Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Aziz Sancar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sancar

[edit]

This probably needs to move to "Sancar" per www.tuba.gov.tr "Sancar'in Kansere..." but a technical move needs to be put in to keep article and Talk together... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

[edit]

Aziz Sancar's origin is Arab and Turkish citizen. In addition , his family's ideology is Kemalism. ArabTurk (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False information

[edit]

There's a lot of misinformation going on surrounding this man, misinformation spread by nationalists, racists and fascists. Almost every newspaper reports that Sancar is an ethnical Kurd born in Turkey. Attempting to fix these information is not allowed by some Turkish Wikipedia users who insist that he is not a Kurd, which is false.

See: http://rudaw.net/english/world/07102015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rudaw.net is ethnically nationalist barzani's web page. Your information is false. Aziz Sancar is Turkish citizen who is Arab origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okkeyno (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Turkish or Arab origin

[edit]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQtOy0uUsAEswux.jpg:large Look this photo or look and read this link http://www.koc.com.tr/tr-tr/koc-gundem/bizden-haberler-dergisi/NewsMagazineDocuments/2007/haziran07.pdf He is a Turkish .Not Kurdish .Liar pkk lovers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esasiun (talk • contribs) 11:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) http://carolinaturkevi.org/mangalpartisiphotos.html[reply]

Mardin is not a Kurdish city. Arabs, Turks, Kurds live in Mardin. Aziz Sancar is Turkish citizen who is Arab origin.

He is Arab origin Turkish citizen.

[edit]

Please dont feed pkk trolls. Enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okkeyno (talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relative of tr:Mithat Sancar

[edit]

Turkish newspaper reports he is a relative of HDP MP tr:Mithat Sancar Арвед (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: His mother stated their relativeness with DP MP tr:Mithat Sancar is a distant one and does not reflect in to their own political standing (Turk Nationalist) More Can be found her twitter she post her pictures making a Gray Wolf sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.250.231.130 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurd?

[edit]

When updating the project boxes, I was drawn to the discussions above. There would be no problem including a Kurdish origin, if independent quality sources agree on this much as a biographic fact. Such information shouldn't be politicized one way or another. Just drop me a note if one can source such origins beyond doubt. I can edit the article but did not see quality sources to support Kurdish origins. gidonb (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

[edit]

Don Kurd (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) In this article, sassy assigning national scientists . Aziz Sancar originally from Turkey but an ethnic Kurd . And in this article, in flagrant violation of all limits of decency . Correct please his nationality .[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

[edit]

Hello. Aziz Sancar is part of Sincar Ashireth. His surname came from Sincar. Sincar Ashiret's origin is Arab. Not Kurdish. Kurdish Nationalists are professional in manipulating media. http://rudaw.net/english/world/07102015 rudaw.net is Kurdish Nationalists website. Aziz Sancar is probably Arab or Turkish. But I can't say Kurdish. If you look this wiki page you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savur Savur is Arab city. Kurds don't live in there. Aziz Sancar's origin is probably Arab but he is Kemalist. You can see if you search his photos in google images and his website http://carolinaturkevi.org/mangalpartisiphotos.html . I really bored that kurdish manipulaters. I'm Arab and I know my region. In Turkey everbody is Turkish like in US-American. We don't use our ethnicity. Every citizen of Turkey are Turkish. Please fix it. ArabTurk (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He -himself- does not claim he is kurdish. The article claims that he is kurdish, is not supported by any evidence. A newspaper is not a reliable source to claim these kind of ethnic information. Until he expleains what is true, he is supposed to be Turkish, because he is a citizen of Turkish republic officially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.198.125 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection request

[edit]

I think this phone call from Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to Prof. Sancar regarding his Nobel prize is enough: https://soundcloud.com/nobelprize/my-wife-took-the-call-and-woke-me-up-aziz-sancar-on-being-awarded-the-nobel-prize For him the science, his native country (Turkey) and the country in which he is living (USA) are important. This is so stupid to reduce Prof. Sancar's scientific work and his glorious prize to some foolish ethnicity issues. Then I request the Wiki admins to control this page and protect it from some unrecognized editors to edit it. The added information are not proved and shouldn't be published to a public wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space.lion (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 October 2015‎

Note

[edit]

Dear editors, so far today I have blocked two editors for edit warring on this article. I am hoping that full article protection will not be necessary. Please take care and watch your reverts. There is remarkably little discussion on this talk page considering the volume of edits to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 October 2015‎

Kurdish ethnicity

[edit]

After the Nobel Prize win, a number of edits popped up on this article claiming Sancar was an ethnic Kurd and from an Arabic-speaking family. This information has been removed for now, but it's worth noting that the information was accompanied by a few sources. I make no claim was to whether the sources are reliable, but here they are for further investigation:

The last two articles are in Turkish, but a Google translation of them seems to indicate it's not necessarily Sancar's immediate family that spoke Arabic, rather that his father and his father's cousin spoke Arabic growing up. Something to do with his relation to Mithat Sancar, a Turkish parliament member. It's not clear to me since the translation is poor. clpo13(talk) 19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theres way too many sources to prove his Kurdish ethnic background. Neutral sources from Deutsch Welle and The Wire confirm this. I have not seen one source saying that he's an ethnic Turk or Arab. Even reputable Turkish sources refer to him as Turkish-born and not ethnically Turkish. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure more sources will appear within the next week or so. I'd rather have a few more from well-established reliable sources so there isn't anything for nationalists to whine about. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your Armenian nationalist friend here is ideologically motivated. Aziz Sancar's brother stated on TV with Haberturk that they are descended from Horasan Turkmen: [3] Please remove the nonsensical mentions of Kurdishness.
1. Deutsch Welle and The Wire are examples of shoddy journalism where the writers clearly copied false information from Kurdish nationalist website Rudaw or other fanatical Kurdish nationalists. I would recommend asking the writers of those generic articles what source they base their writing on.
2. By your friend's logic, every article and source in the overwhelming majority that mentions Aziz Sancar as a Turkish-American or a Turk would be identifying him ethnically as a Turk. Also, he is lying when he states that there are no sources indicating he is an ethnic Turk. There are many including a link including on this very page and here: [4]
3. In interviews in the Turkish media, it's stated that, growing up, Aziz Sancar identified with Turkish nationalism. If you look at Twitter you'll see that there are pictures of Aziz Sancar and his wife showing them identifying with Turkish nationalism. Here: [5] and [6] and [7].
4. IMPORTANTLY, in a statement to the Turkish media, his family made it clear that they have nothing to do with Kurdish politics and his own brother stated on TV in an interview with Haberturk that they are descended from Horasan Turkmen: [8] and [9]
5. His nephew and other relatives on Twitter identify as Turks and refer to his uncle as the "pride of Turks". [10]
Again, please remove the nonsensical mentions of Kurdishness that were only brought up by rabid Kurdish nationalists and people wrongly copying their false information. Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need a source that says he's an ethnic Turk, and it must be neutral. We can't go by twitter postings and pictures of his nephews. I could argue that his uncle is in HDP. But I won't because that doesn't make him Kurdish. So, please provide sources that says what you're trying to say. Also, don't call other users by their supposed ethnicity, that's considered a WP:PA. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided several above. Twitter postings? Those are photos of him engaging in activism for East Turkistan for God's sake. It doesn't get much Turkish nationalist than that. Again, his own brother states that they are Turkmen. His (supposed) HDP relative (and a distant one at that, not an uncle) claims himself to be Arab but has made no comment on Aziz Sancar. Furthermore, you are clearly grasping for straws if you are arguing against this: [11] and [12] and [13] Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ethnic vandalism before "full protection". --Kmoksy (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But regardless of Turkish or Kurdish nationalism, isn't he related so some HDP Kurdish politician? We don't care what his cousin claims, because he apparently IS related to a Kurd, so he is ethnically Kurdish. It's the ethnicity, not his citizenship that is the question. I don't see why an ethnic Kurd can't be a Turkish citizen. --92slim (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, are you kidding me? You just claimed that he's (distantly) related to a HDP politician (who isn't Kurdish; claims he's Arab) but suggest that what his brother an nephew say are irrelevant. Nowhere has it been written that he is "related to a Kurd". Even if he is related to that HDP politician (one of the links I provided says that he has nothing to do with him), not all HDP politicians are Kurds. I have given you two links with quotes from his brother outright stating that they are Turkmen and nationalist ones at taht. There are also articles from Hurriyet claiming he is NOT Kurdish as well. Also, there is photographic evidence of him and his spouse engaging in Turkish nationalist behavior. Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I only read the English articles by DW and Rudaw because Hurriyet and Milliyet I don't understand them. So one says he speaks Arabic, another he is Turkmen, another he is Turk and another he is Kurd? I am not the one who is kidding sorry, something is fishy here. Maybe we can just contact him directly. --92slim (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English sources are not going to bother researchign his origins and only repeat the first thing they see. For that information, Turkish sources would be the most important. How about reading the thousands of English articles that DON'T mention ANYTHING about this "Kurdish" nonsense. Again, I assure you the "Kurdish" nonsense in the few articles it was mentioned in was only spread via domino effect. If you want we can contact that writer of the DW article so you can see for yourself that he only repeated something he saw on social media or the Rudaw Kurdish nationalist nonsense. This is just another of many cases of Kurdish nationalists claiming any influential person from Turkiye as their own. Again: [14] and [15] and [16] Evertonfc4ever1
I couldn't care less if he's Turkmen or Kurdish, don't worry. I just don't understand why there is so much disinformation. --92slim (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but it appears you do. Again, it's a matter of the Kurdish nationalists claiming somebody who isn't from among them as one of their own. After that, there are people who are upset by the idea of someone who went to school in Turkey getting a Nobel Prize. For example, Ibrahim Halil Baran who is a well-known rabid Kurdish nationalist and PKK supporter admits that Aziz Sancar is NOT Kurdish but because he is upset of the idea of a Turk getting the Nobel Prize, he claims that Sancar is Arab: [17]. Again here is photographic evidence of identifying as a Turk: [18] and [19] and [20] Evertonfc4ever1
Well that's their loss, not my problem pal. --92slim (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His brother himself says in the turkish tv, that the family Sancar is turkish origin. His cousin also said his is not kurd. Not every Person in HDP is kurdish. There are also turkish and arab persons. Here is the Link of the interview http://m.haberturk.com/video/haber/izle/nobel-odulu-bir-turke-verildi/151540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergün.Y. (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! EVERYBODY, OVER HERE! ---> [21] <--- Evertonfc4ever1

