Jump to content

Talk:Anna Sorokin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Anna Delvey Wikipedia Records

Anna Delvey was indicted, not charged with multiple felonies and one misdemeanor, so that was my mistake. She is also innocent until proven guilty, but is being charged with attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a class C felony, two counts, Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony, three counts, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class D felony, one count, and Theft of Services, class A misdemeanor, one count. [1]

There is enough evidence of these crimes I think it should be made clear upfront that this woman has been involved in criminal activities. It's her entire claim to fame.

I have had three or more revisions to this page removed, so I'm hoping someone can make sense of the information I am providing here and we can have an accurate description of this person along with perhaps a more rich, and full detailed Wikipedia page for her.

According to a New York District Attorney “This defendant’s alleged criminal conduct spans from check fraud to six-figure stolen loans and includes schemes that resulted in a free trip to Morocco and travel on private planes.” [2]

I think what's most strange about her short Wikipedia bio, which appears when anyone searches her name on Google, is that nowhere does it mention the fact that she's scammed people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars or that the reason she is known to the public has to do with criminal charges. Is there a reason that this isn't being included?

"Anna Sorokin, better known as Anna Delvey, is a Russian-German woman who was involved in the socialite scene in Manhattan." This is the Wikipedia result that appears on Google when searching Anna Delvey. Seriously...?

When I added the fact that Anna committed check-fraud this was also taken off of the main description more than once. I'm guessing this is due to her being innocent until proven guilty, but this fact is verifiable with the New York District Attorney. [3]

She's not in jail for nothing..

Astro7770 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Astro7770: The article already includes a "Arrest and Fame" section. What's the problem here? The article is not going to assert the claims of the of DA in Wikipedia's voice. "Innocent until proven guilty" means just that; we can't call it a "fact" that anyone committed anything, unless they are convicted of the crime. See WP:BLPCRIME. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.manhattanda.org/da-vance-announces-indictment-repeat-scammer-multiple-thefts-totaling-275000/
  2. ^ https://www.manhattanda.org/da-vance-announces-indictment-repeat-scammer-multiple-thefts-totaling-275000/
  3. ^ https://www.manhattanda.org/da-vance-announces-indictment-repeat-scammer-multiple-thefts-totaling-275000/

Con artist description

I tried to describe Anna Delvey as a con artist, and user SoWhy removed that description and proceeded to remove other con artist related categories. Should a German lawyer (user:SoWhy) really be modifying the page of a con artist who also was previously employed by a German public relations firm? Also, a con artist doesn't have to be charged with a crime to be described as a con artist... See the New York and Vanity Fair article. For example, the characters in film Ocean's 11 are con artists, but they may not have been charged with crimes in the various cons they committed. I don't see how being a con artist and being charged with a crime are entirely related.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smellyshirt5: I fail to see how my job or nationality have anything to do with it unless you believe all Germans know each other and all German lawyers must work for said firm? I gave you the reason for removal, it's the policy at WP:SUSPECT. A con artist is per dictionary definition "A person who defrauds or swindles others after first gaining their trust" (see also definitions by Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary and Collings for example that all amount to the same). Delvey is accused of being a con artist but like all those accused of a crime she is innocent until proven guilty. That has not happened. That other sources do not follow this basic standard is not a reason to ignore our core policies. On a side note, I cannot find the word "con artist" being used in New York or Vanity Fair (okay, once in the latter but in a direct quote). Regards SoWhy 16:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
One doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to be considered a con artist. Some sort of conundrum there. And no, I don't think that all Germans know each other. In any case, it impedes my addition of Anna Delvey to the List of con artists article. Perhaps you could add a different German con artist to that page? Thanks, Smellyshirt5 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Smellyshirt5: Well, since the very definition is "someone who swindles" people, I would argue the opposite but how about we ask for a third opinion on it? That way we can get a neutral editor involved. As for the unrelated part, I think de:Adele Spitzeder would make a good addition to en-wiki in general, seeing as this was probably the first time a ponzi scheme was used by anyone as far as recorded history goes. I'll start a rough translation (look for it at Draft:Adele Spitzeder) but I probably need to research some references before it can be used. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that she qualifies as a con-artist, regardless of criminal conviction. Genetikbliss (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This issue has already been resolved elsewhere on this page, but we don't need to treat it as a precedent of any particular kind. All we need to do is consult WP:BLPCRIME. At the present time, she is not well known for anything apart from these accusations and she has not been convicted of a crime. A con artist is, by definition, a person who tricks or cheats people by persuading them that something is true when it is not true. At this point, she has not been proven to have done that, therefore she is not a con artist. That, together with the fact that Wikipedia is not a soap box, means that it's inappropriate to describe her as a con artist, regardless of however much anybody might prefer to call her one.Twistlethrop (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oct. 30 court appearance (would be convicted later)

