Talk:Dasha Zhukova/Archives/2015

Her Russian name

With patronymic, Daria Alexandrovna Zhukova, aka Dasha --76.175.2.229 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is any of this fair or true? It reads like a PR piece.

This girl is a "philanthropist," "designer," "editor," and "entrepreneur"? Considering that none of her endeavors appear to have had any significance, nor that she spent time or effort building any of them, it seems they're simply things purchased by her boyfriend. The whole thing reads like a puff piece for a dilettante.

Any comments? If no-one objects, in a few days I'll revise this to simply say that she's the girlfriend of Roman Abramovich, identify her organizations, and say that none are noteworthy in themselves.

50.138.1.245 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)a

No-one has objected

So I am de-pring this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.1.245 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

After I de-pr'd the page

Someone reverted it. I proposed de-pr'ing it here, there were no objections, I wanted a few weeks, and then I made the changes. Again no objections. Then a user, who has made no other contributions to wiki ever, reverted the entire article. The edits I had made principally removed claims that Ms. Zhukova is a philanthropist or entrepreneur, none of which have any foundation or citation or support. The purported reason for the reversion was that the article had "irrelevant" material about Roman Abramovich, a mobster.

This is ridiculous, people... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1480:106:6578:3D0D:C649:5475 (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.insideworldsoccer.com/2014/01/roman-abramovich-girlfriend-dasha-zhukova-racism-black-woman-chair.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous users abusing this page to use it as a PR piece for the subject

This is the second time I've found that a user reverted the article to one filled with weasel words, PR claims, unsourced claims, and nonsense.

Each time the user does so without discussion on the talk board, and without identifying the nature or reason for the edit.

This is, obviously, an affiliate of the subject attempting to manipulate the page.

If it happens again I will ask for a note to be added to it that the subject repeatedly tried to edit her page, and ask that the page then be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Three things that perhaps need to go back in...

I appreciate how much we've trimmed out the page. There are a couple things that I think we do want to either put in, or take out though:

1. Some reference to the art issue. This person is really only notable because of the mini-scandal over the allegedly racist chairs.
2. Zhukov's connection to arms trading. If this was a Westerner, I might feel differently. For a Russian of her time period, though, the connection to the early-1990s oil & arms-smuggling trade provides important context. It means, among other things, that her family was aligned with Yeltsin and the first generation of post-Soviet "oligarchs." To the extent this person is notable at all, that's actually an important detail because that faction was aligned against the second generation oligarchs as well at the Putin faction, and Abramovich seems to be one of the only figures who successfully transitioned from the second generation to the Putinites. Calling him an "oil trader" is also just inaccurate.
3. The organizations. The issue with these is that there's no reliable sourcing that they actually exist. The only references to each are in the others' press materials or materials distributed by them in connection with interviews with Zhukova. My preference was to take them out entirely, but I didn't think people would go for that. I suggest either taking them entirely or, better, including some form of note to clarify that while cited, the reliability of the existence of those entities is doubtful.

Djcheburashka (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if I can answer in great detail since I never saw the article until yesterday. I'm looking at this version right now, and when I saw that I put on my BLP hat.

1. Comments like "However, with the exception of a three-month period with one magazine, none of Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence independent of her or Abramovich" simply cannot stand in article space unless it's the New York Times saying that: we may not editorialize. Obviously that also applies to "While these organizations exist nominally, each is referred to only by the others. There is no independent record of any accomplishments, activities, or community involvement by Zhukova herself."
2. I don't know what you mean with "art" and "racist chairs"; perhaps this was already removed.
3. "Organizations affiliated" in that version is completely unsourced (unreliably sourced) and looks like resume padding (same with the LACMA thing, by the way--it's the typical cultural socialite kind of nonsense).

   What I don't understand is why the Wall Street Journal article isn't used more extensively. It's reliable, it's detailed, it's interesting. Same with the NYT article--three pages, and it's cited only once. I don't wish to dig through the history of this article, but it looks like an article was turned into a resume-style puff piece and is now slowly returned to look like an article--or it started as a resume and we're dealing with the leftovers, in a situation complicated by COI or POV editing, and that's all I'll say for now, without looking more closely. In a nutshell, the person is notable (see the two big fat articles I mentioned) and there's nothing here that basic article writing can't fix. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... Yes, it started as a resume, or at least was when I found it, and I haven't wanted to be too aggressive in part because of the periodic vandalism restoring it to resume-state. The racist chairs thing is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/dasha-zhukova-black-woman-chair-buro-247-editorial_n_4633544.html If you google her, I think you'll see that that's the majority of the hits. I suppose the reason there isn't more from WSJ and NYT is, I just don't see much in those articles that would fit on a page. She's bought stuff. Her boyfriend is rich. She sits on the kind of art-world boards that are for people who are married to people who buy a lot of stuff. And that's kind of... it... I suppose if you agree all the resume-padding garbage can come out, that's 1/3 of the way there, I'll figure something out about the art and wait for more involvement to fix the parent. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I left NHD in, because I suspect people will research it, and it may come up sooner or later. This is all weird Russian politics/corruption/socialite junk... Djcheburashka (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of google hits, we cannot host derogatory content on a BLP, unless it is reliably sourced and even then we need to proceed with extreme caution. Huff Post is a RS, so this info might be able to be incorporated if we do so neutrally and cautiously. I reverted your recent removal of the entire career section (which I didn't add btw, I just added the section heading for it, it was long standing article content). Also Djcheburashka], I notice edit history shows you deleted the New York Times reference which I recently restored. Which as Drmies pointed out above, is one of the best sources here. I agree with Drimes we need to focus on the that primarily instead of derogatory info that pops up on google hits.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobomeowcat Do you really want to get involved in this? The "racist chairs" thing is basically the only thing that she's notable for. Its a fact. WP:RS and all, lots of tweeting, articles in lots of magazines, etc. There's a debate about whether the chairs were "racist," but the chair-thing definitely happened, and it was definitely a notable controversy.

