Talk:Ksenia Sobchak

Ksenia Sobchak
The article about Ksenia Sobchak was translated incorrectly. There are many mistakes in terms of grammar and style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.191.37 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Copied from User experience feedback. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph lacks citations and looks suspiciously like a Kremtroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel Gene (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That her father was accused of corruption
On 15 January an IP editor added two paragraphs on accusations of corruption against Kseniya's father Anatoly. On 8 February another IP editor tried to delete it. paragraphs were as follows:
 * On January 13, 2015, American channel PBS showed a Frontline Documentary "Putin's Way". In the first half of the documentary, there was an elaborate discussion of the corrupt business transactions that occurred in the Mayor's office under Anatoly Sobchak, father of Kseniya Sobchak. Principal state Investigator who was delegated to examine the embezzlement of state funds by Anatoly Sobchak was removed from his position and the case was closed. The Investigator was interviewed by the Frontline staff and he cites that Anatoly Sobchak embezzled $1.5 billion rubles during his term as a Mayor of St. Petersburg. A team of 20 state investigators was in charge of reviewing illegal transactions of Anatoly Sobchak


 * Kseniya Sobchak has always maintained that her father was an honest man and a true liberal. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she has been dodging questions about the accusations of corruption against her family.

This needs to be discussed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but reword. It is well known that her father was investigated for corruption, and fled Russia as a consequence. It is also well known that as a result of his being mayor of St Petersburg, the Sobchak family became rich and well connected.  The key story is not that a foreign TV channel showed a documentary in 2015; the key story is that the family became rich, but her father had to flee Russia for a little while.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So, speaking about this, I checked the in-line sources, and did not see the claim. Where the sources tell about 1,5 billion rubles? In addition, claims about her father are hardly relevant on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she has been dodging questions about the accusations of corruption against her family. is Original Research and has nothing to do here.Dorpater (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Not mentioning that the old case against her father was officially dropped and considered politically motivated. As about another segment I removed ("Putin's reported affection for the Sobchak family is widely believed to give Ksenia Sobchak a protected status, which may also explain her boldness", such as her encounter in October 2011 with Vasily Yakemenko...") is also hardly belongs to this BLP, and frankly, the claim about "special status" contradict facts (the incident with her apartment being raided, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking more, I think that Toddy1 was probably right and partially self-reverted. If others want to fix it, they are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, here is how she explained why she is not going to criticize Putin during the elections: "На пресс-конференции Собчак сказала, что воздержится от критики личности Владимира Путина, поскольку президент помог ее отцу Анатолию Собчаку с лечением за границей и "фактически спас жизнь". . Hence I think the story about the alleged embezzlement of funds by her father and others is becoming relevant to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Elections
This should be a separate section. As sources tell, she started this campaign after consulting with Putin, and there were numerous claims (such as here) that they did it in order to make the elections look more legitimate and attract more people to vote, and also possibly to make the opposition look ridiculous, given her reputation as host of Dom-2... My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But she possibly will not be even registered as a candidate after the exodus of Kremlin-connected political technologists from her team. Just to put this to a certain perspective, there were only 3 independent presidential candidates who harshly criticized the Kremlin's administration during last 16 years: Ivan Rybkin, Boris Nemtsov (he was also regarded by many in 1990s as the probable successor of Yeltsin), and Alexei Navalny. All of them have been eliminated from the participation, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary source
Vedomosti is not a primary source. What is your concern exactly? Do you doubt that she wrote that letter? GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source because it is a letter written by the subject of this article. The letter was published by Vedomosti but written by Sobchak. I have no reason to doubt that Sobchak wrote the letter. The concern here is that we have pulled out a few small parts from a long letter and said that they represent Sobchak's view on some subjects. You probably noticed that I removed some editorial statements that prefixed the quotes because they were not from the letter and they were an editor's interpretation of the content of the letter. It would be better to have secondary sources provide the analysis of a subject's views rather than allow editors to choose what parts of a subject's writings to include as a representative example of the subject's views. Burrobert (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The source here is not the letter, it's Vedomosti. Which is a reliable secondary source as far as I can tell. Are you saying you think it's not? GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A small part of the article is written by Vedomosti. The rest is written by Sobchak. Suppose a newspaper publishes an article by X, then that article is a primary source for X's biography.
 * Here is our definition of a primary source:
 * Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
 * If we were to quote from the part written by Vedomosti, then we would be using a secondary source, but we are using a quote from a letter written by the subject of our page. Btw primary sources are not always bad. There are noticeboards which provide advice about situations like this. Perhaps we should ask for advice on whether the letter published by Vedomosti is a suitable source for the chosen quotes. Burrobert (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Quotes are always written by their authors. That's not just obvious, it's a tautology. Wikipedia does not have a policy that says we can't use quotes because they were written by their authors. That would be ridiculous. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be odd, but it is not what I said. I said the quote was taken from a primary source. Wikipedia has a policy on the use of primary sources. Burrobert (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)