I was seeing that, before today, as her next court appearance. Did that take place? I see"convicted"; when did that kick in? Carlm0404 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Carlm0404: It didn't as far as I can determine. The edit has been reverted as unsourced. Not even the unreliable Daily Mail claims she is convicted, just that another court hearing took place. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the above exchange, information about Dec. 18 court appearance has been added. Carlm0404 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

News arriving today says she is now, INDEED, convicted. Carlm0404 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction about location

Intro: "Sorokin is incarcerated at Albion Correctional Facility."

Later: "Sorokin was incarcerated at Rikers Island during the trial, but is currently incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility as of May 15, 2019."73.219.103.208 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)burgo

Probably a problem with outdated information. I'll fix it. Regards SoWhy 15:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

immigration (RUS-->GER) ?

"The family moved to Germany in 2007" 1) Why? 2) How? (It was+is not possible/easy for normal Russians.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:2aec:5400:1df:2cb8:3e8e:738 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Some russian troll user says the nypost is not a reliable source for life story rights of $320,000 from netflix

Some guy named Schazjmd undid some source from the NYPost, which claims Anna Sorokin was paid $320,000 for her life story rights. He claims the NYPost is not reliable. I uhm, would say that that is probably not true. But anyway here's the citation. He sounds kind of like a Russian hacker to me based on the immediacy of the removal of my edit and the way I was logged out when I first tried to make the edit... but who knows? source: Rebecca Rosenberg (February 11, 2021). "Fake heiress Anna Sorokin released early from prison". nypost.com. Retrieved February 11, 2021. Weird stuff man... Smellyshirt5 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Post is a tabloid, and while all tabloids aren't intrinsically unreliable, we do generally avoid using them as references. --Ef80 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna Sorokin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 07:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. I did some very minor copyedits, however the prose is quite clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • The lead (including the infobox) has too many citations. In general we avoid citations in the lead section, because it is just a summary of the content of the article. I suggest redistributing the citations through the article. See WP:CITELEAD.
  • I don't believe there needs to be a subsection in "Trial and conviction" called "Sentence". Perhaps rename it to "Trial, conviction and sentencing". However, I suggest (but for the purposes of the GA, it is not strictly necessary) merging "Post-release" with the previous section.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • Lead and infobox:
    • seems OK, but as above we need to migrate these references into the body of the article. Note: I have switched to {{cite news}} and corrected the url-access parameters for the NYTimes (they are subscription, not merely registration).
    • What is the source for her Russian name, which is Анна Сорокина?
      • Cited to the Komsomolskaya Pravda source.
  1. Early life:
    • I looked at the Google translated version of the source that says she grew up in Domodedovo, but it doesn't seem to have this information. I acknowledge that this may be the translation or my reading of it. However, I would request that we add the Russian quote with the translated version via the quote and trans-quote parameters.
    • The Tech Times references this article. I suggest adding "citing" and then list this news article. However, I'm not convinced that The Tech Times is necessarily the more reliable source for this article, can we find a better one?
      • I've removed the Tech Times source as it didn't add anything the Komsomolskaya Pravda source doesn't already have. We don't need to cite that Domodedovo is a satellite town of Moscow separately.
    • There seems to be conflict sources for the following: "She attended the gymnasium in Eschweiler and was described by classmates as a quiet girl who had a difficult time with the German language." This cites The Cut However, the Russian news source from Komsomolskaya Pravda quotes a friend that "'Anya and I have been best friends since the second grade,' says Sorokina's classmate Anastasia. - She was an excellent student. Anka was best given foreign languages, Russian and literature. She was very well developed. After school she studied English, German and French additionally, went to dances. She always easily found a common language with everyone. True, people were afraid of her. Anka is very strong in character, not everyone could withstand her. Could easily offend with a mockery. But she always did it very subtly.'"
    • Due to the NY Times needing a subscription, I'm not sure if the following two sentences are using this source for the following: "Sorokin graduated from high school in 2011 and relocated to London to attend Central Saint Martins, but quit and returned to Germany. She worked as an intern at a public relations company before relocating to Paris to begin an internship for the French fashion magazine Purple."
  2. Life as a fake heiress and fraud offenses