I did not remove the "entire career section." I removed the career subheading, since she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite. The remainder of the stuff was removed per the discussion above, which is why I'm reverting your change.

Please take part in the discussions before going in and reverting edits. Also, with WP:BLP especially, please at least take the time to learn about the subject before coming in, ignoring the talk page and discussion, and wiping-out other edits. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• The articles in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have a lot more substance to them than you suggest, and a hell of a lot more than the Huffington Post piece, more than half of which is photographs, Instagram posts, and tweeted responses. Sure, it counts as a reliable source, but let's face it, this "article" is little more than a fairly derogatory piece focusing on one single incident. In other words, it will earn a sentence, maybe two, in the article, but that's not what builds a biography. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, your comment of "she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite" as justification for you reverts is not supported by any RS and seems to be WP:Original Research on your part. Even the Huff Post source you introduced above regarding the chair controversy describes her as "Garage Magazine Editor and Chief". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobo: Re garage magazine, there was a discussion of this on the page before. Please read it before commenting about it.

As for her "career," you've reversed it. For the article to say she does have a career, there would either need to be WP:RS that she's employed, or a wiki policy that being a socialite is a career.

You seem to have the view that this page should be a "biography" and the addition of the chair incident is just derogatory. But to be here at all, the subject has to be notable. Before the chair incident, this person was "known" only in the sense that she's a wealthy purchaser of art who's on a few boards. We've agreed above that her role in the boards and socialite-stuff is not sufficient to be worthy of inclusion. If that's so, then what from the NYT and WSJ articles would you think to include here? What do you think her biography would say? NYT and WSJ are of course generally WP:RS. I am not, however, sure that profile pieces in the fashion/style sections of newspapers about newly prominent buyers provide a basis for a page longer than a sentence; I suppose if there are two such articles, as here, then the page survives WP:ASC, but that's still not longer than a sentence.

Writing this biography, should we discuss the africa incident where one of her guests (my recollection is her) said "Ostriches are so Givenchy?" How about the interview she gave to a prominent arts magazine where she was asked who her favorite artists were and she said "I'm, you know, like bad with names"? How about, regarding her editorialship on one of those magazines, the controversy over whether she was competent for the role, and her being kicked off almost immediately after rejection by the staff and audience?

Or perhaps we should discuss NHD, which --- well, it sure doesn't seem to be a legitimate real estate development operation.

I agree with wanting a bio article to not be unnecessarily derogatory. In the case of this person, however, there is very little we could say that is truthful, complete, WP:RS, WP:V, and balanced, but also not derogatory. That is not our fault. Djcheburashka (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor and chief of a Garage magazine qualifies as a career, even if her boyfriend funds the company. Also, please re-read above, I never objected to including the chair photo info, just said we need to do so cautiously and neutrally. Your assertion that she was not notable before the chair incident does not hold water, because the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal article on her were published before the chair incident. I've edited the article to include the chair incident and recreated the "Career" section moving stuff from the "Early Life" section that is actually career related there and also moving some stuff from the lead into the "Career" section to simplify the lead. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Add: I also restored that she sits on the board of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), because although it was poorly referenced in prior version, it was actually mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article. It appears that some of the other material cut may also be referenced by the reliable sources and when I get chance will more thoroughly go through and restore relevant content.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus on several of the things you're now hopping-in to change. This is totally unproductive. I am reverting. Djcheburashka (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last drmies version. Regarding notability -- check the dates on the article. I will agree that she -- barely -- met the standard for notability before, clearly the racist chair incident is the thing for which she's known.

As drmies pointed out, social boards like LACMA generally do not go on articles. It was not removed because of sources, it was removed because it was resume padding. The other material was not cut because sources didn't exist, it was cut because it appeared to be just resume padding and there were no reliable sources that the organizations had an independent existence --- the sources referenced each other in a circle. There was, I think, one mention of leggings sold by the purported fashion label, in one of the profile pieces on Zhukova. That's hardly enough to merit inclusion.

"Garage Magazine" has published a total of 4 issues in 5 years. It is not even notable enough to have its own page on the wiki.

