Talk:Sabancı family

message: I am going to remove the sentence about wealth being a result of the Armenian genocide. The sentence looks simplistic on its face, and I also want to see direct citations from the sources. I found an obituary of Sakip Sabanci in The Guardian, 2004 and the Armenian genocide is not mentioned there in the history of the family grew rich. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to see direct citations you were free to look through the sources. The pages were given. But as you did not do that job I was so kind to do it. Following you will find the direct citations (for some you have to be logged into your Google account to view them):
# „The Sabanci family is Turkey's modern rags-to-riches success story. … These examples must stand for many Turkish entrepreneurs who benefitted from the Armenian Genocide, either directly by CUP donations or indirectly from the economic void left by the elimination of Armenian competition.“ Ugur Ungor, Mehmet Polatel: Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. p. 132
# „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
# „... commercial and industrial establishments left idle after the emigration of their Greek and Armenian owners. Such takeovers were encouraged by the government.… Haci Ömer ...has taken part in the takeover of old minority-run ventures in Adana.“ Ayse Bugra: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82
# „In the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire, 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 … The new government offered subsidies and other support to aspiring entrepreneurs… and employed selective policies that led to the dispossessing of non-muslim businesses. Within this context, Vehbi Koc was one of a new generation of Turks who began build businesses.“ Geoffrey Jones: Entrepreneurship and Multinationals: Global Business and the Making of the Modern World. Edward Elgar Pub, 2013. p. 35
Vehbi Koc was an aspiring entrepreneur, Haci Ömer was an illiterate villager both were not wealthy before taking over confiscated minority-properties... Both benefitted economically from the Armenian Genocide and thus that's the economical origin of their business. That is when both started making business (a new generation of Turks who began build businesses.) --Markus2685 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I'll look more into it later, but my spontanous thoughts is that when/if you reinsert it, you should be more nuanced and specific about the impact of the Armenian genocide, maybe attribute it to the sources you have, and it shouldn't be stated like it is the whole story about their fortune. Also, I am not sure whether the sources regarding Vehbi Koc directly apply for the Sabanci family. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome. I understand what you mean and I agree with you. I will be more precise and specific according to the sources. I have added the Koc sources because the Koc family was also mentioned in brackets.--Markus2685 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Many notable scholars and historians have dealt with this topic and have written about it. Fatma Muge Gocek, Ayşe Buğra, Uğur Ümit Üngör, Peter Burschel, Sabri Sayari just to mention some. This topic does absolutely fit in a encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It does not matter how old Hacı Ömer Sabancı was during the Genocide in 1915. The confiscations and takeovers of minority properties began during the Genocide and continued since then. It did not end after the Genocide. --Markus2685 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian genocide 

message: We're not here to provide a genelogy service, and inclusion of a list of largely unsourced living people in the context of "profiting" from "genocide" seems particuarly problematic per WP:BLP.  Please do not restore most of that content without better sourcing and more nuanced, and again, sourced, statements about any connection between the individuals involved in genocide. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the geneology 

