Talk:Bidzina Ivanishvili

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

nationality

Why Russian? According to the indicated source he's Georgian. –BruTe Talk 08:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discordant accounts

“Boris Ivanishvili (born 1956 in Chorvila) is a Georgian oligarch with a net worth reported to be 8 billion dollars. ”

“In march 2010, he ranked 167th in 2010 Forbes List of billionaires, with a net worth 4.8 billion dollars.”

I think, 4.8 billions are more certain. Borbolia777 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is BIDZINA not BORIS.

Please do change the name. Ivanishvili's name is Bidzina not Boris. --

Georgianჯორჯაძე 14:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll create a pre-formatted discussion on your behalf. I think the proposal has merits, but it is not straighforward. There is no need to hurry. After several days an administrator will arrive and close the discussion.
No such user (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Boris Ivanishvili → Bidzina Ivanishvili – "Bidzina" is his birth name, and, more importantly, the name he primarily identifies with: his home page is http://ivanishvilibidzina.com/eng
, with "Bidzina" prominently in the header. Apparently, Boris was a nickname or an exonym during his Russian days, but there is no real reasons why would we prefer it now. Google test reports 1.7 million hits for "Bidzina Ivanishvili" (with quotes) vs. 0.5 million for "Boris Ivanishvili."

On reflection, I'm moving the page back and withdrawing the RM. It was originally at "Bidzina" and unilaterally moved by

No such user (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks guys. Perfect. --
Georgianჯორჯაძე 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Per

WP:COMMONNAME, it might should be Boris: that's what he's called in Forbes (and Die Welt), which may therefore be what he's best know as in English. But I don't know one way or another, so without anyone pushing for that name, we're probably fine as is. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Who CARES what Forbes says, THIS IS NOT HIS NAME. Does forbes know better what his name is than himself?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodream (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gelenvi "pushes" for the Boris name. The article originally was at Bidzina.
No such user (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The only reason he goes by Bidzina on his website and elsewhere is because he does not want people to associate name Boris with Russia, political agent of which Ivanishvili is often accused of being. His birth name is Boris and is very commonly known as such. I don't know how you checked google but I just checked using quotation marks for exact matches and Bidzina Ivanishvili came up with 106,000 [1]while Boris Ivanishvili came up with 402,000.[2]--Gelenvi (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite rude to change the title, or make substantial changes, while the discussion is ongoing. This comes out as
WP:BRD
, the first time you're reverted, you were supposed to start the discussion on the talk page.
Re Google searches, click on your first link gives me "About 1,880,000 results (0.56 seconds)", while the second gives "About 420,000 results (0.32 seconds)". Since Google recently plays silly "I-know-what-you-want-based-on-your-IP" games, I would ask Kwami to triple-check. Also, you haven't proven yet your assertion that "Boris is his birth name". According to the article, he was born in Georgia, so a Georgian name would be more logical.
@Kwami, it is true that some English RS use "Boris", but some also use "Bidzina", e.g. Telegraph [3] or Guardian [4]. He did use both names (although he seems to prefer "Bidzina" now), and they are probably both acceptable titles, but we shouldn't tolerate apparent ethnic-motivated edit warring: I have a hunch that this article should come under purview of
No such user (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, I thought the google results where enough of a reason to revert and I do not see how IP's would change that. In any case, I do not agree that Bidzina would be a more logical name in Georgia. He was born in the USSR and there are plenty of people in Georgia who have Russian names. In fact, very few of the names used in Georgia are really Georgian.--Gelenvi (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gelenvi, where are you from? And what do you know about Georgian names. I doubt you don't. It's Bidzina not Boris. It is Bidzina Ivanishvili and not some Boris. Ivanishvili made his business in Russia mostly so it was hard to remember the name Bidzina and in Russia thats why he is known by that name. But it doesn't mean it's Boris. It's Bidzina Ivanishvili. Revert the changes back and make it Bidzina Ivanishvili again. When you don't know something you shouldn't stick your nose into other country's business my friend. --
Georgianჯორჯაძე 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
GeorgianJorjadze, ena daimokle ra...you are not the ultimate authority on all things Georgian on wikipedia just because you have more free time on your hand to go about different Georgia-related pages and fill them with your personal views of things. I know that Bidzina is not same as Boris, its merely a likeness of the name that he adopted to highlight his Georgianness.--Gelenvi (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ვახ, რა კაცი, რა კაცი. მანანა გამოჩნდი? I want to suggest Wiki Administrators to delete this sock puppet. Please, check this user. Previously he/she was this one and edit-warred with me in the past. This is his/her previous account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mananabliadze Admins, check out this user's IP address and then block this sock puppet. And put Bidzina back. --
Georgianჯორჯაძე 23:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Your baseless accusations do not change the fact that your claims on Boris Ivanishvili's name are unsubstantiated, as confirmed by the names usage in English. I suggest you read the rest of the posts before making me repeat what has been said many times. I also do not appreciate you calling me names in Georgian.--Gelenvi (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is BIDZINA not Boris! Change it now. This user above me seems to be another Georgiano-phobe. I guess who he/she might be but let him/her be. Nothing changes his/her being here, just this small kinds of probs. --
Georgianჯორჯაძე 20:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

