Talk:Vehbi Koç

message: Bit of cherrypicking going on here, the source says, he had no part in the wealth tax, he did takeover confiscated businesses, and then offered work to the former owners, and treated them without prejudice. Wondering why this was omitted? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cherrypicking? The article sentence says "In 1942 Vehbi Koç saw the opportunity which the Turkish tax levied on the wealthy citizens of Turkey provided and he The Sabancı (and Koç) family,[3][4] like many of today's Turkish entrepreneurs, benefited from the Armenian Genocide and the elimination of the Armenians and the Armenian competition[5] by taking part in takeovers of old minority-run ventures, which were encouraged by the government[6][7] and which led to the creation of a new Turkish Bourgeoisie.[8][9][10][11]" It does not say he had part in the wealth tax, it does not say he treated Armenians or anybody else badly, it does not say he had predjudices or anything else! This obviously are your false personal interpretations. The article sentence says what is depicted in the source and the source says „Vehbi Koc … took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises“. Sidney E.P. Nowill: Constantinople and Istanbul: 72 Years of Life in Turkey . Troubador Publishing, 2011. p. 77. Exactly this is what was said in the article. Nothing more and nothing less. The deletion needs to be reverted. --Markus2685 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, the source says exactly what I have said it says, given I have just read it. So explain why you feel the need to misrepresent this source? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is irrelevant. The source also says 1000 other things. The sentence you have deleted, namely that "Vehbi Koc took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises" can be found in the source. The source says Vehbi Koc took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises, and the article said that Vehbi Koc took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises. True or not? So you want to say he did not took over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprises? Because this is exactly the information you have deleted.--Markus2685 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not irrelevant at all, you are omitting information from the source so as to cast the subject of the article in a poor light, that is POV pushing. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV pushing? I kindly ask you again: Does the source say that Vehbi Koc took over many of the collapsed enterprises or not? And was there anything else written in the article?--Markus2685 (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you appear to be ignoring that you have deliberately omitted content from the source so as to cast the subject in as negative a light as possible. Again, why did you omit the other information? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, I don't like assumption. Deliberately omitted content? How do you know? The article section is about his business career. It depicts how he has started and grown his business. And part of growing his business was, as said in the source, taking over many of the collapsed or confiscated enterprise. The article does not talk about his interpersonal relationship to other people. I have not deliberately omitted content and have no problem if other parts are added as long as their are sourced and fit into the topic of the section. But deleting sourced content just because you have the personal feeling that other information should be mentioned as well is not acceptable. If you have the urgent necessity to add information or think something is missing then add it. --Markus2685 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not assuming anything, you added it, and obviously omitted the rest of the information in the source, so explain why. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have explained it in detail above. You want me to explain it again? But anyhow… I have now also added that he had not played any role in the wealth tax. --Markus2685 (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok now?--Markus2685 (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not, else I would not have tagged it as POV. You are still omitting information which is in the source, that is a no no. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now seriously. What are talking about. Do you want me to copy paste every information and all pages from the source? I have added information that fits to the topic "Career". In my opinion interpersonal relationship to other people have nothing to do with "career". But if you think other then add it… and I see that you have done so. But the POV tag is ridiculous, sorry.--Markus2685 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Varlık Vergisi|Turkish tax levied on the wealthy citizens of Turkey]]  

message: This is the original sentence from the article which was deleted saying that the source allegedly does not support this claim at all: 
And here is the summary from the English academic source (Geoffrey Jones: Entrepreneurship and Multinationals: Global Business and the Making of the Modern World. Edward Elgar Pub, 2013. p. 35):
So lets compare the source and sentence:
1. The article mentions "the Armenian Genocide". The source says "many of them were killed or fled the country following traumatic events during and after World War I." If you are taking part in an encyclopedia it should be requirement that you know what is meant by saying "traumatic events during and after World War I.". So source and article match
2. The article says "led to the death or escape of the former economically dominant non-Muslim minority of Greeks, Armenians and Jews". The source says "business had been primarily in the control of religious and ethnic minorities such as Greeks, Armenians, and Jews, many of them were killed or fled the country". Source and article match
3. The article says "The new Turkish government implemented policies to dispossess non-Muslim businesses". The source says "The new government ... employed selective policies that led to the dispossessing of non-muslim businesses". Again, source supports what was said in the deleted article section
4. The article says "This confiscation led to the formation of a new generation of Turks, including Vehbi Koç, who began to build businesses". The source says "Within this context, Vehbi Koc was one of a new generation of Turks who began build businesses.". And once again, source and article match
Hence, the argument that the original sentence from the article, as depicted above, is not supported in the source is disproved. The sentence needs to be inserted again.--Markus2685 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the sentence needs to be put back again. Also, I haven't really seen any rationale behind the content of the article being different from what this particular source and the other sources mentioned here before state. It's pretty straightforward. Երևանցի talk  02:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - mention of one person en passant does not make it particularly relevant in a biography of that person.    It likely belongs as a reference in the article on the tax, and not used to refer to the single person. Collect (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Markus and Yerevantsi here. I really don't see any stark differences between what the source says and what the article conveys. As for Collect's comment, this has nothing to do with the taxation. The Wealth Tax (Varlik Vergisi) of the 1940s and acquisitions of abandoned property in the immediate aftermath of the Armenian Genocide are two different events and topics. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Absolutely two different events and topics. --Markus2685 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wealth and confiscation of property section 

message: Collect's last edit summary reads:
:"I see no such "consensus" and accusations of complicity in any genocide do tend to be contentious claims"
#Consensus is clear. See statements by Markus, Alexikoua, EtienneDolet, and myself. You are the only one contesting these sources.
#Could you please elaborate on "accusations of complicity in any genocide do tend to be contentious claims"? What does this suppose to mean? If a claim is "contentious" then it can't be included in the article? I suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored and come back with better arguments. 
--Երևանցի talk  20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Singing the same tune over and over again is not argumentation. By whose standards are the sources "weak"? Are you some kind of a judge here? First you say the claim is "contentious" (!?!), now you're saying it's "weak". And as ÉtienneDolet has pointed out below, what exactly in RSN is there to read?  --Երևանցի talk  01:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: "Complicity in genocide" means taking part in a genocide = killing people. Not one single word in the actual section of the article can be interpreted as "the Koc family took part in killing Armenians and committing genocide". The addition to the article clearly states, that "he benefited from the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide during which he acquired wealth through the appropriation of abandoned Armenian property". Nowhere does it say he took part in the genocide. Also, your assertion that stronger sources are needed (though sources are already strong enough) to make such BLP claims cannot stand since he's been dead for quite some time now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Benefitted from Genocide" is still a crime.   Find a strong source making that specific accusation, else you are going to violate Wikipedia policies.  And last I checked the "family" is alive, and the claim that the "family wealth" derives from criminal acts is also a problem.  Is there a specific reason you wish this claim to be in all the Turkish articles? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: For G-d's sake READ the discussions at WP:RS/N.  You wil note that others agree with me as to what your sources state and more importantly what they do not state.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSN discussion never resulted in anything conclusive. The discussion was eventually referred back to the talk page of this article since it was more of a content dispute rather than an issue of reliability. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way other editors read the discussion. See WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSN turned out to be a content dispute. There's no conclusive reasoning behind the unreliability of the mentioned sources. Hence the reason why the discussion has been referred back to the talk page. Therefore, if there are discrepancies between what the source says and what the content of the article purports, then we should discuss that here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Well, for one, the Kasabyan family estate was the home Koc grew up in. It's mentioned a countless number of times in his memoirs (). In fact, this estate turned into a museum after a complete renovation in 1944 (). As for the Kasabyan's, they were a very rich family in Ankara. After the Armenian Genocide, they fled Ankara and all their properties were eventually expropriated. The current Presidential Palace (Çankaya Köşkü, Turkey's "White House") was actually the property of the Kasabyan family (). But look, I don't mind being less descriptive about the estate. But I firmly believe that with the dozens of sources that talks about the estate, it makes it a definitely notable feature in Koc's life. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For certain, there is no strong argument to avoid this piece of information about Vehbi Koc's life. Moreover, when someone is benefitted by a state's genocide policy it doesn't necessarily mean that he is a criminal. To sum up, a reader should be interested in the whereabouts of his wealth, especially if its a biography article of a successful businessman like Koc. Regardless of the way he has procured his wealth, whether through successful businesses practices or through the acquisitions of private property, this should be mentioned. Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree! The issue is totally clear. The tactic user Collect is using is also clear. He misrepresents the facts over and over again and has clear problems with interpretation. Sorry, to say that! "Complicity in Genocide" is your interpretation. That's not what was being said in the article. "benefitted from the Genocide" is not a criminal act, but a fact that took place whether you like it or not. I have the strong feeling this a personal issue user Collect has with this information, because as I have depicted it very clearly, the sources support all statements that have been deleted. Are we going to decide what is depicted here based on user Collects false personal interpretations? I really don't get the point. --Markus2685 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  And even if "benefited from genocide" was a crime, what kind of argumentation is that? I don't get it. So are we going to delete any sourced information if it depicts a crime?! The "Armenian genocide" was a crime, so do you want to delete the article? The "Holocaust" was a crime, do you want to delete the article? Very weak argumentation. You are clearly trying to keep away any unpleasent information from this article, that's more than obvious. You have personal problems with this information.--Markus2685 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: Two refs were recently being used. The first is from the defunct Armenian Reporter website from Feb 17 2001. It was not written by staff. It was an opinion piece. The Armenian Reporter was a tiny weekly run that has since become defunct. It had no reputation as a Reliable Source before it folded, but even if it had such a reputation the ref wouldn't be usable (per policy) because it is an essay/op-ed. The other ref is similarly unreliable as an opinion piece, but more so. The article headline actually has "Commentary:" in it. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion on Non Reliable Source refs into article 

message: What should information that is sourced by many many people be removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.13.6 (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it has nothing to do with his career.  Second, because it is not notable. Third, because it is extremely poorly sourced. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be more specific about how each and every one of these sources can be considered unreliable? Also, what do you mean when you say that the BBC source doesn't support the material? Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

text: No , Çetinoğlu is not a blogger. He's one of the most reliable academics on the subject of Turkish Republican history. He has written scholarly works on the subject, including the Hrant'in katil(ler)i, which is also used as a source. I am okay with not using the BBC source only because this bit of information can be easily verified by many other sources. I still haven't seen legitimate reasoning as to why Karaca, Ayse Hur, Demirer, Çetînoğlu, or even PEN scholar Maraşlı, can be considered unreliable. We'll have to go through these one by one to sort it out. Until then, this discussion is going to be a recurring theme with this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Any updates on this? If not, I'll have to restore the content if these sources have yet been proven unreliable. Besides, there are entirely new sources from other books that talk about the Kasapyan estate and Vehbi Koc's relations to it. I think the article needs a little structuring as well. An Early Life section should be added so that this article doesn't remain an article based on solely his career. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My disagreement is still here - and you do not have to make any such "restoration" or disputed material.  Cheers.Collect (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You claim all these sources were deemed unreliable at the RSN which is not at all true. They weren't even mentioned there. As for this TP, I don't see an explanation from you as to why Karaca, Ayse Hur, Demirer, Çetînoğlu, or Maraşlı should be considered unreliable. There's also new academic works that need to be added as well. The material is not even disputed, no scholar would ever dispute the fact that of the Kasapyan estate. So if this explanation is not given, I will either have to continue with the restoration or go to WP:DR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly urge you to start a "request for comment" here  WP:RFC - and get additional input.   Which is the step before anything else - the goal is WP:CONESNSUS . Collect (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your honesty Collect. I'll initiate one soon. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about the Kasabyan estate 

message: *Support Per WP:GNG. A quick glance at the sources demonstrates reliability. Onaran is cited by a good amount of academic sources. Demirer is also reliable, having been awarded several awards including one from the Turkish Human Rights Association. And as mentioned above, Maraşlı is an award winning PEN scholar. Երևանցի talk  09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: opening a new section for this discussion Pldx1 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , according to this source published by the official Koç website, the director of the Vehbi Koç foundation and daughter of Vehbi Koç, describes his obsession with the house as follows:
Koç was well aware of what he and his family were doing. What his daughter said is confirmed in his memoirs:
And again, he confirms how much he envied the Armenians of Keçiören:
Koç was never ashamed of displaying his distaste towards non-Turks, which indeed includes the Armenians. In an interview, which is on YouTube (6:43-6:57) Vehbi Koç says the following:
To sum up: Koç envied the Armenians, as stated by him and his closest family members. The property that was confiscated by the state during the Armenian Genocide was sold by a representative of the state, namely Fevzi Çakmak, to Koç and his family, in what turned out to be a "very auspicious/fortunate" (uğurlu) purchase for them. Koç knew full well who those houses once belonged to. He knew that its previous Catholic Armenian owners were forced to abandon their property which in turn opened up an opportunity for him to become the very people he so envied growing up. And yes, though rare, the Kasapyan family were Catholic Armenians (source). Therefore, the acquirement of the house, as stated by my RfC proposal, is accurate and is in accordance by primary, secondary, and first hand accounts from his family and Vehbi Koç himself. Indeed, it doesn't hurt to add a bit more detail to the proposal. For example, the year in which the Koç's acquired the property would be rather useful. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources indicate Vehbi was not the initial purchaser in any event (he was only 22 at the time).  Cakmak was the official seller per many sources.  The mother's name appears to have been Koc - suggesting that the mother's family might have been the purchaser, but, in any event, Vehbi was not the purchaser from the government.  Cakmak was, in fact, the Field Marshal second only to Ataturk in 1923 suggestions that he was an "Ottoman official" at that time are clearly silly.   If one were to desire to imply guilt, the implication should be placed upon Cakmak and not upon Koc per the sources.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... For the moment, two colloquial sources have been quoted. One (Koç museum) says by grand father Mustapha Koç. One other (memoirs) says by father Vehbi Kosh. Both are written by Koç's daughter (or by two different daughters ?). Both assertions appear as rather loose and not asserting that it was this specific person (and  surely no one else). The fact that Vehbi Kosh was 22 in 1923 proves nothing in this regard. From 1921 to 1923, he was involved in the building industry linked to the transformation of Ankara into the capital of Turkey. An interesting occasion to make some money. The other interesting point is Fevzi Çakmak. He was surely an Ottoman official,  ending into  Chief of the General Staff (1918), and Minister of War (1920) of the Ottoman Empire. His role was crucial in the success of Mustapha Kemal, who could act as the recognized political leader of the Turkish army, due to the fact that Fevzi Çakmak was the recognized military leader of the same Turkish army (and the organiser of the required victories). How-why-when Fevzi Çakmak became  connected to this Kasabyan vineyard estate (sold to Koç familly in 1923), while Mustapha Kemal was offered another Kasabyan vineyard estate (in 1921) should be examined. One of the reasons to rebell against the Sevres treaty was the so-called Abandonned Properties. Pldx1 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly - no one appears to know the exact details - Koc's father had set him up with a small grocery store, so it is ore likely that the elder Koc had money than that the son had much money.  In either event, it appears fairly clear the title had gone through Cakmak.  The issue of "abandoned buildings" is, moreover, found in many nations - many Germans found themselves losing property to the Soviets after WW II - without compensation (both those "relocated" to Siberia, and those escaping to the West specifically lost properties, and those who remained in the DDR ended up as "renters" of their own original property.)  In many nations, "abandoned property" is sold for nominal amounts - either at auction or by fiat (some cites simply give houses to people who promise to maintain them).  In none of these possibilities does any rational implication of guilt (vide genocide) to Koc appear valid.  Nor do we have any solid basis to assert when Cakmak acquired the properties - whether during WW I when many groups were treated as "enemy aliens" (see US history on such matters in the US such as Japanese-Americans), or whether he acquired the property "in due course" by auction, etc.  or whether he acquired the property as a result of the Ottoman tax system, etc.  It would be nice to see what motivation or reason existed for his ownership, to be sure.  Collect (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's simple. If Çakmak isn't entitled to sell a property, Koç is not entitled to purchase it either. Especially considering that Koç himself knew beforehand that these properties once belonged to Catholic Armenians who were forcefully deported from their homes. So the argument as to whether he had nothing to do with the confiscation process of the Armenian Genocide or that he was entirely oblivious to it seems pretty frivolous to me, especially considering that the wording to this RfC explains a lot less than it actually should while simuntaneously relieving Koç of any sort of blame. 92slim (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By that "reasoning" pretty much no one in the US or UK or Europe has "clear title" to any land at all.  And every single Turk is also "connected" to the genocide.  Alas - that "broad interpretation" I not what most scholars use in real life.   And the aim is not to imply blame at all -- that you think the implication "absolves" anyone is rather strange, alas.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Asking for more informations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vehbi Koç. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://futbol.turksportal.net/futbolhaber/8829/ilhan-cavcav-tarihe-gecti.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified