Talk:Len Blavatnik

NPOV problems in the Intro and Sanctions sections

Hello. An editor, Bluethricecreamman, recently made a series of edits, all of which should be reverted for violating NPOV.

• In the Introduction, please remove the phrase "alongside other Russian oligarchs." There is no source that says he made his fortune "alongside other Russian oligarchs." This is original research, violating WP:SYNTH.
• Also in the Intro, please remove the sentence "Some have criticized Blavatnik for allegedly reputation laundering to avoid scrutiny." This "allegation" made by "some" critics does not belong in the intro, the place reserved for a summary of the most important information that makes the subject notable. Please note this criticism is already found in the Philanthropy section, and repeating it here violates WP:UNDUE
• Three sentences were added to the "Sanctions" section which are completely unconnected to sanctions, as has already been discussed thoroughly here on the talk page above. The result of that lengthy discussion was the one remaining sentence and the only fact that can be gleaned from the sources, that "In December 2023, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed personal sanctions against Blavatnik." This sentence should remain, and the rest of the paragraph, (the first three sentences), should be deleted. Every addition here violates WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, at least.
• The title of the section was changed from "Sanctions" to "Sanctions during the Russo-Ukraine War" implying that the sanctions were somehow connected to the war, another case of WP:SYNTH.

I hope you agree that to achieve some modicum of NPOV, it is necessary to revert these edits. I am also pinging Blueboar who helped with the previous edit request. Thanks so much. C at Access (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I do not have time to address this (heavy load in off-wiki work). Hopefully someone else will be able to work on it. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

as per blueboar, if you would like to pursue this and get other wikipedians input i suggest posting in WP:NPOVN or in WP:BLPN. im planning on composing a response to your points later as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I am pinging Bluethricecreamman to remind them that they promised a response to my assessment of non-neutral POV. Thanks, C at Access (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have some times.

• “alongside other oligarchs”

• [1] states that Blavatnik ”cannot have made that money without specific political connections or connections to organized crime or connections to other oligarchic figures” according to michel, a noted expert on oligarchs.
• [2] this is the source cited alongside the claim in the lede. ”But his fortune stems from the privatization of industries in the former Soviet Union, in particular aluminum and oil. He was among the victors in Russia’s so-called “aluminum wars,” the sometimes murderous competition for control of Russian aluminum assets in the early 1990s. (Blavatnik has not been personally accused of violence). In 1996, Blavatnik partnered with Viktor Vekselberg, an oligarch tied to Putin, in SUAL Partners, which owns about one quarter of Rusal, the aluminum conglomerate long controlled by Oleg Deripaska.” this is a clear indication that alongside other oligarchs Blavatnik won significant control of a company during privitization of Russian industries.

• claims of WP:undue

• sources 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 19, 23, 24, 76, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 directly mention his connections to russian oligarchy and the ensuing controversy and/or his work to remove the label “oligarch” to avoid scrutiny. I don’t have time to look through all the sources, but even a high profile source, ostensibly not directly speaking about his connection to oligarchy, such as 70 cannot go much into how Tate Modern is naming there extension after Blavatnik without talking about how a similar donation to Oxford prompted an open letter opposing it for “selling its reputation and prestige to Putin’s associates” It is undue not to include the word oligarch in the lede
• having gone through so much sourcing, and finding much of it specifically talks about his connection to Russian oligarchs, but this article somehow does not mention much of it is particularly amazing to me.

• claims that the sanctions section is settled

• I see only that the sentence talking about blavatnik denying connections to putin be removed. There is no discussion about much else.

• Claims the title is synth

• all sourcing talks about the sanctions since 2022 due to the Russia-Ukraine war, then talks about how Blavatnik has escaped being targeted. I feel the edit is correct.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this further, please post on either WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN to ask for other editor’s opinions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks.

