Talk:Aristotle Onassis/Archive 1

Question

In 1896, when he was was born, wasn't Smyrna Greek? The Onassis family, who were wealthy tobacco dealers, lost their belongings when Turkey took Smyrna over in 1922, which is why Aristotle left. And is Smyrna now called Smyrna, or is it called Izmir? If this is right (I'll have to check) this should go over to his bio. -- Someone else 01:55 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Smyrna was part of Turkey at that time, wasn't it? Even though the city was largely Greek at the time. -- Zoe

Got it, you're right, Greece only had it from 1919-1922. I think I've got it right in the article now. I also think Aristotle Onassis spent some time in South America but I will have to dig to find out doing what/when. -- Someone else 05:26 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

When was his birthday?

I've found both January 15 and January 19 when doing Google searches. RickK 23:47, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

He was born in 1900, but preteneded he was born in 1906 to escape Turkey (it behooved him to say he was 16 when he was actually 24).

Actually, he was born in 1904, according to the investigative journalist Nicholas Gage, who did a tremendous amount of research to find out this fact. Onassis lied about his age on certain occasions to make himself appear either older or younger, depending on which was more beneficial to him at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.211.123 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CTI?

What on earth is a member of CTI? --- CTI is an important pan-european organization with close ties to Italian maffia.

Onasis had Illuminati friends?

I was reading the article on Kennedy's Assassination Theories that Onasis had friends in the Illuminati. Can anyone elaborate and maybe include this in the article? --CanesOL79 02:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What is missing

The fact his daughter died.

Details of his huge shipping Empire - there are non.

kennedy intrigue and speculation

How big estimates of his wealth are

Athina and how she is to inherit through an on-going court case.

• Onasis' extensive (and allegedly rule-breaking) whaling enterprise

• Taking over and running for several years Monaco's Societe des Bains de Mer (SBM)

• How Prince Rainier III screwed him out of control of the SBM Dick Kimball (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1900 till 1975 = 69 years?

Someone should correct this...

If the above information is correct, his birth year is actually 1900 which would make him 74 or 75 on his death. Someone will need to verify whether the above is indeed the case. -57.69.9.19 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's 1906 in multiple sources. The date's right; I fixed the age at time of death reference. PacificBoy 16:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Most famous business magnate of the 20th century"?

I don't think so. Just because there is an article that says this, it doesn't mean that a statement such as "He is the most famous" is anything more than someone's personal opinion... 68.193.87.97 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here to note exactly the same thing. "Most famous" is not an encyclopedic fact. JeramieHicks (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have already changed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.0.155 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We must add

1. He was the first one who built the super-tankers
2. He was involved with George Papadopoulus general and president of Greece
3. He was involved with wales fishing
4. He bought a huge part of Monte Carlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.106.223 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Not exactly. Through a number of front agents around the world he managed to buy a controlling interest in
   Monaco's Societe des Bains de Mer (SBM), which owns the Grand Casino, several of Monaco's finest hotels, and a
   good deal of monagasque real estate. After several years of abiding Onassis's control of the SBM, and calling the
   prince by his Christian name, Prince Rainier ordered the SBM to issue a lot of additional shares and give them to
   him, thus diluting Onassis' holdings so that he no longer controlled the SBM. Dick Kimball (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First big step

I removed this "After hearing a call from an Argentinian film distributor and a senior executive at Paramount in New York about the film star Rudolph Valentino, " as I could not see wehat it had to do with his importing tobacco from Turkey. if the connection can be established we can re-entert he material. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participation... This information is present in Onassis offical Biography, by Peter Evans, and its present in Onassis Biography in DVD too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but what does it mean? The link has to be established in our readers minds or it remains gibberish. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It means that everything from orient was on top at that time, so, he had the idea of importing tobacco from the orient

Huge money

I've flooded this paraghaph in order to shut up El Greko. If someone can make it a better way, please, go foward. All this section come from the same place in official biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is the first country in this biography