Regarding "career," I'm sorry but I disagree. Katharine Graham, after inheriting the Washington Post, ran it for nearly 40 years becoming one of the most powerful (and admired) people in the country, was widely lauded for her actions at the paper including during the Watergate Scandal, and even won a posthumous Medal of Freedom. The word "Career" appears exactly zero times on Ms. Graham's page. Neither having someone buy you something, nor purchasing stuff for personal use, is a "career." Djcheburashka (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of well referenced content regarding the chair photograph is surprising, considering you were actually the one trying to get this content included and seems that talk page consensus is that brief reference to it appropriate. I restored deleted content and further expanded use of New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles as Drmies recommended. I also added several more RS so removed sources needed tag. Dj, please read WP:Original research, your personal research regarding Garage magazine etc cannot be used to edit WP. We follow what the RS sources say. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LACMA may well be worth mentioning after all; I saw it in either the NYT or the WSJ article, which suggests it's worthwhile. BTW, reading those articles is instructive and shows you how important it is to take the BLP seriously in its totality. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If any of its worth mentioning, then LACMA is. I think its important not to take the NYT or WSJ articles as something other than what they are. When they say "person x could be something or whatever, that doesn't demonstrate that she actually already is. I read both articles as saying that Zhukova is trying to become something, that there's a debate over whether Zhukova is serious, Zhukova is trying to convince people that she is serious, and one or two people gave quotations that sort-of, almost, but not-entirely say that they think she might some day become who she says she wants to be. That does not, as far as I can see, mean that its a fact that she is serious about becoming, or has already become, what she would like to be, and it does not obligate us to say that she is. I think that gap is what separates us from a PR instrument. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobo - this is like the third time that you've reverted the page to your prior version of the edits, while saying that you were doing something else. If the cycle is BRD, we are now on "D," and we don't have a consensus on your changes. I'm happy to discuss them, and I'd certainly like something about the chair, for example, in, but making us re-review different virtually identical sets of the same edits repeatedly really is a waste of time. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, you are misrepresenting events. You do not have talk page consensus to remove text regarding the chair incident, the inclusion of LACMA, and the expanded use of the NYT and Wall Street Journal references. Please review the above talk page contributions of myself and Drmies. I restored text to consensus version. Your repeated reverts against talk page consensus are wp:disruptive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with BoboMeowCat here. We're well past BRD--we've been D'ing for a while here. Bobo, if Djcheburashka keeps reverting, we'll find some other means to get this consensual version of the article established--Dispute Resolution or whatever. Even looking at the Reference sections of the two versions makes it clear: Djcheburashka is removing reliable sources, but the content removal also is in disruptive mode now. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick news search reveals there are plenty more RS out there regarding Zhukova and Garage magazine . I just added a few additional refs to article. Dj's suggestion that Garage Magazine is not notable enough to warrant inclusion here is unfounded. There actually appear to be enough sources on Garage magazine for a stand alone article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, you do not have talk page consensus to restore content which was deleted due to absence of RS. I'm talking about the New Holland Real estate info. While I gather from your previous comments that it's important to you to keep this info in Zhukova's biography, because according to your original research: "This is all weird Russian politics/corruption/socialite junk..." and "it sure doesn't seem to be a legitimate real estate development operation"; however, this isn't a reasonable reason to retain poorly sourced information in a BLP. Also, I noticed you (again) deleted the "Career" subheading. Your opinion that "she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite." does not trump the RS that describe Zhukova's career. Please see above where myself and Drmies have raised concerns regarding your disruptive editing on this page. Restored consensus version of article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobo the person being disruptive here is you, who continue to try to apply the same edits to the page despite a lack of consensus for them, and who repeatedly misrepresents your changes. I did not add any material on NHS, I simplified a sentence. The "career" thing is something only you insist on, and you haven't responded to the discussion to that above. I'm not going to dignify the nonsense about disruption with a response.

Before you continue making-up claims about what I'm trying to take-out or put-in, scroll up to the top of this talk section, look at who started it, and look at what the topic is. Ok?

The difference here is that where my changes are controversial, I discuss them *before* making them. You continue to insist that if you have done something and people object, then you have a consensus and should redo the same thing 8 times. Just stop. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Djcheburashka, my restoring the page to a version in accordance with talk page consensus may feel "disruptive" to you, if you prefer a different version, but that does not qualify as wp:disruptive. Consensus does not means unanimity. If you remain as the lone hold out objecting, that does not mean the edits lack consensus. Please read wp:consensus. Regarding the New Holland real estate info, I took it out here [1] due to it being inadequately referenced and you restored it here:[2] and here [3] with a host of other changes. I have discussed your "career" objection multiple times. Please scroll up and you'll see comments from me such as: "Editor and chief of a Garage magazine qualifies as a career, even if her boyfriend funds the company." and "Even the Huff Post source you introduced above regarding the chair controversy describes her as 'Garage Magazine Editor and Chief'".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I give up - I'll wait till you guys are done and come back in a few weeks and fix it. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that at all. That would be edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)