Talk:Isabel dos Santos

ICIJ Luanda Leaks

The ICIJ investigation into dos Santos and details about it can be found here - https://www.icij.org/investigations/luanda-leaks/ 194.86.38.38 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

All information provided in this article are of best of knowledge and from absolute reliable sources.--Cruks (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Silver Pegasus, all the eliminated info is public knowledge and profusely documented in Angola and Portugal. Please do not vandalise this article Isabel dos Santos any more. You will achieve nothing.--Cruks (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you eliminate the reference to the documentation in Visão which is a most detailed & updated peace on Isabel dos Santos? -- Aflis (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, most welcome improvements & updates. -- Aflis (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinionated content

One editor of this page does an excellent work in providing detailed information about Isabel Dos Santos, but seems determined to portray her as manipulative, and piggy-backing on her father's position to rule over business in Angola and overseas. Some sentences are cleverly turned to lead the reader into adopting this opinion, at the expense of Wikipedia's NPOV rule. Here are a few of those sentences that I am removing from the article, and expecting a good reason before putting it back in the article:

• Isabel dos Santos is described by the Portuguese newspaper Público as "a good business woman, extremely dynamic and intelligent, also a professional and friendly" also described by Portuguese economic newspaper Jornal de Negócios as "cold, very discreet, very intelligent and has a deep strategic sense of things".

--> The opinion of a few journalists should not determine the personality of the person

• Since then she cleverly uses the influence of her father.

--> No source, opinionated

• financially backed by her father

--> Not mentioned in associated source

• And was joined by French-Brazilian businessman Pierre Falcone, known from the Angolagate affair.

--> link broken, no other source, indirect way to associate Dos Santos with the dirty Angolagate affair

• another of her several holding companies

--> useless, biased

--Rubyface (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the "concerns" sections

The opinionated content goes pretty far, but the sources are lacking. The "concerns" paragraph doesn't fit Wikipedia's rules for a few reasons:

• It says that the "Lusitanian" media (why not portuguese?) holds a position of concerns, but only one source that's not even portuguese (oplop.uff.br --> Brazil) is cited.
• The sources are in portuguese only, whiich makes it hard to verify the veracity of the content
• The use of vague terms, such as "Lusitania media", "some editorial", "it seems a clear strategy"
• The very name of the paragraph - concerns - is vague and intended to harm

Concerns: The remarkable growth of the Angolan businesswoman in Portuguese communications sector has led to a position of concern in the Lusitanian media. Newspapers expressed discontent with the latest transactions in 2012. According to some editorial, the operation can lead to a monopoly in some areas of the media business by centralizing Angola and Portugal. Moreover, Isabel dos Santos was also accused of political bias, such as inside information and contacts in Portugal. It seems a clear strategy of Isabel dos Santos in the Portuguese economy. Over the past three years (2009-2012) her share has increased exponentially. The sectors that draw attention are the communication and the financial system. Both activities are the investment priorities in of her own companies in Angola and abroad. Isabel dos Santos, currently one of the greatest entrepreneurs of her country, expands its business to Europe without diversifying the industries it serves. The concern of Portuguese economic agents can be justified by the recent wave of the Angolan businesswoman.

--Rubyface (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The text in this paragraph is extremely confusing and poorly worded. Most of the sentences are broken or gramatically incorrect. And the sources are in Portuguese, which makes it impossible to verify. This could all perhaps be reduced to a few lines that are more clear. If this section is to remain, it needs to be cleaned up.

Examples of problems:

• According to some editorial, what editorial?the operation can lead to a monopoly in some areas of the media business by centralizing Angola and Portugal.
• It seems a clear strategy of Isabel dos Santos in the Portuguese economy -- what strategy?
• The concern of Portuguese economic agents can be justified by the recent wave of the Angolan businesswoman. -- recent wave of what?

@Rubyface: I agree that this paragraph, and indeed the whole warticle, should be rewritten. As to sources, most of the reliable ones are in Portuguese, so this canno be helped. -- Aflis (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the "resume" section

Same as mentioned above, this section is merely intended to portray Dos Santos as the daughter of an evil family that steals Angola's wealth. While this may be true, it needs a more neutral way to talk about it, as well as more solid sources. For the information of the author of this section, in English, a resume is a curriculum vitae, the document on which one details his work experiences when looking for a job (and it is not a summary). Wikipedia never has a "summary" section. Also, the source cited (golemxiv.co.uk) is very weak, so this part requires more solid sources before it can appear on this page.

Resume: Since her father José Eduardo dos Santos in 1979 took 'Presidency' of Angola at time, he and his family have amassed a business empire estimated to be worth at least €1.5 billion (US$ 2 billion) by mid 2012, while the people of Angola live in poverty despite the billions in revenue from Angola’s oil and other mineral riches, while the bank she owns 19 % of, the Banco Português de Investimento, is about to get a €1.5 billion bailout from the Portuguese tax payer.

--Rubyface (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With a view to the elections which will take place in Angola on the 31st, it is clear that the part you removed is politically "sensitive", and that your removing it will be applauded or condemned, depending on the side one has chosen. Given WP's characteristics and policy, I would agree it can only be maintained if it is worded in a more neutral way, based on more solid sources, and better integrated in the overall text. -- Aflis (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I am not opposed to what's being said here (au contraire, we know that a lot of African leaders roll this way), but this doesn't justify the poorly-sourced offensive content.--Rubyface (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have re-established the page as it was before. You cannot just come along here and erase 50 % of an article without informing me as the creator and the main editor. This is not good, thats why I have re-established the page. Nobody, least of all me, wants to harm her, but facts are facts and believe me it is nonsense to describe her a more sweeter way. Nobody in Angola would understand this. Thats the way how is life all about. Thanks.--Cruks (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I am asking for semiprotection of this article.Cruks (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this gentleman, as seen here for what he said, has a political agenda and is a bad editor, because he want the articles to reflect their point of view. I have nothing pro, or against, the regime of Angola, I simply advocate neutrality and reliable references. He tries to impose by force their point of view, adding unreferenced controversial information, in this case, presenting as a reference, a recognized unreliable blog turned into pseudo-newspaper where the news are nothing more than lies, without any real foundation. I have already mentioned this situation to him numerous times, and challenged him several times to confirm the details of this "blog", with additional references, but he can not do that because the news are nothing more then lies and personal points of view, there are no references else where that prove the claims that are bound on the blog, as such, it is not reliable and can not be considered as a reference. Zorglub (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Everybody here editing this article must be aware of that Zorglub is a strong supporter of the actual corrupt Angolan government. Lets wait and see where the real truth is. Cruks (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know that spreading lies is not allowed? This may lead to you to be banned. Zorglub (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Zorglub, everybody knows you all well now. You are desmasked finally. Cruks (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos' mother

José Eduardo dos Santos married Tatiana Kukanova during his study in Baku. TK is however not from Azerbaijan, but a Russian born in Russia. Isabel dos Santos is the only child of the couple which separated soon after José Eduardo dos Santos' return to Angola. TK then went to London where Isabel dos Santos studied. She still lives in London, and an unconfirmned information has is that she married a British citizen. -- Aflis (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Aflis: I do not agree because: The names and nationalities of non-notable relatives are privacy concerns and not necessary per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPF. This aspect of the names of not-notable members of the family is very well established in this policy of Wikipedia. It is absolutely irrelevant name is referred in media articles. The important thing is that, if it is not a notable family member, her name shouldn’t be in the article. There are no viable arguments to defend the inclusion of the mother's name, so I will remove this information from the article. Please respect the principles of this community.TStanislav (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@TStanislav: I'm sorry, but from what you say I must conclude that you are quite unfamiliar with Angola. José Eduardo dos Santos has married three times, and has children from each wife. All together are considered as what anthropologists call an extensive family. All of his wives are considered notable figures. -- Aflis (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@Aflis: I am aware that Isabel dos Santos’s father is a notable figure, widely exposed in the media due to his political role as Angola’s President. The only wife that may be notable is the current one that is Angola’s First Lady. I don’t think she is Isabel dos Santo’s mother. José Eduardo dos Santos’s past wife and Isabel dos Santos’s mother is not notable nor a public figure with a public life. WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPF policies are applicable here, please respect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TStanislav (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Forbes profile

Here's a WP:RS that was checked for libel by Forbes' editors and lawyers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/08/14/how-isabel-dos-santos-took-the-short-route-to-become-africas-richest-woman/ Forbes 8/14/2013 This story appears in the September 2, 2013 issue of Forbes. Daddy's Girl: How An African 'Princess' Banked $3 Billion In A Country Living On $2 A Day By Kerry A. Dolan and Rafael Marques de Morais

--Nbauman (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article always refer to her by her full name?

Why does this wiki article about Isabel dos Santos always refer to Isabel dos Santos by Isabel dos Santos' full name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.87.97 (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

corrupt and cleptocratic? yeah!

That's what this Forbes article suggests: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/08/14/how-isabel-dos-santos-took-the-short-route-to-become-africas-richest-woman/ --105.237.38.155 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

repeated whitewashing of Forbes article

You can't have it both ways: citing Forbes in the lede section as a source for saying she's worth $3 billion and the richest woman in Africa, while ignoring (or burying in the bizarrely-titled "Opinions" section) the fact that this same magazine performed an extensive examination of her assets and found every aspect of them tied at its origins to her father's kleptocratic and authoritarian regime. I realize XavierD75, as a proud Angolan "businessman" and "dandy", has a strong personal interest in this subject and is keen that the unpleasant fallout of the Forbes article be minimized, and I'm sure Ms. dos Santos, with her strong investments in PR stories of legitimization, feels the same way. But per WP:LEAD it is appropriate that the lead section summarize the subject and article's contents, which include the origins of Ms. dos Santos's fortune. We do use the word "alleged", of course. After all, who is to say that Isabel dos Santos didn't struggle and make it all on her own, like any other hard-working Angolan?!?

XavierD75, please weigh in here before making another revert. Thank you. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Vesuvius Dogg. Thank you for your message. I believe that I can explain my point better here. But please, don't make assumptions. I don’t have any "strong personal interest in this subject", I just disagree with you. First and like I said before, the information you added is already available in chapter "Opinions", quoting: "A Forbes magazine article described how Isabel dos Santos acquired her wealth by taking stakes in companies that want to do business in Angola, suggesting that her wealth comes from her family's kleptocracy." with due reference to the Forbes article. Also this article is available at External links. Therefore I don't understand the need of repeating this information at the first paragraph. Like it says at the top of the page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." Critics published at Forbes article have never been proven. It's speculation, not a reliable or unquestionable information like her being Africa’s first billionaire woman. So you can’t compare both. As you suggested I’ve also read WP:LEAD and it states clearly: "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." The information you are adding doesn’t comply with it. At WP:NEUTRAL, you can read the following: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." --XavierD75 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Isabel dos Santos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122000811/http://www.mpla-angola.org/opresidente.php to http://mpla-angola.org/opresidente.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710205425/http://www.euronext.com/trader/companyprofile/companyprofilev2-18661-EN-PTZON0AM0006.html?selectedMep=5 to http://www.euronext.com/trader/companyprofile/companyprofilev2-18661-EN-PTZON0AM0006.html?selectedMep=5
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://economia.publico.pt/Noticia/accionistas-da-zon-aprovam-por-unanimidade-entrada-de-isabel-dos-santos_1420467
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/empresas/fusoes___aquisicoes/fusao_zon_optimus/detalhe/isabel_dos_santos_comparece_a_ag_da_zon_optimus.html,
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130331031857/http://www.cmvm.pt/en/a%20cmvm/apresentacao/pages/apresentacao.aspx to http://www.cmvm.pt/en/a%20cmvm/apresentacao/pages/apresentacao.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222200703/http://www.dinheirovivo.pt/Mercados/Artigo/CIECO045020.html?page=2 to http://www.dinheirovivo.pt/Mercados/Artigo/CIECO045020.html?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004215002/http://petrinus.com.sapo.pt/rosto.htm to http://petrinus.com.sapo.pt/rosto.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New developments since 2017

To read about new developments, see article in The Times and add it to the content. Thanks. Tokota (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Guardian: Revealed: how Angolan ruler's daughter used her status to build $2bn empire

New information, not sure where it should go though

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/19/isabel-dos-santos-revealed-africa-richest-woman-2bn-empire-luanda-leaks-angola

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Schooling

This article says she attended Cobham Hall School, Kent; and she's also listed among the school's alumnae in its dedicated article (in both cases unsourced). However, in this edit, an IP has added dos Santos to the list of old girls of St Paul's Girls' School, with a reference to the not-unreliable but far from neutral website of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists [1]. She may, of course, have attended both schools. Can anyone sort this out, and make the articles compatible? GrindtXX (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to you on the St Paul's Talk page, but to keep the discussion going here too - in brief, there are sources for both schools so I have put both in. If anyone is able to find further info that would be great. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Career section needs overhaul

I find the current subsections dividing her life geographically need overhaul- The chronology is lost, and a lot of sentences dont contain dates and are 10 years old. Wuerzele (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)