    • What is the source for "During the summer of 2013 Sorokin travelled to New York City to attend New York Fashion Week." and "Finding it easier to make friends in New York than Paris, she opted to stay, transferring to Purple's New York office for a brief time."?
    • We have two sources for the following: "Sorokin invited three friends on what she told them was an "all-expenses-paid" journey to Marrakesh, Morocco in May 2017, supposedly because she needed to 'reset' her Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). A few days after arriving at La Mamounia, hotel staff said that they had been unable to charge Sorokin's credit cards, and demanded an alternative form of payment. Sorokin eventually convinced one of her companions, Rachel DeLoache Williams, to pay the $62,000 bill for their stay, with a promise to reimburse her via wire transfer. Williams later paid for other expenses during the trip, including items purchased by Sorokin and a visit to the Majorelle Garden. Despite repeated promises from Sorokin, no wire transfer occurred." We really need to know what statement uses what source, so following the principle of keeping sources close to the text could you clarify this?
    • What is the source of "Upon returning from Morocco during May, Sorokin relocated to the Beekman Hotel, again managing to book without leaving a credit card on file. Around three weeks later, having accumulated a bill of $11,518 and failing to pay despite repeated promises, the Beekman also evicted her."?
  3. Indictment and arrest
    • Again, we have two sources for multiple statements: "A grand jury was convened in August 2017 to consider the charges against Sorokin. It eventually indicted her on two counts of attempted grand larceny in the first degree, three counts of grand larceny in the second degree, one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of misdemeanor theft of services. The most serious charge related to the fraudulent loan application made to City National Bank and Fortress Investment Group, with the other larceny charges relating to the instances of check fraud and the incident in Morocco. The theft of services charge related to Sorokin's failure to pay hotel and restaurant bills". Please clarify what sources apply to what statement.
  4. Trial and conviction - all sources I can read check out, noting that I don't have a subscription to The Times or NY Times
  5. Post-release: - all sources check out
  6. Media representation: all sources look good (at least with the WSJ I can see the first few paragraphs!)
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. There is a book out about this, but I don't see any citations to it except the one I added. I am putting this as a question, but I would think to be complete it might be worthwhile ensuring this got some coverage.
You're thinking of My Friend Anna by Rachel DeLoache Williams. The book is mentioned in the article (in "Media representation") but doesn't really offer much more than Williams' articles do in terms of sourcing (I've read it).
In that case, I will pass this criteria :-) - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • "Throughout the trial, Spodek attempted to humanize his client, claiming that she had been trying to pay back all the debt." this is problematic. We cannot say that he was trying to humanize his client, as this is subjective. If someone says that Spodek were trying to humanize Sorokin, then we say that "such and such says that throughout the trial Spodek attempted to humanize his client".
    •  Fixed
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No images in article, this does not prevent it from being a Good Article.
Unfortunately non-free images aren't allowed for BLPs per WP:MUG, and no Commons-compatibly-licensed images of Sorokin appear to exist.
Oh! I actually didn't know that! Thanks for letting me know. I seem to write about dead people mostly, so that's why I never knew about this... - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. No images in article, this does not prevent it from being a Good Article.
7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

Name Sorokin/Sorokina

Source is for "Sorokina" but the article and media use "Sorokin". Do we have, for example, a source she changed her surname to "Sorokin"? (BTW I am aware of the linguistic relation between Sorokin and Sorokina.) Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a source is needed for a change because there probably was no official proceedings. The -a suffix of Russian names is usually not kept when Russians move to western countries (like Germany). Afaik (family law is not my area of expertise though), since the German naming system does not have different suffixes for men and women, German law does not allow married Russian immigrants to keep two different names (basically) and instead uses the male form throughout, so if you choose to apply German law upon naturalization, you can remove parts of the name that the German law does not have, see Art. 47 of the introductory law to the German Civil Code. I assume that was what happened here. However, we don't need a source for that change. The name "Sorokin" is the WP:COMMONNAME that all sources use, so we use it as well. Why she dropped the -a is not relevant, is it? Regards SoWhy 12:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Because there is no actual info about her German citizenship or doublecitizenship (Russian and German which are allowed in both countries) nor her passport ID, and because her born ID is Russian, it is correct to use Sorokina as her surname, because it is female inclination of this surname, when Sorokin - is a male variant of this surname.

