth based on the given facts is irrelevant under our editorial process, which rejects editors arguing their own interpretations of matters (and the endless deadlock and rampant editorializing that would result in any contentious article) and instead adopts a model with a focus on an external standard: what the sources say, roughly, in their aggregate.

So, as I said before, I have not reached a firm conclusion on whether or not the "fraudster" label is appropriate. I will say that this is a label that clearly needs to meet a decently high burden of proof in the sourcing (this is where WP:BLPCRIME does exert its influence), but there are occasions in other BLPs before where the label is used and I would more or less support that decision. I'll review the content and sourcing in more detail, but if anyone more familiar wants to make a WP:WEIGHT argument here based on the sources (either current relied on in the article or more broadly), I'll be all ears. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, just as a sidenote, Ubba nationell, it's really helpful if you can apply WP:THREAD standards when responding to others on the talk page, particularly if you are going to be writing larger posts with numerous paragraphs: otherwise it just grows very difficult to track discussion on the page. Please and thank you. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Snow, thank you for your comments. Ubbe Nationell, tha fact the fraud happenned does not neccesarily mean someone is found legally guilty or convicted (in comparison with his sons, where there has been a trial with result). In other words, your suggested comparison fails...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you made an argument above that if the fraud happened, according to you it didn't matter if it happened in Robert Maxwell’s lifetime or not, i.e. that he had died. As an answer I pointed out that his sons were not called Fraudsters on Wikipedia (while Robert Maxwell is called a Fraudster) and that in the case of the sons (who had been suspected of being involved in the Fraud) the court had not found them guilty. The fact that in this case, regarding Robert Maxwell, Guy has very clearly made a case for why it’s not inappropriate to describe Robert Maxwell as guilty of the Fraud. In this case, KIENGIR. I am much more interested in understanding how to generally do in cases regarding suspected crimes when no guilty verdict is available. There are many cases and in many cases it’s not at all as clear who the culprit was. And I think here is where you and I, KIENGIR, have different opinion. You seem to consider that a Fraud happened somehow (and I am not now referring to the case of Robert Maxwell, but I am speaking generally) makes it obvious who did the crime. That’s what I didn’t understand or agree with in your text above. That’s why I wrote that if the sons where found not guilty and we then don’t write Fraudster, it would be logical to me that we would only write Fraudster if a court found someone guilty of the crime. Because we can’t write Fraudster on every Wikipedia article because a Fraud happened in The Daily Mirror – who gets to decide who the criminal is? If a court hasn’t decided on it? Now, just for clarity, I am not trying to whitewash Robert Maxwell, I have no personal stake in whether or not he is called a Fraudster, though I would agree with Snow about toning it down a little, but that’s just my opinion. I also accept Guy’s reasoning in the case of Robert Maxwell and will not waste anyone’s time arguing that further. But I still think perhaps KIENGIR should differentiate between the Crime and the Criminal when considering such questions going forward. Just my personal advice, that’s all.Ubbe nationell (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Ubbe nationell,

Don't worry, I fully understood your point. I think all of us explained everything I don't think I can add more than already said. However my answer is not necessarily my personal view, it was and answer in the framework of WP along with it's guidelines.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

For my part, having had time now to review the article and sourcing in more detail, I'd narrowly support the inclusion of the 'fraudster' label, but with a big caveat: I think this is not the approach I would have taken if I had written that prose myself. The sourcing technically supports the descriptor: a handful of the RS relief upon in this article refer to Maxwell with that label expressly, and a number of others reference him as having committed fraud, or some other similar construction built around the term fraud. I just don't happen to think it makes for very smooth, neutral-seeming, and easy to digest prose to list fraudster in that opening sentence like it was his third occupational title. It's just clunky. Based on the sourcing, I can give strong support to the inclusion of the third and last statement of the lead paragraph that discusses the notable fraudulent activities attributed to him seems more than sufficient to make those aspects of his notability apparent (and from very early in the lead) without the somewhat sensationalistic addition of calling him a fraudster, particularly as it is presently used in the first sentence. So I'd personally recommend some small alterations to the wording, but addressing the larger question of whether reference to his status as someone regarded to have been involved in fraud is appropriate in general, I think there is more than enough weight in the sourcing to support it. And as discussed above, WP:BLP doesn't really apply here, but even if this article was right in the middle of its purview, it would still not override the read here: even utilizing BLPCRIME's precautionary principle, the sourcing would still pass muster. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise, the Mirror Group pension scam was the largest fraud in British history to that date. There is no other suspect, and no serious doubt that Maxwell was the culprit. I have no idea why anyone would be trying to whitewash his reputation at this late date, it's considered settled fact that he committed suicide because the jig was up. His guilt may not have been tested in court but was implicit in the acquittal of his three main accomplices. Guy (help!) 10:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I do not think the courts imply guilt - someone is either found guilty of they are not guilty. You seem to be using reasoning of the legal system to justify inclusion of the word 'fraudster here, when that can only be determined by reliable sourced evidence. RSS's and court decisions are not the same thing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We follow what reliable independent sources say about a subject. Per the linked Indie story: "It was the largest fraud in modern British corporate history. The crime was blatant: the theft of more than pounds 400m from the Maxwell pension funds. The culprit was obvious and well known. The prosecution had an open-and-shut case. Sadly, there was one insurmountable obstacle: Robert Maxwell, the mastermind of the fraud, was dead."

• "The gigantic corporate fraud perpetrated by the former British MP Robert Maxwell, when he was the controlling owner of MGN in the 1980s, is legendary." Waring, Alan (2016-05-13). Corporate Risk and Governance: An End to Mismanagement, Tunnel Vision and Quackery. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-15940-7.
• "There is no longer any point in pretending. Robert Maxwell was a fraudster on a grand scale, who used the formidable array of weapons of the British legal system to prevent anyone revealing the truth while he was alive." Collins (The Daily Telegraph), Neil (2016-10-20). Bonker, Bounder, Beggarman, Thief: A Compendium of Rogues, Villains and Scandals. Aurum Press. ISBN 978-1-78131-548-4.
• "Frauds perpetrated by the late Robert Maxwell were based around an organization where staff felt they could not challenge him" Pickett, K. H. Spencer (2010-09-07). The Internal Auditing Handbook. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-66213-7.
• "Robert Maxwell's disappearance from his yacht followed his rifling of the Mirror Group pension fund. (Ironically a much earlier investigation of the activities of Robert Maxwell in relation to his running of Pergamon Press had recommended that he should never again be allowed to be in charge of a company - but this sensible advice was ignored). Martin, David M.; Martin, David (2006). Corporate Governance: Practical Guidance on Accountability Requirements. Thorogood Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85418-354-5.

His fraud is used as a case study in texts on corporate governance and auditing.

The full DTI report is at the National Archives here.

You can also read the books by Roy Greenslade and Tom Bower. As I say, I cannot imagine why anybody would take the trouble to try and whitewash Maxwell's reputation at this stage. He was a fraudster and a thug. Guy (help!) 11:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to write all that. The line of reasoning is now unambiguous. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Robert Maxwell.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)