Well... Looks like im the only one who is inserting more information in this biography. Thanks for the revision that people are making in the text. I wish more people could help in this important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have a question: was family of the Onassis from Cappadocia or were they still in Ionia, or just a part of his family were Cappadocians? thanks --213.151.217.138 (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whe remain the only country to write in this article. Well... I hope someone bring new air here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup as per tag

Hi, have been wikifying and making prose more grammatical where relevant. For 201.19.126.113, please don't simply revert straight away (diff here[1]), a minor change that's been explained in the edit box and is about wikifying according to WP:MOS. It will be treated as vandalism. If you want to practise editing, use the WP:SANDBOX. The tag asks for copy editing, if you revert please give reasons. Please understand that wikifying is no insult to someone's writing, but bringing copy into conformity with house style. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Detail

Changed "after hearing a call from" because it's either "hearing from" someone, or getting a call as in "After a call from...". Took it to mean he spoke with this person – unless he heard an announcement of some kind. Onassis is such an icon, look forward to seeing this article grow, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it time?

It may be time that this article is moved from start to some other, maybe B, class. I see it as a FA candidate with more work such as including Aristotle's approach to business meetings, the way he dealt with business associates, captured opportunties (could be expanded) by someone more familiar with his operations. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1906 date of birth

Many Greeks left Turkey very quickly, regardless of their ages. Thus the reason given seems to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Illuminati query from above

This search[2] links the family but don't have time right now to investigate how reliable these sources (blogs?) are yet. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the recent addition of the The Greek Colonel Affair section

I copy the section here to highlight my concerns with the section. Objections/comments follow after each problem sentence/section.

The Greek Colonel Affair

Four days after his marriage with Jacqueline, Onassis was in the back of a Mercedes-Benz with Colonel George Papadopoulos plus 350 armed men from the colonel's personal body guard.

Comment: What exactly is this supposed to indicate? How encyclopedic is this information? Being in a Mercedes carries no useful information and it is not encyclopedic.

Onassis employees called this encounter "the second honey moon".

Comment: What encounter? Why was this called the second honeymoon? What was discussed in the car? How reliable is this account? What kind of a book is this? Why is there no other reliable source referring to this "encounter" available to cross reference this? What is the page number? etc. etc.

Papadopoulos was on Ari's extensive bribe list, and had received in "comodatus" a huge vilage in Lagonissi.

Comment: No other source on the internet asserts this. Only this book. With no page numbers provided either. And what is a "comodatus"?

Onassis and Papadopolus were planning what they called the "greatest business" of Greece. This project involved building an oil refinery, shipyards, power plants, and several aluminum facilities. This project had the official name of the Omega Project.

Comment: No other source on the internet refers to the "Omega Project".

The Omega Project was heavily critcized by people like Helen Vilachos, a journalist from Athens, who was under house arrest. She said that Greece was being sold as a "genuine bargain".

Comment: No other source on the internet refers to this reaction by Helen Vlachos.

By this time, and after his last marriage Onassis had lost any sense of proportion.

Comment: Proportion in regards to what? How is this related to the other claims?

In the words of an executive high up in Alcoa, "He seems to think that we have to agree with anything in order to receive a dinner invite with him and Jacqueline aboard the Christina. Obviously he saw in that marriage a way to boost his career."

Comment: What does Alcoa have to do with the rest of the claims in this section?

The negotiations lasted for months and ended with Onassis losing part of the project to his arch enemy Niarchos, who in Onassis' words, had to "Put in his *** before he puts in mine"

Comment: Negotiations with whom? Since it is claimed that he had Papadopoulos on the payroll and he had a honeymoon with him why did he need negotiations? How encyclopedic are the expletives which were deleted?

Part of the insucess in this case was due to Onassis OPM formula which created opposion from important people like Ioannis-Orlandos Rodinos, Deputy Minister of the National Economy, who severely opposed Onassis' offers in preference to Niarchos' ones.

