Talk:Vehbi Koç

= Comments =

Scrooge
Vehbi Koç was very neat with his money. He even said this for several times in TV. In that sense, calling him philanthropist is not realistic at all.

References do not support accusations.
The references do not support the idea that Koc's fortune was looted from Armenians. That fails verifictaion. As is clear from the discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Capitalismojo (talk)
 * Per WP:BRD the bold edit has been reverted. It is now time to discuss. The onus is upon the editor who wants to include the material to show why it should be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no clear indication in any part of the RS thread that points out that these references don't support this idea. I have already provided more than enough evidence to this regard. In case you missed it, I will rewrite them here:
 * Armenian Reporter:


 * Hetq:


 * Taraf:


 * Sendika in reference to Koç's confiscation of the Kasapyan vineyard estate:


 * Sevan Nisanyan:


 * Pages 244-250 of Recep Marasli's Ermeni ulusal demokratik hareketi ve 1915 soykırımı in the chapter "Soykırım kurbanlarının mallarının gaspı ya da ekonominin Türkleştirilmesi" (English: The confiscation of assets from the Genocide victims and the Turkification of the economy) elaborately describes the Kasapyan vineyard estate and how it was confiscated (gasp edilmiş) and how it propelled the family to acquire additional wealth through the confiscation of money-making assets and in this particular case, a rich vineyard estate.


 * Page 166 of Sait Cetinoglu's and Temel Demirer's Hrant'in katil(ler)i specifically describes the process in which the Kasapyan estate was confiscated. It specifically mentions how the property itself became subjugated to the "Emvali Metruke Tasfiye Komisyonu", the commission in charge of the confiscation of Armenian assets of deported or killed Armenians.


 * Once again, we need adequate reasoning as to why these sources and others not mentioned here do not support this idea. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This was discussed at RS/N. This argument and sources weren't convincing there and it isn't here. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really. There's no conclusive reasoning as to why these sources are unreliable and in fact, the discussion is still ongoing. Either provide your reasons as to why these sources are unreliable here or at the RSN discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not how RS/N reads. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, these sources in particular have yet to be proven unreliable. The thread was opened for entirely different sources. The current thread at the RSN does not give any conclusive reasoning as to why these specific sources (Hetq, Armenian Reporter, Marasli, Cetinoglu/Demirer, Taraf, and others) are unreliable. The only source that was "inspected" was the Taraf source and it was dismissed due to claims that it "does not appear to mention the Koc family at all". However, there exists in the source an entire paragraph about the Koc family and describes in detail about the confiscation of property belonging to the Kasapyan family. When confronted about this, there's been no response. So, either all these sources need to be proved unreliable one by one or I'll have to revert the recent removals of reliably sourced content since, there appears to be no sound reason as to why these sources in particular are unreliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop pinging me. This page is on my watchlist. RS/N is pretty clear. The Armenian Reporter was agreed not RS. The Hetq quote does not support the statement, neither does Taraf. Each one has its own problem. You have been asked to bring the very best ref out to be examined. Pick what you believe is the best supporting ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, can you please indicate in which part of the RS/N was Armenian Reporter "agreed" not RS? There's no such "agreement". Sorry but I am seriously questioning whether you have read the discussion at the RS/N thread.

As for Hetq, please tell me how this statement:

Does not support this statement:

And how this statement from Taraf:

Does not support this statement:

As I said at the RS/N, all of these sources are reliable supporting sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Etienne points out to several sources that you can't just dismiss. Each of those sources corroborates the other. Besides, there's really no mention at the RSN as to how Hetq and Armenian Reporter are unreliable. And as far as I'm concerned, both statements from Hetq and Armenian Reporter do back up the statements in the article. If there's any problem with the sentence in the article being different from what the source itself says, then we must change the information in the article and not necessarily dismiss these sources outright. -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * By checking the provided information above I see that Hetq (the other isn't in English so I can't conclude something) is clear in the connection of Koc with the Armenian properties. So far I can't see any reliability issue concerning the reference.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * A connection (acquiring,owning, or purchasing) property that once belonged to Armenians does not allow the assertion or implication of theft or appropriation of Armenian properties. This person was 13 at the time of the Armenian genocide. He didn't begin his working career until two years later (15), working in his father's grocery. This assertion that his fortune was made from the suffering of Armenians is non-factual. He made his fortune decades later, as real histories relate. According to discussion at RS/N the Armenian Reporter newspaper is not reliable for this. Some of the other refs (read in translation) do not support the statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This proves nothing, properties can be looted decades after state appropriation, provided they aren't already looted.Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The refs are used to support the idea that this person made his fortune from Armenian properties. This is counter-factual. He made his fortune decades later. How he made his fortune is widely reported. Grocery, followed by construction (1926) when Ankara became the capital, followed by Standard Oil rep for Turkey and Ford dealer(1928). That was 13 years after. The fact that one of the richest men in Turkey would ultimately own former Armenian property is entirely expected. The refs don't support the idea that he expropriated Armenian property. That he at some point purchased some (specifically a vinyard), yes. Is that notable or worthy of inclusion, probably not. This isn't a agri-billionaire after all. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not one single word in the original article section said, that Koc "made his fortune from Armenian properties". It was said that he benefited from the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide during which he acquired wealth through the appropriation of abandoned Armenian property. And this fact was sourced. You are distorting the actual statements.--Markus2685 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since when did I ever insist on Vehbi Koc making a "fortune" from these properties? Please, hit CTRL + F and search the word "fortune": the only person to have used that word is you. None of these sources assert any such claim and I have never intended on making such claims myself. On the other hand, the sources clearly point to the fact that certain individuals and families became middle-class citizens almost overnight due to such acquisitions of confiscated property. Certainly, acquiring a large estate with a vineyard for free in an impoverished country that just suffered a devastating defeat during World War I is a huge boost in that regard. Such confiscations provided the opportunity for ordinary lower class Turks to rise to the ranks of the middle class. This is what happened with Vehbi Koc and we have all the sources to attest to this (see Hetq, Taraf, Marasli, Cetinoglu).


 * There's nothing counter-factual regarding the time-period. There has been no source provided that states in any way that the Koc family expropriated the estate DURING the Armenian Genocide. In fact, the sources make it specific that the period such expropriations (i.e. Koc, Sabanci) took place was AFTER the Armenian Genocide and during Turkey's War of Independence in the 1920s (see Hetq, Marasli). So your personal observations about his age cannot stand. By the 1920s, Koc was well into his twenties.


 * Also, you claim that Koc "purchased" the property. Can you please point to the source that says that? There's only one word in the Turkish language that means purchase/buy and I definitely cannot find it in any of the sources provided. And you still haven't shown me where the agreement is over the Armenian Reporter being unreliable source at the RS/N. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Actual statements are being distorted and sources (Hetq, Marasli, Armenian reporter and Cetinoglu etc.) are being discussed which were not part of any of the original articles (Vehbi Koc, Koc Family, Sabanci). This is counterproductive. The original articles (for example here this Sabanci article were sourced with 7 English and 1 German language academic sources, I have depicted them on the other article talk pages and have exactly summarised what they say. The other sources discussed here (Hetq, Marasli, Armenian reporter and Cetinoglu etc.), which are called unreliable, were not used as source for any of the original article sections which have been deleted meanwhile. User Collect has deleted article sections argumenting with "accusations of complicity in genocide". Again an example of how actual statements are beeing distorted in order to delete information from an article. "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". You are deliberately distorting statements in order to delete them. This is unacceptable.--Markus2685 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Turkish tax levied on the wealthy citizens of Turkey
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Ok now?--Markus2685 (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

I added the material which the author clearly stressed about the person. Collect (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

There's also a few details that I think should be added. For example, among the properties Koc acquired through the Varlik Vergisi was a 1000 sqm building called Singer Binası owned by an Armenian merchant named Margarios Ohanyan (page 327). The building was sold, to avoid paying the sudden 230% increase on taxes, at 775,000 liras, when it was actually worth 1.5-2 million liras at the time; basically, more than double the price. God knows how much it is worth today. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and confiscation of property section
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)


 * 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. Ե րևանցի  talk  02:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I agree. Absolutely two different events and topics. --Markus2685 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Collect's last edit summary reads:
 * "I see no such "consensus" and accusations of complicity in any genocide do tend to be contentious claims"

-- Ե րևանցի talk  20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Consensus is clear. See statements by Markus, Alexikoua, EtienneDolet, and myself. You are the only one contesting these sources.
 * 2) 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 is not censored and come back with better arguments.

Try reading the WP:RS/N and WP:BLP/N discussions on this sort of claim that a person is in any way complicit in a genocide. Such complicity is, in fact, a criminal act, and thus we need very strong sourcing to make such allegations in any article on Wikipedia. Cheers. By the way, the "censored" section does not apply to weakly sourced allegations of major crimes. Complicity in genocide is, in fact, a major crime. And attacking someone's "rationale" will not impress anyone much at all. Collect (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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? -- Ե րևանցի  talk  01:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * "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)

First off, Vehbi Koc is dead. This isn't about the family, it is about him. Please (re)read the information:

Where does this have to do about the Koc family? And even if it did talk about the Koc family, what makes these sources so unreliable? Is it because of the publisher? Is it because of author? Why? Can you please explain? Apparently, you refer to a RS discussion which never stated anything conclusive about the reliability of these sources. And benefiting from genocide doesn't have to be a crime, especially when the government of Turkey turned a blind-eye such ventures. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's not the way other editors read the discussion. See WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

Why even mention the Kasapyan family estate? Why is that one property being singled out? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Insertion on Non Reliable Source refs into article
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)

Information about the Kasabyan estate
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Reading BBC source: "Ankarada türk vətəndaşlığından çıxarılmış erməni Ohanes Kasabyana məxsus iki saray var, cənab Çetinoğlu deyir. ... " appears to not make a claim of fact in the BBC voice, but to attribute the claim to blogs. Blog claims do not become "fact" in that manner. Sorry. Collect (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for your honesty Collect. I'll initiate one soon. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the Kasapyan estate
Should the following sentence be added to a new Early Life section?

"Vehbi Koç lived in a vineyard estate located in the Keçiören district near Ankara. The property, which was left vacant after the Kasapyan family escaped the Armenian Genocide, was acquired by Koç and became the Vehbi Koç museum in 1944 after a thorough renovation."

Sources:
 * Nevzat Onaran
 * Recep Maraşlı
 * Temel Demirer and Sait Çetinoğlu
 * Emin Karaca
 * Ayşe Hür

Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * 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. Ե րևանցի  talk  09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It maybe unpalatable to some, but we should not be averse to the simple statement of the facts. In this case, Koc is correctly described as moving into the house of a family that was brutally uprooted during a violent bout of ethnic cleansing in the Ottoman Empire. So long as the wording complies with what is found in the sources there should be no actual conflict. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NPOV as absolute argument The part which could easily be read as implying the person was complicit in genocide is violative of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV. Connection by parenthetical aside to a genocide is, in this case, all too clearly a "guilt by association" argument - a person ends up with a property which had belonged to persons in a group which was the target of genocide - ergo the person was in some way complicit in that genocide.  This is so far from WP:NPOV as an added aside that it is impossible for any consensus to support it. Collect (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The sources are clear. It is useful to note how Koç acquired this large piece of estate. Indeed, saying that it was purchased by him or even gifted would be contrary to the facts on the ground. But to magically acquire something would need a tad bit more clarification on our end to avoid confusion for our readers. 92slim (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The wording is backed by the sources and is very neutral. There is nothing to imply that Koc was even remotely implicated in the genocide or any such thing, merely that he "acquired" the estate after the owners fled the Genocide, both of which are neutral statements of fact.  There is no violation of NPOV here. Athenean (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- clearly backed by the sources, and neutrally expressed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)''
 * Support - sources are reliable, neutral, clear and give additional academic sources. It is important to clarify how Koc acquired the land, rather than it just being given to him.  In addition, the sources are neutral and there is no indication of any violation regarding NPOV. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 00:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The specific part is supported by wp:RS and in full agreement with the general balance of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but I would like it expanded. As it reads now, it looks just like an attack by implication for the sake of attacking by implication. Where a wealthy and powerful individual obtained their initial wealth is an important aspect of their biography, and that also includes where their immediate family, i.e., in this case, his father, obtained their wealth. I am not as inclined to be as neutral in the wording as Athenean seems to want if such wording serves more to disguise that reveal. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find "acquired" too vague a term to use here. If he or his dad purchased it then that should be said. I don't have a problem with the way the sentence mentions how the property became available though and see no "guilt by association". AIR corn (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm all for clarifying those details. We should be able to state "purchased by Koç’s father" once the dust settles for the RfC. Would that be okay for you? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. AIR corn (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First, it doesn't actually seem to be about "early life" at all. So if anything, it would be more suited for "personal life" section at bottom of article. Second, I don't see how connection to genocide is actually relevant unless it can be reliably established that Vehbi Koç himself bought the house, or that he had some other direct personal involvement with the genocide.--Staberinde (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The proposal is backed by reliable sourcing. I prefer this kind of wording than one which lacks vital details, and the part regarding the Armenian Genocide is clearly vital here. After all, a more complete overview of how this property, which has played such an important role in Koc's life, ended up in his hands. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The sentence is a straightforward and balanced statement of relevant facts. Diranakir (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Relevance to the biography It strikes me that the entire bit implies that Koç benefitted personally from the genocide, which is rather a direct claim of "guilt by association" implying that one who benefitted from a genocide is in any way complicit in that genocide.    Absent a reliable source actually stating that Koç deliberately took advantage of the genocide in some way, or supported the genocide, I suggest the parenthetical material does not belong in an encyclopedia article about that person.   I note my personal belief that "guilt by association" material added to any article is improper, to say the least. Collect (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Result:


 * Vehbi Koç lived in a vineyard estate located in the Keçiören district near Ankara. He bought the estate in 1942 at public auction. The property became the Vehbi Koç museum in 1944 after a thorough renovation.

is what actually conforms to Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC) added underlined material to establish date of acquisition per sources Collect (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a far stretch to say that that bit of information insinuates such a notion. The sentence doesn't declare that he deliberately supported genocide. It doesn't say he benefited from it either. In fact, these concerns were dealt with quite some time ago with the removal of this sentence. But Keçiören is a notable piece of property, one of which is inextricably linked to Koç's life. It's no wonder that it's a museum today. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the genocide has nothing whatsoever directly to do with him - why does it deserve to be in his biography?  Biographies are for information of actual useful encyclopedic value about the subject of the article.   If you agree that the information about the genocide has no direct bearing on the person, then it is clear it can not be pasted into the biography.  Thank you. Collect (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is up to the readership to decide whether it was beneficial for Koç to acquire a vineyard estate that was left vacant from former genocide escapees. As for the property itself, as long as it's widely sourced, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. Many biographies have entire sections devoted to the history and development of their residences. Jefferson's Monticello, Washington's Mount Vernon, or any one of Hearst's properties come to mind. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Read my suggestion above. The building is notable - and could possibly have its own article.  The parenthetical aside about a person being connected to a genocide in some way is, alas, contrary to Wikipedia policy, and contrary to my own off-stated position that "guilt by association" claims about anyone are improper in an encyclopedia. And for Wikipedia to place the concept of "this person benefitted from a genocide" is, per Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV simply contrary to the rules.  Even if some editors think (more-or-less) "it is ok if readers then think the person was complicit in the genocide."  Collect (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the wording of the proposal implying anything of that sort. Think of it this way, if you moved into a house where the former owners were murdered as part of some greater conspiracy, would that make you complicit in that murder? By all means it would not; this is a similar circumstance. Acquiring a large estate for free requires an explanation. 92slim (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Any implication which is nugatory should be quite carefully worded. The wording and arguments above make it clear that complicity in the genocide is intentionally implied.
 * " It is up to the readership to decide whether it was beneficial for Koç to acquire a vineyard estate that was left vacant from former genocide escapees."
 * is pretty clear evidence of the actual intent of the editors involved to make such an implication for readers to fall into.   The history of the house prior to Koç ownership should  be kept to an article on that particular topic,   lest anyone think we are making a connection between the prior owners and any acts of Mr.  Koç.   Nor, by the way, is there a reasonable claim that the estate was  "acquired for free" per the sources. Do you see the distinction?  Unless we have strong reliable sources directly associating Koç  with illegal acts, we should not use wording implying any such connections.   That is the essence of "guilt by association."  Collect (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, the sources clearly state that the property was confiscated (Turkish: el koyar or el koymuştur). In fact, other sources make it clear that the Kasapyan family never sold their property (Turkish: Kasapyan ailesi hiçbir kimseye satmamıştır). I have yet to have uncovered any other source that would insist otherwise. Besides, Koç never did anything illegal under the laws of that time. So I actually propose to make a note on how the state legally sanctioned the right for one to occupy property of displaced persons. Indeed, there are many sources that can be used for such a statement, and would address your concerns over the matter. Would you be willing to work together on some sort of compromise like that? Otherwise, I agree that to merely acquire a piece of land requires some sort of clarification. It's no wonder why we have tags; which at this point would be inevitably placed if we were to abide by vague wording. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your apparent desire to have Wikipedia directly imply that Koç got the property for absolutely nothing  as a result of his accepting the fruits of genocide would require strong sourcing from absolutely neutral sources.  It is, ib fact, a fairly direct accusation of a crime against humanity against that family, which I rather think is beyond the ability of any limited consensus to override.  So - no.  We can not do that under Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the Koç family, it's about Vehbi Koç as an individual. And I don't see any reasoning as to why these sources aren't reliable enough already. So it's fine with me if you don't want to go along with the proposal since the proposed RfC wording is okay for me and others here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing in the proposed wording about "acquiring the property for nothing" or "fruits of genoncide" or any such thing. Athenean (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor seeking this material made a comment above:  So I actually propose to make a note on how the state legally sanctioned the right for one to occupy property of displaced persons.   which certainly strongly implies that the subject of this biography deliberately and substantially benefitted from the genocide by "occupying" property which was not his to have.  Collect (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Even if that were the case, I still don’t see anything that would constitute Koc’s "complicity" when it comes to the Armenian Genocide. Nor is there anything that states he benefited from it either. I also suggest that you refrain from making such unsupported accusations as if they are proven statements of fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking for more informations
opening a new section for this discussion Pldx1 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. How strange people you are. All of you are agreeing with the sentence Vehbi Koç lived in a vineyard estate located in the Keçiören district near Ankara. But the key information is missing: from when, until when ? From birth to 1944 ? From 1915 ? For one year ? For thirty years ? Who decided to come in (familly was ever here, father decided, himself decided), who and why decided to leave, etc. Some facts would be welcome. Pldx1 (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * For what I understand from these quotations: 1. This estate, a wineyard, was located in the Keçiören district, where rich and powerful were living. It was the property of an Armenian familly, the Kasa[p/b]yan. They must flee, in 1915, due to the genocide. 2. On 15 April 1923, just before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Turkish government enacted the "Law of Abandoned Properties" which confiscated properties of any Armenian who was not physically present on their property, regardless of whatever reason. 3. In 1923, Mustapha Koç, the father of Vehbi Koç, bought this property for 2 900 TL. 4. This property was bought from Fevzi Çakmak (1876 – 1950), the everlasting Chief of General Staff (from 1918, under Ottoman Empire, to 1944) And, therefore, we have the following questions. 1. Are the Keçiören Kasapian closely related to the Kasapian who were the initial owners of the Çankaya Köskü (the Ankara presidential palace, from Ataturk to 2014)? 2. Did the 1923 transaction occured before or after this Law of Abandoned Properties ? 3. Who was the 1923 buyer (the father or the son) ?  By the way, the present article says nothing about the familly of Vehbi Koç. I have the impression that his mother was from a wealthy/powerful familly. Additionnally, what is the size of the property, and what would have been a fair prize (in 1913 and also in 1923) ?  4. How was the Chief of General Staff implied ?  As a random person in charge of selling all of the sogennante Abandonned Properties or as the owner of this specific property, obtained how (may be in a similar deal as the Ataturk palace) ? 5. Did this generates a further relationship between Fevzi Çakmak and Vehbi Koç ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The sources indicates... 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)