Talk:Ruja Ignatova

Untitled

I would suggest that Ruja Ignatova was worthy of a page of her own.

At the time I changed the article to a redirect, it contained only a single sentence. In that form, there was no reason to keep it as a freestanding article, when there was so much more information at the article on the coin.

I agree that she may well be worthy of an article on herself, as soon as someone chooses to contribute something substantial about her that isn't already covered in the article about the coin. That's why, when I redirected it, I tagged it as a {{Redirect with possibilities}}. Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

< She also says she studied at the University of Oxford.[8] >

The BBC World Service serial on Ignatova appeared to confirm today, 2020-01-19, that she did complete a one-year course in law at St. Hilda's College, Oxford in 2004. It shouldn't be difficult to cite this if it was thought worth adding. 86.130.154.3 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

BG --> DE ?

"she emigrated to Germany with her family" How ? (exact circumstances / on which "law base") BG wasn´t in the EU yet. It wasn´t normal, usual and easy to "migrate" between BG and DE. Hho knows the details ? Who were/are her parents ?

I am a former German, even though I was long gone from there by 1990. The Wall in my old hometown Berlin fell in November 1989 and the Iron Curtain practically at the same time. So it was all open to walk in, say "Asyl, Asyl" and the Germans would give you an apartment and residency.

She does not look slavic to me but slightly Romany (formerly called Gypsy) and that would have been a reason to claim asylum although the Germans are not fussy. If she could have gone to Bulgaria and hide in a 'traveller clan', nobody will ever find her. There is a lot of "traveller movement' in Greece, with Turkey and Bulgaria. They have their own groups, language etc. As long as she has enough money to pay off her collaborators, there wil be no finding her. Money could have ended up with relatives in Bulgaria. Where was there sudden wealth at the time? Poor daughter of hers. What a waste of talent and intelligence that she turned to that. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:9C4:8D5A:157A:348D (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Husband

I can't find any other sources for "Daniel Dabek" as her husband. I'm not really able to assess the reliability of ihodl.com as a source but their news editor having a profile picture from The Wolf of Wall Street isn't exactly confidence-inspiring. Their reference to her husband is essentially a side note and the source that they link (Der Spiegel) notably doesn't include a name. Hazel77 ^talk 13:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

German article (2023) about him: https://www.nrwz.de/schramberg/onecoin-staatsanwaltschaft-klagt-gegen-ignatovas-ex-mann/402522 BJÖRN >STREHL< 2001:9E8:20E1:400:515E:DC5B:7A66:1E1B (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I changed the infobox photo of the subject from this to this, thinking it's an obvious visual improvement. Then @RodCrosby: reverted my edit because the new photo was "obvious fake". I have... absolutely no clue what he means by this?? The photo was taken from the Flickr run by her own organization, has a confirmed license, has been on Commons since 2015, and is widely used on other-language wikis. How exactly is photo "fake"? I can absolutely say that it is not "obvious". Furthermore, it feels very hard to argue that a low-res heavy-grained scan of her passport is better than a professionally-taken portrait photo. Let's discuss. Rose Abrams (T C L) 11:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The one I removed is obviously photo-shopped to hell, offered by the subject herself at the height of her scam. Compare other actual photographs of the subject and then decide which is closer to reality. Since she is also a fugitive from justice I don't think a photo-shopped image is appropriate either for that reason. As I suggested previously, when I removed the image once before, it may be reasonable to include the image somewhere else in the article, with an explanation it is photo-shopped, but not as the main lead image. RodCrosby (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

And the problem is? I don't know if it's WP policy to not have altered or edited photos of people. I could only find this brainstorm project page with very few editors and activity, and even that mostly talks about misrepresentation through editing. I don't think it's a POV issue to present a person's appearance in a way they have sanctioned or approved, criminal or not. The main point of a photo is to visually identify the person, which even a beauty-shopped publicity image accomplishes. And clarifying that something is photoshopped seems like an even worse idea – that's akin to a spoiler warning or a content disclaimer that the photo is problematic and encyc-unfit. To summarize, I don't see any issue (POV or otherwise) to have a slightly edited photo for an infobox, as long as the subject is identified. Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

To me, it seems sensible to identify a criminal by their mugshot - or in this case by their FBI-issued "Most Wanted" picture,rather than a heavily photo-shopped offering used for a faked Forbes magazine cover. [1]https://behindmlm.com/companies/ruja-ignatovas-onecoin-forbes-cover-a-paid-advertisement/ RodCrosby (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned, when the main point of a photo is for visual identification of the subject, it seems silly to choose a bad picture instead of a good one. And I don't see how crime and other immorality would change that – even the article for Hitler has a propaganda photo in the infobox, as do many other genocidal dictators. It's arguably better for the purpose, since the appearance in publicity photos is how most readers would recognize such persons. Rose Abrams (T C L) 06:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been interest in this discussion for 5 days, I decided to reinstate my picture change until someone brings it up again. Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm reverting again. The image does not meet Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images.

"Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."

-It IS primarily decorative, irrelevant to the context (crime),and not significant.

"Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic."

-It's a fake image, that looks nothing like the real person.

"It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place"

-It is NOT representative. It's a unique fake image.

"Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic;"

-It is NOT natural and is NOT an appropriate representation. RodCrosby (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you've previously said that several times. You're just citing various hardly-related MOS:I points and repeating your previous arguments of "it's fake" and "it's photoshopped", and it gets us nowhere. It's better if you can cite a policy or guideline that says something like "Images should not be edited or retouched for beauty purposes" or "Images should not portray convicted criminals in positive light" which I doubt exists. Just repeating "it's fake" is not productive. As previously mentioned, I can cite several articles of criminal or immoral people who has positive pictures attached rather than mugshots even if available – Ted Bundy, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, and not least Adolf Hitler.
I (much like most people, I dare to claim) recognize the person after seeing my picture, so it is representative. The ohter picture is so noisy that it may as well be my mum or any European brunette, so it is objectively bad and unrepresentative. Rose Abrams (T C L) 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. The image which is more appropriate is (AIUI) from the subject's own passport, issued by the FBI. The other subjects you mention all have lead images which seem perfectly natural, and in any case pre-date Photoshop/AI, so cannot be so unnatural as the one under discussion. If you don't like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images try to advocate for a change. I am simply quoting the plain words of it. I did not write it and was unaware of it at the beginning of our exchange. But I'm happy to find something which accords with and supports the common sense of my original arguments. Please do not revert again, without offering something that negates the MOS. RodCrosby (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you don't seem to like MOS:I. The things you cited doesn't say anything about what you're arguing, you just tacked on "yep, this confirms that photoshopping and positively portraying criminals is not allowed" at the end. You're not the smartest person in the room just because you're able to quote a MOS page and assume it means what you want it to mean. If you genuinely think that's a valid interpretation, then cite a discussion where that was the conclusion or advocate for the guideline to say it more plainly. Or alternatively, if you don't wanna argue, simply don't argue and let me do my edit. Rose Abrams (T C L) 11:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no argument. The plain words of the MOS are clear. They don't have to be debated or justified. Although anyone may advocate for a change (elsewhere please, not here). The passport photo is "natural", "appropriate", "representative", "relevant" and "looks like" the subject of the article, and is in its proper "context", namely issued by the FBI in pursuit of a subject notorious only for being a criminal.

There is nothing to argue over. Please move on. RodCrosby (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The mere fact that I see it another way means that there is an argument. I interpret your words as an aggressive refusal to discuss further, and thus incivility. I will seek a third opinion. Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe it was you who became uncivil, when placing words in my mouth that I never said, making characterizations of me or my motives, demanding additional proof other than the MOS which I offered in good faith, demanding proof of the meaning of individual simple words, etc. It is notable that you have not offered any different meanings to the simple plain words other than their usual, plain, common-sensical meanings. Instead, you just make unreasonable demands. I cannot and will not respond to unreasonable demands. That is why the argument is over. You departed from the norms of civilized, rational debate. RodCrosby (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

RodCrosby, It seems that previos photo is a cropped version of the FBI fugitive's photo [2]. This explains the low quality and resolution. The MOS:IMAGE is not a policy but a guideline that actually recommends using the best quality images available. Additionally, I have searched for other photos of Ruja, and it appears that the cropped photo from the FBI fugitive does not accurately represent her most recent appearance. I have also checked other language Wikipedias, and the majority of them use the photo suggested by Rose Abrams. While each Wiki has its own policies, the fact that the majority of other Wikis use that photo indicates that there are potentially no issues with it. As such, use of photo of Ruja suggested by Rose Abrams does look as an improvement to me. However, I understand Rod Crosby's concern that the photo is heavily photoshopped and was created with the intention of being used as a journal cover rather that Encyclopedia. Thus, it would be beneficial to reach a consensus by finding a higher quality photo that hasn't been photoshopped as extensively and complies with Wikipedia:Image use policy. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)