Talk:Rene Rivkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Rene Rivkin is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Australia To-do: edit Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: The current Australian collaboration of the fortnight article is Torres Strait Islanders. Requests: Bicentennial Heritage Trail, Daintree Reef, George Adams, Insurance in Australia, Poppy Industries, Sports Rorts affair, State Orchestra of Victoria, Yarmirr v Northern Territory Attention: Aboriginal Protection Act, Australian Payments Clearing Association, Coral Sea Islands, Qantas, Peter Foster, Reg Ansett Expand: Barossa Valley, Coorong, South Australia, List of Australian military memorials, Palm Island, Queensland, Rossiter Bay Juanita Coco Stubs: Australian Racing Museum Australian women's cricket team, Barry McKenzie, Calgardup Bay, Western Australia, Mortein, Prospect Creek, Russian Jack, Yabbying, Younghusband, South Australia Images: Darwin beer-can regatta, Darwin International Airport, Dingo Fence, Driza-Bone, Eucalyptus coolabah, Esky, Four'N Twenty Pie Quality watch: 37 FA-Class Australia articles - 21 GA-Class Australia articles.

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.

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)