• “Alongside other oligarchs” is mentioned in the source as a quote, not as a fact, and should not be presented here as such. A report of Blavatnik’s partnership with an oligarch, as covered in the Mother Jones source, is already included in the Wikipedia article. In addition to what I mentioned previously, stating “alongside other oligarchs” in the lead in this way is misleading and contentious, and violates MOS:LABEL.
• Regarding the edits to the Sanctions section- these statements are irrelevant to the fact that Zelensky sanctioned Blavatnik, and including them under the same section and in this context is misleading at best. One may speculate that there is a connection between these facts, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. The change to the section header also contributes to a non-neutral narrative, and should be restored to simply “Sanctions”.

Pinging Bluethricecreamman, Blueboar and Firefangledfeathers, who have all been involved here in some form or another, before bringing this to a larger forum as suggested. Thanks again for your time. C at Access (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm bringing this to WP:NPOVN, I think Blueboar and Firefangled may be busy with other articles, and having other eyes on this could help. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

First, thank you Bluethricecreamman for posting the discussion to NPOV/N. Second, please note that the following sources support the assertion that Len Blavatnik is not an oligarch, Russian, political, or otherwise.

• Financial times: The following is a quote from this article: "In Russia, Blavatnik’s charitable giving sets him apart from other billionaires known for splurging on football clubs and yachts. “At least university campuses get built,” says Alexei Navalny, an opposition leader and fierce critic of Putin’s oligarchic entourage. 'As far as Russia and I are concerned, he’s not a political oligarch. He isn’t buying newspapers here, he isn’t intimidating journalists, he basically isn’t involved with Putin at all.'"
• The "full" Putin list: includes 114 senior political figures and 96 oligarchs, but excludes Blavatnik.
• Together against Putin: A comprehensive list put together by Alexei Navalny's team which does not include Blavatnik.

I found additional similar sources but I did not want to overload the discussion. I am happy to share if needed.

Thanks, C at Access (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And here is sourcing directly pointing out that Blavatnik is known to have reputation laundered to avoid being grouped with other oligarchs.

• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/will-oligarchs-reputation-laundering-face-a-reckoning.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-03/len-blavatnik-net-worth-quiet-billionaire-separates-fortune-from-russian-money

Nowhere in the lead is there a mention of Putin. I do think we should include info that Blavatnik did not get sanctioned during the Russo-Ukraine war precisely because he is not connected to Putin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The comments regarding Putin seem like a non-sequitur. Whether or not a person was an oligarch is largely orthogonal to support for Putin. Sources such as [3] and [4] clearly establish that he was an "oligarch". That said, the phrase "Some have criticized" should almost never be in the lead section of an article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

fair enough. removed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone.

• Certainly, the fact that Blavatnik avoids being defined as an oligarch doesn't prove his guilt. That circular reasoning should not inform a Wikipedia article and does a disservice to the legitimacy of the platform. Sources stating that he works to disassociate himself are reporting on that fact alone- any further conclusions reached by a reader are speculative. If someone accused me of something I am not, and I said I wasn't, that wouldn't prove that I am in fact that thing I am being accused of.
• I would like to reiterate that the reason behind the sanction is not currently covered by reliable sources. Any guesses are strictly speculative, and do not belong on a BLP, as discussed previously here: Talk:Len_Blavatnik#Original research in Sanctions section. C at Access (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

W.r.t. the oligarch wording, there are no direct accusations of Blavatnik being an oligarch in the current article. There are more than a dozen sources indicating Blavatnik's oligarch status is debated, with many indicating that Blavatnik himself has put significant effort into trying to reputation launder his aluminum money away. I think it is WP:UNDUE not to mention his initial connection to wealth and the intense resulting scrutiny.

Regarding mention of the russo-ukraine war in the sanctions section, it is well supported by the info on websites, and to omit that the controversy isn't in light of the war is WP:UNDUE

• [5] "Economic sanctions imposed by Western governments since Russia’s assault on Ukraine have sent the ruble crashing... Blavatnik, a dual citizen of the United States and United Kingdom, isn’t among the eight people sanctioned by the federal government in the past two weeks"

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with Bluethricecreamman that how he gained his initial wealth from the Aluminium industry is due for the lead. As for whether or not he is an oligarch, many news organisations have implied that he is (e.g. [6] [7] [8]). Given the emphasis in mainstream news publications of Blavatnik attempting to launder his reputation with charitable donations, I think this aspect should be prominently included in his biography. Paid advocates are free to make their case on talkpages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia editors have to listen to them or compromise with them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Update Philanthropy section

Hi. Please add the following to the Philanthropy section:

• In the first paragraph, in order to create a more balanced discussion, please add the following directly after the sentence: Some critics characterize his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing.