message: The argument "discussion result is clear where only one person asserts that a source is reliable for a contentious claim" is unsustainable. First of there was no discussion result saying that the sources used are unreliable. The only real discussion was between me and User Iselilja and the result was that the section and sources are ok after changes were made to the text. This was the only discussion. User Mtpaley did not discuss anything. He only stated his opinion and I was the only one answering him. Furthermore the fact about the property confiscation is not a contentious claim as you claim. It is a fact that historians and scholars from different origins and countries have written about. Just look at the sources. If you delete this fully sourced section again without discussing it I will have to consider this beeing possibly vandalism. --Markus2685 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources just do not support the claims made.  And if a source does not support a claim made, it could be Scripture -- the claim must be removed.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you actually read the sources? I doubt it. I have depicted all passages from the sources in detail above, how can you say they do not support the claim?--Markus2685 (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did full searches in the sources, looking primarily at the specific pages cited   (and ended up learning some Turkish of all things via Bing -- nice that Ataturk used a western alphabet).   I described my findings in full at WP:RS/N in the past, and suggest you examine those posts.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Drop the bit about associating a family with genocide.  The sources do not support the claim which is intrinsically contentious.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, please specify how these sources do not support the claim. Also, you say these sources are unreliable, please tell me how a peer-reveiwed source, such as Ungor's, is unreliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell ya what -- present this source at WP:RS/N and see what other editors feel about the claim.  I am quite confident my position is the one others will have.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: The source does not make the claim as a statement of fact - and the concept that catenation of claims is valid is what is known as WP:OR.  That you "know" that the Sabancis deliberately got property from murdered Armenians is not stated in the source at all. As living persons are mentioned in the article, Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing that such an inferential claim provides per WP:BLP. The most the source supports is that all Turkish families benefitted from the displacement of Armenians, and not that the Sabancis in particular benefitted from genocide.  This is a substantial and contentious type of claim. Collect (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion by user Collect 

message: Should the following paragraph be included in this article?
If you feel that the wording should be changed, please provide an alternate proposal.
For reference, the sources applied to the paragraph are: page 82 of Ayse Bugra: State and Business in Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study and page 131-2 of Ugur Ungor: Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property
Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please show me in which of these sources does it say that the Sabanci family "purchased" property formerly owned by Armenians? Bugra makes it clear that they were "takeovers". Sidney E.P. Nowill's source doesn't even talk about the Sabanci family. It only talks about Vehbi Koc, two entirely different families. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, I meant Sidney E.P. Nowill in my recent edit, not Jones. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Your deliberate wikilinking of "confiscated Armenian properties" is a misuse and abuse of the sources, and is removed on the simple grounds that such misuse of sources is directly contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not just remove the wikilink if you feel so confident about your opinion? Besides, as of this RfC, I don't intend on having that paragraph placed on the article. I have already provided the proposal which never intended to have such a wikilink in the first place. I merely revert your recent edit simply because none of the sources provided use the word "purchased". In fact, Nowill's source doesn't even talk about Sabanci. I think the next step here will be dospute resolution if a compromise cannot be reached here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, you have absolutely zero support here for your insistence that the families be explicitly linked to Genocide.  I suggest you take note of WP:CONSENSUS at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; Collect is wise. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Absolutely.  The forum shopping that has been going in here is ridiculous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: @bobrayner: "Collect is wise" is a prime example of absurdity. --Երևանցի talk  20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

text: @Jonathan A Jones: What "forum shopping"? The only forum shopping I see here is coming from the ridiculous denial of facts that somehow get labeled "contentious". --Երևանցի talk  20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

text: This was opposed on RSN. So that's forum shopping and misrepresentation. bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobrayner, the RSN never concluded that these particular sources (Ungor and Bugra) are unreliable or that they're not "strong" enough for any such claim. In fact, their reliability wasn't even discussed. The discussion was more related to whether the wording of the article is aligned to what the source says. You've pointed out yourself that the content contained "enthusiasm" which was not part of the sources. Hence the reason why I am providing this proposal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind 's proposal. Perhaps we can open a revised RfC for that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also happy with 's proposal, which steps very nicely atround everybody's concerns.  As nobody has objected so far, I suspect that there might be informal consensus on using that text without the need for any more formal process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keithbob's proposal looks good to me. It's a suitable compromise. I also don't mind if the third sentence is included or not. I don't find this a "linkage" to a crime because expanding a business due to "reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide" is simply not a crime. Omer Sabanci never took part in creating such an environment, he merely found himself in one (that is if he was even conscience of it). Clearly, expanding a business in such an environment of reduced competition in an aftermath of any such circumstance, whether it be genocide or slavery, cannot be labeled a crime. Also, we can't establish this claim to every family in Turkey due to the simple fact that not all Turks benefitted from such an environment. There's not even an RS that makes such claims. And after all, the Sabanci family is not just any Turkish family. They're notable in the sense that they've accumulated wealth to a degree unsurpassed by all families in Turkey and hence are considered one of the richest families in Turkey (). There's no shame in providing information of how this family accumulated wealth in a certain environment or in a certain way, especially when reliable sources attest to such claims. Երևանցի talk  18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Inclusion of a paragraph in article 

message: *Oppose It is intrinsically contentious to link any person or family to a genocide without exceedingly strong sourcing making such a direct connection.  Otherwise, the same paragraph could be linked to just about every wealthy Turkish family, as they all have had some remote connection by simple virtue of being in Turkey during the Armenian Genocide.  Collect (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: We need a rationale as to why you think these sources aren't strong enough already. The sources are explicit in what they say:
That's pretty direct if you ask me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please show me in which of these sources does it say that the Sabanci family "purchased" property formerly owned by Armenians? Bugra makes it clear that they were "takeovers". Sidney E.P. Nowill's source doesn't even talk about the Sabanci family. It only talks about Vehbi Koc, two entirely different families. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, I meant Sidney E.P. Nowill in my recent edit, not Jones. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Your deliberate wikilinking of "confiscated Armenian properties" is a misuse and abuse of the sources, and is removed on the simple grounds that such misuse of sources is directly contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not just remove the wikilink if you feel so confident about your opinion? Besides, as of this RfC, I don't intend on having that paragraph placed on the article. I have already provided the proposal which never intended to have such a wikilink in the first place. I merely revert your recent edit simply because none of the sources provided use the word "purchased". In fact, Nowill's source doesn't even talk about Sabanci. I think the next step here will be dospute resolution if a compromise cannot be reached here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, you have absolutely zero support here for your insistence that the families be explicitly linked to Genocide.  I suggest you take note of WP:CONSENSUS at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; Collect is wise. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Absolutely.  The forum shopping that has been going in here is ridiculous. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

text: @bobrayner: "Collect is wise" is a prime example of absurdity. --Երևանցի talk  20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

text: @Jonathan A Jones: What "forum shopping"? The only forum shopping I see here is coming from the ridiculous denial of facts that somehow get labeled "contentious". --Երևանցի talk  20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

text: This was opposed on RSN. So that's forum shopping and misrepresentation. bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobrayner, the RSN never concluded that these particular sources (Ungor and Bugra) are unreliable or that they're not "strong" enough for any such claim. In fact, their reliability wasn't even discussed. The discussion was more related to whether the wording of the article is aligned to what the source says. You've pointed out yourself that the content contained "enthusiasm" which was not part of the sources. Hence the reason why I am providing this proposal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind 's proposal. Perhaps we can open a revised RfC for that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also happy with 's proposal, which steps very nicely atround everybody's concerns.  As nobody has objected so far, I suspect that there might be informal consensus on using that text without the need for any more formal process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keithbob's proposal looks good to me. It's a suitable compromise. I also don't mind if the third sentence is included or not. I don't find this a "linkage" to a crime because expanding a business due to "reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide" is simply not a crime. Omer Sabanci never took part in creating such an environment, he merely found himself in one (that is if he was even conscience of it). Clearly, expanding a business in such an environment of reduced competition in an aftermath of any such circumstance, whether it be genocide or slavery, cannot be labeled a crime. Also, we can't establish this claim to every family in Turkey due to the simple fact that not all Turks benefitted from such an environment. There's not even an RS that makes such claims. And after all, the Sabanci family is not just any Turkish family. They're notable in the sense that they've accumulated wealth to a degree unsurpassed by all families in Turkey and hence are considered one of the richest families in Turkey (). There's no shame in providing information of how this family accumulated wealth in a certain environment or in a certain way, especially when reliable sources attest to such claims. Երևանցի talk  18:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: noticed the wording which I had introduced based on a belief that a source had been cited properly in the past.  When he removed it, I took a solid look at the source asserted, and noticed that it does not support any such claim, and that Nthep's removal was proper.  I note that I now have some access to check this source, and now find it entirely deficient for any of the claims about a connection to genocide on the part of this family which has living members. Collect (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW. This is so bizarre. You were the one who added that claim and removed the sources for it in this very edit of yours. And now you're saying things Nthep never said. He did not make such a claim against any source. In fact, he didn't believe sources existed according to his edit-summary. Therefore, he merely removed it because it wasn't sourced. Which was true. And that's why I added a source. Also, the entire source was provided for you with this link on the talk page. We also quoted the entire passage over and over again from Ungor's book on the talk page. We had an RfC (an RfC you participated in, might I add) over this which concluded that an alternative proposal should be added to the article. Your entire argument, at the time, was to remove complicity of Omer Sabanci vis-a-vis the Armenian Genocide. In fact, your argument was the same then as it is now. Nothing has changed. You therefore made that edit to solve that matter and the community didn't act upon it since then. I personally didn't mind your wording either. However, this is an attempt to resurrect a dead horse. And you're trying to remove YOUR very own edit then turn around and accuse me of accusing the Sabancis of genocide when I restore it? I'm baffled. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is proper to re-examine a source which has been questioned by an editor.  Indeed, when I actually examined the source, it had no real support for the claim in this BLP.  Three years ago I did not have the same access to the source that I now have, and so I have to deal with what I know now rather than what I thought then.  Clear? Collect (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The source was never "questioned" to begin with. The whole "I didn't have access to the source" does not make sense at all, especially when entire passages of the book were provided to you. Better yet, you actually quoted these passages in your WP:RSN request here. I mean WOW. The link to the entire book was also provided at the talk page. You had more than enough access. You never complained about access then. Better yet, you claimed that the source does not jive with the material being presented. Therefore, that means you read the source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When the material was removed, I decided to actually look at the source.  If a source does not back the claim made, no matter if the source was in the article for a decade, the source does not support the claim made and must by policy be removed.  You appear to think that if a source has been in an article that it can not be questioned.  In fact we should always be prepared to remove poor sourcing on any article. Collect (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Nowhere in the book cited I see any information directly supports the sentence "Some of its assets had been owned by Armenians prior to the Armenian Genocide." One paragraph tells the story of Ömer sabancı with no mention of Armenian Genocide and then in the next paragraph there is a general statement on how Turkish entrepreneurs benefitted directly or indirectly from elimination of Armenian competition. What's more, one of the reasons for the emergence of new Turkish bourgeoisie was due to the AG and population exchange between Turkey and Greece. However it is WP:UNDUE to include such information in this specific page.Abbatai 13:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  assertion by implication of profiting from genocide not actually supported by the source claimed  

message: is a textbook example of WP:OR
:"Armenians didn't just voluntarily give up their businesses to Omer Sabanci. They suffered a genocide. Sabanci specifically moved to Adana for this reason. That's actually quoted in his memoirs. The book specifically refers to this episode as a "famous example" of someone who benefited from Armenians forcefully leaving their industry. The book is quite clear on that." is perfect OR. Collect (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that OR? I'm referring specifically to the source. Ungor is pretty specific about Sabanci being a "famous example" of "entrepreneurs who benefitted from the Armenian Genocide" due to reduced competition from the Armenian Genocide. And let's not forget, the "Some of its assets had been owned by Armenians prior to the Armenian Genocide" is YOUR wording we're talking about. You are the one who worded it that way in this edit. You shouldn't be accusing your own wording of OR and BLP violations because you specifically had modified that wording to avoid those very same presumptive issues. At any rate, I restored the RfC wording since it appears you don't like the very wording you placed. And to clarify, as I've already said, I don't mind either wording. But we can always refer to a consensus version proffered by the RfC since the consensus involved more users. The wording is more aligned with Ungor than with Bugra in this case. And that's something we've discussed extensively. 19:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR]]