Talk:Len Blavatnik

I've protected the article for 3 days to prevent further edit warring; please try to work out the issue here or on another relevant talk page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

his real name is Leonard or Leonid?? -- Retro917 (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we get a picture?--Iady391 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done--Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Heavily contributed to numerous candidates. Needs expansion in article. Wikipietime (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/03/tangled-web-connects-russian-oligarch-money-gop-campaigns Wikipietime (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Still needing with more sources reporting Wikipietime (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am writing to request a change to Mr. Blavatnik's introduction from "Jewish-Ukrainian-Russian-British-American businessman, investor, and philanthropist" to “industrialist and philanthropist holding U.S. and U.K. citizenship.” According to https://www.accessindustries.com/about/len-blavatnik/, he only holds citizenship in the U.S. and U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphk97 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hkjm (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Once you find a reliable source (a statement on his company's website is probably not sufficient), you may make the change yourself. If you have a connection with Mr. Blavatnik or if there's some other reason you have a conflict of interest, you can use the {{requested edit}} template rather than the untargeted {{help me}} tag. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am following up on the request to change Mr. Blavatnik's introduction to the correct citizenship information. He only holds U.S. and U.K. citizenship at this time. Please see his biography: https://www.accessindustries.com/about/len-blavatnik/.

Hkjm (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am reaching out to request updates on factually incorrect descriptors of Len Blavatnik on his on Wikipedia ^[1].

1. Request factual correction under political donations

   Under the political donations category, it includes a passage that says, without any sourcing or attribution: “Blavatnik, who is closely associated with Vladimir Putin, is one of the largest donors…” That is factually inaccurate. That erroneous clause – who is closely associated with Vladimir Putin – should be excised. It is not supported by any evidence, reporting or independent documentation in the Wiki writeup. I’m also including for your review the independent and timely reporting by the Financial Times [2] that makes clear Mr. Blavatnik is NOT associated with Putin. Among other findings by the Financial Times in the extensive and well-researched profile, it reported that:

• Perhaps most importantly, unlike his peers who made similar fortunes from the former USSR’s vast natural resources, Blavatnik steered clear of the Kremlin, leaving it to his partners to handle the political ties required of big Russian businesses.
• Of the dozens of Blavatnik’s business partners, friends, employees, and former associates that the FT spoke to for this article, almost all point to his … positioning himself as an outsider in Russia and a local in the west.
• While his partners embraced their new prominence as Russian billionaires, Blavatnik moved in another direction…. Blavatnik also diversified his business away from Russia.
• Blavatnik’s representatives say he has not met the Russian president since 2000. Kremlin officials tell the FT that he was never a regular visitor.
• From Alexei Navalny, an opposition leader and fierce critic of Putin’s oligarchic entourage: “As far as Russia and I are concerned, he’s [Blavatnik’s] not a political oligarch. He isn’t buying newspapers here, he isn’t intimidating journalists, he basically isn’t involved with Putin at all.”

This overwhelming reporting by the highly respected Financial Times shows that the current unsupported and disputatious clause should be removed. As such, it should say instead: "Blavatnik is one of the largest donors…,” as the footnotes back up the listed campaign contributions.

2. Request factual correction under Entertainment

   In the Entertainment section it says: “In April 2018, it was reported that Blavatnik was a front runner in the bidding to purchase Britain's third oldest theatre, the Theatre Royal Haymarket. Sources report that the bid was around £40 million.” The purchase of the Theatre Royal Haymarket was successfully completed by Access Entertainment in 2018. This reporting in June 2018 from Forbes [3] and the Guardian [4] show that Mr. Blavatnik’s Access Entertainment finalized its purchase of the Theatre Royal Haymarket. We request the information be updated to read “Mr. Blavatnik’s Access Entertainment finalized its purchase of the Theatre Royal Haymarket in June 2018.”

3. Request factual correction under Petrochemicals and Oil

   The section states:  “Blavatnik also has interests in UC Rusal, the world's largest aluminum producer, where he sits on the board.[13]” Mr. Blavatnik does not hold a Board position at Rusal. He resigned from the Rusal Board in November 2016. You can verify the individual Board of Directors on the Rusal website [5] and the 2020 Rusal Annual Report [6], which clearly reflects that Mr. Blavatnik is no longer part of the Board. The footnote cited, Reference 13 [7], makes no mention of Rusal, rather it relates to Access Industries purchase of Warner Music Group. We request that the inaccurate statement that he is a Board member be removed and the sentence be corrected to read: “Blavatnik also has interests in UC Rusal, the world's largest aluminum producer”.

AccessIndustriesInc (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Partly done: The first passage was altered to reflect the sources, i.e. his close association with Russian oligarchs, not Putin himself. Second and third requests were implemented with alterations. PK650 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Request correction to introductory paragraph from "Len Blavatnik is a Ukrainian businessman and investor who later in life became a naturalized citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom. He made his fortune after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the tumultuous privatization of state-owned aluminum and oil assets." to "Len Blavatnik is a Ukrainian-born businessman, investor, and philanthropist who became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1984 and the United Kingdom in 2010. He made his fortune after the collapse of the Soviet Union and through investments in Warner Music Group and LyondellBasell." ^[1] AccessIndustriesInc (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done The current text is properly sourced. The proposed text is not. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good day, in full compliance with WP:PAID and Conflict of Interest guidelines, I declare that I am working on behalf of Mr. Blavatnik and would like to request some changes to this article. These amendments should make the page more accurate and up-to-date. I have also made efforts to neutralise some of the older language currently present.

I’ve supplied sources where possible but am also very open to any suggestions the community may have. Thank you in advance for considering my request. Shchedryy (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

1. The lead section requires just a few minor changes in the second paragraph, I would like it to be edited so that it reads:

“Blavatnik made his initial fortune after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the privatization of state-owned aluminum and oil assets.[5] He owns most of Warner Music Group and has stakes in several publicly traded assets via his privately held U.S. company Access Industries Holdings.[6]”

I will make several other minor and non-controversial copyediting changes throughout the article which can be viewed on the History page once completed.

2. In the Early life and education section, can “in 1981” be added as the graduation date of his master’s degree from Columbia? Suggested sources:

• https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/10/philanthropist-len-blavatnik-returns-to-harvard-medical-school/

• https://investors.wmg.com/board-member/len-blavatnik

3. In the Career section, could the below quote be removed from the Access Holdings subsection as this description could be applied to most major companies?

“which has been described as a "sprawling conglomerate"[13]”.

4. Also in the Career section, specifically in paragraph 10 below the Natural Resources heading, can you remove “under mysterious circumstances”? The New Yorker source provided [16] clarifies these circumstances in detail.

5. Under the Petrochemicals heading, could Access Industries’ ownership of LyondellBasell (currently 14%) be changed to 21% in order to match what is stated and sourced previously on the page (source [6])? Strictly speaking, the ownership is actually at 22% but there are no suitable third-party sources available to confirm this slight change. If both ownership percentages could be updated that would be more accurate.

6. Under the Entertainment heading, can the line “In April 2022, Access’s Ownership increased to more than 90%.” please be added.

Suggested source: https://eegaming.org/latest-news/2022/02/22/90250/dazn-agrees-new-financing-terms-with-access-industries/

7. In the Philanthropy section, can you clarify “The annual award recognizes the accomplishments of outstanding young scientists in the U.S., U.K. and Israel in the areas of life sciences, physical sciences and engineering and provides all finalists with a significant cash prize”.

Suggested source: https://www.nyas.org/press-releases/prestigious-blavatnik-awards-for-young-scientists-in-the-uk-award-480-000-to-nine-uk-based-scientists/

8. Also in the Philanthropy section, could the comment on whitewashing please be removed from the end of the first paragraph? This is a subjective comment, as such a motivation is impossible to verify. In addition, these comments hinge largely on association, rather than relating to any action Mr. Blavatnik has taken. As the FT reported, Mr. Blavatnik has taken steps to distance himself from the politics of Russian business and the Kremlin: https://www.ft.com/content/c1889f48-871a-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2

9. The Personal life section is currently unnecessarily editorial. Can you please remove: “and can live conveniently near the ambassador of Russian Federation (number 13 on the street)”? This is irrelevant to the article subject. If it cannot be removed, may I suggest “He acquired the property in 2004. Other residents on the street include the Israeli and Russian ambassadors.”

10. Under the Personal life heading, is it possible to remove the fourth paragraph? Mr. Blavatnik is no longer a business partner of Viktor Vekselberg. Having never acquired Russian citizenship, Mr. Blavatnik has not only had zero connection to Putin since 2000, but has also received apologies from both The Guardian and The Times for suggesting that he was a confidante of the Russian president. Given the current political climate, sensationalising a former connection which is no longer existing nor pertinent, could potentially incite dangerous and unmerited harassment. I would also like to emphasise the fact that Mr. Blavatnik has not appeared on any sanction lists following the invasion of Ukraine.