It is wrong practice to justify inclination of surname just because it was used in media and press, because they can actually reprint the mistake from the source. If you will read press on eastern slavic languages they use Sorokina even on her German time period. We should use fact as her official ID documentations or language norms of language of origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Капеллан Андрей (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Капеллан Андрей: No, we use the name the sources use. That Eastern Slavic sources use "Sorokina" is most likely because they recognize an Eastern Slavic name for a female subject. However, basically no other language sources use this form as far as I can tell, nor did official sources (like the district attorney of Manhattan). Even The Moscow Times used "Sorokin".
I added a source confirming that she is a German national as well. German law does not recognize female inclinations (see above). There is no source that states that she still is a Russian citizen, so assuming it would be original research. On a side note, German citizenship law included a provision until 19 December 2014 that one had to decide between two citizenships until their 23rd birthday (see de:Deutsche_Staatsangehörigkeit#Optionspflicht_bis_19._Dezember_2014 on German Wikipedia). Sorokin's 23rd birthday took place while this law was in effect (30 January 2014), so she would have had to decide between German and Russian citizenship at this point. So even if we were to use original research, it would lead us to her only being German at least since 2014. That would also explain why she was extradited to Germany and not Russia after her prison sentence. Regards SoWhy 15:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Are you sure she has German citizenship? I mean how could she pass one, when due to procedure she should have been in Germany for 7 - 8 years and pass the test to end the procedure.

She left Russia somewhere in 2007 and left Germany in 2013. Example: https://www.germany-visa.org/immigration-residence-permit/german-citizenship/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Капеллан Андрей (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Капеллан Андрей: I know that reliable sources (such as Sky News) say she is a German national. How she came to be one, is secondary. For example, Art 116 of the German Basic Law grants immediate citizenship to descendants of Germans who were expatriated by the Nazi regime on request and § 10 StAG allows naturalization for children even before eight years are over if one parent has a right to citizenship. But again, that is all speculation. We don't use our own conclusions to decide whether she is German or Russian or both but what reliable sources state. And those I found that mention nationality, all say she is German, e.g. "As a German citizen..." (NBC News), "Ms Sorokin, a German citizen..." (The Independent), "Because Ms Sorokin is a German citizen..." (The Evening Standard), "In a statement US Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Sorokin was a German citizen..." (The Telegraph). Personally, I think if ICE says she is German, they probably have a good reason to say so. PS: Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ so that people know you made them. Also, the {{re}} template does only work if you signed your post. Regards SoWhy 18:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian mob reference

The Sky News article doesn’t mention the Russian mob yet it’s used for the citation. Suggest removal Matt Zero (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Soul phire: Good catch, I removed that. In the future, feel free to make such changes yourself since we cannot have negative material about living people without sources. Regards SoWhy 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Anna Sorokin → Anna Delvey – WP:COMMONNAME, in light of Inventing Anna's debut. Google search results are currently 63 million for Delvey vs. 30 million for Sorokin, with multiple article [1][2][3][4] responding to the series taking Delvey as the primary name, with even an exception from the New York Times [5] acknolwedging she is "better known" as Delvey. SItuation clearly changed substantially from rationale at time of 2019 page move. U-Mos (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Almost all articles contain both names, so search results are meaningless. Her real name is "Sorokin" and as far as I can tell, she has stopped using "Delvey" completely. That a documentary has currently swamped the search engines with this name does not change the facts and the reasons for the prior move. Even the NYT article you mention explicitly uses the name "Sorokin" throughout. Just like with Octomom, the redirect can take care of the alias (see also WP:NPOVNAME). Regards SoWhy 08:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SoWhy: the stats are stacked and stick up like stacks. SN54129 10:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Per our common name guidelines. Anna Delvey appears to be the most commonly used name for the subject in reliable sources, even before the new miniseries. If we just look at results from last year and earlier, even the articles that use both names overwhelmingly choose Delvey for the title. That one is her real name and one is her fake one isn't relevant here -- what matters is usage in reliable sources, which prefers the proposed title (and is what this article was called before an undiscussed move).--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    Most reliable sources might use "Delvey" in the title because they are reporting on the crimes she committed while using that name but then use "Sorokin" consistently, e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ("Anna Sorokin (right), then known as Anna Delvey"), [11]. I don't think there is a clear-cut trend that allows us to assume one name is the more common name than the other. The COMMONNAME guideline is intended for subjects for which sources rarely, if ever, use the real name (e.g. Bill Clinton, Bono, Willy Brandt), not subjects which used an alias for a time but are constantly also referred to by their real name. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SoWhy. The majority of sources refer to her as "Sorokin" and list "Delvey" as an alias. There will be lots of cookie-cutter "who is the person from Inventing Anna then?" articles at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that "Delvey" isn't the name she is best known by / reported on under overall. firefly ( t · c ) 11:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still her very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Evidence for this? U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
SoWhy has laid it out very clearly above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
SoWhy directly stated their viewpoint that neither name is the most common as part of their rationale. U-Mos (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Please reread. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Even if I had, it would not make a difference because if both names were equally common, we should default to the legal name, not the pseudonym. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Yes, your rationale is clearly laid out and I don't object to it. Necrothesp, on the other hand, has made an entirely different argument and offered zero supporting evidence for it, ignoring rather than engaging with the rationale for the request, which any closing editor should be aware of. U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I really haven't "made an entirely different argument". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
No one's suggested that Delvey is a historically used name with less common usage today - if anything the opposite. How does your statement lead you to favour Sorokin as the article title? U-Mos (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate

Someone has reframed this article to downplay Sorokin’s crimes. Article needs serious revision. 2600:1700:2B0:E410:8D40:723B:9F9D:91B8 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a bit of an edit war running on this right now - looks like some IPs are trying to reframe the article. I've reverted to what appears to be a stable version and will request some additional eyes take a look. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
That IP comes around every couple of weeks and is always reverted quickly. Not sure why they still think it's a good idea... Regards SoWhy 14:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Euro/dollar conversions

Regarding Euro/US Dollar conversion: In the US, editor Firefly is wrong. Most people don't know what a Euro is. He may not like it, but it is true. Please don't delete my addition of conversions again. --Zeamays (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I replied to Zeamays on my talk page regarding this. firefly ( t · c ) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Chaheel Riens reverted my edit. I cannot find how to use the conversion template. When I tried to use it in several iterations, all I got was error messages. I tried and failed to find out how to use it in WP help. I have particular dislike for editors who add nothing constructive, but just destroy the hard work of sincere editors. If anyone knows how to use the template, please do everyone a favor and insert into the article correctly. --Zeamays (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Zeamays: This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, so why should we add a conversion to USD but not British pound, Australian dollars, Indian rubles etc.? She worked in France and was paid in Euro and she is German, which also uses Euro. Nothing in that paragraph has any relation to the US, so adding a conversion to USD would constitute systematic bias. Also, per MOS:MONEY, euros and pound sterling are considered equally valid currencies as US$ and it explicitly says "Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling" (emphasis added). So unless you can provide a valid reason why the conversion should take place, I would oppose such an addition and would also urge you not to make this edit again before there is consensus to do so. Regards SoWhy 14:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
User:SoWhy, this is my answer:
  1. Anna Sorokin was convicted in US Court, so the case is of special interest to Americans.
  2. As I wrote before, many, many Americans are unfamiliar with Euros.
  3. If you wish, add the other conversions as well.
  4. I resent your blatant anti-American attitude. --Zeamays (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Zeamays: Correct but she is not an American citizen and most of her life took place outside the United States, especially at the time this paragraph is about. Plus, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyone unfamiliar with euros can look them up, although I think you are being unfair to your fellow Americans if you think most of them don't know what euros are; most of those I met did. But it's not "Anti-American" to point out that adding a conversion for a single group of readers without a valid reason constitute the very systemic bias we should strive to avoid. Wikipedia should not cater to a special group of readers. Regards SoWhy 15:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Note that Zeamays left a rather abrasive message on my talk page regarding this as well. The edit is basically the same as his first one above, but directed specifically at me. I am against the insertion of conversion from Euro to dollar. Zeamays seems to have a pro-American bent and is expecting everybody to do work for them to their own standards, not necessarily those of the project. This isn't how it works and I agree with SoWhy that even if Zeamays does figure it out - consensus is against the insertion, so it shouldn't happen anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I would just like to add that as far as I can see nobody here has an "anti-American" attitude, Zeamays, and am curious as to where you are drawing that inference from. firefly ( t · c ) 15:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Chaheel Riens, I am a proud US citizen, not just have a pro-American bent. I do not expect you to do anything, but to be helpful as an editor, as opposed to merely destructive. I am OK with adding all the additional conversions you wish. Your arrogant attitude is most distressing. This is my last message on this topic, as you have worn me out. --Zeamays (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
As I have made clear - I am against this, so really don't see why I should assist you in adding the conversion, even if only helping you figure the template out. The "additional conversions [I] wish" are zero. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

German?

Why does the first sentence say she is a “German” con artist when she was born in Russia? 2601:C6:C580:130:8087:C43:2111:4797 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

She was born in Russia but holds German citizenship. firefly ( t · c ) 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
She was born in Russia and lived there until she was 17. She lived briefly in Germany from 2007 to 2011, and obtained German citizenship at that time. Since 2011 she has mainly lived in London, Paris and the United States. Considering that she only stayed in Germany briefly and became notable when living in the United States, it doesn't seem WP:DUE or very accurate to describe her primarily as a "German" con artist in the first sentence; the activities that made her famous have no connection to Germany, she doesn't live there and hasn't lived there in nearly a decade, and she isn't originally from or raised there either. She has lived for far longer in both Russia and the United States. The lead could mention that she holds German citizenship somewhere below. --Tataral (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tataral: She is a German citizen, so if anything is misleading, it's writing "Russian-born" without any more information. Either use "Russian-born German" or don't mention any nationalities at all. In fact, per WP:UNDUE, "Russian-born" has even less relevance in the first sentence since her place of birth has nothing to do at all with her notability. Her German citizenship is at least relevant since ICE wants to deport her to Germany but her Russian heritage seems completely irrelevant. So I would suggest we remove both from the lede. Agreed? Regards SoWhy 20:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Gérard Depardieu is a Russian citizen but we call him a French actor, and only mention his Russian citizenship below in the article. In less straightforward cases such as this one, or the Depardieu case, citizenship is not necessarily a WP:DUE or very meaningful descriptor in the first sentence. Yes, we could remove both; at least that would be better than describing her as a "German con artist" which gives a misleading impression and which is not how she has been described by most sources. On the other hand I don't see any strong reasons to remove Russian-born, which is how most sources have described her. But if you insist on it, I'm not going to object. --Tataral (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
No - go with "Russian-born German". Experience with similar cases (like Francis Bacon) shows if you just leave it out, there will be an endless stream of good-faith editors adding something (anything). Best to add a hidden note saying this formula was decided on in talk too. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
But she isn't a German con artist, she is a Russian-born person who only became notable as a con artist when she was a long-time US resident, who lived for four years in Germany as a late teenager/young adult many years before she became notable. In practice her decade-long US residency is far more important than her German citizenship, in terms of notability. She has held citizenship of three countries, most recently Germany. Of course we should mention her citizenship, like we mention Gérard Depardieu's Russian citizenship, but not in the first sentence. --Tataral (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod and Tataral: I have taken the liberty to completely rewrite the lead since it didn't adequately summarize the article anyway. I think this way is okay to address both sides without having to spell it out in the first sentence. On a side note, I'm not an immigration lawyer myself but one of my colleagues is and she told me that there is no conceivable way that someone from Russia would have been able to get German citizenship this quickly in 2007 unless they were "Spätaussiedler", i.e. people with ethnic German roots, who are the only group from the former Eastern Block that can get German citizenship upon request. That would explain much about her citizenship and make "German" in the lead seem correct, although this is of course (informed) speculation only since no source seems to care about how she got her citizenship and the only way to really know would be to access her official citizenship information which is nigh impossible. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't really meet WP norms for bios, where a nationality is expected in the first sentence - no doubt there's a policy somewhere. I think you'll find helpful people will now keep adding nationalities. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Well, MOS:FIRSTBIO does not explicitly require the nationality to be mentioned in the first paragraph (and mentions examples like Petrarch). On the other hand, MOS:ETHNICITY advises against Tataral's preference of having "Russian-born" in the first paragraph, explicitly saying previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability (and I think we can all agree that her previous nationality and place of birth have nothing to do with her notability). Personally, I don't necessarily think we need "German" in the first paragraph since her being German is of little relevance to her notability (except that she pretended to be a German heiress and not a Russian one), however, if any nationality is added, German is the only one that should be added based on the relevant MOS I cited above. If this is contentious, we probably need an RFC or some other way to get more input and reach consensus. Regards SoWhy 07:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, whatever - you'll be maintaining this from all the changes then? Of course, if the US ever manages to deport her, Germany will become more relevant. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anna_Sorokin/Archive_1&oldid=1256411930"