Journalists such as Richard Morrison from The Sunday Times push back on this accusation, stating that "it's both discourteous and self-defeating for people in the UK arts scene to regard every source of non-government funding, whether corporate or philanthropic, as potentially 'tainted'."

• Please replace the third paragraph of Philanthropy with the following. It adds a launch date, fixes a grammar issue, and updates the information:

Blavatnik is also a financial supporter of Yale University, where he launched in 2016 the Blavatnik Fund for Innovation, which supports early-stage biotechnology companies, as well as the Blavatnik Fellowship. Since 2017, the fund has supported 73 projects with over $20 million in direct support for research and fellowships. In September 2023, the Blavatnik Family Foundation donated an additional $40 million to the Innovation Fund.

• Please add the following as a new paragraph below the third paragraph:

Len Blavatnik founded the Blavatnik Archive in 2005 to support primary source-based scholarship and education by preserving and disseminating materials that contribute to the study of 20th century Jewish and world history.

References

Thank you. C at Access (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In reference to this edit: Journalists such as Richard Morrison from The Sunday Times push back on this accusation, stating that "it's both discourteous and self-defeating for people in the UK arts scene to regard every source of non-government funding, whether corporate or philanthropic, as potentially 'tainted'.", I'm inclined to incorporate it in the following, modified format: Writing in The Sunday Times, Richard Morrison responded to the criticism, stating that "it's both discourteous and self-defeating for people in the UK arts scene to regard every source of non-government funding, whether corporate or philanthropic, as potentially 'tainted'." "Journalists such" implies other journalists echoed Morrison, which is not supported by the source and "push back" is a bit familiar.

The other two suggestions seem fine and I will incorporate them as-is.

I'll wait until Friday to see if anyone objects and, in the absence of any objections, make these edits. Chetsford (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Seeing no objections, I have implemented the above three edit requests in the form described in my last comment. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional Updates to the Philanthropy section

Thank you Chetsford for your prompt edits. Below are a few more suggested additions to the Philanthropy section. Perhaps you would not mind adding these as well.

• In the Philanthropy section, after the sentence that begins "In 2016, Blavatnik funded a new hall…" please add the following:

In February 2023, the Blavatnik Family Foundation and Warner Music Group made a £10 million ($12 million) donation to the V&A to create a center dedicated to David Bowie.

• In the Philanthropy section, below the paragraph that begins "In December 2021…" please add the following:

In 2022, Blavatnik gifted £10 million to the National Portrait Gallery for refurbishment work. The London gallery reopened in 2023 with more than 100 years of British portraits in nine galleries, as part of the Inspiring People Project in the new Blavatnik Wing.

• Directly after the paragraph that begins "In February 2022…" please add the following:

The Blavatnik Family Foundation provided donations to local organizations in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion in 2022, and it provided humanitarian supplies in Israel following the October 7 2023 Hamas terror attack.

• Directly after the paragraph that begins "In December 2023…" please add the following:

The Blavatnik Family Foundation announced in March 2024 that it would be awarding Brandeis University a $6 million grant to support two graduate research fellowships in life sciences, provided funding for 11 Harvard affiliates to visit Israel on a solidarity trip after incidences of antisemitism were reported on the Harvard University campus, following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, and in April 2024, the Blavatnik Archive led the launch of the Refuseniks & Activists site, a digital platform detailing the history the Free Soviet Jewry Movement.

• Please remove the following unsourced and un-encyclopedic statement at the end of the Philanthropy section: There is currently a scam circulating on the Internet that Blavatnik is giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars to private citizens.

References

Thank you so much for your help. C at Access (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the "scam" sentence. But I don't see the point of adding all those extra items. The section is turning into a big list. A foundation exists to make donations; I'm not convinced that we need to list every item that gets into the news. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is more than passing coverage of Len Blavatnik, I argue that most of these sources are just padding to the philanthropy section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity and Bluethricecreamman. I understand that the Philanthropy section seems to be growing large. However, this section should be kept current to keep the article as a whole maximally useful. Perhaps we can make a compromise and just add the donations from 2024? If you agree, then please add the fourth bullet point from the above request. Thanks so much, C at Access (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. whole section still requires significant trimming, but this bullet point seems to be covered by several sources, so could possibly be WP:DUE to include. actually change my mind. A press release from Brandeis celebrating the guy who gave money, and the press release from refuseniks all seem not WP:INDEPENDENT. I'd also argue all this sourcing seems WP:ROUTINE. This information by itself just makes more of a giant list of philanthropy that Blavatnik does, which is turning that section into a database of his latest philanthropic endeavors. see WP:NOTDB

That sounds right to me. If it's important to keep that section "current", we could go for "one in, one out". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL issue in lead

Returning to an unresolved topic that has been discussed here in the past: In the second paragraph of the lead, the word "other" from the phrase "alongside other Russian oligarchs" should be removed, per MOS:LABEL. The word "other" strongly implies that Blavatnik is himself a Russian oligarch, just like the "other Russian oligarchs" he made his initial fortune with. Since whether or not he is a Russian oligarch is disputed in the sources, in order to avoid contentious labels - especially in the lead of a BLP - the sentence should instead read "alongside Russian oligarchs." C at Access (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The list of words in MOS:LABEL does not include oligarch. Even assuming the label is contentious, many publications all compare Blavatnik to other oligarchs even if they do not explicitly say if Blavatnik is or isnt one. WP:PUBLICFIGURE indicates the abundance of sourcing would suggest that this is WP:DUE for the lede. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bluethricecreamman. Thanks for your quick response. There is no question that the term "oligarch" is contentious. (The MOS:LABEL list of contentious labels is clearly not meant to be exhaustive.) In addition, regardless of comparisons and subtext that might be found in numerous sources, if reliable sources do not widely call Blavatnik an oligarch, then Wikipedia should not call him that either, especially in the lead. Thank you once again for your consideration. C at Access (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think most folks would agree. If you want, feel free to solicit opinions from other noticeboards again. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:3O to help resolve this issue. C at Access (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

@Bluethricecreamman and C at Access: Thank you for requesting a third opinion. As a reminder, the third opinion process is neither mandatory nor binding. This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party. I hope I can be helpful. As I read the policies, I am not sure that oligarch is the same as other labels described as contentious, as it has a widely agreed upon definition and describes structural elements of a person's relationship to governance. I think it's more like calling someone an aristocrat than it is like calling someone a demogogue or kleptocrat. It's a clearly enough defined term that I don't think it's a clear matter of WP:SYNTH to use this term without it showing up in sources, any more than it would be to call someone a civic leader, especially in the case of Russian oligarchs who are defined my specific actions during specific time periods and geographic regions. All that said, while I personally think Blavatnik specifically is a clear example of an oligarch, User:C at Access is correct that some sources disagree. During a quick bit of research, my impression is that published experts have generally described him as an oligarch, but that some journalists have published the fact that he objects to that label via a strong PR campaign, and some non-experts have disagreed. I think that it is appropriate to describe blavatnik as a Russian oligarch as long as strong sources are referenced, and doing so in the lead is reflected with further explanation in the body of the article, which may also include a description of objections to the label. That the label is controversial doesn't make it unverifiable, and since I can't find evidence that this label is controversial among sources that should be regarded as reliable in this context, I support inclusion. I've included some example sources below I was able to find; I was not able to find any reliable sources that argue that he does not meet the definition, only references to his own PR firm's disagreement with the definition. Helpful references *Michel, Casey (2022-04-01). "How Russia's Oligarchs Laundered Their Reputations". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2024-12-07. Leonard, D. (2011). Who You Calling An Oligarch? Bloomberg Businessweek, 4255, 84–87. https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=67346610&site=eds-live&scope=site "An Oligarch's Guide to Influencing the West". Columbia Political Review. 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-12-07. Ruddick, Graham (2017-09-03). "Should Oxford and the V&A take millions from Ukrainian-born billionaire Len Blavatnik?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-12-07. Chapman, Majlie de Puy Kamp,Isabelle (2022-05-11). "'It's shameful': Russian-linked billionaires have given enormous sums to the West's leading educational and cultural institutions". CNN. Retrieved 2024-12-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Harrison-Broninski, Bertie (October 2019). "An Oligarch, A Think Tank And The Rise Of American Kleptocracy?". Journal of Political Risk. 7 (10). — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi penultimate supper. I appreciate you offering your opinion, and while, of course, you have no obligation to remain involved in this discussion, I hope you'll read my response and consider it.

It seems difficult to claim that "oligarch" is not value-laden. There appears to be consensus on Wikipedia that it is - see Talk:Jeff Bezos#Jeff Bezos’ is an Oligarch. and other examples. And see this Washington Post article ("What is an oligarch, really?", which dedicates over 1,200 words to the trickiness of defining the term. Most, in fact, define the word in a way that clearly excludes Blavatnik, like the UK government, which defines "Russian oligarch" as "a Russian national" who is "connected to the Putin regime" (Blavatnik is neither). The WaPo article also cites a US federal judge who instructed lawyers in the Paul Manafort trial to stop using the word "oligarch" because the term was too "pejorative." In light of this, Blavatnik should only be called an oligarch in his Wikipedia biography if the term is used widely to describe him in reliable sources - and it is not.

Among the sources you cited that ostensibly describe Blavatnik as an oligarch, only the Guardian source can really be used to support this claim. The other sources either don't actually call Blavatnik an oligarch (Bloomberg, CNN, Journal of Political Risk) or are not necessarily reliable for contentious statements (New York magazine - per WP:RSP; CPR - as an undergraduate multipartisan political magazine).

As you wrote, some sources do quote individual experts who have called Blavatnik an oligarch; on the other hand, Anti-Corruption Foundation founder and opposition leader Alexei Navalny asserted that Blavatnik is not an oligarch and did not include him in his "Navalny 35" list or in the ACF's comprehensive list of more than 6,000 oligarchs, officials and propagandists. Per Navalny: "He isn't buying newspapers here, he isn't intimidating journalists, he basically isn't involved with Putin at all."

Finally, the lack of strong journalistic sources that actively argue that Blavatnik is not an oligarch only demonstrates the logical difficulty in proving a negative. There are countless reliable sources that talk about Blavatnik in the context of oligarchs (such as the New York Times article here) which refrain from using the term for Blavatnik himself, in what can only reasonably be explained as a conscious editorial decision that the term would be inappropriately applied to Blavatnik.

Thanks again for jumping in here - I hope I've been clear enough in my explanations. C at Access (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You've been very clear in your explanations, and the way you handle COI/paid editing with transparency and respect for volunteer editors is laudable. I wasn't going to add more to this after my WP:Third Opinion, but the question has been lingering in my head, and your reply was civil and considerate, so I feel that the principle of respect demanded a thoughtful response.

I agree that the title oligarch is to some extent value-laden, clearly it's not a title most people receiving, but I don't think that automatically makes it analogous to the MOS:LABEL examples. There appears to be a clear, widely agreed upon structural definition used by subject matter experts, particularly regarding Russia and the former soviet states. There is room for reasonable disagreement about who it applies to, and I'd be more reticent outside of geopolitical areas where it has an established history—although I predict the coming years will provide more clarity even there, as more literature explores the role of corporate oligarchs in western liberal democracies. The needs of a court to protect the jury from the emotionally destabilizing impact which even true statements may exert divergent greatly from the needs of an encyclopedia. While a court may not have the time or resources to explore the tangent of whether Mr. Manafort was an oligarch without undermining the core goals of a trial, Wikipedia does not have the same sort of limitations (WP:NOTPAPER), nor does the inclusion of this term require the article to include a lengthy tangent, due to the presence of strong sources that can support it with minimal qualification.

Ultimately, my opinion is that it is appropriate to title Mr. Blavatnik as an oligarch in wikivoice, and certainly necessary that the article at least do so in the voice of sources, since it's hard to find any sources about him that don't at least discuss the term. That said, if there is substantial coverage of the term in this article, I'd support including both his own objection to the term, and any substantial coverage that objects. I think Navalny is a significant enough source that it could be mentioned, but while he's certainly an expert on the subject in a general sense, he's not neccesarily a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, so his view would need to be carefully weighted against academic or journalistic voices that see the matter differently.

Be well. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There have been two responses here declining to adopt what the COI editor is requesting. I'll add my own endorsement of these replies; I am satisfied that it is appropriate to use the term. Sure, Blavatnik objects (and then pays someone here to further that objection) -- well, we can note the objection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: NPOV in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Proposer has withdrawn the RfC. Plus: WP:SNOW outcome favoring retention of the current language. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the lead call Len Blavatnik a Russian oligarch by saying that he made his initial fortune "alongside other Russian oligarchs" or should the lead just say he made his initial fortune "alongside Russian oligarchs" to avoid using a disputed label in Wikipedia's voice?

• Option 1: Change the language.
• Option 2: Keep the language.

19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C at Access (talk • contribs)

Survey

• Option 1. Blavatnik should not be called a Russian oligarch in wikivoice, as whether the label applies to Blavatnik is disputed among experts and RS, and the label itself is contentious and not widely used to describe him (see MOS:LABEL). While many RS bring up Blavatnik's past association with Russian oligarchs, only a few sources and experts call him one outright; most refrain and even seem to go out of their way to avoid doing so (e.g., NY Times, WSJ, WaPo). Blavatnik's name also does not appear on any of the prominent lists of Russian oligarchs, such as the US Treasury Department's "Putin list," Alexei Navalny's "Navalny 35" list or the Anti-Corruption Foundation's comprehensive list of more than 6,000 oligarchs, officials and propagandists. Navalny asserted that Blavatnik is not an oligarch, saying, "He isn't buying newspapers here, he isn't intimidating journalists, he basically isn't involved with Putin at all."

The contentiousness of the label, which was notably called a "pejorative" by the US federal judge in the Manafort trial, is evidenced by the many sources reflecting on the amorphous, disputed definition of "Russian oligarch" and who falls under its umbrella (e.g., Washington Post, Forbes, Poynter). It should also be noted that the body of this article discusses the issue directly, at the end of the Career section. C at Access (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note re COI editor -- C at Access (talk · contribs) has been open in discussions above about having a COI with respect to Blavatnik, but the point needs highlighting in connection with that editor's action here, starting an RfC about this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 I'm not certain why this would be more pejorative referring to Blavatnik than to others. He did the same thing as the other Oligarchs to build his wealth. I also think it's a dangerous precedent to allow American courts to decide what constitutes a pejorative and what doesn't - especially surrounding language that denotes economic class. Sorry but it's not pejorative to say he's a rich guy who built a personal well of wealth and power by grabbing up Soviet assets when they were privatized. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I'm not comfortable calling Blavatnik an oligarch straight up, but I am comfortable lumping him in the group of oligarchs in the current wording. See also discussion above, but there are dozens of sources within the article that talk about his initial fortune being from oligarch-like activities, and the explicit work he attempted to hide that label. would be WP:UNDUE to not include some mention of this controversy in the lede Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (Summoned by bot) - For the same reasoning as Simonm223. Where we have plenty of sources stating that the subject did oligarch things in order to build their wealth then WP:WEIGHT suggests that we describe them as such. MOS:LEAD would suggest that such description be in the lead as if they didn't do oligarch things in the first place we wouldn't know about them and they wouldn't have an article. TarnishedPath^talk 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  The term "Russian oligarch" is not defined as someone who did oligarch things. It is defined most commonly as a Russian person who not only is wealthy but also has significant political influence in Russia. As the UK government's definition reads: "A Russian oligarch is a Russian national who is both ultra-high-net-worth and connected to the Putin regime." Blavatnik does not fit that definition. There is certainly another overbroad definition whereby a Russian oligarch is "pretty much any Russian who became extraordinarily rich during the country's privatization era of the 1990s." But when such a glaring ambiguity in the definition exists - along with the disparity in the sources that has already been outlined - in order to maintain WP:NPOV the reference to Blavatnik as a Russian oligarch should not be in wikivoice. C at Access (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly I'm rather concerned if states are muddying the definition of "Oligarch," which quite clearly referred to those people who made their fortunes during forced-privatization, by trying to correlate it with alignment to Putin. Seems like apologia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Our own article on Russian oligarchs states "Russian oligarchs (Russian: олигархи, romanized: oligarkhi) are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth in the 1990s via the Russian privatisation that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union" in the first sentence.

  Britannica says about them in the first sentence on the subject "Russian oligarchs, tycoons who reaped enormous fortunes in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991".

  CBS News about oligarchs says "Oligarchs — or extremely wealthy business leaders who are politically connected — became more prominent in Russia in the 1990s, but they are not unique to Russia.

  Many Russian oligarchs are heavily involved in and benefit from Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime, with some serving in political positions". Notably it doesn't say that all of them are heavily involved in Putin's regime, only that many of them are.

  Merriam Webster states that oligarch are "in Russia and other countries that succeeded the Soviet Union : one of a class of individuals who through private acquisition of state assets amassed great wealth that is stored especially in foreign accounts and properties and who typically maintain close links to the highest government circles". Notably Putin isn't mentioned and it only states that they typically maintain close links to the highest government circles, not that they always do.

  Cambridge dictionary states about oligarchs "someone who is extremely rich and powerful, especially a person from Russia who became rich after the end of the former Soviet Union"

  So yes, doing oligarch things (i.e., extremely wealthy businessmen who made their wealth out of the privatisation of formerly owned USSR state owned assets) makes them an oligarch. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 He doesn't think so... See the Guardian

Footnote added 21 July 2024: After publication of this article, we were contacted by a representative for Sir Len Blavatnik restating his view that “oligarch” is an incorrect description of him. The representative said Blavatnik, who is a UK/US citizen born in Ukraine during the Soviet era, has “divested of all his major Russian assets years ago”. Blavatnik has also stated previously that his “personal and commercial activities are not, and have never been, involved with Putin, Russian politics or the Russian government”.

But it seems obvious to me

• Option 2. Whether Blavatnik is an "oligarch" in the strict technical sense of being part of an "oligarchy" is not really relevant to the reference to him making his fortune as part of a group of more loosely defined "Russian oligarchs", which has a somewhat broader definition which he most definitely fit at the time. The current wording also makes no claim that he is an oligarch, simply that he got rich that way at some point in the past. It is kind of WP:WEASEL worded but it feels like a reasonable compromise.Void if removed (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. I previously responded to a WP:3O request on this topic with a more detailed response, but to reiterate, I don't see a problem with describing Len Blavatnik as an oligarch based on the sources available and the relevant policies. The only significant controversy around this description is that he does not like being called an oligarch, and has spent money to influence the press and this encyclopedia to avoid calling him one. That is not a good enough reason to avoid using the label if reliable sources suggest it fits, and the current language steers shy of even directly labeling him one, which I think is even more inarguably acceptable. I did praise the CoI editor for their conduct in my WP:30 response, and do find that they have been transparent, but I think if this RfC ends up supporting the current language, we need to be able to expect that the CoI editor will respect the repeated, clear, consensus on this issue and not keep seeking new ways to bring about their desired result. Hopefully that is already their intention if this RfC doesn't go the way they hope. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. There are a few sources in the article calling him as an oligarch so I see no problem with this wording. Alaexis_¿question? 21:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. No where in this article do we call him a Russian oligarch, we only associate him with other Russian oligarchs. The lead should summarize what the article says, so no we should not change the lead. Dobblesteintalk 22:50, 20 December 2024 (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.