Suggested source: https://www.ft.com/content/4b36fda5-e5b8-49c6-89b1-d93ac8f130d2

Thank you once again for considering these proposed changes.

  Partly done: did 1-7 and 9. 8 is a little too biased considering it was against sources, and for 10 it's undeniable Blavatnik has ties to Vekselberg, but overall this was a great edit request. Sorry it took so long for anyone to see your request. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) Please ping me when replying. 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Closing this request partially completed by another editor. Duke Gilmore (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I received today a scam email in his name that directly links to this article for reference. Is it possible to add a warning on top, so less internet-literate people don't fall for it? 141.84.250.1 (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we add the fact that Len Blavatnik appeared on the 2024 Academy Awards (in his role as a funder of the film The Zone of Interest)? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@98.123.38.211

Yes, please. Just watched it and almost retched when I saw him in the credits. 67.249.193.122 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I work for Access Industries and plan to propose updates to this article and related articles. I'm looking forward to working constructively with the other editors here. As I also explained in my edit summary, since Len Blavatnik is no longer the chairman of Access Industries, as can be seen from the Leadership page of the company's website, I removed that statement from the article as a straightforward, uncontroversial edit. Happy to discuss here if anyone has questions about this. Thanks! C at Access (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please remove the bold part of the "Sanctions" subsection that was recently added to the article:

In December 2023, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed personal sanctions against Blavatnik.^[1][2] While Blavatnik condemned the ongoing violence in Ukraine, he has refrained from directly criticizing Russia or Vladimir Putin.^{[3] [4]}

The juxtaposition of the two sentences implies without basis that the sanctions were applied because of the position Blavatnik expressed on Ukraine. In fact, neither of the cited sources that reported the sanctions state any reason for the sanctions. So even if one might speculate on the reason for the sanctions, if the reason isn't stated in proper sources, it is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and shouldn't be stated or implied by Wikipedia.

Thank you. C at Access (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't read these passages with that implication. Sometimes readers need to take responsibility for the implications they perceive... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: I am declining this request since it would cause the cited subsection to lose all its context and meaning. Quetstar (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. Thanks for responding. The cited source (from the Blavatnik Family Foundation website) states that the foundation condemns the ongoing violence in Ukraine and is active in helping Ukrainians displaced by Russia's invasion. It would seem to be original research to state, based on this, what Blavatnik has refrained from saying. In any case, no sources posit any reason for the sanctions. If we include the second sentence in the context of a "Sanctions" section, immediately following the first sentence about the imposition of the sanctions themselves, the clear message is that the second sentence is explaining the reason for the sanctions - which is misleading and original research. This seems inappropriate in a biography of a living person. Thank you. C at Access (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I think C at Access has a valid point. Both of these sentences are supported by sources, but placing them together implies a connection not directly supported by any of the cited sources. That is a WP:SYNTH violation. What is needed is a reliable source that directly says that the sanctions were imposed because the subject did not criticize Russia or Putin. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks Blueboar for your assessment. A few days have passed and no one has disputed your assertion. Could you kindly remove the sentence in question? It would be much appreciated. Thanks again, C at Access (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I’ll consider it… but there are other issues to work on there as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The original post here requested removal of the second sentence. But that's not necessary to avoid the implication (which I don't perceive in any event). I've fixed the problem by introducing a new paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Blueboar and Nomoskedasticity for your edits. Your help is appreciated. C at Access (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lawsuits:

- https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-len-blavatnik-co-access-industries

- https://casetext.com/case/norex-petroleum-limited-v-access-industries-inc

- https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/151-0060-len-blavatnik-care-access-industries

- https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/business/22chase.html

- https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2015/10/investor-len-blavatnik-pay-656000-settle-ftc-charges-he-violated-us-premerger-notification

Politics:

- https://www.vice.com/en/article/d35kgw/two-top-trump-officials-are-ex-lobbyists-for-a-billionaire-with-deep-ties-to-russian-oligarchs

- https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/oil-gas-and-mining/david-bernhardt-doi-lobbying-records/

- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/council-on-foreign-relations-leonard-blavatnik-russia/

- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/why-is-warner-music-group-owner-len-blavatnik-russia-probe-1150550/ Likeanechointheforest (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing suggests that he hates the title. In general, he seems like he would fit a strict definition, in terms of where his initial fortune came from. He does claim not to have done the politicking and corruption other oligarchs eventually did in the aftermath of the USSR, as per [1], though apparently some argue he simply let proxies do it?

