Talk:Len Blavatnik

WhatsApp group

Hello. As was suggested, I'm starting a discussion regarding to what extent Grand'mere Eugene's edit to the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the "Political donations" section should be restored. The current version has an WP:UNDUE level of detail for a biography of Blavatnik; the Washington Post article says Blavatnik was a member of the WhatsApp group, he attended the meeting with Adams and discussed donating to Adams. More general information from the source doesn't relate directly to Blavatnik and therefore isn't relevant to an article about him unless providing the most basic context to the reader for clarity. On the specific point of whether a line about pressure to use police force should be included, the Washington Post article only says that "some attendees" talked about pressuring Columbia's president to permit the mayor to use police. The source does not indicate that Blavatnik was involved in that discussion, and indicating otherwise would be inaccurate. Thank you for looking into this. C at Access (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The article does say he was a member of the group and that the group engaged in these activities; it does not say he directly did them. I disagree that it's undue. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

much of the coverage include multiple mentions of blavatnik.

[1] mentions him 9 times. He is specifically stated to have helped solicit donations for adams, and that he coordinated in a zoom with adams.

[2] mentions him 6 times

[3] mentions him 4 times.

In addition, there is confirmation Blavatnik gave money to Eric Adams reelection campaign in many of these. Some mention is due. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: Yes, I would concede the donation to Adams' campaign should be included. Would you agree to a version like this:

In May 2024, the Washington Post reported that Blavatnik was a member of a WhatsApp group of business leaders working to shape US public opinion about the Israel-Hamas war following the 7 October attacks against Israel. The group also organized a Zoom meeting with New York City Mayor Eric Adams after he released a statement condemning the antisemitism on Columbia University's campus, where they discussed making political donations to Adams. A spokesperson for Blavatnik said he contributed $2,100 to Adams's reelection campaign in April 2024.

References

C at Access (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The passage "working to shape U.S. public opinion of the war in Gaza" appears in the Washington Post source, right in the first sentence where there's reference to "A group of billionaires and business titans". If we can draw on that part of the sentence in writing our article, then surely we can draw on the other part of the sentence: "privately pressed New York City’s mayor last month to send police to disperse pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University". I don't mind doing that -- but I do mind the idea that one is okay and the other somehow isn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

because its bad optics for Blavatnik and Access industries to include mention that this whatsapp group is primarily notable for being made up of rich benefactors of eric adams and that they had a voice in the decision of sending in police.

Removing that part is the whole kernel of why this whatsapp group was primarily notable. this edit request to remove that is transparently non-neutral in my opinion. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes -- which is no doubt why the original request to make the edit was made in an underhanded and non-transparent way... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I would appreciate you taking back that comment; I am owed the same WP:AGF as anyone else here despite my COI. I had assumed (and still believe) a talk page discussion wasn't necessary to determine that the current paragraphs on this subject need to be trimmed and rewritten for neutrality - I think even you would agree to that proposition, taken broadly. I left the details to the discretion of an uninvolved editor - I did not dictate or demand that any specific language be changed or removed, nor did I suggest my own. I still hope I can work constructively with you to improve the article without automatic obstruction, and that my suggestions can be considered objectively.

Here is another attempt at a new version of the paragraph, which now includes the part about the police:

In May 2024, the Washington Post reported that Blavatnik was a member of a WhatsApp group of business leaders working to shape US public opinion about the Israel-Hamas war following the 7 October attacks against Israel. The group also organized a Zoom meeting with New York City Mayor Eric Adams after he released a statement condemning the antisemitism on Columbia University's campus, where some attendees discussed making political donations to Adams, and some urged the mayor to use police to respond to pro-Palestinian protests at the university. A spokesperson for Blavatnik said he contributed $2,100 to Adams's reelection campaign in April 2024.

References

C at Access (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that as being a neutrality improvement. I understand your client would prefer Wikipedia distances him from the allegations presented in newspapers that the whatsapp group encouraged Adams to send police to deal with pro-Palestinian protesters however no compelling evidence has been presented that we should be creating that distance. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Comparison of WP article statements and WaPo source cited

I apologize for being late to this discussion-- I've been recovering from a difficult pneumonia episode since early January, so it's been a while since I could muster up the energy.

The Washington Post (WaPo) source is behind paywall, so to verify the content it's possible to gain a one-time access after entering an email address. I did check the Internet Archive, but the captures of this article also seem to be behind the paywall. My analysis, phrase-by-phrase and clause-by-clause, follows:

First Paragraph, first sentence of WhatsApp content:

1. "Blavatnik was involved in a long-standing WhatsApp group chat..." WaPo: "A WhatsApp chat started by some wealthy Americans after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack" Comment: WaPo does not characterize the WhatsAp chat group as "long-standing." Better citation needed, or phrase should be edited out.
2. "...that existed from October 2023 until early May 2024..." WaPo: "...after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack" and "In early May, seven months since its inception, the chat was shut down." Comment: Validly cited clause.
3. "...with the stated goals of "chang[ing] the narrative" in favor of Israel and "help[ing] win the war" on U.S. public opinion..." WaPo: "...the staffer posting on behalf of Sternlicht told the others the goal of the group was to "change the narrative" in favor of Israel, partly by conveying "the atrocities committed by Hamas … to all Americans." "On Oct. 12, a staffer for Sternlicht relayed a message from his boss outlining the group's mission: While Israel worked to "win the physical war," the chat groups members would "help win the war" of U.S. public opinion by funding an information campaign against Hamas." Comment: Validly referenced quotations from source.
4. "...following Hamas's October 7th attack on Israel." WaPo: "A WhatsApp chat started by some wealthy Americans after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack" Comment: Validly referenced phrase from source, but redundant with beginning of the same overly-long sentence. Sentence needs to be revised.

Firstparagraph, second sentence of WhatsApp content

1. "Members of the group chat discussed how they received private briefings by, and worked closely with, members of the Israeli government, including former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett, Benny Gantz, a member of the Israeli war cabinet, and Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Herzog.. Compare with WaPo source: "some chat members attended private briefings with former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett; Benny Gantz, a member of the Israeli war cabinet; and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Herzog, according to chat records." Comment: Source does not mention Blavatnik specifically. But, worse-- WP:COPYVIO needs to be deleted/substantially revised.

Second paragraph, second sentence of WhatsApp content:

1. "Members of the 2023-24 WhatsApp group chat, including Blavatnik, also held a video call in April 2024 with New York City Mayor, Eric Adams..." WaPo source: "A Zoom video call with chat group members and Adams took place a little after 11 a.m. April 26, according to chat records. It is unclear how many members attended the meeting, which lasted roughly 45 minutes, chat records show. Those present included at least Blavatnik, Sitt, Loeb and Lubetzky, according to the chat logs..." Comment: Validly referenced paraphrase of source.
2. "...in an effort to, according to reporting by The Washington Post, 'pressure Columbia's president and trustees to permit the mayor to send police to the campus'... " WaPo source: "...some attendees discussed making political donations to Adams, as well as how the chat group's members could pressure Columbia's president and trustees to permit the mayor to send police to the campus to handle protesters, according to chat messages summarizing the conversation..." Comment: Validly referenced quotation of source.
3. "...to shut down criticism of Israel's offensive military operations in Gaza..." WaPo source: "A group of billionaires and business titans working to shape U.S. public opinion of the war in Gaza privately pressed New York City's mayor last month to send police to disperse pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University..." Comment: Requires conclusion not expressly specified in source, that "...send police to disperse pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University..." is the same as "...shut down criticism of Israel's offensive military operations in Gaza..."
4. "...which many campus protesters, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, civil servants, and governments around the world have alleged to be genocide." WaPo source: No related content. Genocide is not mentioned in the WaPo source. Comment: Delete this clause, or find an appropriate source and cite it.

Second paragrph, third sentence of WhatsApp content:

1. "During the video call, group members discussed making political donations to Adams." WaPo source: First, "Sitt wrote minutes after the [Zoom] call ended to summarize items 'discussed today,' including donating to Adams..." Second, "...The spokeswoman noted other people on the Zoom said things Blavatnik 'did not weigh in on or agree with.' " Comment: The content as it stands is misleading. Besides, Blavatnik's donation is explicitly stated in the last sentence of the paragraph.

Second paragraph, fourth sentence of WhatsApp content:

1. "A spokesperson for Blavatnik said he contributed $2,100 to Adams's reelection campaign in April 2024." WaPo source: "A spokeswoman for Blavatnik said he contributed $2,100 to Adams’s reelection campaign in April." Comment: WP:COPYVIO-- needs to be substantially reworded.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I've sent a copy of the text over.

• "long-standing" - the sentence specfically states the time period the whats-app group was known to be active for. the wapo article states it as well. source actually states that Whatsapp group was ongoing from November 2023 as part of Sterlicht's PR blitz initiative.
• First paragraph, second sentence of WhatsApp content- I see nothing that is a copyvio here.
• removed the portions about the criticism of Israel's offensive/genocide accusation. Clearly shoehorned in.
• Second paragrph, third sentence of WhatsApp content - Blavatnik actively solicted donations for Adams. Posted an actblue link and stated he needs help. Was also part of the zoom call.
• fixed the last bit of copyvio.

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Thank you Bluethricecreamman and Grand'mere Eugene. Would you agree that two paragraphs is a little excessive for one story? I've taken another look following your feedback and analysis and think this slight trim might be reasonable - it maintains all of the key points mentioned above, but eliminates some of the repetitive language and details:

Blavatnik was a member of a WhatsApp group chat that existed from November 2023 until early May 2024 involving some of the United States' most powerful business leaders with the stated goals of "chang[ing] the narrative" in favor of Israel and "help[ing] win the war" on U.S. public opinion following Hamas's October 7th attack on Israel. Members of the group chat discussed how they received private briefings by, and worked closely with, members of the Israeli government. Blavatnik and other members also participated in a video call in April 2024 with New York City Mayor, Eric Adams in an effort to, according to reporting by The Washington Post, "pressure Columbia’s president and trustees to permit the mayor to send police to the campus". They also discussed making political donations to Adams; Blavatnik himself solicited donations from others in the group. Blavatnik's spokesperson told the Washington Post that he donated $2,100 to Adams's campaign in April 2024.

References

Thanks again for your time. C at Access (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This looks OK to me. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

agree. looks fine, and two paragraphs is excessive. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

done User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Hi. I have some suggestions for changes to the "Personal life" section, as follows:

• The third paragraph of the section says that "Blavatnik is a friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...." While the cited Haaretz source does support this statement, it does so only in a very brief passing mention. In contrast, sources that probe the nature of their relationship more deeply reject this. A 2017 Jerusalem Post article states that Netanyahu had "falsely invoked" Blavatnik's name and that Blavatnik "was not close to Netanyahu." Similarly, a 2024 Globes article states that while they "had a relationship in the past," there had been "no contact between the two" in over five years. The second part of that same sentence, concerning the donation to Trump, is already covered in detail in the "Political donations" section and does not have any connection to Blavatnik's "personal life." In light of this, the full sentence should be removed from the "Personal life" section.
• The fourth paragraph, which discusses Blavatnik's relationship with Viktor Vekselberg, should be changed from "Blavatnik is..." to "Blavatnik was...," to reflect the fact that Vekselberg is no longer Blavatnik's business partner. (See Bloomberg, which describes Vekselberg as Blavatnik's "former partner.")
• The end of the fourth paragraph ("...one of Russia's richest men, who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as several other Russia-associated oligarchs who are under international sanctions for support of totalitarian regimes and criminal activities") should be removed. Expounding excessively on the details of Vekselberg's life, rather than Blavatnik's life, in Blavatnik's biography is WP:COATRACK and serves only to imply guilt by association.
• Please add the following sentence: Blavatnik's friends have included George Weidenfeld, Edgar Bronfman Jr., John Browne, and Simon Sebag Montefiore.

References

Bluethricecreamman, Grand'mere Eugene, any thoughts? C at Access (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and recommendations for the third and fourth paragraphs of the "Personal life" section. I'm less convinced that mentioning his friendships with other notable people should be included— seems to verge on being promotional. Has he worked with any of the four on significant projects or political efforts? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: Thank you for responding. I had thought a sentence about Blavatnik's other notable friends would be appropriate because the Personal life section currently relates to this topic more than once. But I agree the added line is not critical. Thanks, C at Access (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Made COI requested edits on 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Declined requested addition of sentence on friendships with other notable people, per discussion above — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Philanthropy sections

As I said in the edit summary, I have seen recent discussions not about this man in specific but about philanthropy sections in general with several strong points put forward that philanthropy sections are often used as a form of "reputation washing" and have implications for WP:NPOV and WP:DUE - I'm unsure exactly where I stand but contested content should be discussed before reinsertion so I'm starting this discussion. For now consider me undecided but leaning toward exclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

i think len blavatnik is partially notable especially for his philanthropic contributions. I think there is some coverage about the fact this is philanthropy washing, but if the sources indicate he is philanthropic, its probably also undue not to include some of it.

I think we should probably let the long-standing version stand, and consider trimming it more. agree the article doesn't need to be about every dollar blavatnik has ever spent. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the long-standing version is. It has grown, via sustained engagement by C at Access. It would be sufficient to say "he has donate loads of $$" in various categories and give a few salient examples. Better to rebuild, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The section is completely NPOV and promotional as it stands today. I don't think there is doubt that the man has given vast amounts of money but its been given to expand his business. The question of how philanthropy is use to drive business interests by billionaires is not well understood by folk on here. It is not the true atruism of folk who give to charity to satisfy a need to help others. It needs trimmed right down to a small paragraph. No puff, no promotion and no npov. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman had tagged the Philanthropy section as "very long" in November 2024, and indeed the section was overly long. A few days ago, Grand'mere Eugene took one approach suggested by the template, which was to add subheadings. Another approach might be to identify paragraphs within the section that were superfluous, promotional or undue - such as, for example, the paragraph on the 2018 donation to Columbia's School of Engineering and Applied Science - and remove them. But nothing in the section suggested that it was so fundamentally flawed that a WP:TNT approach was warranted. And I'm surprised by the cynical suggestion that well-sourced, WP:DUE acts of philanthropy should be purged from the article because of speculations about the giver's motives and what constitutes "true altruism."

I think we all agree that not every dollar donated by Blavatnik should be included here, so I would suggest that those who wish to trim the section should point out the items that did not receive meaningful coverage in RS, and then see if there is consensus for removal. C at Access (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Scope creep here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no speculation involved. Excessive philanthropy sections are NPOV. They only way they are valid is if there is independent indepth secondary sources that say they are philanthropists, of which there is a good few examples on Wikipedia, that go back decades. Folk who have spent their life raising money and giving it away. Genuine philanthropists. scope_creep^Talk 16:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Your a paid editor which is fine, but your working for Blavatnik. Your essentially advocating for him on here, which is not cool. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Well -- he's advocating for him because he's paid to advocate for him. It's allowed (for better or worse). The main thing is, we're allowed to discount his proposals insofar as they aren't in line with normal editing. Just to be clear, I agree with your substantive idea here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

First, the lead says "Blavatnik received a knighthood for services to philanthropy." The cited article also reports, "Tate Modern has named its new extension—formerly the Switch House—the Blavatnik Building after the entrepreneur donated more than £50m, the largest-ever financial donation to a UK museum." Blavatnik's name is also on a suite of six galleries at The Courtauld, showcasing Renaissance to 18th-century art, renamed the Blavatnik Fine Rooms, in recognition of a donation from the Blavatnik Family Foundation. Blavatniks' name is on the entrance hall of the Victoria & Albert's new extension, on the first tier of seating at Carnegie Hall, and a Blavatnik donation will be used to establish the Blavatnik Art, Film and Photography Galleries at the Imperial War Museum.

Second, Forbes scored Blavatnik's 2024 philanthropy as 2, according to The 400 Richest People In America, meaning he has donated between 1% and 5% of his wealth to charities—Oprah Winfrey and Jack Dorsey are also given a 2 philanthropy ranking.

On the other hand, the cited CNN article 'It's shameful': Russian-linked billionaires have given enormous sums to the West's leading educational and cultural institutions, covers Blavatnik in a section titled, "A Soviet-born billionaire was knighted, but his donations still raise eyebrows". The CNN piece quotes a group of foreign policy experts, "It is our considered view that Blavatnik uses his 'philanthropy – funds obtained by and with the consent of the Kremlin, at the expense of the state budget and the Russian people – at leading western academic and cultural institutions to advance his access to political circles," the group of 55 American and European foreign policy experts and anti-corruption activists wrote. "Such 'philanthropic' capital enables the infiltration of the US and UK political and economic establishments at the highest levels."

I think we need to include both sets of perspectives in this biography. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. And I think the other editors' claims that the section was somewhat excessive have merit too. So I drew up a proposal for a new Philanthropy section that covers only the most significant information relating to Blavatnik's philanthropy while scaling down the section dramatically. Of course, all the editors here are encouraged to tinker with this.

Proposed Philanthropy section, with changes notated

Philanthropy Blavatnik and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin with young scientists who have been awarded the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, February 2018 Blavatnik, the Blavatnik Family Foundation, and Access companies, have supported many cultural and philanthropic institutions over the past 15 years, serving as the primary benefactors for numerous major art and cultural exhibitions, including the British Museum, the Tate Modern (which named a new wing the "Blavatnik Building" in 2017), the Royal Opera House, the National Portrait Gallery, the Courtauld Gallery, and the Museum of Modern Art. Knighted in 2017 by Queen Elizabeth II for his services to philanthropy, Blavatnik has been described by the Financial Times as "one of the world's most generous philanthropists" and by In 2020, The Times newspaper described Blavatnik as "Britain's arts philanthropist-in-chief". Blavatnik established the Blavatnik Family Foundation, which supports higher education, good governance, early-stage scientific research, arts and culture, and Jewish history. Education Educational institutions supported by Blavatnik have included Yale University, the University of Oxford and Harvard University. Blavatnik is also a financial supporter of Yale University, where he launched in 2016 the Blavatnik Fund for Innovation, which supports early-stage biotechnology companies, as well as the Blavatnik Fellowship. Since 2017, the fund has supported 73 projects with over $20 million in direct support for research and fellowships. In September 2023, the Blavatnik Family Foundation donated an additional $40 million to the Innovation Fund. Since 2007,In 2005, the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists were established by the Blavatnik Family Foundation together with the New York Academy of Sciences has supported the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists. The annual award recognizes the accomplishments of outstanding young scientists in the U.S., the U.K., and Israel in the areas of life sciences, physical sciences and engineering and provides all finalists with a significant cash prize. At the time, Blavatnik told the media: "The Nobel's about $1 million, I thought $250,000 was big enough to make it really interesting but not big enough to be scary. There are a lot of rewards for established scientists, but I don't think young scientists get enough encouragement and support in a systematic way." Blavatnik's £75 million donation to Oxford in 2010 was In 2010, it was announced that Blavatnik and the Blavatnik Family Foundation would donate £75 million to the University of Oxford to establish a new school of government. The gift is one of the largest philanthropic gifts in the university's 900-year history. Blavatnik also indicated the possibility of increasing his benefaction up to £100 million over time. The donation led to the launch of the Blavatnik School of Government, which began accepting students in September 2012. and the new permanent home of the school was constructed on the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter. The building, which was finished in summer 2015, was designed by the Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron. The first dean of the school is professor Ngaire Woods. At the time of the donation, Lord Patten, then Chancellor of the University of Oxford, described it as "a once-in-a-century opportunity for Oxford." In 2013, Harvard University announced a $50 million donation from Blavatnik's foundation to sponsor the establishment of the Blavatnik Biomedical Accelerator, and encourage life sciences entrepreneurship at the university to "empower the next generation of life science entrepreneurs and provide a further catalyst for innovation and research development". and named the first five HBS graduates to receive the Blavatnik Fellowship in Life Science Entrepreneurship. At the same time, Blavatnik also announced three $250,000 national prizes, in conjunction with the New York Academy of Sciences, for young scientists restricted to scientists under the age of 42. In 2018, Harvard Medical School announced a $200 million donation from Blavatnik's foundation to sponsor research, investments in data science, and the creation of subsidized lab space for biotech startups. In December 2023, Blavatnik halted donations to Harvard after controversial testimony by Harvard president Claudine Gay before the United States House of Representatives and for her failure to condemn antisemitism at Harvard after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. In 2018, Columbia's School of Engineering and Applied Science announced a gift from Blavatnik's foundation to fund engineering innovations in health. He also received the 2017 Samuel Johnson Medal from the school. In 2024, the Highlander Research and Education Center learned that the Blavatnik would no longer associate with the center. The center had signed a letter calling for ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza War and learned of other organizations similarly defunded by the foundation. Arts and culture In 2011, Blavatnik donated more than £50 million to the Tate Modern gallery in London – the largest donation in the gallery's history. In 2017, the gallery named its new £266 million extension building the Blavatnik Building. In 2014, Blavatnik became a trustee of Carnegie Hall in New York City. and iIn 2016, the Blavatnik Family Foundation made a $25 million gift to Carnegie Hall. In response, Carnegie Hall renamed its first level of boxes "The Blavatnik Family First Tier". The boxes will carry the Blavatnik name until 2066. In 2016, Blavatnik funded a new hall at the Victoria and Albert Museum redevelopment. In 2016, Blavatnik supported the $1.2 billion regeneration of rundown section of Miami's South Beach area into a centre for arts and culture. He loaned the project an artwork by Damien Hirst titled "Gone But Not Forgotten". The work comprises a vitrine containing the gold-plated 10,000-year-old skeleton of a mammoth. In June 2020, on the day of the Warner initial public offering, Access the Blavatnik Family Foundation and Warner Music Group announced a $100 million fund "Social Justice Fund" to support "charitable causes related to the music industry, social justice and campaigns against violence and racism.", supported by the Blavatnik family foundation. In December 2020, Blavatnik made a donation of £10 million towards the renovation of the Courtauld Institute of Art. In December 2021, Blavatnik donated half of the £15 million required to prevent the sale and dispersal of the Honresfield Library on the open market. The collection, originally created by Lancashire Industrialists William and Alfred Law, includes Brontë family manuscripts, Jane Austen letters, and handwritten poems by Robert Burns. In February 2022, Blavatnik made a multi-million pound contribution to the Imperial War Museum in London. The money will be used to establish the Blavatnik Art, Film and Photography Galleries. In 2022, the National Portrait Gallery, London accepted a £10 million gift from the Blavatnik Family Foundation. The new Blavatnik Wing on the Gallery’s first floor contains nine galleries hosting more than one hundred years of British portraits and is part of the Gallery's Inspiring People project. The Gallery said the gift was the most significant in its history. Blavatnik Archive 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. Reception Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. Others have disagreed; w 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'." References

Proposed Philanthropy section, clean version

Philanthropy Blavatnik and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin with young scientists who have been awarded the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, February 2018 Knighted in 2017 by Queen Elizabeth II for his services to philanthropy, Blavatnik has been described by the Financial Times as "one of the world's most generous philanthropists" and by The Times as "Britain's arts philanthropist-in-chief". Blavatnik established the Blavatnik Family Foundation, which supports higher education, good governance, early-stage scientific research, arts and culture, and Jewish history. Education Educational institutions supported by Blavatnik have included Yale University, the University of Oxford and Harvard University. In 2005, the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists were established by the Blavatnik Family Foundation together with the New York Academy of Sciences. Blavatnik told the media: "There are a lot of rewards for established scientists, but I don't think young scientists get enough encouragement and support in a systematic way." Blavatnik's £75 million donation to Oxford in 2010 was one of the largest philanthropic gifts in the university's 900-year history. The donation led to the launch of the Blavatnik School of Government, which began accepting students in September 2012. Lord Patten, then Chancellor of the University of Oxford, described it as "a once-in-a-century opportunity for Oxford." In 2013, Harvard University announced a $50 million donation from Blavatnik's foundation to establish the Blavatnik Biomedical Accelerator, to "empower the next generation of life science entrepreneurs and provide a further catalyst for innovation and research development". In 2018, Harvard Medical School announced a $200 million donation from Blavatnik's foundation to sponsor research, investments in data science, and the creation of subsidized lab space for biotech startups. In December 2023, Blavatnik halted donations to Harvard after controversial testimony by Harvard president Claudine Gay before the United States House of Representatives for her failure to condemn antisemitism at Harvard after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Arts and culture In 2011, Blavatnik donated more than £50 million to the Tate Modern gallery in London – the largest donation in the gallery's history. In 2017, the gallery named its new extension the Blavatnik Building. In 2014, Blavatnik became a trustee of Carnegie Hall in New York City and in 2016, the Blavatnik Family Foundation made a $25 million gift to Carnegie Hall. In June 2020, the Blavatnik Family Foundation and Warner Music Group announced a $100 million "Social Justice Fund" to support "charitable causes related to the music industry, social justice and campaigns against violence and racism." In December 2020, Blavatnik made a donation of £10 million towards the renovation of the Courtauld Institute of Art. In December 2021, Blavatnik donated half of the £15 million required to prevent the sale and dispersal of the Honresfield Library on the open market. The collection includes Brontë family manuscripts, Jane Austen letters, and handwritten poems by Robert Burns. In 2022, the National Portrait Gallery, London accepted a £10 million gift from the Blavatnik Family Foundation. The new Blavatnik Wing contains nine galleries hosting more than one hundred years of British portraits. The Gallery said the gift was the most significant in its history. Blavatnik Archive 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. Reception Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. Others have disagreed; 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'." References

Thanks, C at Access (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Nomoskedasticity, for returning a Philanthropy section back to the article. Your version was fair. I have a few comments about some of the edits that were subsequently made to the article by Likeanechointheforest:

• The counterpoint to the "whitewashing" criticism, attributed to music critic Richard Morrison, should be restored. The fact that Ann Marlowe's view was expressed in the context of universities and Morrison's opposing view was expressed in the context of the arts is immaterial; both views are clearly very relevant to the discussion of how Blavatnik's philanthropy should be regarded.
• The line about the Blavatnik Family Foundation, removed as "lacking reliable source," should be restored. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of the foundation's own website to act as a source for basic information about itself, including the types of organizations it supports. In any case, here are two independent sources that can support the information as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/education/blavatnik-and-science-academy-to-give-3-new-prizes.html and https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/find-a-grant/grants-b/blavatnik-family-foundation
• A new paragraph was added to the newly created "Controversies and disputes" section, about protests at the Tate Modern. The content is inaccurate, based on poor reporting by the Middle East Eye. See the proper RS coverage in The Guardian and the Times of Israel, which make it clear that the allegations were not that Blavatnik had the show canceled, but rather that he was working to stifle criticism of Netanyahu by facilitating the appointment of a supposed Netanyahu ally as the CEO of the channel's news department. The paragraph also requires context that, as reported in The Guardian, Blavatnik's spokesperson rejected the suggestion of Blavatnik's involvement in the matter, noting that the CEO's appointment was made by the channel's independent board, on which Blavatnik has no role.
• The section called "Group chat to change U.S. public opinion on Gaza war" should not be a "level two" section. It more logically belongs as a "level three" section under the new "Controversies and disputes" section.
• The new "Donations" section, which now includes "Philanthropy" and "Political donations" as subsections, doesn't really make sense. The two subjects are not related, other than both being about the way Blavatnik spends his money. I suggest restoring them as independent sections.

Thank you, C at Access (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Will think about these. For now I'll say that I don't think the counterpoint should be restored /as is/ because it's framed as responding to the university bit, but is about art. It should be put in a separate context. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Thanks for considering the five points I made above. Perhaps we can adjust the "whitewashing" paragraph so it's clearer that the dispute is over how to characterize Blavatnik's philanthropy generally, rather than in any one specific context. It should help to change language that might imply that Morrison was directly "responding to" or "disagreeing with" Marlowe:

Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. In contrast, Richard Morrison wrote that Blavatnik's philanthropy should be viewed positively, 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'."

Thanks again, C at Access (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you rewrite this again without the quote? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: How about the following:

Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. In contrast, Richard Morrison wrote that Blavatnik's philanthropy should be viewed positively, criticizing the "background murmur of snide comments" following Blavatnik's arts donations and describing the trend as "both discourteous and self-defeating."

Thanks for working this out with me, and please consider the four other points from my earlier comment as well. C at Access (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think quotes are appropriate here. I also looked for a source for Richard Morrison's opinions there, and couldn't find it. It seems like by and large, most of the response to Blavatnik's philanthropy has been critical, so I think it would be a bit inaccurate to suggest through this kind of edit that there's two equal sides here. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Though I think the quotes are useful, here is a version without any:

Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. In contrast, Richard Morrison wrote that Blavatnik's philanthropy should be viewed positively, criticizing those who look askance at Blavatnik's arts donations and stating that it is ungracious to consider all such donations problematic.

The source for this is Morrison's opinion piece in The Times, here (archived version).

Regarding the last point, the response to Blavatnik's philanthropy isn't as one-sidedly critical as you are suggesting. In the (highly critical) 2014 New Yorker profile piece that is cited extensively in this article, it acknowledges regarding the reception to Blavatnik's £75 million donation to Oxford: "A few alumni criticized Oxford for taking the money... Mainly, though, the announcement of the school was met by loud approval." But in any case, the language I suggested avoids the implication of two equal sides by referring to "some critics, such as Ann Marlowe" on one side and referring only to Morrison on the other side. Would you like to suggest alternative language? C at Access (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards:

Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. In contrast, Richard Morrison wrote that Blavatnik's philanthropy should be viewed positively, criticizing those who consider all such donations problematic. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: The issue with this version is that it gives a reason for the criticism ("influence-buying and whitewashing") but doesn't give a reason for Morrison's outlook - it just says that Morrison criticized the critics of Blavatnik's philanthropy, without saying why. The sentence needs to give some rationale, i.e., "discourteous and self-defeating" or some appropriate paraphrase of this line. Thanks, C at Access (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone else interested in weighing in so we can wrap this up? Grand'mere Eugene? Nomoskedasticity? C at Access (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@C at Access wonder if you might like to propose another revision? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Either of the below options should be fine, though I believe the first is preferable, because Morrison's language is distinctive, and using quotes is the best way to convey his point with the necessary precision:

1. Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. In contrast, Richard Morrison wrote that Blavatnik's philanthropy should be viewed positively, describing the criticism of Blavatnik's arts donations as "both discourteous and self-defeating."
2. Some critics, such as Ann Marlowe, have characterized his donations as influence-buying and whitewashing. In contrast, Richard Morrison wrote that Blavatnik's philanthropy should be viewed positively, describing the criticism of Blavatnik's arts donations as ungracious and potentially harmful to arts organisations.

Thanks, C at Access (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's why I don't think it's appropriate to implement:

In your proposal, the sentence about Ann Marlowe does not provide extra detail, but the sentences you want to add about Richard Morrison does. On a subtle stylistic level, this just clearly opposes WP:NPOV, particularly because Richard Morrison's statements are not about the subject of the article, but about statements made by others. That level of remove from the actual subject of the article also feels at odds with Wiki quality standards Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: I'm not sure what you mean that the sentence about Ann Marlowe does not provide extra detail. The sentence doesn't just say that Marlowe criticized Blavatnik; it helpfully explains that the criticism was due to "influence-buying and whitewashing," an extra detail without a parallel detail on the Morrison side of the sentence in your version. And to your other point, that Richard Morrison's statements are not about the subject of the article, Morrison does not only criticize the critics. He also praises Blavatnik and his philanthropy directly from the outset of the article ("Let's hear it for Leonard Blavatnik"). That view, from The Times' chief culture writer, should be given its due here. Thanks again, C at Access (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

BLP

That article is a BLP yet reads like a company(s) article. There is long consensus going back to at least 2010 about how BLP articles should be presented. Certainly not as a business article, listing company details in excess as they are not important in the grand scheme of things. So that will be need trimmed, e.g. this para "The first order of business for AAR" will need shortened. It is now quite unusual to see an article like this that presents such excessive detail on business dealings in a BLP and i'm assuming some of it can be slotted into other articles, e.g. Rusal. But a large block will need to go, i.e. trimmed to remove the excess. scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make some edits. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Have similar thoughts here. There's a lot of repeating positive information, a lot of burying of negative information. Feels very deliberately white-washed. Going to try to resolve and welcome other input Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)