Talk:Erdinç Tekir

1996 Hijacking

The source does not say he was wounded in the 1996 Hijacking of MV Avrasya. Kavas (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Black Sea Hostage Crisis

The most popular idea was to redirect the article to Black Sea Hostage Crisis. (Not Gaza Flotilla). What do you think? Kavas (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Redirect was not the most popular idea in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdinç Tekir (Keep 7, Redirect 4, Delete 3). Takabeg (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep but possibly merge/redirect was the result. I mean If it's redirected it should be redirected to Black Sea Hostage Crisis, not Gaza Flotilla. But, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like on" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) Kavas (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments still apply:

1. This article is a borderline case of WP:BLP1E:
   • He is one of 9 criminals causing the Black Sea hostage crisis. This alone makes him borderline notable. (And this alone would be a clear case of BLP1E.) There is one source that gives his name, father's name, nationality, year and place of birth, in a list along with those of the other eight. This information from the court case is about all we knew about him before the later events.
   • He is one of dozens of people injured in the Gaza flotilla raid. This alone does not make him notable. The names of some others in this situation were not published, and his name was only published when the overlap became clear.
   • What I call the overlap: He is notable beyond doubt for being involved in both incidents. This comes with the typical symptoms of a BLP1E situation. In particular, the reports about the overlap say almost nothing about the man himself, i.e. his motivations, his age, where he grew up, his education etc.
2. This article is a violation of WP:NPOV, since the following sentence from BLP1E applies: "Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view."
   • The article about him is dominated by the two incidents. For all we know his life is dominated by his family and his employment, like everybody else's. Since the Turkish state has no cause to prosecute him now, he will simply continue with it. This does not become clear at all in the article, which simply paints him as a repeat criminal. (And we cannot change that problem because we have no reliable sources to base the additional information on.)
   • The existence of this article is a violation of NPOV in the article Gaza flotilla raid, because it gives the appearance that the person constituting the overlap is a notable criminal. This gives undue weight to the overlap. The overlap would not ordinarily get a separate article.
3. It is impossible to write a serious, relatively high-quality article on the subject. In fact, nobody has even tried to do so. This is witnessed by the fact that the only subsection is entitled "Public response" and has been in the article for a week. What's a public response to Erdinç Tekir supposed to be? Did he ask a public question or what? The public responses are to the overlap, the one thing in his life that raised him above borderline notability. This problem shows that this article functions in the way described in WP:COATRACK. It is an article about the overlap, not about Erdinç Tekir.

Policy leaves us no choice to keep the article. The question of the correct redirect/merge target is tricky, but I would argue as follows: As one of only nine perpetrators he is quite relevant to the Black Sea hostage crisis. Moreover, due to the overlap people are now recalling that earlier incident, which was otherwise mostly forgotten. This warrants a paragraph or possibly even a subsection in the section Black Sea hostage crisis#Hijackers, which will of course also mention the Gaza flotilla raid. (I see that meanwhile someone else has created the subsection Black Sea hostage crisis#Erdinç Tekir, but it does not mention the second incident yet.) This section or subsection is an ideal redirect target.Hans Adler 10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the article describes the second incident in "aftermath" section, not in hijackers section. Kavas (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. I am not sure it's the best place, although I see how it makes sense chronologically. Hans Adler 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the merge for the reasons set forth at the afd page by myself and other editors. Indeed, the consensus at the afd page should behoove editors not to merge until there is a clear consensus to the contrary. Thus, I will presently be undoing the merge, pending a clear consensus willing to overturn the consensus at the afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept that we apparently have to discuss this further, but there was definitely no consensus at the AfD not to merge. Please do not misrepresent the discussion. Hans Adler 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

7 keep vs. 4 redirects seems like a rough consensus not to merge. no?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If he was not also partly notable for the Black sea issue that I could support merge but with both issues seemingly sitting well here a merge would be a net loss imo. It is almost impossible to believe the User:Kavas saw consensus and did a redirect. Including himself when he did it only four users had commented on the talkpage, he is the only one that supported a redirect, incredulous.Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

He is not the only one who supported this merge, because I also supported it. Hans Adler 23:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't do any merging he just blanked this page and redirected the title. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a big difference in my eyes. I saw that the other article needed some work, but wanted to wait whether the situation was stable. I was afraid it might not be, and unfortunately I was right. Hans Adler 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Apart from this not being a sufficiently significant majority to be stable, it's also notoriously problematic to decide between keep and merge at an AfD, because of some people's ideology that the two !votes are equivalent. We can't force people to decide between the two if they don't want to. Hans Adler 23:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, in my opinion the spirit of BLP1E applies here and only leaves us the choice of merge target. But I can see how others might disagree. How about hopping over to WT:BLP and ask for input there? I think it would not hurt to have something like "BLP2E" that spells out what we do in similar cases. Someone who is notable for 2 events is probably notable enough for their own article, and that might be worth spelling out in the policy anyway. And perhaps someone comes up with clear criteria allowing us to sort the present case with BLP1E or BLP2E. Hans Adler 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is clearly not good for merging to either of those articles. It actually sits quite well on its own. Personally I am strongly against merging this article anywhere. As for asking anywhere else, imo every single key type on this issue is a waste of time.Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have invested the time into the other article to show you that it's no problem to put all the information there. Btw, as far as I am concerned it's also a waste of time to discuss this further since the continued existence of this article violates a key policy. But I don't think this way of arguing is constructive. Hans Adler 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And no, it does not sit "quite well on its own". It's still a coatrack, as witnessed by the "Public response" section. Have you ever seen a BLP article with such a section? (Not counting those that were deleted or merged per BLP1E, obviously.) Hans Adler 23:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets just remove the coatrack then and keep the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The coatrack is just a symptom of the underlying problem: That nobody is interested in the person anyway. He just serves as an example (the only one, as far as I know) for an actual terrorist who was on board the Mavi Marmara. That would not need to concern us if we had enough information to create a reasonably complete picture of the man. But we don't. Any article based on currently available reliable sources will very likely be an absurd caricature of the man. Hans Adler 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit do you still not like it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably about as good as it can be done with what we have, but what did he do the first 26 years of his life? Did he learn anything other than being a youthly Islamist? For all we know he could be a baker, or a catcher, or maybe a stockbroker. This really belongs into the article. Was he ever married? How about children? Apparently from 2000 to 2010 he volunteered for IHH. What did he live on? Maybe not on a proper job, but we simply can't be sure because we don't have enough information.

The BLP violation lies in our presenting the little information we have, which is really too little for a biography, as if it was a biography. It is implicit in the existence of an encyclopedia article that the article itself is reasonably complete. Imagine someone takes your own CV and removes everything you are proud of, leaving only relatively trivial details (and negative ones, if such exist). Imagine we would publish the result on Wikipedia, for all your friends to find if they google you. That's the problem here. Hans Adler 01:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about suppressing information about the man. It's about not presenting the little information that we have in such a way that the absence of the information that we don't have is interpreted incorrectly. This is the key reason for the BLP1E rule. Hans Adler 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I do understand your comments, there are thousands of such articles though, sometimes less is more. It is the fact that he has been involved in two pretty major issues that makes me want to keep them together but we also do not really have a life story. I didn't like the coatracking and I actually wanted to remove the last bit as well but at least its better than it was, I had not really seen it until you pointed it out, if it is replaced I will move to merge. I will have a look tomorrow with fresh eyes, perhaps it is a good idea to ask at the BLP talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I support merge since he is not himself notable, but the events are notable. Kavas (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are thousands of BLP articles that break policy. Many of them a huge fight to be fixed, often even if it is an obvious case of BLP1E (which I agree this one isn't). Another recent borderline case with this problem is Lori Douglas. An attack page against a non-notable school intendent needed a second AfD to be snow-deleted, and even then it was initially userfied. Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois shows that this is not just a BLP problem. (I guess we are soon going to get articles on aborted embryos, if the parents are high nobility and had already decided on a name!) Hans Adler 08:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

*I disagree with the proposal to merge. My opinion was supported by the recent deletion discussion. Tekir was involved in two notable incidents, in addition to which he has had an interesting career as an activist for Islamism. Merging into another article necessarily removes interesting aspects of his career from Wikipedia. And do note that "“Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content."AMuseo (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User Kavas

I have explained my ideas on the merge discussion. Now, I have to correct what some users allege about me that are not true.

1. "It is almost impossible to believe the User:Kavas saw consensus." Yes, it's possible. I waited for 5.5 days, the comments was distributed as follows: 2 in favor of merge, 1 neutral, and there was no objection in this talk page. In the day I moved it there was a consensus, now there is not. The consensus was on this talk page. Although you were watching the article, why did you not write anything on this talk page? Some 7 editors commented in AFD discussion that the article should be kept. However, perhaps they would accept redirect after reading Hans' comments. How can I know? Yes, I could wait for 9 days if I knew you opposed to the redirect. Yes, you are right to say it was too early to redirect the article, but when I moved there was a consensus. For the next discussion, I will wait for at least 9 days. After all, I am not defending myself, but correcting that wrong sentence "It is almost impossible to believe the User:Kavas saw consensus." to this one "It was too early for User:Kavas to see consensus."

2. "He didn't do any merging he just blanked this page and redirected the title." Have you ever seen my edits on Black Sea Hostage Crisis?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Sea_hostage_crisis&diff=383635701&oldid=383635261
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Sea_hostage_crisis&diff=383635261&oldid=383377486
• Haven't you read my comment: " In fact, the article describes the second incident in "aftermath" section, not in hijackers section." The article's content has been moved to this page. Is it not a merge?

Please avoid writing that I did something which I did not do in fact. Also, note that you have no right to comment on an editor instead of the article. But, I had to correct the mistakes. I will not be involved in the debate. With respect, I want you to avoid writing incorrect things about me. Concentrate on the redirect discussion "I have opened". Thank you. Kavas (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think you were over quick in your action and that there was no consensus for it but fair enough, my comments were a bit undue and I apologize to you for that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

*Give it a rest The attempt to delete this article have failed. The proposal to merge it has failed to gain a consensus. Give it a rest.AMuseo (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A short list of names of the convicted terrorists involved with the Gaza flotilla, IHH, on the Mavi Marmara

1) Erdinç Tekir – IHH operative wounded aboard the Mavi Marmara, was involved in the violent 1996 terrorist attack on the Russian ferry Avrasya to bargain for the release of Chechen terrorists from Russian prisons . He was convicted & sentenced to eight years in prison, but served only 3 years.

2) Raed Salah- Leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, previously convicted by Israeli court for raising money for Hamas

3) Hilarion Capucci -Syrian convicted by an Israeli court of smuggling arms to the Palestine Liberation Army and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

4) Hassan Aynsey (28), a member of a Turkish charity association, regularly transfers funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group.

5)Hussein Orush, from the Turkish IHH organization, intended to assist al-Qaeda activists into the Strip via Turkey.

6) Ahmed Omemun (51) from Morocco, who also has French citizenship, is a Hamas member.

7) Amin Abu-Rashid, 43, chief fundraiser of Hamas in Western Europe

8) Yasser Muhammed Sabag, Syrian intel officer working with Iran and others according to Serbian news agency FOCUS (He was an active member of Abu Nidal terrorist organization)

By refusing to list these convicted criminals and current terrorists, the Wikipedia page is showing a clear bias.

This list is not complete because many of the names were never released to the public.

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18040

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2013/10/archbishop_gets_award_for_armi.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/176279#.UtVFIPabr8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.205.143 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)