Helle Here is a Interview of Sancar. He said he is not kurdish oder arab. He says he is turkish. The Link http://m.milliyet.com.tr/nobel-odulunu-kazanan-sancar-in-gundem-2128721/ 

Ergün.Y.  —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Consolidated discussion and proposal

[edit]

Could we maybe keep the ethnicity discussion in one place instead of saying the same thing over multiple topics? Obviously, this is (for some reason) a contentious issue ever since the Nobel Prize win, so how about this:

  • no mention of Sancar's ethnicity at all

Ethnicity is a touchy subject at the best of times and without lots of reliable sources, it's a perfect battleground for nationalists of every stripe. clpo13(talk) 00:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DW and The Wire are reliable sources in this case, since I doubt they base their claims on a primary source, but simply assume he is of Kurdish descent because he is from the southeastern part of Turkey, while this region also has a significant Arab and Turkmen population, especially the Savur district of Mardin, where Aziz Sancar comes from, is historically known as an Arab city, not Kurdish. Apart from Aziz Sancar himself self-identifying as Turkish, and he himself and his family sympathizing with Turkish nationalism (I have another source for that from a short documentary that was made for him [22]), his brother Tahir Sancar states in this TV interview [23] that 'they are a of Turkish origin, from a family that came from Central Asia', but he also states that his mother, or both of his parents (couldn't understand that part) spoke Arabic, by which I assume his maternal line is of Arab origin. In addition, Mithat Sancar, the HDP politician, who isn't of Kurdish but Arab descent (not every HDP politician is Kurdish, many examples for that like Sırrı Süreyya Önder and Figen Yüksekdağ, two prominent figures in the party), has stated in this interview [24] that their fathers are cousins, and that the mother tongue in Aziz Sancar's family was Arabic. Again, no mention of any Kurdishness in the family. Taking both the statements of Aziz Sancar and Mithat Sancar into account, we can conclude that the most reliable statement to describe the family would be 'of Turkish and Arab origin'. Like said, there are no other (primary) sources that show Aziz Sancar has Kurdish descent. --Buraccoli (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected one day

[edit]

Yes, probably too optimistic. Editors on both sides should provide good sources. Editors who simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT revert after protection expires may be blocked. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia community, as long as there is no single reputable evidence that these Turkish Scientists is of Kurdish origin . So I do not see a reason why we should call him a Kurd.

As long as Mr Aziz Sancar gives not a single statement, where he describes himself as "Kurd". So we should not call him as a Kurd.

--5.147.72.46 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)from Lebanon.

