Talk:Natalia Veselnitskaya

Speedy Deletion not needed
She was covered in the Act and I set up separate article now that her notoriety for involvement in the 2016 Presidential election has eclipsed her role against the Magnitsky Act. If you deem it necessary to mark for deletion, please take the time to do a bit of research before waisting your time and everyone eases. --Wikipietime (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well put. Thank you for your advocacy.Dogru144 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, darn it. I came to the Talk Page expecting to be a contrarian voice. ☺ Now, I just get to concur. I am fully against Speedy Deletion or merging this article back into Magnitsky Act. mcornelius (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Some problems
1. "Hillary" is mistakenly "Hilary" in the "Advocacy against the Magnitsky Act" section.

2. "supposedly disclose potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton" is vague, the promise was "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary . . ." the current wording implies that he was promised generic harmful information, but it is rather "incriminating information" which was promised (by Rob Goldstone's email). 3. The article sometimes goes close to implying Natalia herself was the one promising this information, or that she even knew before hand that she was to supply this information, but I have seen no articles stating that she knew she was supposed to talk about Hillary Clinton at all! The interview with the article's subject is very useful: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-i-didn-t-have-n781631

4. The article never actually states if she is working for the Russian government, it rather leaves it an open ended question. Perhaps information from the interview can be included in the article, where she denies working for the Russian government, and any further information if ever revealed can be added. (Such as the information that she charged Russian government money for her hotel is useful). Also should be included, is that the Russian Government denies it as well.

5. The article is very willing to proclaim the supposed "victory" of a loss of nearly $6,000,000 to Prevezon by their lawyers, but it is excluding the same supposed "victory" by Manhatten U.S. Attorney office that: "The nearly $6 million represents three times the money that flowed to Prevezon from the Russian treasury fraud and more than 10 times the portion they invested in U.S. real estate". As a different article stated, both sides claimed victory from this settlement. But the article does not reflect this. The sources used have plenty of text which can help show the full picture.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with number 1, and number 2. I thought perhaps "supposedly disclose potentially damaging information" could have been changed to "supposedly disclose 'official documents and information that would incriminate" to quote the email from Goldstone as in the sources, but article already has a warning of too much use of quotes. Also I would like to add, Goldstone himself has certainly made statements by now, as well as others. Perhaps their statements can be used some way if they are relevant, if they exist.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

POV
Please when adding in inforamtion, use only what is stated in the source. From removed text from ip editor (97.98.86.66).


 * Veselnitskaya was an employee of the Fusion GPS firm which was retained by Democrats to prepare parts of a "dossier" which made sexually salacious accusations against President Donald J Trump, and a since-discredited[2][3] accusation of Trump's lawyer meeting Russians.[4][5][3][6] Her June 2016 meeting with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Rinat Akhmetshin -- of the same Fusion GPS[12] firm that produced the aforenoted anti-Trump, discredited "dossier" -Where does it state she was an employee of the firm, she hired the firm for her advocacy against the Russian sanctions, the same way democratic supporters hired the firm, and republican supporters had hired the firm. There is a difference between what you are saying. Also all the unverified claims in the dossier have nothing to do with her or this article and should be left in the respective article.


 * She has since denied promising any information detrimental to her fellow Democrats Where are you getting her political affiliation if she has any in this country?


 * Pundits from many political dispositions have noted the oddity of her connections to the Democratic Party, including that she employed Democrat Party lobbyists, was a Rachel Maddow fan, and attended the Women's March led by Linda Sarsour. Attending a march, being a Rachel Maddow fan, not sure what that has to do with being odd or where from the cited source you found that.

Please be more careful on this WP:BLP page, and read relevant policies when adding information and try not to add in your own WP:POV.  WikiVirus  C (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuation:

Second comment:


 * Veselnitskaya directed some work of Fusion GPS -- the firm which prepared parts of a "dossier" which made sexually salacious accusations against President Donald J Trump, and a since-discredited accusation of Trump's lawyer meeting Russians. See above comment, the dossier, the allegations of meetings between lawyers and Russians, do not belong in the biography of Natalia Veselnitskaya.


 * it is not yet known whether Ms. Veselnitskaya took part in the preparation of that dossier, or any of Fusion GPS's work against Trump, Romney or other Republicans. Original research/POV/putting the idea that it might be possible in readers head, isn't allowed. There is no reason for this to be in article especially with no WP:RS. Review WP:BLP and WP:POV


 * www.facebook.com/NataliaVeselnitskaya & www.facebook.com/pages/%D0%9...]]|undefinedWe aren't going to build articles of wikipedia with like and pictures from Facebook as a source.

Please respond here rather than just reinserting back into article.  WikiVirus  C (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * the dossier, the allegations of meetings between lawyers and Russians, do not belong in the biography of Natalia Veselnitskaya: 1. This is an alleegation of a meeting tween Trumps and Russians, but it's somehow still in the article: Her June 2016 meeting with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort in Trump Tower has attracted attention related to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

...I've never added an allegation tween "lawyers (her, I assume you mean?) and Russians." I have no data on whether she's part of Russian (government, if that's what you meant -- she must meet PLENTY of Russians ;-) ...without any significance to The Public).

2. The dossier, why it's relevant to her, personally: The media -- left AND Right, as my selection of sources showed -- and politicians have found her ties to Fusion GPS relevant to her Trump meeting. We're supposed to follow sources (unless fringe, RS, all or "nearly all" from 1 side of an ideological spectrum (unbalanced), etc) Why relevant? Fusion is THE corp who happened to provide those precise stories SOURCED FROM 4CHAN TEENS (that I spok of on the other Talk page), which 4chan later confessed was only to see who'd be BIASED enough to run such kooky stories fabricated by themselves: e.g. story of Trump paying prozzies to urinate on his head, SO YES, IT GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF EVERYONE ASSOCIATED w/Fusion GPS: JUST AS WP:RS TELLS US TO QUESTION ALL AUTHORS PUBLISHED BY AN EDITOR NOT KNOWN FOR FACT-CHECKING.


 * simply because this is a biography of a living person.": ok. Point-by-point, how does EACH fact I've added violate WP:BLP? Why not preserve the contents that you agree don't violate WP:BLP?  I really don't see how anything in my latest version was a hard violation of WP:BLP, and can only see 1 thing that's a grey-area, walking a fine line... 97.98.86.66 (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

97.98.86.66 (talk)


 * This edit is what I was referring to with you mentioned the allegations between lawyers and Russians. When you are talking about the dossier not the Trump tower meeting.


 * The issue was the content of the dossier is irrelevant. Mentioning she is linked to the Fusion firm is fine, and mentioning they were the ones who made dossier is fine. But when you put it all in the middle of a sentence about making discredited allegations about sexual activity and meetings involving Russia, it is putting WP:UNDUE weight on that entire situation which there are zero sources that say she was involved with it. You originally stated she worked for and was an employee of Fusion, then you changed it after I said she didn't, and you just added another sentence now that said "its unknown whether she was involved", and that is putting suspicions on her that has no justification. Directly from The Independent source Mr Kaysyv’s chief lawyer was Ms Veselnitskaya, and she and Prevezson retained a New York law firm, BakerHostetler, to help in defending Prevezson. BakerHostetler then hired investigators from Fusion GPS to help. Fusion GPS said it was retained specifically to work on an asset forfeiture issue in relation to the case. But Mr Browder claims they also helped Ms Veselnitskaya in her attempts to overturn the US Magnitsky Act. - Everything here involves the Magnitsky Act, and the money laundering case. Nothing else and trying to attach her directly to the production of the dossier is misleading.


 * I asked three times, both here and your talk page if you would discuss the changes on the talk page, you simply just kept putting things back in the article. It is not my job to pick and choose what I like from your edits. I told you what I didn't like and gave suggestions here, and then asked for a discussion which I am willing to do. I tried to analyze your edits the first time, but things were being inferred by you from the edits(which you have admitted to), and other things implied by you in your edits. When I attempted to verify things in the source provided, there were things that were no where to be found in any of them. So after I realized this was the case a revert and a requested discussion about the issues were a lot better than trying to find things that weren't there.  WikiVirus  C (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Language
We should not assume that a person whose mother tongue is obviously Russian can go to New York and conduct cases in English, seamlessly. That status would give us a picture of her activities. (I have seen corruption files from Geneva and Paris not being translated into German and therefore the German authorities could not act.) We need to be more aware of language separations or even proximities i.e. germanic languages, slavic, roman etc. People find it easier to stay in one area and usually do. If Veselnitskaya speaks and writes English to the level of conducting court cases in New York, that would be extraordinary. 2001:8003:A921:6300:B0BA:6D63:78EB:1A2C (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Name
I've seen her name spelled as "Natalia Vaselnitskaya" (note the 'a' in second position of the surname) in a number of news sources, and a month ago I created the page Natalia Vaselnitskaya as a redirect here. Is this an alternative romanization of her name, or just a misspelling? In either case, should it be noted in the article? Hppavilion1 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation of that part of her last name is quite precise. The second and fourth characters of her last name are the same, romanized as an 'e'.  It is not accurate to represent it as an 'a' so, if you have seen that, it can only be a mistake of some kind or a reference to another person entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:4D25:712D:32ED:D416 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tone
In the Education and Career section the final sentence says Kamerton Consulting represented FSB interests from 2005 to 2013. This misrepresents the source. That 2005-2013 date refers to a single court case fought during that time regarding a property dispute between a private company and a military unit founded by the FSB but not a part of it. The firm only represented the military unit in this one case, and it did not represent FSB directly. Suggest it's changed to "[...] represented a Russian military unit in a case involving a property dispute from 2005 to 2013" to maintain NPOV. 172.97.148.234 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)