Talk:Berat Albayrak

ESp

The wikileaks links has Albayrak's personal emails which violates guidelines of privacy. see: WP:BLPPRIVACY Wikileaks does these stuff by violating some laws. They did this for Hillary Clinton as well but there is no such reference in her bio page on wiki. Let's be fair and do not put that link here. To avoid controversy and repeating edits. I propose to put semi protection to this article. Thanks rinduzahid^(talk) 15:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — IVORK _Discuss 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BALASP

Surely, putting allegations that are part of daily politics in to intro is considered WP:BALASP. Why are you guys fixated in putting it up there? I don't see such allegations being written in the intro of other bio's. Randam (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On this bio this belongs, as this is a significant aspect of Albayrak's notability in international media.--Hippeus (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory that has never been confirmed, and according usa there is no evidence.Shadow4dark (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely false. It's has zero aspect of Albayrak's notability in international media. Nowhere in (today's) international media is he addressed as the alleged guy selling oil to ISIS. It's a one time accusation in a specific time window. You have to come up with something better for me to delete this new addition. This feels like framing. You might as well put Trump "watching women pee in Moscow" allegation on Trump's intro. I have no problem mentioning it in the bio, but putting it in the intro is against WP:BALASP Randam (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing looks solid enough, and there is enough in the body of the article for it to be in the lead. Please try to seek a consensus before removing it from the lead yet again. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there already a consensus. 3 user (Shadow4dark, Cengizsogutlu and me) stated it not to be lead worthy. Per WP:BALASP and WP:lead ("..emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic") putting up in the lead gives undue weight. See also my comment above with the Trump example. Also the original consensus was not to include in the lead. Adding it to the lead is the edit that never acquired consensus. Randam (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the talkpage is that there are two editors in favour of it being in the lead, and two against. Clearly not a consensus to remove it. In any event, it is the final sentence in the lead, so hardly "undue weight". You may wish to consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Edwardx (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are we talking about "consensus to remove it", when we were still talking about "consensus to add it" in the first place? -Randam (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It was in the lead for quite some time, so the onus is on those who wish to remove it. Edwardx (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite some time? The sentence in the lead was added on 12 May 2020‎. The next edit reverted this immediately. Followed by a edit war and then this talk section, which was left without a consensus and unanswered since 21 May. The side that didn't continued the edit war is punished now. -Randam (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Randam, my mistake. I should have said that it has been in the article for quite some time. I have added "allegedly" to the lead, as this has not really been proven beyond doubt. The allegations are well-cited - The Times, The Independent. Honestly, I am ambivalent about the ISIL oil smuggling being in the lead, and that is why I think an RfC might be the best way forward, getting uninvolved editors to comment. Or perhaps, posting something at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard might be an easier first step. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

'Allegedly' is redundant here. No-one's disputing that people have linked him to ISIS, the dispute is over whether the link that has been made has basis in fact. Konli17 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, Konli17. Agreed that "allegedly" is broadly implicit within the concept of "linking", so I have removed it. I was trying to find a middle ground. But having "Albayrak has been linked to" in the lead is not quite the same as "people have linked Albayrak to". The former feels more definitive. The sentence in Oil production and smuggling in ISIL reads "In 2016 WikiLeaks published more than 57,000 emails from 2010 to 2016 reportedly obtained by the hacktivist group Redhack that linked ISIL with Turkey's Minister of Oil Berat Albayrak, Tayyip Erdogan's son-in-law, by allegedly 'proving his connection to ISIS operation smuggling oil into Turkey,' even years after Turkey banned most oil imports from ISIL". Of course, it has hard to get that level of nuance into one short sentence in the lead. Edwardx (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, 'linked to' could be seen as more leading. I'm open to something more middle ground, will try to think of something. Konli17 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"...has been accused of involvement..."? Konli17 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that is more than fair, and have amended the lead accordingly. Those editors who object to this being in the lead at all should at least prefer this softer form of words. Edwardx (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a miscommunication. I'm not disputing whether or not it's well-cited. I'm claiming a consensus has not been reached to put that sentence in the lead. It was not "in the lead for quite some time" as you mentioned. It was reverted immediately. Followed by an edit war and then this talk section to reach a consensus. No consensus was reached. The side that first stopped with the edit war is punished now for waiting at the other side to reply in talk. It's somewhat similiar to Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION. -Randam (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Randam, I have already apologised for my mistake. I'm not sure why you are directing us to a humour page. Based on this thread, the consensus looks to be 3-2 in favour of keeping it in the lead. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Seriously why should we add speculation in lede?? The first user who added this is a POV pusher (banned now) It has his own section in article which is enough for a speculation. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I support the inclusion in the lead, as it is an important fact that Wikipedia was blocked due to this page amongst others. Wikipedia is viewed by many as THE source for information, and it is becoming more and more THE source of information for others as well. The alleged POV pusher was banned for 48 hours after a discussion where Shadow4dark argued with an Anadalu Ajansi article mentioning YPG/PKK Terrorists removing people from Tell Abyad since 2015. The PKK is not present as an armed force in Syria since decades. The YPG was a main force against ISIS.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey due to this page (or that the list of pages causing the block included this one as well) is false. I've seen the court documents, and in fact I was the one working on the enwiki articles in question and making sure that they were up to our community standards so that we could stand behind them 100%. I did edit this page several times as part of my efforts back in 2017, yes, but it was merely a precaution for future actions. Even if this article were implicitly a reason for them to find other articles to list for legal purposes, it would have been (or is) unverifiable. So it should be removed from the lead section. Yes, it is clearly a fact that the has been accused, but per WP:PROPORTION it should simply not be in the lead.--Vito Genovese 10:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Vito Genovese, the above does rather read like Wikipedia:Original research based on primary sources. Multiple reliable sources state that the Albayrak article was one of those that led to Turkey's block of Wikipedia. This and the ISIL allegations are two of the things he is most known for, at least outside Turkey. Edwardx (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Edwardx, I've gone through the references in the article and found only one that includes this claim, namely the Haaretz piece penned by Omer Benjakob. We use this source right after the following sentence within the body of the article: "In April 2018, it was claimed that this Wikipedia entry on Albayrak stating the alleged oil trade with ISIS was among the four articles which led to the 2017-2020 Wikipedia ban." So far so good. Meanwhile, the lead section of the article says "Albayrak has been accused of involvement in oil production and smuggling in ISIL, and this Wikipedia article about him was one of four that led to the 2017-2020 block of Wikipedia in Turkey."

Then I went ahead and read the source very carefully. Here is the the relevant part of the source that we rely on: "However, an email purportedly from Turkey’s media regulator to Wikimedia reveals that although Ankara lifted its internet restrictions, it did not curtail its efforts to kill the story. According to the email, leaked to the left-leaning Turkish paper SoL, Turkey’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority (known as the BTK) demanded that Wikipedia delete any references or hyperlinks to the WikiLeaks claim regarding Albayrak’s potential ties to the ISIS oil affair. The claim can still be seen in Albayrak’s English Wikipedia entry." Correct me if I am wrong, because you are the native speaker here: Purportedly, afaik, is one of the weakest evidential adverbs in English, if not the weakest, in terms of its factuality. Someone forwards an email to a Turkish news platform. They publish it verbatim, even though they have no means of verifying this information, and our source mentions this very cautiously. And what they are actually saying is that the request was for the removal of the external link to WikiLeaks, not the content of the article itself. We are standing on shaky ground here. I never stand for censorship, but removing things for violating WP:BLP is something that we must stick to. The mid-article sentence is fine, but the concluding sentence of the lead section needs to go. The role of this very article in the block is represented as a fact, which is against our own policies.

And on a final note, I'd like to express my concern about something else. You said that this thing we are talking about here is what he is most known for, at least outside Turkey. I don't see how this should at all be relevant for our purposes. Wikipedia is supposed to or should strive to be the sum of all human knowledge. Let's say that the guy is known in the English speaking world for this particular thing. Let's also assume that he's been involved in five other scandals in Turkey, which practically defined his career and legacy but was barely reported in English language resources. Would we ignore those career defining moments, which would be far more significant than the claim here, just because they would be only reported in Turkish language sources? I believe that all different language versions of a particular biography should be such that the content could be matched to the extent possible. In the case that they are all featured articles, there should be little difference between them. It is perfectly okay to mention at enwiki that the subject of the article is known in the English speaking world for something, but it is not okay to shift the balance of the article to that direction, especially when there is a major WP:BLP problem as there is now.

Vito Genovese 16:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We should not ignore Turkish sources, but if sources on an international level cover Albayrak then that reaches a much wider audience and we need to take that into account in terms of weight. --Hippeus (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's focus right now on the immediate problem at hand here: We have what some of us argue to be a problematic sentence in the lead section and we should decide if we should keep it or not. In fact, the sentence claims two different -- albeit consequential -- things, namely the accusation and the role in the block. Let's work towards a solution by talking about the second aspect first. I think my previous message argues -- imo successfully -- that the particular statement about the block should not be in the lead section, because, unlike the obvious fact that Albayrak has been accused of involvement in oil trade and smuggling, it is neither a fact nor a verifiable piece information that Wikipedia was blocked because of it. The source is very weak and hence the statement is a WP:BLP violation. If you don't object, I am planning to remove the second part of that sentence. The first part of the sentence can be addressed after this immediate problem is resolved.

Vito Genovese 11:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a subjective claim: This [Wiki block] and the ISIL allegations are two of the things he is most known for, at least outside Turkey. After 4 years, with no follow up on the ISIS claim, it became only more evident that this is a one time event blown out of proportion in Wikipedia. The two things Berat Albayrak is most known for outside Turkey is: (1) Erdogan's son-in-law and (2) government minister.

Secondly, the Wiki block issue is very very thin. As mentioned by Vito Genovese, this one Haaretz source doesn't make a sharp judgement and refers to this article in Turkish paper SoL. I have three problems with it: (1) SoL is a dogmatic, unreliable source. (2) SoL's weight is very little. (3) SoL's article doesn't make a sharp judgement either. Even the title is a question mark. Thus it should be removed. Randam (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

More than enough time has passed with no objections, so I'm removing the respective part of the final sentence of the lead.

Vito Genovese 20:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have been reverted. @Konli17: There is no "plenty of objections" for that particular claim here, and even your three comments on this very page are about the oil smuggling, not the Wikipedia block. I have thoroughly explained the problem with having it where it currently is. Please follow the due procedure and join the discussion, and let's avoid a WP:NINJA situation.

Vito Genovese 07:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there is other activity by the user but no response, I will repeat the edit and consider a revert POV-pushing.

Vito Genovese 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Major changes, removal and possibly unproperly sourced IP edits

Hey @Edwardx,

I noticed you reverted this edit by an IP which was tagged with possible unreferenced addition to BLP. Another IP then reverted your edit. I then reverted the edit. Another IP then reverted back my edit with a long edit summary. Any thoughts on this? I feel that most of the edits were removing existing sourced content and adding unsourced content in between the existing now grammar edited content. I thought to inform you before reverting the third time Bunnypranav (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)