This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I am not really sure this is worth a page? Before the problems with the art collection nobody really knew him.
Garnhami (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the guy got quite some press attention when he was lying about the provenance of his collection and then retracted the lies. Just look at the Russian article, which is, as far as I can judge, is based on reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just noticed it, the article in the other language (I was not sure it was Russian) is indeed huge. Is he (and C. de Zegher) also in the press in Russia? Because there is not really a lof of information on the problem with the Toporovski scandal in general. Also lots of doubts and Toporovski also claimed that most of the art was validated by scientist already to be proven as real... So it is a very difficult topic. On the C. de Zegher page someone is actually continuously removing all the "negative" parts on this scandal.Garnhami (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I actually came across this page by reacting on the protection request (the IP was already blocked, and I did not have to do anything). There was quite some press in Russia about de Zegher, but I think they are mostly refer to the Flemish newspapers. I will have a closer look anyway, though it is going to be slowly, I am operating at the upper limit of my time capacities.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a Russian article about it, but then I found a similar one in dutch and I was not sure whether the Russian was the original or the dutch one. The page on de Zegher: someone (same person, I actually suspect it is herself or someone closely related, because they know things no one else could know) is deleting all the negative parts on that page! Even though I provided significant sources for everything and made the article less negative and more objective. So something weird is going on. But it does seem there is attention to it then in other countries as well! Not sure what is mentioned on the page in Russian. I can only tell to read the english de Zegher page, it is pretty well sourced now. What is going on with the artwork, I can't tell anymore what you should believe or not.Garnhami (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The de Zegher page must be under control, I do not think anybody can not make any serious damage there. At least not without first going to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