Dear from Lebanon, is Deutsche Welle not a reputable source? Please explain why. --92slim (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the writer of that generic article is clearly copy-pasting information from Kurdish nationalist website Rudaw or some comment he saw from a Kurdish nationalist in social media. Then another Western writer copies Deutsche Welle and so forth and so forth... Everything about Aziz Sancar in the Turkish media and MOST English media contradict the one-off mention by Deutche-Welle. I have seen this before. Go ahead and write an e-mail to the Deutsche Welle writer and he will tell you the same. If you want, I can press him and he will change it within a week. Please read the following information.
Aziz Sancar's brother stated on TV with Haberturk that they are descended from Horasan Turkmen: [25] Please remove the nonsensical mentions of Kurdishness.
1. In interviews in the Turkish media, it's stated that, growing up, Aziz Sancar identified with Turkish nationalism. If you look at Twitter you'll see that there are pictures of Aziz Sancar and his wife showing them identifying with Turkish nationalism. Here: [26] and [27] and [28].
2. IMPORTANTLY, in a statement to the Turkish media, his family made it clear that they have nothing to do with Kurdish politics and his own brother stated on TV in an interview with Haberturk that they are descended from Horasan Turkmen: [29] and [30]
3. His nephew and other relatives on Twitter identify as Turks and refer to his uncle as the "pride of Turks". [31]
Again, please remove the nonsensical mentions of Kurdishness that were only brought up by rabid Kurdish nationalists and people wrongly copying their false information. Evertonfc4ever1
So Rudaw says he is related to a Kurdish politician and it's not true? The politician who is related to him... --92slim (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Rudaw is Kurdish nationalist nonsense. First, you don't have to be Kurdish to be a HDP politician (that one claims he is Arab) and it's irrelevant anyway because Aziz Sancar clearly identifies with Turkishness as shown in the photos I have provided. 2. Some Turkish sources say they are not related at all anyway while others say he is only a distant relation. 3. Quotes from his own brother in the link I provided claims they are Turkmen. Evertonfc4ever1
Alparslan Türkeş was a Turkish nationalist who is also believed to be of Armenian descent by reliable sources. Ziya Gökalp advocated Turkification but was of Kurdish descent as well. Turkey has a bunch of these types of people. They all claim that they're Turkish when they're not. So we're not going to go by twitter postings and Facebook statuses. We need reliable sourcing. As Wikipedia users, we have no other job but to reflect these types of sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol, no "reliable" source claims that Alparslan Turkes was "Armenian". Even the Kurdish nationalists who falsely claim that Ziya Gokalp was Kurdish now concede that he was primarily Turkmen and only partly Kurdish. Give them a few more years and they'll give up completely. I should point out that it's your Kurds who are largely assimilated members of other ethnic groups including Armenians, Turkmen, and Arabs. For example, the Istanbul Armeinian Patriarch pointed out that 90 % of Kurds in Tunceli are actually Armenian. Or here, read about the forced Kurdification of Turkmen by Kurds (the writer himself is a Kurdish nationalist Dogu Ergil): [32] And we're not going off of "twitter postings and Facebook statuses". We're going off of articles with quotes from his own brother and photographic evidenc. Here: [33] and [34] and [35]. Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in digressing this topic. Photographs aren't considered WP:RS in this project. Those photographs don't prove that he's ethnically Turkish either. We need something more than twitter postings and photographs to sort out his ethnicity. Until then, we will go by what current reliable sources say. If anything, we can include both perspectives in a form of a note onto his article. But we need reliable sourcing to do that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know in your heart at this point that the two GENERIC articles you present are examples of copying unproven nonsensical statements and that if we spoke with the writers, they would tell you that their source for the "Kurdish" nonsense was another generica article or something they saw from a Kurdish nationalist on social media or Rudaw. Now HERE is the news video of his OWN BROTHER being interviewed and saying that they are TURKMEN from Horasan: [36] I should also add that Haberturk is a very Americanist/Kurdist channel that it has PKK sympathizers on ALL the time. And AGAIN, here: [37] and [38] and [39] And now HERE: [40]Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been saying the same thing over and over again. This discussion is getting nowhere. Again, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and basic Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a post calling editors trolls and liars. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia where we expect civility and the assumption of good faith. Focus on content please. --NeilN talk to me 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ

[edit]

Aziz Sancar's brother stated on TV with Haberturk that they are descended from Horasan Turkmen: [41] Please remove the nonsensical mentions of Kurdishness. 1. In interviews in the Turkish media, it's stated that, growing up, Aziz Sancar identified with Turkish nationalism. If you look at Twitter you'll see that there are pictures of Aziz Sancar and his wife showing them identifying with Turkish nationalism. Here: [42] and [43] and [44]. 2. IMPORTANTLY, in a statement to the Turkish media, his family made it clear that they have nothing to do with Kurdistan's politics and his own brother stated on TV in an interview with Haberturk that they are descended from Horasan Turkmen: [45] and [46] 3. His nephew and other relatives on Twitter identify as Turks and refer to his uncle as the "pride of Turks". [47] Again, please remove the nonsensical mentions of Kurdishness that were only brought up by rabid Kurdish nationalists and people wrongly copying their false information. Evertonfc4ever1 — Evertonfc4ever1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You haven't provided one neutral source that says he is an ethnic Turk. Please do so before calling other users "rabid Kurdish nationalists". Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided several including quotes from his own brother. Explain these: [48] and [49] and [50]. Evertonfc4ever1
Alparslan Türkeş was a Turkish nationalist who is also believed to be of Armenian descent by reliable sources. Ziya Gökalp advocated Turkification but was of Kurdish descent as well. Turkey has a bunch of these types of people. They all claim that they're Turkish when they're not. So we're not going to go by twitter postings and Facebook statuses. We need reliable sourcing. As Wikipedia users, we have no other job but to reflect these types of sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, NOW HERE IS VIDEO/AUDIO EVIDENCE WITH HIS OWN OLDER BROTHER STATING THAT THEY ARE TURKMEN. HERE: [51] When are you going to give up? Do I have to invade Mr. Sancar's house in the middle of the night on video to prove it to you? Again, lol, no "reliable" source claims that Alparslan Turkes was "Armenian". Even the Kurdish nationalists who falsely claim that Ziya Gokalp was Kurdish now concede that he was primarily Turkmen and only partly Kurdish. Give them a few more years and they'll give up completely. I should point out that it's your Kurds who are largely assimilated members of other ethnic groups including Armenians, Turkmen, and Arabs. For example, the Istanbul Armeinian Patriarch pointed out that 90 % of Kurds in Tunceli are actually Armenian. Or here, read about the forced Kurdification of Turkmen by Kurds (the writer himself is a Kurdish nationalist Dogu Ergil): [52] And we're not going off of "twitter postings and Facebook statuses". We're going off of articles with quotes from his own brother and photographic evidenc. Here: [53] and [54] and [55]. AND NOW HERE: [56] Evertonfc4ever1

You're repeating the same old excuses every time. Stop the copying and pasting. Please, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines before you continue. As for Ziya Gokalp, that's just not true. There's many sources that claim he is Kurdish, including Michael Gunter and Kemal Kirisci, just to name a few. And even if he had a little bit of Kurdish descent would ultimately prove my point. We can't go by Turkish nationalists who claim they're 100% Turkish, especially when there's reliable sources that claim otherwise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU are repeating the same old excuses every time. YOU are copying and pasting. YOU should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines. As for those "sources", lol Gunter? They clearly have a bias against Turks. Even here on anti-Turkish Wikipedia, you've had to concede that Ziya Gokalp is mostly Turkish and that there are more sources confirming that he's Turkish. Your point is disproven because people with a bias against Turks like you want to say, "Oh, this person wasn't Turkish so that makes his views illegitimate" but here in the case of Ziya Gokalp you are forced to admit that he is patrilinearly Turkish. Too bad for you :) And you should know that your ridiculous Kurdish nationalism is illegitimate because most Kurds are descended from forcibly assimilated members of other ethnic groups including Turkmen, Armenians, and Arabs. Deal with it. Here: [57] and here: [58]. Oh and here is the interview with Aziz Sancar's older brother :) Here: [59] Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I never concede that Gokalp was Kurdish. Based off of reliable neutral sources, he is Kurdish. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't he related to a Kurdish politician of the HDP? Lets go by facts, not hearsay. We can mention he is a Turkish nationalist of Kurdish origin maybe. --92slim (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That HDP politician isn't "Kurdish" (he's Arab). And even then there are Turkish sources stating that they are not related at all, others claim they are only distantly related. Again: [60] and [61]. Evertonfc4ever1 Evertonfc4ever1 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we need a WP:RS that specifically says he's a Kurdish nationalist. Remember, this is WP:BLP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

Someone's ethnicity should not be added to Wikipedia until explanation at first hand. Exact and public information is/are person's citizenship(s). Sincerely. An usual user of Wikipedia.


Dear friends, 

My message is to all Kurdish, and Turkish nationalists. I am Lebanese my ancestors came from Mardin (Savur), this region is inhabited by Turks, Arabs and Kurds. They call us Arabs "mhallami" in this area. I also understand very well Turkish and have not seen a personal video statement, or magazine Inverwiev that Mr. Aziz Sancar calls himself a Kurd.

To me it sounds like he is a Turkish patriot and not a Kurd. So much truth must be here.

The video is of today: "He says he is proud, to wear the Turkish flag on his right breast. And his credit is a souvenir for his Turkish nation".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0U37OBUmr8

--5.147.72.46 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)from a Lebanese guy[reply]

Aziz Sancar's origin

[edit]

He says: My family is nationalist. My dream is, our children will find and read my inventions and say that a Turkish made it. (In Vehbi Koc Awards, 2007)

His brother Tahir Sancar says: We are originally Turk and our ancestors came to here from middle asia (Turkish television Haberturk).

His distant relative Mithat Sancar says: Our native language is arabic (T24, a website from Turkey)

These are the only data we have. Only Kurdish nationalists claim that he is kurdish with no evidence. On the other hand, his some pictures and his other relatives sharings in social media show that he is Turkish and probably a nationalist.

Here is an example and other one

Tonyukuk20 (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Tonyukuk20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry References

[edit]

2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry References[1][2] - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Broad, William J. (7 October 2015). "Nobel Prize in Chemistry Awarded to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar for DNA Studies". New York Times. Retrieved 7 October 2015.
  2. ^ Staff (7 October 2015). "THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY 2015 - DNA repair – providing chemical stability for life" (PDF). Nobel Prize. Retrieved 7 October 2015.

Protected edit request on 8 October 2015

[edit]

Please check heritage, on Turkish wiki site he's said to be Turkish origin whereas in English wiki he's said to be Kurdish. 212.174.225.76 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This matter is being discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Please join the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add his live reaction

[edit]

To the external links. Thank you. --176.239.64.209 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settling the ethnicity issue

[edit]

Here's what Aziz Sancar himself is saying regarding his ethnicity. Hopefully this settles this unnecessarily controversial issue.

