Talk:Anna Sorokin

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Anna Sorokin, facing criminal charges, refused to enter the courtroom for her trial because she did not like her outfit? Source: Shamsian, Jacob. "Alleged 'socialite scammer' Anna Delvey refused to show up to court on Friday because she didn't like her outfit". Insider.
  • ALT1:... that while Anna Sorokin was in jail, one of her guests was Julia Garner, who was playing her on Netflix? Source: Florsheim, Lane (November 23, 2020). "Julia Garner on Meeting Anna Delvey at Rikers and Watching 'The Vow'". Wall Street Journal.
  • ALT2:... that convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin frequently gave a hotel's staff hundreds of dollars for simple tasks, but she was evicted after being unable to pay a $30,000 bill? Source: Pressler, Jessica (May 28, 2018). "How an Aspiring 'It' Girl Tricked New York's Party People — and Its Banks". The Cut
  • ALT3:... that convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin got a helicopter ride from Blade without paying the $35,000 fare upfront because its management trusted her? Source: Dickson, E. J. (April 9, 2019). "How Anna Delvey Managed to Scam Her Way Into a $35,000 Charter Plane Ride". Rolling Stone.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo
• Comment: I (Epicgenius) am just the nominator and have nothing to do with the article's improvement

Improved to Good Article status by Firefly (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 18:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Fascinating article, with some really great hooks. GA'd recently, no issues with copyvio, length or sourcing. I like ALT1 but am suggesting a change to that so we can include a link to the miniseries as well. It's a shame that there's no properly licensed image, but oh well. The only thing missing is the QPQ, once that's done I'll be ready to promote this. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting ALT1b:... that while convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin was in jail, one of her guests was Julia Garner, who will playing Sorokin in the the Netflix miniseries about her?

Not sure whether I need to do the QPQ as the article expander, or Epic as the nominator. If me, I reviewed this one recently. As for the hook, I'd suggest "... who will play Sorokin in the Netflix miniseries about her", as the series is still in production, and I think "in" works better grammatically. firefly ( t · c ) 06:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, I edited ALT1b to include the future tense. Per the rules, the nominator has to be the one to do QPQ. I messaged Epicgenius on his talkpage so hopefully that will be ready soon.BuySomeApples (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BuySomeApples, apologies for nit-picking but we still have some tense disagreement there. "who will playing" should either be "who will play" or "who will be playing". Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 12:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly: Don't worry about the QPQ, I think it's my responsibility since I nominated it. I just added a review here - I forgot to add it earlier but I found time to do a review just now.

BuySomeApples Thanks for the review and sorry for not getting back earlier. I've added a QPQ now. For ALT1b I can suggest ALT1c: ... that while convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin was in jail, one of her guests was Julia Garner, who will play Sorokin in the the Netflix miniseries about her? Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That hook definitely works @Epicgenius:, thanks for finishing the QPQ! BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Approving ALT1c. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3

Requested move 14 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Anna Sorokin → Anna Delvey – WP:COMMONNAME, in light of Inventing Anna's debut. Google search results are currently 63 million for Delvey vs. 30 million for Sorokin, with multiple article [1][2][3][4] responding to the series taking Delvey as the primary name, with even an exception from the New York Times [5] acknolwedging she is "better known" as Delvey. SItuation clearly changed substantially from rationale at time of 2019 page move. U-Mos (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Almost all articles contain both names, so search results are meaningless. Her real name is "Sorokin" and as far as I can tell, she has stopped using "Delvey" completely. That a documentary has currently swamped the search engines with this name does not change the facts and the reasons for the prior move. Even the NYT article you mention explicitly uses the name "Sorokin" throughout. Just like with Octomom, the redirect can take care of the alias (see also WP:NPOVNAME). Regards SoWhy 08:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy: the stats are stacked and stick up like stacks. SN54129 10:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per our common name guidelines. Anna Delvey appears to be the most commonly used name for the subject in reliable sources, even before the new miniseries. If we just look at results from last year and earlier, even the articles that use both names overwhelmingly choose Delvey for the title. That one is her real name and one is her fake one isn't relevant here -- what matters is usage in reliable sources, which prefers the proposed title (and is what this article was called before an undiscussed move).--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Most reliable sources might use "Delvey" in the title because they are reporting on the crimes she committed while using that name but then use "Sorokin" consistently, e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ("Anna Sorokin (right), then known as Anna Delvey"), [11]. I don't think there is a clear-cut trend that allows us to assume one name is the more common name than the other. The COMMONNAME guideline is intended for subjects for which sources rarely, if ever, use the real name (e.g. Bill Clinton, Bono, Willy Brandt), not subjects which used an alias for a time but are constantly also referred to by their real name. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per SoWhy. The majority of sources refer to her as "Sorokin" and list "Delvey" as an alias. There will be lots of cookie-cutter "who is the person from Inventing Anna then?" articles at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that "Delvey" isn't the name she is best known by / reported on under overall. firefly ( t · c ) 11:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Still her very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for this? U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

SoWhy has laid it out very clearly above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

SoWhy directly stated their viewpoint that neither name is the most common as part of their rationale. U-Mos (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please reread. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if I had, it would not make a difference because if both names were equally common, we should default to the legal name, not the pseudonym. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Yes, your rationale is clearly laid out and I don't object to it. Necrothesp, on the other hand, has made an entirely different argument and offered zero supporting evidence for it, ignoring rather than engaging with the rationale for the request, which any closing editor should be aware of. U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I really haven't "made an entirely different argument". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems obvious, even a cursory look shows this is the name she is known consistently by in major sources, qv., with Delvey as her alias. Mramoeba (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't care really what we do but Wikipedia needs to be consistent. One one hand we have Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and on the other we have Kanye West. Do we want the legal name or the common name? Let's just set a standard and stick with it. Michael-Moates (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:COMMONNAME is met with both of those examples! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    Disagree. Meghan Markle is not known as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. If anything, she is known as Meghan Markle or the Dutches of Sussex. Michael-Moates (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME which states Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" not "generally prefers the name that was most commonly used".----Pontificalibus 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No one's suggested that Delvey is a historically used name with less common usage today - if anything the opposite. How does your statement lead you to favour Sorokin as the article title? U-Mos (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Delvey is the most common name. Even if Sorokin was “equally common” as other states above the notion that we should default to the legal name is not based on policy. Feedback 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment this is a BLP, and the question is not what her common name was during the events of Inventing Anna, it is what her common name is now. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian name

Since some people insist on including it, can someone provide any source (that is not clearly based on this article) that her middle name is "Vadimovna" or that her birth name is "Anna Vadimovna Sorokina"? The only sources I can find were written long after this article included the false name and most likely copied it from there. The indictment by the State of New York does not contain any middle name. It seems we have another Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg situation here (see Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents). Regards SoWhy 08:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a middle name, it's a patronym. Her father is Vadim Sorokin, she was born in Russia (where a patronym is assign to everyone automatically except some rare and special situations), so she is Anna Vadimovna Sorokina — at least, she was born with this name. Not also everywhere her father's name is Vadim, there are also some small comments from her father 1, 2, where he is named Vadim.--2A00:1370:817C:83A9:3C0D:98AE:261B:CA83 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That is original research though if you cannot provide a source to back up that claim. Not even the Russian sources actually use that name. Additionally, while she was born in Russia, she has become a German citizen in the meantime and there is no such rule for German names, so even if such a name had been originally assigned in Russia, she might have dropped it per article 47 section 1 #3 of the EGBGB which allows the person to "give up components of the name that German law does not provide for" in case of naturalization. So saying she was called "Anna Vadimovna Sorokina" and saying her name still is "Anna Vadimovna Sorokin" both require adequate sourcing to be included. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy. I understand Russian naming conventions, and understand that she would have been "Anna Vadimovna Sorokina" by those conventions initially. However, because someone was born with a certain name does not mean they must carry that name for life. Plenty of people change their name for all sorts of reasons, and it appears that Sorokin did just that and is now known as "Anna Sorokin". If we can find a source for her birth name, we could say something like "... born Anna Vadimovna Sorokina". firefly ( t · c ) 11:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just reverted the addition again [12]. An IP user claimed that this was a RS for the birth name but it was published on 14 February 2022, so it's pretty obvious that they just copied from Wikipedia when writing that article. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  I found this source from Feb 2021 which gives the birth name as "Anna Vadimovna Sorokina", however our article had that in it even back then, so this could also very well be citogenesis. I think the best idea is to not list a separate birth name until and unless we find a source pre-dating the name's inclusion in Wikipedia. firefly ( t · c ) 15:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Now stop being silly y'all. The Russian language wikipedia entry is Сорокин,Анна so that is her name in common usage. She is discussed throughout as Сорокина. Her official name is of course the feminine form А́нна Вади́мовна Соро́кина. She would be called Mrs Sorokina in every day life, or else (e.g. by colleagues with whom she is on good terms) А́нна Вади́мовна which is at once a fairly friendly but also polite form of address. But we just call her Anna Sorokin. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B8F5:8448:7632:1DBF (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia might have different standards but this is not the Russian Wikipedia. There is no evidence whatsoever that this confirmed German citizen is regularly called "Sorokina". You are again basing your reasoning solely on your personal knowledge of Russian naming customs. Which is, as pointed out above, original research. And not even good original research because, again, Sorokin is a German citizen and German law does not recognize such feminine forms. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just saying: knowledge of Russian naming customs is not "personal knowledge", it's common knowledge. (Smth like, transliteration of Russian letters, or that Moscow is actually named Москва, except when talking about town in Wisconsin or Vermont, USA.) At least, common enough to not qualify as original research: that daughter of a Mr. Sorokin is called Sorokina. Any chance to learn her own preferences? If she herself used name form "Anna Sorokin", then it's good. But if she referred to herself only as Anna Sorokina and Anna Delvey, then article name "Anna Sorokin" is not the best. I think personal preference trumps even official document here? As in: immigrant may be issued document according to country of residence name customs, but that does not change their actual given name, or how they want to be called. BirgittaMTh (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

German?

Why does the first sentence say she is a “German” con artist when she was born in Russia? 2601:C6:C580:130:8087:C43:2111:4797 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

She was born in Russia but holds German citizenship. firefly ( t · c ) 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

She was born in Russia and lived there until she was 17. She lived briefly in Germany from 2007 to 2011, and obtained German citizenship at that time. Since 2011 she has mainly lived in London, Paris and the United States. Considering that she only stayed in Germany briefly and became notable when living in the United States, it doesn't seem WP:DUE or very accurate to describe her primarily as a "German" con artist in the first sentence; the activities that made her famous have no connection to Germany, she doesn't live there and hasn't lived there in nearly a decade, and she isn't originally from or raised there either. She has lived for far longer in both Russia and the United States. The lead could mention that she holds German citizenship somewhere below. --Tataral (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tataral: She is a German citizen, so if anything is misleading, it's writing "Russian-born" without any more information. Either use "Russian-born German" or don't mention any nationalities at all. In fact, per WP:UNDUE, "Russian-born" has even less relevance in the first sentence since her place of birth has nothing to do at all with her notability. Her German citizenship is at least relevant since ICE wants to deport her to Germany but her Russian heritage seems completely irrelevant. So I would suggest we remove both from the lede. Agreed? Regards SoWhy 20:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Gérard Depardieu is a Russian citizen but we call him a French actor, and only mention his Russian citizenship below in the article. In less straightforward cases such as this one, or the Depardieu case, citizenship is not necessarily a WP:DUE or very meaningful descriptor in the first sentence. Yes, we could remove both; at least that would be better than describing her as a "German con artist" which gives a misleading impression and which is not how she has been described by most sources. On the other hand I don't see any strong reasons to remove Russian-born, which is how most sources have described her. But if you insist on it, I'm not going to object. --Tataral (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No - go with "Russian-born German". Experience with similar cases (like Francis Bacon) shows if you just leave it out, there will be an endless stream of good-faith editors adding something (anything). Best to add a hidden note saying this formula was decided on in talk too. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But she isn't a German con artist, she is a Russian-born person who only became notable as a con artist when she was a long-time US resident, who lived for four years in Germany as a late teenager/young adult many years before she became notable. In practice her decade-long US residency is far more important than her German citizenship, in terms of notability. She has held citizenship of three countries, most recently Germany. Of course we should mention her citizenship, like we mention Gérard Depardieu's Russian citizenship, but not in the first sentence. --Tataral (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Tataral: I have taken the liberty to completely rewrite the lead since it didn't adequately summarize the article anyway. I think this way is okay to address both sides without having to spell it out in the first sentence. On a side note, I'm not an immigration lawyer myself but one of my colleagues is and she told me that there is no conceivable way that someone from Russia would have been able to get German citizenship this quickly in 2007 unless they were "Spätaussiedler", i.e. people with ethnic German roots, who are the only group from the former Eastern Block that can get German citizenship upon request. That would explain much about her citizenship and make "German" in the lead seem correct, although this is of course (informed) speculation only since no source seems to care about how she got her citizenship and the only way to really know would be to access her official citizenship information which is nigh impossible. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't really meet WP norms for bios, where a nationality is expected in the first sentence - no doubt there's a policy somewhere. I think you'll find helpful people will now keep adding nationalities. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Well, MOS:FIRSTBIO does not explicitly require the nationality to be mentioned in the first paragraph (and mentions examples like Petrarch). On the other hand, MOS:ETHNICITY advises against Tataral's preference of having "Russian-born" in the first paragraph, explicitly saying previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability (and I think we can all agree that her previous nationality and place of birth have nothing to do with her notability). Personally, I don't necessarily think we need "German" in the first paragraph since her being German is of little relevance to her notability (except that she pretended to be a German heiress and not a Russian one), however, if any nationality is added, German is the only one that should be added based on the relevant MOS I cited above. If this is contentious, we probably need an RFC or some other way to get more input and reach consensus. Regards SoWhy 07:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, whatever - you'll be maintaining this from all the changes then? Of course, if the US ever manages to deport her, Germany will become more relevant. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Euro/dollar conversions

Regarding Euro/US Dollar conversion: In the US, editor Firefly is wrong. Most people don't know what a Euro is. He may not like it, but it is true. Please don't delete my addition of conversions again. --Zeamays (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I replied to Zeamays on my talk page regarding this. firefly ( t · c ) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Chaheel Riens reverted my edit. I cannot find how to use the conversion template. When I tried to use it in several iterations, all I got was error messages. I tried and failed to find out how to use it in WP help. I have particular dislike for editors who add nothing constructive, but just destroy the hard work of sincere editors. If anyone knows how to use the template, please do everyone a favor and insert into the article correctly. --Zeamays (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Zeamays: This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, so why should we add a conversion to USD but not British pound, Australian dollars, Indian rubles etc.? She worked in France and was paid in Euro and she is German, which also uses Euro. Nothing in that paragraph has any relation to the US, so adding a conversion to USD would constitute systematic bias. Also, per MOS:MONEY, euros and pound sterling are considered equally valid currencies as US$ and it explicitly says "Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling" (emphasis added). So unless you can provide a valid reason why the conversion should take place, I would oppose such an addition and would also urge you not to make this edit again before there is consensus to do so. Regards SoWhy 14:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:SoWhy, this is my answer:

1. Anna Sorokin was convicted in US Court, so the case is of special interest to Americans.
2. As I wrote before, many, many Americans are unfamiliar with Euros.
3. If you wish, add the other conversions as well.
4. I resent your blatant anti-American attitude. --Zeamays (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zeamays: Correct but she is not an American citizen and most of her life took place outside the United States, especially at the time this paragraph is about. Plus, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyone unfamiliar with euros can look them up, although I think you are being unfair to your fellow Americans if you think most of them don't know what euros are; most of those I met did. But it's not "Anti-American" to point out that adding a conversion for a single group of readers without a valid reason constitute the very systemic bias we should strive to avoid. Wikipedia should not cater to a special group of readers. Regards SoWhy 15:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that Zeamays left a rather abrasive message on my talk page regarding this as well. The edit is basically the same as his first one above, but directed specifically at me. I am against the insertion of conversion from Euro to dollar. Zeamays seems to have a pro-American bent and is expecting everybody to do work for them to their own standards, not necessarily those of the project. This isn't how it works and I agree with SoWhy that even if Zeamays does figure it out - consensus is against the insertion, so it shouldn't happen anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to add that as far as I can see nobody here has an "anti-American" attitude, Zeamays, and am curious as to where you are drawing that inference from. firefly ( t · c ) 15:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Chaheel Riens, I am a proud US citizen, not just have a pro-American bent. I do not expect you to do anything, but to be helpful as an editor, as opposed to merely destructive. I am OK with adding all the additional conversions you wish. Your arrogant attitude is most distressing. This is my last message on this topic, as you have worn me out. --Zeamays (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

As I have made clear - I am against this, so really don't see why I should assist you in adding the conversion, even if only helping you figure the template out. The "additional conversions [I] wish" are zero. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Someone has reframed this article to downplay Sorokin’s crimes. Article needs serious revision. 2600:1700:2B0:E410:8D40:723B:9F9D:91B8 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a bit of an edit war running on this right now - looks like some IPs are trying to reframe the article. I've reverted to what appears to be a stable version and will request some additional eyes take a look. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That IP comes around every couple of weeks and is always reverted quickly. Not sure why they still think it's a good idea... Regards SoWhy 14:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate 2.0

re 'Trial, conviction, and sentence': the terms/words 'jail' & 'prison' are used 'interchangeably/erroneously' by many, though their meanings are quite different, just as 'vagina' (the 'inside') is very often improperly used to refer to the 'vulva' (the 'outside'). Yes, I know the state of education is pathetic, and common usage causes words to 'evolve' (devolve). Just sayin'! Derfball (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

German national?

The article says Anna is German. Is there any evidence that she is a German national? Obviously she is of Russian extraction. To become a German citizen a residence of five years in Germany is required. Obviously she lived in Germany for four years only. The German Wikipedia does not mention German citizenship. Ontologix (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources say she is German. That is the evidence we have and need (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). Regards SoWhy 09:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)