Will say, feels like we should emphasize it more in the lede without outright saying it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there high-quality sources that describe him using this term? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. An editor, Bluethricecreamman, recently made a series of edits, all of which should be reverted for violating NPOV.

• In the Introduction, please remove the phrase "alongside other Russian oligarchs." There is no source that says he made his fortune "alongside other Russian oligarchs." This is original research, violating WP:SYNTH.
• Also in the Intro, please remove the sentence "Some have criticized Blavatnik for allegedly reputation laundering to avoid scrutiny." This "allegation" made by "some" critics does not belong in the intro, the place reserved for a summary of the most important information that makes the subject notable. Please note this criticism is already found in the Philanthropy section, and repeating it here violates WP:UNDUE
• Three sentences were added to the "Sanctions" section which are completely unconnected to sanctions, as has already been discussed thoroughly here on the talk page above. The result of that lengthy discussion was the one remaining sentence and the only fact that can be gleaned from the sources, that "In December 2023, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed personal sanctions against Blavatnik." This sentence should remain, and the rest of the paragraph, (the first three sentences), should be deleted. Every addition here violates WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, at least.
• The title of the section was changed from "Sanctions" to "Sanctions during the Russo-Ukraine War" implying that the sanctions were somehow connected to the war, another case of WP:SYNTH.

I hope you agree that to achieve some modicum of NPOV, it is necessary to revert these edits. I am also pinging Blueboar who helped with the previous edit request. Thanks so much. C at Access (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I do not have time to address this (heavy load in off-wiki work). Hopefully someone else will be able to work on it. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

as per blueboar, if you would like to pursue this and get other wikipedians input i suggest posting in WP:NPOVN or in WP:BLPN. im planning on composing a response to your points later as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am pinging Bluethricecreamman to remind them that they promised a response to my assessment of non-neutral POV. Thanks, C at Access (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have some times.

• “alongside other oligarchs”

• [2] states that Blavatnik ”cannot have made that money without specific political connections or connections to organized crime or connections to other oligarchic figures” according to michel, a noted expert on oligarchs.
• [3] this is the source cited alongside the claim in the lede. ”But his fortune stems from the privatization of industries in the former Soviet Union, in particular aluminum and oil. He was among the victors in Russia’s so-called “aluminum wars,” the sometimes murderous competition for control of Russian aluminum assets in the early 1990s. (Blavatnik has not been personally accused of violence). In 1996, Blavatnik partnered with Viktor Vekselberg, an oligarch tied to Putin, in SUAL Partners, which owns about one quarter of Rusal, the aluminum conglomerate long controlled by Oleg Deripaska.” this is a clear indication that alongside other oligarchs Blavatnik won significant control of a company during privitization of Russian industries.

• claims of WP:undue

• sources 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 19, 23, 24, 76, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 directly mention his connections to russian oligarchy and the ensuing controversy and/or his work to remove the label “oligarch” to avoid scrutiny. I don’t have time to look through all the sources, but even a high profile source, ostensibly not directly speaking about his connection to oligarchy, such as 70 cannot go much into how Tate Modern is naming there extension after Blavatnik without talking about how a similar donation to Oxford prompted an open letter opposing it for “selling its reputation and prestige to Putin’s associates” It is undue not to include the word oligarch in the lede
• having gone through so much sourcing, and finding much of it specifically talks about his connection to Russian oligarchs, but this article somehow does not mention much of it is particularly amazing to me.

• claims that the sanctions section is settled

• I see only that the sentence talking about blavatnik denying connections to putin be removed. There is no discussion about much else.

• Claims the title is synth

• all sourcing talks about the sanctions since 2022 due to the Russia-Ukraine war, then talks about how Blavatnik has escaped being targeted. I feel the edit is correct.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you want to discuss this further, please post on either WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN to ask for other editor’s opinions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your remarks.

• “Alongside other oligarchs” is mentioned in the source as a quote, not as a fact, and should not be presented here as such. A report of Blavatnik’s partnership with an oligarch, as covered in the Mother Jones source, is already included in the Wikipedia article. In addition to what I mentioned previously, stating “alongside other oligarchs” in the lead in this way is misleading and contentious, and violates MOS:LABEL.
• Regarding the edits to the Sanctions section- these statements are irrelevant to the fact that Zelensky sanctioned Blavatnik, and including them under the same section and in this context is misleading at best. One may speculate that there is a connection between these facts, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. The change to the section header also contributes to a non-neutral narrative, and should be restored to simply “Sanctions”.

