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 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. 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 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 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)


 * Firstly, thanks for taking the time to respond. The photo suggested by RoseAbrams may well be the "best quality". I'm sure it is ! It was fabricated by Ruja expressly for that purpose ! However it does not to me meet the long list of other qualities required by the MOS, which I listed above.
 * The (German, AIUI) passport photo is low quality. Most passport photos are (once they are imprinted onto the passport). However most (certainly the UK) passport authorities demand plain, natural, unadorned photos, or they will be rejected. The FBI thought it sufficient for their purposes, and, notably, they did not select the photo suggested by Rose Abrams. You say "it appears that the cropped photo from the FBI fugitive does not accurately represent her most recent appearance." That is surely POV. Are we supposed to know better than the FBI what she looks like? Really? (Btw, I believe there is a much better first-generation version of the passport photo in existence on the internet, https://static.dw.com/image/62332610_804.jpg but unfortunately it is not on Wikimedia Commons.)
 * However, do not fret, since a compromise is easy. The FBI also issued two other better-quality photos of Ruja, as well as the grainy passport photo. Happily, both are on Wikimedia Commons.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruja_Ignatova_FBI_(leftpic).jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruja_Ignatova_FBI_(centerpic).jpg
 * I would be happy with either. Rose can choose. RodCrosby (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you certain that a photoshopped publicity photo would go against WP:IUP? Sure, I agree that it may not be NPOV to depict a subject with the same positive bias as a glam article, but I don't really see anything in IUP speaking against retouching inherently. Cite it if I missed it, but I'm willing to bet that many biography photos has people looking their best even if it's not NPOV per se. But more importantly, the photoshopped picture is how most people would recognize the subject – her fraud exposure and conviction doesn't change the fact that she was at one point regarded a crypto-finance celebrity, and it is that (both figurative and literal) appearance that a reader would best recognize. It's also the appearance most circulated online, as you mentioned. So I don't believe the NPOV of just a photo is significantly strong, but also that the recognizability makes it more representative.
 * But if we must have a non-retouched photo, I'd suggest this one. Rose Abrams  (T C L) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry, I might portrayed my message not clear enough. I never said that it goes against WP:IUP. It also doesn’t go against MOS:IMAGES in my view. I only mentioned WP:IUP, to highlight that any photo that will be used shall be in line with WP:IUP. I didn’t mean that photos that you are discussing are not in line with it.
 * My concern was about quality of the passport photo. My suggestion was that if RodCrosby against this specific photo that you proposed, then it would be more easier to reach consensus by selecting another, but quality photo. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello.You said: "I never said that it goes against WP:IUP." True, you didn't, but maybe you overlooked this:-
 * "Additionally, user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. The subject to be illustrated should be clearly identifiable in context, and should not be overly stylized."
 * Can we be sure that Ruja, or one of her associates, did not in fact upload this image to Wikimedia Commons in 2015 ? The date may be significant, as the scam was then still in full swing...
 * I also disagree with your view that "It also doesn’t go against MOS:IMAGES in my view.". The supposed "best quality" image does not trump all the other requirements of MOS:IMAGES. If it did, then every image on WP could be a mere Photoshop. There has to be a balance. And - just my opinion - but I've never seen such an obviously fake image anywhere as the lead photo in Wikipedia. I've already stated that I have no objection in principle to the photo appearing somewhere in the page. But it must be placed in context.- self-promotion by the criminal Ignatova on a paid-for, deceptive, supposed magazine cover.  RodCrosby (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello RodCrospy. This photo is not a user made image. It is on the Flickr image hosting and can be used under creative commons license. This "Can we be sure that Ruja, or one of her associates, did not in fact upload this image to Wikimedia Commons in 2015 ?" is a POV and assumption, not an argument. Also, MOS:IMAGES is not a policy, it is a guideline, i.e., recommendation. So it is matter of you two agreeing on the one of the photos. Rose Abrams considered your concerns and suggested to use THIS photo. If you satisfied with that suggestion - then matter is solved. Have a nice day! A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. Thanks for your input. I'll change to the agreed photo. RodCrosby (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)