Talk:Liliane Bettencourt

Ageing L'Oreal heiress defends billion-dollar giveaway

"PARIS (AFP) – France's richest woman, L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, has been forced to insist she is of sound mind after she gave more than a billion dollars in gifts to a society photographer."

Complete article at Yahoo! News AFP: Ageing L'Oreal heiress defends billion-dollar giveaway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.212.94 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/bernard-madoff/3932897/Bernard-Madoff-fraud-LOreal-heiress-Liliane-Bettencourt-invested-money.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.112.97 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no wait my mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.112.97 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I changed the ref to another article which was more about her than the dead financial advisor. If it doesn't appear to be good, feel free to change it back. --ruby.red.roses 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Scam Emails

I received a scam email referencing this page. It might be worth mentioning something on the page. Email text follows:

Hello,
I, Liliane authenticate this email. You can read about me on:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliane_Bettencourt
I write to you because I intend to give to you a portion of my Net-worth, hoping it would be of help to you and others too. Respond for confirmation.

With love,
Liliane Bettencourt

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

In response to the above email, I followed WP:BOLD and added a warning in italics at the top of the page, stating that the emails are not genuine. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And a quick note here, I am not the original contributor of the "scam emails" post above. Please check the edit history. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I also recieved an email.... since this is a real person i suggest a warning box be created to inform viewers of this page of the likelyhood of fraud if referred here by a giveaway email 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazwiz (talk • contribs)

I also just got this scam. I clicked through to consider editing what I figured would be a fake page to point this out, but I see it's a real page... just obviously unrelated to the scam. 74.104.141.11 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

spam is still being sent out, got this a couple of hours ago:

I, Liliane Bettencourt Authenticate this email of 3.5M USD grant to you, please view my link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliane_Bettencourt and Email me on Bettencourtliliane88@rogers.com for more info

20:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Spam was also sent on 10 August 2014 referencing the article to defend legitimacy of the offer, it is still scam no matter what. I got one. The scdam email warning template was not present on the page as of the timestamp of this comment on this talk page. Article needs to be locked down after the template is placed on the page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:506:5901:4477:350:2761:7DC2 (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not Snopes. We're not putting warnings in articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, however in this case the spam e-mails are using this page as part of their content. We have the ability to put something to warn those who may be easily conned, but we are not doing it as it does not "technically" fit the article. We as a community are effectively assisting the con artists further by just ignoring it and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it. Yes, this is not Snopes, but people need to realize it is a scam, or even be aware of Snopes in order for that to be relevant.Screech1616 (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The easiest was to get this in is to find reliable sources covering the matter. If none exist, that should be an indication that the scam is too obscure to be noted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I, too, just received the same email today. I have to say, I totally disagree with [[User:NeilN|. I do not think we should just sit by and do nothing. I think by not saying anything at all about the scam you are tacitly aiding the scammers. Surely, a simple note at the beginning of the article is in order. Or, barring that, a link to a separate article about the "Bettencourt Scam" might be doable? Todd Carnes (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"WP:Ignore All Rules" invoked with regard to scam emails warning

In light of repeated removals of warnings regarding this Wikipedia page being used for scam emails, I have invoked WP:Ignore All Rules, since there really is no clear rule on what to do when Wikipedia is being directly used to scam people. In this case, scammers are linking DIRECTLY to the Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia is about making a positive impact on people's lives, and providing them accurate information. In this case, a factual Wikipedia page is being used by scammers for non-factual purposes, in order to take advantage of others through Advance Fee Fraud scams.

The decision to invoke WP:IAR was not taken lightly, and in this case I feel is very appropriate.

Editors keep removing the warnings, but only with the justification that it's "not encyclopedic". I think Wikipedia has evolved beyond just being an encyclopedia, since it is used and updated real time.

I also challenge any editor who wants to remove the warning - which does more harm or more good?

The warning is only one line in italics at the beginning of the article, and does not impact the content of the article, or affect its' NPOV. Very little harm is done by having the warning present, while at the same time the good it can do is tremendous - it could prevent many people from falling for these scams.

On the flipside, should the warning be removed, people may believe the emails are genuine, since they refer to a trusted source (Wikipedia).

173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite multiple attempts at communicating with other editors, this keeps getting removed without discussion. Please discuss it here. I have moved the information to its own section on the page, citing sources. I'm very disappointed by Wikipedia editors removing this content without discussion. I have invoked WP:IAR to improve Wikipedia and the knowledge of would-be victims. Of course apparently because I'm just an IP address and not a registered account, I am immediately seen as a newbie and my views disregarded. I don't have any barnstars, or thousands of contributions on Wikipedia, so I have very little weight here it seems. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly correct that after multiple back-and-forth reverts this should be discussed here. However, your addition to the article doesn't belong there. There is an inconceivable amount of spam of that kind. If we had to make a mention on every article of someone who's been the butt of such a spam email, we'd have a lot of work. Long story short, this occurrence fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is a unique case, in that Wikipedia is being used directly. If scammers learn they can't send people to Wikipedia to "verify" their emails, they'll turn elsewhere, and this becomes a self resolving problem. Wikipedia community does care about their site being used to scam people, right? 173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't, in any way, verify the credibility of that spam email. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To the average non-technical user, it does. Someone sees a link to a trusted website, and they automatically assume the email is genuine. It's called social engineering. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to it this isn't "Wikipedia - World police". Caveat lector applies both with Wikipedia and spam emails. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's very arguable. By your logic, IMDb would need anti-piracy notices on all its pages because torrent sites tend to link to IMDb on pages where you can illegally download a movie. Hospitals would need to constantly hand out flyers because Viagra-spam says "proven by doctors". You see where I'm going. All that withstanding though, mentioned policies apply. I'll stay out of it (action wise) for now, though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When people are at a piracy website, they know they're getting pirated films. Viagra spammers don't send people to a hospital to get Viagra. The best precedent I can actually think of would be Western Union. Because Wester Union at grocery stores, etc. is being used "directly" by scammers (in that they send their victims there), Western Union now has flyers/pamphlets at the Western Union counter discussing the different scams which actively take place and leverage Western Union. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Following the IAR flowchart... Does it break the rules? Yes -> Does it break the rules because the rules are wrong? No -> Are you sure this change is a good change by common sense and it improves the encyclopedia? Yes -> Ignore the Rules. The true contention here then is, "Are you sure this change is a good change by common sense and it improves the encyclopedia?" If Wikipedia is being used directly by scammers, then it only makes common sense to subvert their efforts and act accordingly. Does it improve the encyclopedia? Yes, in that it provides information which is critically needed by someone who will be visiting the page as a direct result of a scammer sending them an email, as well as raise awareness for others. Hence, my justification for WP:IAR 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also important to note, I am not the only person who has attempted to add information warning of the scam emails. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the section. The only cited sources were a forum and a blog, both inherently unreliable. If you can cite a reliable source that describes these alleged scam emails, we can consider if the subject b3elongs in this or indeed any article. Until then, I have removed it as a controversial comment in a biographical article, per WP:BLP. Do not replace it without achieving clear consensus to do so first. I might add that I have yet to see an action on Wikipedia for which WP:IAR was the sole or primary support urged, of which i approved. I said this back in 2006, and I still say it. I also think such content is not encyclopedic, and does not belong here as per WP:NOT, unless it has achieved significant mention of its own in reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The underlying issue to me is WP:Reliable sources. Blog posts are not sufficient to insert something like this in an article. Now, if it got coverage in Wired or some other publication, then we'd be looking at a different situation. (If it were mentioned at Snopes, that would even be something to work with, because Snopes usually cites their sources.) Until then, I don't think this should go in just on the basis of blog posts. (User:C.Fred's comment interrupted by IP here)

In this case, it is my opinion that regardless of the fact that this is only supported by blog posts, inclusion improves Wikipedia, per WP:IAR discussion above. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. If reinserted without consensus by an editor who was aware of this discussion and the WP:BLP issue, a bock would be warranted, in my view. DES ^(talk) 18:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(resuming) If it does go in, the coverage needs to be tempered to say that the article is about a legitimate person who has been impersonated in emails. That probably means a one-paragraph sentence at the end of the intro along the lines of "Bettencourt's name has been used in emails which purport to give away her wealth but are actually scam emails" and a paragraph or two deeper in the article. If the scam were significant enough, then maybe it gets its own article or a section somewhere else, and then we start with a hatnote: "This article is about the French businesswoman. For the scam emails which misuse her name, see..." That makes it clear that Bettencourt is not a direct participant in the scam but a victim, since the scammers are trying to cash in on her name. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, looking at this from a WP:BLP perspective, do you truly feel it's better to exclude mentions that others are impersonating Liliane Bettencourt? WP:BLP is written to protect the name of the living person. In this case, the information which I added clearly stated that third parties are impersonating her in attempts to defraud others. You are defeating the spirit of WP:BLP with the letter of WP:BLP. Reference Letter and spirit of the law. Excluding this information under these circumstances may be doing more harm than good. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I further backup the above statement by referencing this edit, in which others are actually editing this page because they feel Bettencourt is a scammer [1]. Without information to the contrary, this page does not disprove this supposition. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The best way to deal with that is an edit notice. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

richest woman or second-richest?

The lede lists her as the second richest, the Forbes ranking lists her as second richest. Please verify. GreaseballNYC (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)