Pinging Bluethricecreamman, Blueboar and Firefangledfeathers, who have all been involved here in some form or another, before bringing this to a larger forum as suggested. Thanks again for your time. C at Access (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm bringing this to WP:NPOVN, I think Blueboar and Firefangled may be busy with other articles, and having other eyes on this could help. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, thank you Bluethricecreamman for posting the discussion to NPOV/N. Second, please note that the following sources support the assertion that Len Blavatnik is not an oligarch, Russian, political, or otherwise.

• Financial times: The following is a quote from this article: "In Russia, Blavatnik’s charitable giving sets him apart from other billionaires known for splurging on football clubs and yachts. “At least university campuses get built,” says Alexei Navalny, an opposition leader and fierce critic of Putin’s oligarchic entourage. 'As far as Russia and I are concerned, he’s not a political oligarch. He isn’t buying newspapers here, he isn’t intimidating journalists, he basically isn’t involved with Putin at all.'"
• The "full" Putin list: includes 114 senior political figures and 96 oligarchs, but excludes Blavatnik.
• Together against Putin: A comprehensive list put together by Alexei Navalny's team which does not include Blavatnik.

I found additional similar sources but I did not want to overload the discussion. I am happy to share if needed.

Thanks, C at Access (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And here is sourcing directly pointing out that Blavatnik is known to have reputation laundered to avoid being grouped with other oligarchs.

• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/will-oligarchs-reputation-laundering-face-a-reckoning.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-03/len-blavatnik-net-worth-quiet-billionaire-separates-fortune-from-russian-money

Nowhere in the lead is there a mention of Putin. I do think we should include info that Blavatnik did not get sanctioned during the Russo-Ukraine war precisely because he is not connected to Putin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The comments regarding Putin seem like a non-sequitur. Whether or not a person was an oligarch is largely orthogonal to support for Putin. Sources such as [4] and [5] clearly establish that he was an "oligarch". That said, the phrase "Some have criticized" should almost never be in the lead section of an article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

fair enough. removed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everyone.

• Certainly, the fact that Blavatnik avoids being defined as an oligarch doesn't prove his guilt. That circular reasoning should not inform a Wikipedia article and does a disservice to the legitimacy of the platform. Sources stating that he works to disassociate himself are reporting on that fact alone- any further conclusions reached by a reader are speculative. If someone accused me of something I am not, and I said I wasn't, that wouldn't prove that I am in fact that thing I am being accused of.
• I would like to reiterate that the reason behind the sanction is not currently covered by reliable sources. Any guesses are strictly speculative, and do not belong on a BLP, as discussed previously here: Talk:Len_Blavatnik#Original research in Sanctions section. C at Access (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

W.r.t. the oligarch wording, there are no direct accusations of Blavatnik being an oligarch in the current article. There are more than a dozen sources indicating Blavatnik's oligarch status is debated, with many indicating that Blavatnik himself has put significant effort into trying to reputation launder his aluminum money away. I think it is WP:UNDUE not to mention his initial connection to wealth and the intense resulting scrutiny.

Regarding mention of the russo-ukraine war in the sanctions section, it is well supported by the info on websites, and to omit that the controversy isn't in light of the war is WP:UNDUE

• [6] "Economic sanctions imposed by Western governments since Russia’s assault on Ukraine have sent the ruble crashing... Blavatnik, a dual citizen of the United States and United Kingdom, isn’t among the eight people sanctioned by the federal government in the past two weeks"

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Agree with Bluethricecreamman that how he gained his initial wealth from the Aluminium industry is due for the lead. As for whether or not he is an oligarch, many news organisations have implied that he is (e.g. [7] [8] [9]). Given the emphasis in mainstream news publications of Blavatnik attempting to launder his reputation with charitable donations, I think this aspect should be prominently included in his biography. Paid advocates are free to make their case on talkpages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia editors have to listen to them or compromise with them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please add the following to the Philanthropy section:

• In the first paragraph, in order to create a more balanced discussion, please add the following directly after the sentence: Some critics characterize his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing.

Journalists such as Richard Morrison from The Sunday Times push back on this accusation, stating that "it's both discourteous and self-defeating for people in the UK arts scene to regard every source of non-government funding, whether corporate or philanthropic, as potentially 'tainted'."^[1]

• Please replace the third paragraph of Philanthropy with the following. It adds a launch date, fixes a grammar issue, and updates the information:

Blavatnik is also a financial supporter of Yale University, where he launched in 2016^[2] the Blavatnik Fund for Innovation, which supports early-stage biotechnology companies, as well as the Blavatnik Fellowship.^[3] Since 2017, the fund has supported 73 projects with over $20 million in direct support for research and fellowships.^[4] In September 2023, the Blavatnik Family Foundation donated an additional $40 million to the Innovation Fund.^[5][6]

• Please add the following as a new paragraph below the third paragraph:

Len Blavatnik founded the Blavatnik Archive in 2005 to support primary source-based scholarship and education by preserving and disseminating materials that contribute to the study of 20th century Jewish and world history.^[7][8]

Thank you. C at Access (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In reference to this edit: Journalists such as Richard Morrison from The Sunday Times push back on this accusation, stating that "it's both discourteous and self-defeating for people in the UK arts scene to regard every source of non-government funding, whether corporate or philanthropic, as potentially 'tainted'.", I'm inclined to incorporate it in the following, modified format: Writing in The Sunday Times, Richard Morrison responded to the criticism, stating that "it's both discourteous and self-defeating for people in the UK arts scene to regard every source of non-government funding, whether corporate or philanthropic, as potentially 'tainted'." "Journalists such" implies other journalists echoed Morrison, which is not supported by the source and "push back" is a bit familiar.

The other two suggestions seem fine and I will incorporate them as-is.

I'll wait until Friday to see if anyone objects and, in the absence of any objections, make these edits. Chetsford (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Seeing no objections, I have implemented the above three edit requests in the form described in my last comment. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Chetsford for your prompt edits. Below are a few more suggested additions to the Philanthropy section. Perhaps you would not mind adding these as well.

• In the Philanthropy section, after the sentence that begins "In 2016, Blavatnik funded a new hall…" please add the following:

In February 2023, the Blavatnik Family Foundation and Warner Music Group made a £10 million ($12 million) donation to the V&A to create a center dedicated to David Bowie.^[1][2][3]

• In the Philanthropy section, below the paragraph that begins "In December 2021…" please add the following:

In 2022, Blavatnik gifted £10 million to the National Portrait Gallery for refurbishment work. The London gallery reopened in 2023 with more than 100 years of British portraits in nine galleries, as part of the Inspiring People Project in the new Blavatnik Wing.^[4]

• Directly after the paragraph that begins "In February 2022…" please add the following:

The Blavatnik Family Foundation provided donations to local organizations in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion in 2022, and it provided humanitarian supplies in Israel following the October 7 2023 Hamas terror attack.^[5]

• Directly after the paragraph that begins "In December 2023…" please add the following:

The Blavatnik Family Foundation announced in March 2024 that it would be awarding Brandeis University a $6 million grant to support two graduate research fellowships in life sciences,^[6][7] provided funding for 11 Harvard affiliates to visit Israel on a solidarity trip after incidences of antisemitism were reported on the Harvard University campus, following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel,^[8] and in April 2024, the Blavatnik Archive led the launch of the Refuseniks & Activists site, a digital platform detailing the history the Free Soviet Jewry Movement.^[9]

• Please remove the following unsourced and un-encyclopedic statement at the end of the Philanthropy section: There is currently a scam circulating on the Internet that Blavatnik is giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars to private citizens.

Thank you so much for your help. C at Access (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the "scam" sentence. But I don't see the point of adding all those extra items. The section is turning into a big list. A foundation exists to make donations; I'm not convinced that we need to list every item that gets into the news. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Unless there is more than passing coverage of Len Blavatnik, I argue that most of these sources are just padding to the philanthropy section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nomoskedasticity and Bluethricecreamman. I understand that the Philanthropy section seems to be growing large. However, this section should be kept current to keep the article as a whole maximally useful. Perhaps we can make a compromise and just add the donations from 2024? If you agree, then please add the fourth bullet point from the above request. Thanks so much, C at Access (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. whole section still requires significant trimming, but this bullet point seems to be covered by several sources, so could possibly be WP:DUE to include. actually change my mind. A press release from Brandeis celebrating the guy who gave money, and the press release from refuseniks all seem not WP:INDEPENDENT. I'd also argue all this sourcing seems WP:ROUTINE. This information by itself just makes more of a giant list of philanthropy that Blavatnik does, which is turning that section into a database of his latest philanthropic endeavors. see WP:NOTDB

That sounds right to me. If it's important to keep that section "current", we could go for "one in, one out". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply