Talk:Aristotle Onassis

message: Why is the first name written "Aristotle" in this article? I understand that there is a (centuries long) convention of writing the ancient Greek philosopher's name (incorrectly) as "Aristotle", but Onassis is a different person, and his name is "Aristoteles", not "Aristotle".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: First name

message: In the 1960s there were rumours that Onassis was trying to gain control of Monaco. Quentin Crewe reported that they weren't true. They appear to have originated when Onassis gained a controlling stake in Société des bains de mer de Monaco. Does anyone know any more about this? cagliost (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Monaco

message: this article was tagged for needing a fuller lead paragraph.  I have edited the lead in an effort to address this and I have removed the tag.  Feel free to improve upon my efforts.  Mdukas (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of Lead paragraph - Jan 2015 

message: The infobox lists Arabella Kennedy as stepdaughter and Patrick Kennedy as stepson.  Both died years before their mother married Onassis.  Is it accurate to call them his stepchildren?  Is a stepchild anyone whose parent one ever married?  Or is it only if the marriage occurs during the child's lifetime?47.139.42.69 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike being a biological parent necessarily, step-parenting is an ACTIVITY and Onassis never got the chance to be an active step-parent for them. It's definitely, at least, a stretch to call them his stepchildren. Since Wikipedia pages are limited in size, with excessive trivia out of the bounds, I'm sure you can remove said info at will. ToniTurunen (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a stepchild -- does it apply to Arabella and Patrick? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aristotle Onassis. 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/20070325182652/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/ to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A quote from the article:
'Onassis made large profits when the Big Oil companies like Mobil, Socony, and Texaco..'
Now, 'Socony' is Standard Oil Company of New York. In 1920, the company registered the name "Mobiloil" as a trademark. In 1955, Socony-Vacuum was renamed Socony Mobil Oil Company. In 1963, it changed its trade name from "Mobiloil" to simply "Mobil". So my point is that 'Socony' and 'Mobil' are the same thing. I'm making this little quibble, is all..I think the sentence could be rephrased. 
While I am at it, I'm reading here about how these boats had Panamanian flags etc. Now, of course, Aristotle Onassis was the most famous shipowner of all. And he was  at the peak of his energies and creative powers in, like, the 1950s. And of course, he was seldom out of the limelight during this period. But when was this business concerning Panamanian flags? I quote: 
'Onassis built up a fleet of freighters and tankers that eventually exceeded seventy vessels. Onassis's fleet had Panamanian flags and sailed tax-free while operating at low cost. Because of this, Onassis could turn a profit in every transaction, even though he charged one of the lowest prices in the merchant navy market. Onassis made large profits when the Big Oil companies like Mobil, Socony, and Texaco signed long-term contracts at fixed prices with him..'
Okay, I read 'exceeded seventy vessels', when my understanding is that 'peak of 67 vessels' is accurate. Of course we need a reference, but what is the current reference? And about these Panamanian flags..there is a notion of 'flags of convenience' but I find the way that it is touched on here to be rather breezy and tendentious. Note that  one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes (one of the world's most important marine trade routes) is the Panama Canal. Being registered under Panama's flag enables ships to pass through, maybe? Note that Panama has the largest shipping fleet in the world, greater than those of the US and China combined. That's interesting, sure, but it's also not simply about Aristotle Onassis. I think it is true, that most merchant ships flying Panama's flag belong to foreign owners wishing to avoid the stricter marine regulations imposed by their own countries. About 8,600 ships fly the Panamanian flag. By comparison, the US has around 3,400 registered vessels. 
I find these parts of the article to be stated at an oddly low sort of level, like I'm reading a conspiracy theory -- let's go through some of this:
'Onassis could turn a profit in every transaction, even though he charged one of the lowest prices in the merchant navy market...'
Okay, is it relevant, here, that in the middle nineteen‐fifties he ordered five 28,500‐ton tankers at a cost of $35‐million. Mr. Onassis had been told that such supertankers would never make money, as they could not negotiate the Suez Canal.  A decade later he and other shipowners were building 250,000‐tonners. You see,  the closing of the canal in 1956 by President Gama Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic was a stroke of luck for Mr. Onassis, who made millions with his speedy supertanker hauls around the Cape of Good Hope. And where the 1967 Arab‐Israeli was again closed the canal, the freight rate on oil soared from $5 to $18 a ton. By 1974, with the advent of the oil crisis, the price had almost doubled.
I am sorry about not offering better references -- I didn't mean to put any time into this. I'm just a drive-by snarker, and no expert on the subject. DanLanglois (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobil is Socony 

message: Lede has 20 January, infobox has 15 January.  Needs fixing.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date

message: Mavros John Jack 'jj' Onassis - never heard of him or any offspring of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis. Cross Reference (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it's vandalism. Tvoz/talk 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is this guy?

message: The short description, which should be CONCISE, says the living years twice - “20th-century” and “(1906–1975)”. Either could be removed. ToniTurunen (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 🇬🇷 

message: @Unkownsolidier Aristotle Onassis was born an Ottoman subject, on Ottoman land. I don't care even if this fact was a bleeding wound on his soul. I can give you a well example or two of Wikipedia articles labeling people born on somewhere other than their ancestral country as a national of the place they born, even if they were complete strangers to that said place. In Aristotle's case, he and his ancestors lived under the Ottoman flag for generations. It is noteworthy that this guy was Ottoman-born, and I see no reason to not mention it on the lead. Yuzerneim (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay yeah he was born in the Ottoman Empire and that is detailed on the page itself. I just don't think it's necessary to have it at that specific section. Aristotle Onassis was Greek and the "Ottoman-born" just doesn't fit with that. They were Ottoman Greeks sure, but that's a bit different. Unkownsolidier (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't it fit with that? Why'd you think so? Yuzerneim (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottoman means Turkish. I know you probably mean this as an "Ottoman nationality" but it is not appropriate. All non-Turkish individuals born in lands of the Ottoman Empire are referred to in historiography by their separate ethnicities and definitely not as "Ottomans" or "Ottoman-born", which is a designation kept solely for individuals of Turkish heritage. That's why, all sources unanimously describe Onassis simply as Greek (not even Argentine). Wikipedia, as a tetriary source, follows the information acquired from reliable secondary sources. Piccco (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what people born on Ottoman land called collectively, if it's not "Ottoman"? By this logic you must be doing the same with non-Latin people born and raised in Spain, therefore would you not call a Basque person a Spanish? Yuzerneim (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what we might call them collectively, because here and in every article we focus on people individually. The Ottoman Empire, like all empires by definition, was multinational and we cannot really compare it to modern countries/nation-states. In regards to non-Turkish Ottoman subjects particularly, in both wikipedia and sources they are typically refer to by their ethnic groups i.e. Greek, Serbian, Albanian etc. especially if their ethnic group is related to their notability. "Ottoman-born" is arguably irrelevant to Onassis' notability. Piccco (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. maybe you're right. Yuzerneim (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman-born