Comment:What exactly is an OPM formula?

Conclusion: Quite apart from syntactical and grammatical errors this section simply does not make much sense. It is based on an obscure book with a 1986 print date, and its unusual and radical claims cannot be found anywhere on the internet. It should be removed. Dr.K. logos 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well.... I dont know where did you came from. But before writing adjetives to this book, how about buy it and read a bit? You can buy it at Amazon. Thats the official biography payed by Onassis itself.

I don't know where you came from either and frankly I don't care. But you cannot keep removing these tags without giving an explanation for each and every point I made above. I just reported you at the WP:AN3RR noticeboard. Dr.K. logos 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This tags are not facts... Are oppinions of your self that you are using to flood the text. You have never ever made any contribuction to this article. So respect the one who has worked it from the begining. Just dont simply drop yourself here here from no where saying that an official biography is a obscure book. It just show how you totally ignore important things. Read before. It will be better to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.242.28 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please answer my questions above. One by one if you don't mind. As far as respecting the one who has worked here from the beginning no one WP:OWNs this article. And anyway this article like every other on Wikipedia has many contributors. Who are you referring to exactly? Dr.K. logos 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations and page numbers

You'll find page numbers in the edit text within references; which is why a different ref name is given and the refs seem repetitive. I think I brought up the need to find an elegant way to streamline this on this page asking if there is a way to use ref name with page numbers, but it seems to have vanished. And I don't know how to do it though an article I came across did have this style. (Now can't find it, arrgh!) Maybe the help desk or computer desk might be able to help. Btw, it is the "one book", by Peter Evans, but it seems to be the definitive biography in English.

Some comments fwiw: I cleaned up the syntax and grammar. Which version were you pasting? In good faith edits, imho, it helps to give other editors time to do this work before damning it out of hand – not every editor is a native English speaker. About WP:OWN, of course they don't own it. Doesn't mean it's easy to see one's work hit the dust though (and it isn't me btw). Try to calm down, guys. Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Went back and found I only did half a job. Hid the Niarchos quote until someone wants to ditch it. Now is more encyclopedic. Took out house arrest because the article is not about her, and the army of goons is just "around". Cleaned up some more but the formula still a mystery. Would like to remove the tag about unencyclopedic language if no-one objects. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Julia. The text is completly encyclopedic now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs)

I don't agree at all. You still have not answered any of of my questions above. The section is still an incoherent mess. Without the tags the readers are going to be scratching their collective heads for a long time. And please do not remove the tags because as the primary author of this disputed section you have a conflict of interest. If you continue edit warring I will take this to WP:RFC as well as report it to WP:3RR. Dr.K. logos 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

@Julia: You have done an excellent job but the section is still an incoherent mess with seemingly unrelated and contradictory statements. You removed the expletive section but we still have the Alcoa guy's comments. What do they have to do with the narrative of the section? How is it possible for Papadopoulos to get a whole village in Lagonissi from Onassis and nobody else on the internet to write about it? What is a "comodatus"? What is the OPM formula? How did Papadopoulos give the deal to Niarchos if he had a second honeymoon with, and he was in the payroll of, Onassis? Julia, I thank you for your efforts and your finesse for asking about the removal of the unencyclopedic tag. Unfortunately the whole section is so badly written that no amount of copy-editing can currently save it. The tags have to remain until these questions are answered. Dr.K. logos 02:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Completly right. Now we'll use the same laws in other articles. Better hurry up now. You have a lot of work to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs)

Undue emphasis on the Peter Evans biography

The article reads like a book review of the Peter Evans biography of Aristotle Onassis, not like an encyclopedic article on Onassis. There are many unnecessary salacious details and the prose is sometimes reminiscent of a tabloid or a screenplay. Whereas the biography may or may not be a reliable source for all the extraordinary claims made in the article, it is Wikipedia policy that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Therefore I propose that all extraordinary claims which are based solely on the Evans biography be segregated into a section called "The Peter Evans biography" and be qualified as such. This would also avoid any copyvio concerns. If any facts in the Evans biography can be corroborated by other sources as well, then it would be ok to present them in other sections. Otherwise the way this article looks at the moment it might as well be renamed "The book review of the Peter Evans Biography of Aristotle Onassis" or "Aristotle Onassis according to Peter Evans". In this case let everyone buy the Evans book and let's delete this article and go home. No need editing a mere poor reflection of the real thing. In addition the word "encyclopedic" contains the word "cyclo" which means circle, i.e. "a well rounded knowledge" of a subject based on more than a single source, especially when extraordinary claims are made. There is very little in this article that is well rounded. It is a straight line view of Onassis, with many parts of the article leading straight into this single biographical source. This in my opinion is in violation of WP:UNDUE. Dr.K. logos 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is literal copying, there is no copyright issues with the material based on the Evans biography. Segragating the material to a single section is counter-productive. As you point out, we are writing an encyclopedia article. The continuity and flow of the prose will not make any sense when re-arranged by source, and would need to be completely undone when additional sourcing is provided. The article is already tagged to indicate that it relies heavily on a single source.

I'd like to remind all editors involved that the articles exist primarily for the readers of the article, and not the editors of the article. They should be kept foremost in our mind when constructing an article. This re-arrangement does not help a reader, in the same way that single sourced articles and poor;y referenced articles do not serve the reader well. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Whpq. Thank you for following up. As far as your points I largely agree, but I would like to remove these tags as soon as we get some agreement. I don't like tags but neither do I like misleading the reader that this article is not a rehash of the allegations contained in the Evans biography. When a reader reads this article they think that this a well-rounded Wikipedia article. They don't know that most of it derives from the Evans biography. The claims made are large and extraordinary. You will not find them anywhere else on the Internet. There is no hope for corroboration in my opinion, ergo my suggestion to segregate the information. In a normal article this would not have been necessary, but allegations of bribes in the form of huge villages in Lagonissi, talking about "broadcasting" his sexual prowess and how many times they did it etc. are things that cannot be verified by any other source. Therefore we either segregate the info to minimise the impact of these otherwise unverifiabble extraordinary claims or we preface each and everyone of them by "According to claims in the biography by Evans" etc. You don't have to remind me for whom the article exists. I know that implicitly. I am not doing this for myself as an editor or otherwise. I do it out of respect for the reading public and out of respect of what I think Wikipedia should stand for as an encyclopedia. This article presents many facts found only in the Evans biography, as absolute facts. This is not respectful to the reader or to Wikipedia. That's why we have to somehow qualify this runaway and tabloid-like info. Also don't forget the WP:BLP concerns. There are still living people affected by the info presented here. Dr.K. logos 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As far as copyright I really don't know because I haven't read the book. But where are all these unencyclopedic expressions, that the article is littered with, coming from? Are they verbatim from the book or are they just an unsuccessful attempt at editing a Wikipedia article? Regardless they must be qualified or eliminated altogether. Dr.K. logos 13:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This probably needs a few more editors reviewing and evaluating the situation. It might be a good idea to request an article assessment from Wikiproject Greece or Wikiproject Biography. Wikiproject Greece has this article rated as high importance. And Wikiproject Biography would have editors much more familiar with guidelines for straightening out biographical articles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement Whpq. If you know a few shortcuts please go ahead and list it anywhere you see fit. Otherwise I'll try to do it. But give me some time. I was embroiled in this unaware that this would require countless edit wars with sockpuppets acrosss multiple articles and this seriously disrupted my attempts at improving this article. You can understand I have so much time and energy to spend trying to work on the project while fending-off counterattacks. Regardless your participation in this discussion and your larger contribution repairing the effects of the counterattack on the other articles is gratefully acknowledged. It is people like you that keep renewing my faith here. Dr.K. logos 16:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a peer review request at Wikiproject Greece. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully done. What a great idea. You saved me a lot of work. I would use the word "grateful" again but I'll try to avoid repetition. Instead I will thank you very much, again. If you ever need me I will be more than glad to assist in any way I can. Take care and all the best to you. It was a real pleasure meeting you. Dr.K. logos 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth year

According to biographers, Nicholas Fraser, Philip Jacobson, Mark Ottaway and Lewis Chester, London Sunday Times writers, Aristotle Onassis was born on January 20, 1906 in Smyrna. These biographers contend that he changed his birth date when he applied for a job with the British United River Plate Telephone Company on March 12, 1924 and listed his birthplace as Salonika. The place change was done to avoid being negatively categorized with the masses of other refugees from the Middle East fleeing the Turkish army. He then changed his birth date again in 1932 to January 7, 1900, when he was appointed deputy consul in Buenos Aires by the Greek government. <Aristotle Onassis, Nicholas Fraser, Philip Jacobson, Mark Ottaway and Lewis Chester, London Sunday Times, 1977> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lladnaratina (talk • contribs) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

My lovely people. I think that some king of spirit droped dow here to we got such a good result. Onassis is much more happy now. And this discussion page is longer than the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex, what can I say? I am very pleased that you like the result and muchas gracias for your nice comments. Your contributions are greatly appreciated also. Thank you for being so constructive. Like Shakespeare said: All's well that ends well. Take care and adiós. Tasos {Dr.K. logos 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)}

Sorry I missed the developments, but glad to see they are good and people are happy. Kudos to all involved in negotiating the tricky details. I'll be back from RL soon (I hope) :) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Julia. I really appreciate your valuable contributions and nice comments. Kudos indeed to everyone. It was really nice meeting you. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Peer review results

I've copied User:Yannismarou's peer review from Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Peer review#Aristotle Onassis here so editors can try to address the points that have been made. Thanks to Yannismarou for taking time to review the article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

From time to time, when I manage to steal some time from other duties, I may add some further remarks here, after more carefully re-reading the

article.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Would ya's ever put up a picture of the man?

Thank you very much Yanni for taking the time to provide such detailed analysis. Thanks also go to Whpq for attending to this process and to Julia for her helpful intervention during more challenging times. The efforts and cooperation of Alex Rio Brazil, a major contributor to this article, are also noted and appreciated. Take care Yanni and, as always, it is a pleasure seeing you. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 12:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

User:Yannismarou

• Short lead. Expand it per WP:LEAD.
• Your references are not properly formatted. Read carefully WP:CITE and WP:REFERENCES, and make use of a series of very useful templates: Template: cite book, Template: cite encyclopedia, Template: cite news, Template: cite web, and Template: cite journal.
• Can't you try to find any free use image of him. If you are not familiar with copyrights in WP, tell me to elaborate.
• "He once said: "It is hard to maintain vitality when you are always hungry". Uncited quote. Provide a source. And do not italicize.
• Your prose is problematic. Start first with your structuring sentences and paragraphs. Your paragraphs are stubby, making the prose choppy. Merge these small, stubby paragraphs or expand them, and gradually improve the flow of your prose. After the article is further improved, you'll definitely need a copy-editing.
• "After hearing from an Argentine film distributor and a senior executive at Paramount in New York reporting the film star Rudolph Valentino saying that everything from the Orient was in evidence at that moment". I lost you here.
• "His power and influence rapidly increased". How? Can you expand?
• "he was present at important social events, and in 1925 he received Argentine and Greek citizenships". Source?
• "According to Peter Evans (his official biographer) and Christian Cafarakis (a former employee)[6] a considerable part of the tobacco was smuggled,[7]". Try to place the citations at the end of the sentences.
• "In 1929 the Greek government announced a 1000% increase in tax of imported products from countries with no trade agreement with their country" Which is "their country"?
• Multi-referencing problems in "success".
• When you cite printed sources, add pages.
• "Success" does not give me a comprehensive idea about how he achieved "success". You should re-organize and re-write the section, making the reader follow Onassis road to success.
• "According to the Evans biography, four days after his marriage with Jacqueline". Who is she? I know who she is, but have you properly introduced the person to the reader? And, is the story of his career over, since you go to an isolated incident?! There is no concrete and comprehensive story to follow here. The biography seems like a collection of trivia.
• Do not wikilink dates (read WP:MoS).
• "According to Greek Fire: The Story of Maria Callas and Aristotle Onassis by Nicholas Gage, Callas gave birth to their child, a boy, who died hours later on March 30, 1960." You have the citations section to source your assertions; it is inconsistent to introduce a book in the main article in the way you do it.
• "Onassis never recovered from the death of his son." Just a sentence (seamlessly connected with the rest of the article) for this issue?
• "It was said[". WP:WEASEL.
• "Popular Culture" is badly written! A collection of trivia, without even a proper order.
• Do not put in "See also" articles already linked in the main text.

The article needs a lot of work. These are only some of the many remarks I could do. But it is a nice start. Keep up the good job, and when you feel the article is significantly improved, come here once again for a fresh review.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect financial math

Someone keeps adding figures showing compounded rate of return on monetary values within this article (and other articles I've seen on Wikipedia). They keep undoing my revisions to edit this out as they don't seem to understand that calculations for the purposes of showing monetary equivalency during a particular historical period is done by adjusting for the rate of inflation change since that period to the current period. You don't apply present value calculations assuming compounded investment interest from that period til now--that wouldn't be showing the monetary equivalent within the current time, it would be showing what that dollar amount would be if the person had invested the money and let it grow over time.

For example, $1 invested back in the year 1910 using a rate of return of 8% would yield $2,199 today (this is the math that they're using, calculations for present value). But when we're trying to discuss a sum of money in an article such as this and trying to show context of the value of that money during that period, we wouldn't try to show what that value would be if compounded interest was added to it from that time until now. We would instead apply the formula to adjust for the inflation that's happened since that period--in the present time. Thus we would apply the rate of inflationary change since that time. So in our example, $1 back in 1910 would be equivalent to $22 today. If you wanted to show how much that money would be equivalent to today, you would use that number--not the $2,199.

I've never really contributed to wikipedia before, but it's frustrating to me that people don't understand that whomever these people are doing these present value calculations don't really know to put a stop to this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.227.196 (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted again as the 8% figure seems to be pulled out of thin air. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have discussed this in the past to no avail so I just gave up. Great job thanks. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if you study financial math youll see that it is almost impossible to use inflation in this question. Inflation from what country? From the world? Who have the world correct inflation rate?

So.... Money without and correction in time means just one thing: Nothing! So... You guys that dont do anything to this article (60% of it was written by me) but undoing things, what is very easy to do, should work a bit for the sake of human information and grab the world inflation tax from 1969 up to now.

If we dont have anything better, we can use the 8% rate, in order to our readers take some idea of value. You must understand that in maths you can use this method, once it is clear explained.

Im not just saying that today it would be equivalent to XX million dollars, im telling the method i used to get this information. Thats the difference.

So... Study financial math, or tell us the world inflation rate from 1969 to 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.216.85 (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, please read WP:OR. This is pure original research. Nobody asked for us to provide the readers with made-up figures WITHOUT ANY CITATIONS. Please stop edit-warring. Also you do not own the article. Please read WP:OWN. The majority of editors here disagree with you. You do not seem to understand, among other things, the concept of consensus. Read up a bit (WP:CON) and stop edit-warring (WP:3RR). Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Alex, if you have an issue with this, take it to WP:ORN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Neil. Using WP:ORN is an excellent idea. I didn't even know such a noticeboard existed but it sounds like a very helpful place. Take care and Season's Greetings. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 04:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok ok... Ill stop improving this article. And you, try to do something good for humanity. Write something new. And this citation: "This is pure original research" shows that you dont know nothing about what is "orginal research" you should study it too. Its not a "research" its is precise math that is totaly different from "orginal research". Who looses is the world with 3 guys like you with little information about "orginial research" and financial math. Listen my advice: study! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.45.174 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

People like you that made the numbers of editors go down in wikipedia. And this article will remains the same without me, because you are uselles for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.45.174 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I was wrong about you. I suggested some policies for you to read but I now find out they were not nearly enough. Here are some more: WP:NPA (no personal attacks) is a good read. Please take advantage of its wisdom and try to practice what it covers. WP:AGF (assume good faith). That's a good one. It teaches the best way to approach people in a collaborative environment such as this one. I would add a few more but given the holidays I'll try to keep the reading load light. Best of luck. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... Im not wrong about you. You dont write anything for this article and you dont know financial math or "original research". Its not personal attack. Its fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.45.174 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to learn. That's fine. When in the future you grasp the concepts I talked about we can continue this conversation. If not, it's regrettable but still not a problem. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, would it help if I pointed out that I have a minor in Accounting and work with financial calculations every day? I don't have a problem with the caculation you're using. I do have a problem with the 8% which seems to be pulled out of thin air. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Neil... The problem is not the 8% from the air, the problem is your poor financial math intelligence, that of course, could be solved if you study a little bit. something that you havent done yet. I hope you do it in the future. Study a bit of axioms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom too : will be very good to your life of minor accounting work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.208.251 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy before you must have a math intellingence of the same level of yours Neil: "minor accounting work". Im not saying that im some type of genius, is just the fact that i study and im not stupid in this matter... Like some people are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.208.251 (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again. "Minor in Accounting" means I have a university degree with a substantial accounting component. And yes, the 8% is entirely the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alex: The math require only high school intelligence to understand. This is not really the problem. The problem arises with your assumption that the rate of return would be 8% which is arbitrary and therefore pure original research and thus unworthy of Wikipedia. That's why we have WP:OR regulations here. To prevent arbitrary assumptions like this from spoiling our articles. Hope you will eventually get to see the light but from your responses here I don't hold any high hopes. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well its the prove that high scholl dont make everybody competent. People that knows about some theme makes what I do: propose something to improve. People ignorant in this subject like you two from "minor in accounting work" do what you do: [b]nothing[/b] or delete the precise math by pure ignorance and lack of better suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.99.26 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what onassis made to have two useless and math ignorant people in this article. Try to write something usefull you two! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

removed unsourced stuff

The text below I removed for being original research and unsourced. Feel free to insert into the article if you one can find appropriate sources:

They met each other in 1957 during a party in Venice promoted by Elsa Maxwell. After this first encounter, Ari said to Spyros Skouras: "There [was] just a natural curiosity; after all, we were the most famous Greeks alive in the world". + - - That Callas was really the love of his life is suggested by the short-lived happiness he experienced with Kennedy (he tried to end the marriage early but was unable to without committing an egregious offense, according to Greek law at the time), and by the many times he tried to see Callas while married to Kennedy. He flew to Paris to see Callas after the death of his son Alexander in an airplane crash. Onassis never recovered from the death of his son.

<<=============== This is in Onassis bio from peter evans, it is not unsourced.

Rasputin72 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading this article, this section was full of original research. I was going to back and quote it, but, Rasputin, you already beat me to the punch! In any case, if someone wants to add more (and more should probably be added), please refrain from using terms "suggests" or making your own conclusions. I'm sure there is much to tell here, but I doubt anyone can verify that Callas was the love of his life and Kennedy wasn't. It just seems to silly to even make that kind of statement. --Jdcaust (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)