On GBooks, I can confirm 17 books with the name "Boris Ivanishvili", mostly in English but also in French, Spanish, and Italian, but only one with "Bidzina Ivanishvili". The books are about wealth or economics (apart from one on Putin), and most describe him personally with a word like oligarch, banker, or millionaire, so I believe they're all about this Ivanishvili, and not someone else with the same name. It would seem therefore that "Boris" is more common in English-language sources, and therefore per

WP:COMMONNAME
should be the name of the article.

However, it would seem that he prefers "Bidzina". That is what his website uses.[5] I'm not familiar with the rules for biographies of living people, which might override COMMONNAME. I'll ask over there.

But the personal attacks on this page are ridiculous. You sound like a bunch of children fighting in a sand box. Instead of attacking each other, present the evidence for the article. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist used 'Boris' in 2008 but 'Bidzina' in 2011. Of the books, 'Boris' appears up to 2010; the only hit for 'Bidzina' is in 2011. In a Google news-archive search, it's 2 for Boris vs. 68 for Bidzina. It seems that Bidzina is now more common, and it's not as though he's so well-known that his old name would override that. At

WP:BLPN, they recommend 'Bidzina', so that's what I'll go with. I'll lock the article to prevent any more edit warring. If you want to move it back, make a formal request. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

More info

There's a long profile and interview in the New Republic [6]. Onanoff (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Will his Georgian nationality be restored since he is designated as Prime Minister ? Otherwise he is not eligible for the post.

Siyac 20:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyac (talk • contribs)

Bidzina Ivanishvili has no Georgian citizenship, it was never restored after he was stripped of it. http://dfwatch.net/ivanishvili-is-still-not-a-georgian-citizen-22308 Article should be ammended. Magradze (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This article is tiny. Georgians, certainly this can be expanded upon? Interlaker (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bidzina Ivanishvili. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed other marriage

In relation to this, I found this source. I have no opinion on its reliability, but it's careful to only report the former marriage to Inga Pavlova as an allegation, not as a fact. Huon (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biased edits

Hello, I would like to point to the number of biased edits made to this article. Especially to this text:

"Under Ivanishvili's Georgian Dream party, Georgia has experienced democratic backsliding and widespread corruption, and opposition leaders, such as Mikheil Saakashvili and Nika Melia, being arrested. Closer ties with Russia have been pursued, leading to accusations of Russophilia by Ivanishvili's political opponents. Conversely, his supporters regard him as representative of rural Georgians and an opponent of western liberalism."

First of all, these are only accusations made by opposition of Ivanishvili, but they are portrayed as facts.

Georgia's score in the Democracy Index has been the highest in 2013 under Ivanishvili's government. Also, its score has always been higher after 2012 (when Georgian Dream won elections and Ivanishvili became prime minister), than it was under Saakashvili (previous government).

Georgia experiencing "widespread corruption" is also not confirmed by statistics. Generally, score in corruption indexes of Georgia has also not worsened. As of 2022, Georgia has one of the leading position in Eastern Europe and Central Asia region (as stated by the source which is cited in the article) in the Corruption Perceptions Index, and outpasses its neighbors.

The phrase about "Mikheil Saakashvili and Nika Melia being arrested" is also very poorely worded. It gives impression that Mikheil Saakashvili and Nika Melia are innocent political prisoners, which does not matches reality. Saakashvili is being prosecuted for crimes like violently dispersing 2007 Georgian demonstrations, ordering beating of the Parliament Member Valery Gelashvili, and other crimes. Melia is prosecuted from violently storming parliament in 2019. These things are not even mentioned, so this part of the text is also biased.

"Closer ties with Russia have been pursued, leading to accusations of Russophilia by Ivanishvili's political opponents." - This is also just baseless accusations of opposition, with no evidences.

"Conversely, his supporters regard him as representative of rural Georgians and an opponent of western liberalism." - this is just total nonsense. I never heard from anyone saying this, and I don't remember reading this anywhere. I would like someone to provide source of someone making this claim.

If no one is against, I would like to remove this and other biased parts of the articles.Silveresc (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On your claims that these are simply opposition claims: this is incorrect, as sources provide later in the article - regards of widespread corruption and state capture are reflected by your own source, the CPI - anti-corruption efforts have stagnated and state capture is widespread, though Georgia continues to lead the pack in terms of the former Soviet states. The statement about his political supporters viewing him as a supporter of rural Georgians and opponent of western liberalism is backed up by the BBC. An introduction is not meant to have sources.
On Mikheil Saakashvili and Nika Melia's arrests: these are accusations, which have been rejected by human rights groups. I am not fond of Saakashvili, but we cannot simply push Georgian Dream's perspective.
Closer ties with Russia are sourced later in the article.
Please stop your disruptive editing. Just because it is not kind to Georgian Dream does not mean it is "biased." You have removed information which is backed up by reputable perennial sources, and provided a link to 6park (which is an internet forum, not a news agency) as a "source" for Georgia consistently placing higher on the Democracy Index under Ivanishvili.
Mupper-san (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking over your edits, I must say that, save for the introduction, they are generally acceptable to me. I adjusted some small things, such as removing bits which were unsourced, and re-adding the introduction's third paragraph, which was sourced. I apologise sincerely for my consternation - I was concerned that they would be as non-NPOV as prior.
However, I still maintain that such things as the introduction's third paragraph, as well as the section on accusations of authoritarianism and corruption, are necessary. This isn't simply claims by the opposition, but by reputable, non-Georgian sources. I don't think it can be simply written as opposition claims, because Foreign Policy and the CPI aren't part of Ivanishvili's political opponents.
I also removed the part on Russophilia (as it wasn't reflected in the article to the extent that I think is necessary to warrant inclusion), and attempted to elaborate further on the arrests of Saakashvili and Melia.
On the introduction's first paragraph; I don't think it's particularly necessary to be in the introduction. An honourary consulate is effectively no more than a cultural ambassador position. In the instance of Walter Mondale, for example, the honourary consulate is only mentioned in his "Family and personal life" section, which is where I think it fits better. An honourary consulate holds no power and is more or less a recognition of one's cultural role between two nations.
Furthermore, please elaborate on other "biased" parts of the article. Sections which are critical of Ivanishvili are well-sourced, and not by Georgian or opposition sources, but by reputable, non-partisan groups, newspapers, and think tanks. This is not biased information or the work of political opponents, but reporting from journalists and researchers. I certainly think there could be more elaboration upon his actual political activities beyond the negative and the views of his supporters, but I don't think there's anything in the article which should be removed. It's not POV pushing, it's simply commonly-held viewpoints or facts.
Mupper-san (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not commonly held that Georgia under Georgian Dream has experienced democratic backsliding, state capture and widespread corruption. Yes, there are allegations, and there might be sources saying that, yet that does not means that that is right or commonly accepted as fact. There are many reliable sources contradicting these claims. It is also notable that Georgia's score in Democracy Index has always been higher after 2012 (when Georgian Dream came to power) than before that. In fact Georgia's score has been highest in 2013 under Ivanishvili, so it would not be very neutral to talk about "democratic backsliding" in the introduction without even mentioning this fact. There are accusations, but they should not be portrayed as facts or as widely accepted views. If such kind of accusations should be added to the introduction, it should at least be clearly stated that these views are debated and not commonly accepted by everyone. Also, "anti-corruption efforts have stagnated" does not means that Georgia under Georgian Dream is experiencing "widespread corruption". This is very strong word, and much more accurate in cases of neighboring countries like Russia (136th position) or Ukraine (122th position), but not Georgia (45th position).
Also, "authoritarianism" is also very strong word, which just does not properly illustrates the situation of Georgia. It is not an authoritarian country according to the Democracy Index, or any other metric. Even if there are any such accusations, they don't warrant inclusion.
"Conversely, his supporters regard him as representative of rural Georgians and an opponent of western liberalism." - Even if there is reliable source which mentions this, it is still not an opinion of majority of his supporters. Neither did Ivanishvili ever campaigned against "Western liberalism". And even if he is from village, it is really hard to say that he is viewed as "representative of rural Georgians", especially considering that he is billionaire businessman who is pretty out-of-touch with rural life. Even if there are people who hold these views, they are not majority and it should be at least somehow indicated that majority of Ivanishvili's supporters don't view him as such and Ivanishvili himself never embraced these positions.Silveresc (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silveresc The sources on democratic backsliding are what's generally used by Wikipedia to indicate as such, including on the United States and other nations, and accepted as fact. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of non-Georgian sources paint Ivanishvili/GD in general as being responsible for democratic backsliding. I'd argue that while the 2012-2013 period marked improvements, it's generally been a stagnation in the improvements of civil rights since. Outside of Georgia and perhaps other nations in the region, I'd say these views are generally accepted. On the matter of the Democracy Index, it's contradicted by Freedom House and the CPI, though I think this is something which could be addressed.
On corruption: The CPI does flat-out state that Georgia is experiencing state capture, which I would say is rather indicative of widespread corruption (and furthermore the EP sanctions paper alleges responsibility for oligarchisation). I would argue that even if it's not on the same level as nations such as Ukraine and Russia, that doesn't mean corruption can't be widespread in general, even if it's relatively far less corrupt.
On authoritarianism: Yes, it is a strong term, and I think it's fair to change it to democratic backsliding.
I think that it's not necessarily what he campaigned for or against, but what he is (or was) viewed as. I would argue that one could say he does somewhat "represent" rural Georgians despite his wealth with policies of improving rural conditions and his messaging when he returned to Georgia, for example, but my opinion isn't particularly befitting of the article, haha. I think it'd be fair to state that his supporters view him as entrenching/establishing democracy and note his healthcare reforms instead, as it's what I've heard most often used as the reason for supporting him.
Also, I think that Georgian news media shouldn't be used for the most controversial parts of his page (democratic backsliding and corruption). Given the fractious state of politics, I'd argue that they would either be biased for or against GD. I think it's best that we continue using sources which are generally held as fact on Wikipedia (such as the CPI, Freedom House, and the Democracy Index), as well as reports by non-Georgian news.
Mupper-san (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy Index is credible enough to counter most of the sources used in the article about "democratic backsliding" after 2012. So when there are contradicting sources, it at least should not be portrayed as fact (I am not saying that rankings such as Democracy Index are not eligible for criticism for their biases, but the index is still more credible than other sources in the article). Ian Kelly, for example, who is former ambassador of United States in Georgia, is controversial source since he is often seen as supporting opposition and denouncing Georgian Dream, generally being more sympathetic toward former government. So I would not say that his article is neutral and unbiased.
Neither are many of those MEPs neutral, because many of them, who were especially critical of Ivanishvili, are allies of Saakashvili and United National Movement. European People's Party, which was the main supporter of the resolution against Ivanishvili, is also ally of the United National Movement.
Countries with 55 points in Corruption Perception Index are not generally described as having "widespread corruption". According to ranking, countries with this score are put in the categoty of countries perceived as less corrupt.
And generally, the article disproportionally mentions supposed drawbacks and emphasizes on them, but ommits many improvements. For example, Georgia has recently ranked on 1st place on budget transparency in Open Budget Survey 2021 published by the International Budget Partnership, which is colossal improvement since 2012. But this is not even mentioned in the article.
I think most of his supporters view his rule (and supposed de facto rule) as bringing stability and peace, and that's what Ivanishvili and GD also claim. So if there should be mentioned how Ivanishvili's supporters view him, I think this should be stated.Silveresc (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silveresc Freedom House and Transparency International have both noted democratic backsliding, so it's not so easy to say only the DI's better rankings are correct. Furthermore, the DI hasn't exactly stated things have fully improved (see here), and its score is now equal with the worst days of UNM rule after four years of decline. The article is also backed up by other sources, and is reflected by others, among them Caucasus researchers.
The CPI itself describes Georgia as having widespread state capture, which is a form of corruption. The source itself says it possesses such characteristics, so I'm not inclined to take certain parts and then say the complete opposite of other parts.
And sure, I can agree to including more about his actual rule and counterarguments by his supporters. I think that we should include both widely-stated criticisms as well as counterclaims in order to ensure that all sides' views are fully voiced.
Mupper-san (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bidzina_Ivanishvili&oldid=1212560077"