From his most recent interview (October 8th, 2015): 

Since winning, some users on social media have focused on Sancar’s ethnicity and whether he was really of Turkish origin or belonged to any Turkish ethnicity. Sancar said he was disturbed by some of the questions he has received from various media outlets from across the globe. It was disrespectful for the BBC to ask him whether he was an “Arab or half Turkish”, he said. “I told them that I neither speak Arabic nor Kurdish and that I was a Turk,” he said. “I’m a Turk, that’s it. It doesn’t matter that I was born in Mardin.” The southeastern Turkish city of Turkey is populated with a high concentration of peoples of Arab, Kurdish and Assyrian origin.

Source: http://www.newsfultoncounty.com/science-technology/news/0811319-turkish-nobel-prize-winner-happy-most-for-his-country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.181.253 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Aziz Sancar is entitled to his own opinion about his ethnicity. But frankly speaking, I can't really assure myself whether he's a reliable source when it comes to his own identity. It's like North Korea calling itself and Democratic Republic, for a lack of a better example. The fact of the matter is Sancar, and many like him, lived in a Turkey where Turkification was rampant. In fact, the words "Kurds", "Kurdistan", or "Kurdish" were officially banned by the Turkish government. The Turkish government categorized Kurds as "Mountain Turks" until 1991, long after Sancar left the country. I think the knowledge of his own identity is questionable under such a context. Reminds me of Edward Tashji, an ethnic Armenian who considered himself a Turk ([62]). If we look at the situation now, we can see that Mardin is a predominately Kurdish province, with an Arab minority. Sancar's uncle declined to talk about his ethnicity, but just said that we are "Arabic speaking" people. The fact that various members of his family are members of the pro-Kurdish HDP party also raises some questions. Above all, his constant reassertion of his supposed Turkish identity makes one wonder if he's hiding anything. Something's straight up fishy with this one. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. However, with all due respect, I think you are confusing ethnicity with other classifications based more closely on genetic identifiers. Ethnicity is about how a person identifies herself. If we focus on classifications based on a genetic approach instead, then most Turks would be classified as of Armenian or Greek descent, or from one of the other various Anatolian groups. If Dr. Sancar identifies himself as Turkish, that should settle the ethnicity issue, besides obvious reasons such as his language being Turkish, and him promoting Turkish culture through various non-profit activities as summarized in the main article. (On a side note, for educational purposes, Savur (not Mardin) is a predominantly Arabic city, but Dr. Sancar's immediate family identify themselves as Turkish, based on today's interviews. In any case he is not Kurdish, which should be removed from the article for accuracy. If an ethno-racial emphasis must be denoted for whatever political/nationalistic reason, it should be listed as "Aziz Sancar was born in an Arabic lower-middle class family in Savur ...").
The Turkish government never called the Kurds "mountain Turks". This is an urban legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.236.97 (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Turkish person to win the Nobel?

[edit]

What about the Yemeni Turk Tawakkol Karman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.92.242 (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity: shouldn't we just quote him?

[edit]

Sancar has stated the following: "I told them that I neither speak Arabic nor Kurdish and that I was a Turk," he said. "I'm a Turk, that's it. It doesn't matter that I was born in Mardin." quoted in Anadolu Agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.92.242 (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should refer to what he said about himself. I cite: "Sancar said he was disturbed by some of the questions he has received from various media outlets from across the globe. It was disrespectful for the BBC to ask him whether he was an "Arab or half Turkish", he said. "I told them that I neither speak Arabic nor Kurdish and that I was a Turk," he said. "I'm a Turk, that's it."" http://national.bgnnews.com/nobel-prize-winner-aziz-sancar-dedicates-award-to-turkey-haberi/10094 --217.224.216.126 (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video of him saying that he was born into a Turkish "nationalist family" [63]
Why is it that proud Turks are always seen as "nationalists" whereas proud Americans are regarded "patriots"? --217.224.216.126 (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC didn't publish any news about this quote. It is possible that Turkish media is playing around him. We simply know that he is from arab-speaking family. And also his father was arab("mhalmi")( died in Mardin) and his mother was kurd, died in Mersin. His older brother and two sisters are MHP(far right political party) members and all Turkish media news sources are linked to them. But it will not take long, someone from his family will soon publish his parents background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.111.163 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case he (and only he) has the right to speak for himself. And he does, so please respect this and stop confusing ethnicity with race. Ethnicity is about how a person identifies herself. If we focus on classifications based on a genetic approach instead, then most Turks would be classified as of Armenian or Greek descent, or from one of the other various Anatolian groups. --217.224.216.126 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He already said he is Turkish, there is no arguing about it. Ethnicity is something you can't decide yourself. Steve Jobs also never mentioned his ethnicity, we know him as an American and we respect him as an American but truth is truth and he is Arab-German. " If we focus on classifications based on a genetic approach instead, then most Turks would be classified as of Armenian or Greek descent, or from one of the other various Anatolian groups." This is not true, if you choose "Turks"(not kurds, arabs, greek, armenian) and make genetic analysis you will find out that most of the genes are from Asians. If you are coming from "Genectic history of the Turkish people" wikipedia page and base your information on that, check the sources and read them. They have taken Kurds, Arabs, Armenian and other minorities people samples also. However I don't see any problem if article locker deletes his "Kurdish" ethnicity information. We will soon hear more about his family background(documentary). You must understand that there is also "other newspapers" than Turkish newspapers and also understand that Turkish media is one of the most restricted medias. (https://index.rsf.org/#!/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.111.163 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 8 October 2015

[edit]

Rather than debating whether he is an Arab/Kurd/Turk shouldn't we just quote him? He has said the following to the Anadolu Agency "I told them that I neither speak Arabic nor Kurdish and that I was a Turk,” he said. “I’m a Turk, that’s it. It doesn’t matter that I was born in Mardin."[64] 86.171.92.242 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there has been no compromises here. See above. Kurdish and Turkish nationalists are both claiming him as "their own". The only solution is surely to quote him.86.171.92.242 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is his twitter enough evidence to finish this ethnicity debate? Quotes:

[edit]

"Milliyetçi bir ailede büyüdüm. Çocuk olarak formamın göğsünde Türk Bayrağı olması benim için çok önemliydi." ("I grew up in a nationalist family. Wearing the Turkish flag on the chest of my uniform was very important for me as a child"). twitted @ 11:07 AM - 7 Oct 2015

"En büyük hayalim ilerde çocuklarımızın kitaplardan benim bulduklarımı okuyup bunu bir Türk yaptı ben de yapabilirim demesi." ("My biggest dream is that in the future our children will read books of what I have found and say that a Turk did this and therefore so can I.") twitted @ 10:50 AM - 7 Oct 2015

86.171.92.242 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I am glad to see that I have such a fellow countryman as a compatriot. Tesekkürler. --217.224.216.126 (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The twitter account is not belonging to him. It is not verified account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.111.163 (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 8 October 2015

[edit]

Request: Remove all ethnicity claims.

Reason: Whether he is ethnically Turkish or Kurdish or Arab is debated above with conflicting sources. Notably he himself made a statement about it that contradicts the current claim in the page. Perhaps in the end a consensus may be reached that he is not a reliable source about himself, hopefully with the aid of more in-depth reports and sources; but until then keeping either claim that he opposes clearly violates WP:BLP and should be removed immediately per policy. The page should remain impartial until consensus is reached based on sources. 18.111.33.105 (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. To me it sounds like he is a Turkish patriot and not a Kurdish nationalist. So please correct the article asap. --217.224.216.126 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, that should be decided through consensus, but at this point neither claim is trustworthy enough to be on the page and should be removed. Hopefully after that people will civilly discuss which information would be correct to add.--18.111.33.105 (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE supports the requested removal.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how long will it take to remove this Kurdisch nonsense? It still can be read in the article. --217.224.216.126 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see little reference to Kurdish in the present article. There is one claim of Turkisk in the lead. Is there consensus to remove this for now? There are no claims of ethnicity in the infobox. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request is to remove ethnicity claims in the "Early life and career" sub-heading.86.171.92.242 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, at the moment the article text clearly claims that he was born to a Kurdish family. In this talk page you can see various sources with various claims, and each side disputes the other's sources' validity. This protected edit request is not meant to determine which is correct one, that would require consensus and take some time. It is to remove the dubious information. The article is violating WP:BLP as we speak, and in accordance with WP:BLP policy, that information must be removed immediately, without any delay. Then there can be discussions here about if his family was Turk, Arab, or Kurd, and the article may be shaped according to the consensus. There doesn't need to be consensus to remove questionable information, we will need consensus to put it back, or put something else back, biographies of living persons is subject to extra scrutiny.--18.111.69.62 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was eventually done but not by Martin who refused to recognize the problematic segment to the bitter end so it was deleted by someone else. --217.224.237.227 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 8 October 2015

[edit]

add Portal bar to the bottom of the Article.

{{Portal bar|Biology|Science|Biography}} Imad_J (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please remove the nationalistic Kurdish lie in the article. It has been in the article for too long now. --217.224.216.126 (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Video Interwiev on YouTube. He says he is turkish! Please correct the article. He is not kurdish. Or leave the ethnicity away. Now everyone knows which ethnicity he has! The Video-Link: http://youtube.de/FPWBOU0z0aM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergün.Y. (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion from an editor without a horse in this race

[edit]

(1) A few sources have identified him as Kurdish, though without much detail about the origin of that assertion; the neutrality of some of those sources is questionable (2) most sources don't mention his parents' ancestry, though his birthplace is in a border area with a large population of ethnic Kurds and Assyrians (3) there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests that he has some ethnic/ancestral connections to Kurds or Arab-speaking peoples; several sources identify a pro-Kurdish cousin, Mithat Sancar (4) in various interviews, Sancar identifies strongly as a Turkish citizen, and does not mention his family's ethnic origins; an exception to this would be an interview printed by the Anadolu Agency, a state-run paper, in which he denies speaking Arabic or Kurdish. Conclusion Sancar clearly identifies first and foremost as a Turkish citizen, and has not clearly self-identified with a particular ethnicity. Sancar's parents and/or extended family may be of non-Turk ethnic origin, but until there are clear reliable sources to establish that, it doesn't belong in the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Apart from that, if someone decides that it is a good idea to mention it, they must mention the other ethnicities too, to clarify that in fact it is completely unclear as to where he comes from. So far he is either Turkmen, Kurdish, or half Arab half Kurd, ethnically speaking. Now, that's not peanuts, it's a big difference. --92slim (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy wins a Nobel prize and suddenly everyone thinks he is one of them, how very original. I agree we should not be mentioning his ethnicity without a clear RS, whether he is Kurd, Turk, Arab or something in between, my guess is he is a Vulcan. Darwinian Ape talk 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish or Turkish

[edit]

http://m.milliyet.com.tr/nobel-odulunu-kazanan-sancar-in-gundem-2128721/ Aziz Sancar himself says that he is a Turk. Not a Kurd or Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.178.121 (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Welle source on his ethnicity

[edit]

It seems that the source claiming his ethnicity has removed that information from the article.

"Nobel Prize in Chemistry: how our DNA repairs itself". Deutsch Welle. 7 October 2015. http://www.dw.com/en/nobel-prize-in-chemistry-how-our-dna-repairs-itself/a-18766543

I guess that settles it then. So it's time now we leave this ridiculous nationalistic my blood-your blood discussion behind and focus on his contributions to humanity, primarily on his award topic DNA repair and the circadian clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.181.253 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lifelong dream project

[edit]

His "lifelong dream project": Türk Evi - Turkish House. Please add this to the article. --176.239.104.79 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I noticed that it was in the article, so thanks anyway. Could you please correct the word Turk to Türk and add the English name ("Turkish House") and make a connection to Turkish culture (although the article is quite poor, for understandable reasons seeing some of the discussions here) at the introduction. --176.239.104.79 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Commons image

[edit]

I have uploaded an image of Prof. Aziz Sancar at the Commons: [[File:Aziz Sancar (cropped).png]]. Could you please add this image to the infobox. Thanks... Sultan Galiyev (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. --NeilN talk to me 20:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten to add the OTRS pending notification. Isn't it OK now? Sultan Galiyev (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the multitude of copyright violations you have uploaded, we will need to wait for OTRS confirmation. --NeilN talk to me 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN Galiyev now uploaded this: [65]. A gross copyright violation of this [66]. The source is reputable and can get the foundation into trouble, especially with all the attention that has been centered around Aziz Sancar lately. I think the user misunderstands what OTRS is. He seems to believe that its a request made to just get permission to use any photograph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you worried that the Foundation will get into trouble or that there will be the picture of another successful Turk in Wikipedia? Not a question really. --141.196.217.174 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have children?

[edit]

There is no mention about his children in the article. I would like to know if he has children. --217.224.193.223 (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source that mentions children, we could it at here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings

[edit]

Sancar is one of ten children not eight, as is written in this wiki article. He has two step-brothers from his father. Overall, he has three sisters. His brother, Kenan Sancar, is a retired General. His mothers name is Meryem and his fathers name is Abdülgani. Can this information please be added to the Early life section.source 86.171.92.242 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hurriyet is already used as a source here, so why not this Hurriyet article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.92.242 (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-speaking family

[edit]

Sancar is from arabic speaking family. He said that he spoke arabic with his family and turkish language with his brothers and sisters. Source http://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/nobeli-alan-prof-aziz-sancar-konustu Date 11.10.2015

Add to his family details: arabic speaking family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.111.163 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

[edit]

The controversies (sic, plural) section is controversial itself. Not an assessment on an editor, but on their edits, this section is added by a user who has sort of a controversial record on issues related to Turks. (I can show examples.) Leave it aside, 2 things: First of all, "gavur" is a figurative/jokeful speech in today's Turkish, especially among intellectuals, used to mean "foreigner". Many people here in Turkey, including myself, we refer as "gavurca" (gavur language) to foreign languages, for example English. This use has no second sense, a simple slang. My secretary asks "Do I write the letter in Turkish?" I say "how come, write it gavurca, these gavurs will not understand the nuances in Turkish". I add: "Also please arrange someone to pick up the gavurs at the airport." (These gavurs may be moslems from the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", no problem. Foreigners are gavurs. :-) I'm sure someone who hails to be a "proud Istambouliot" knows this very well; but somehow forgets or pretends not to know. Secondly, the only serious source used in that section, the Cumhuriyet newspaper article is on "to what or where Mr Sancar wishes to destine the prize money he will receive" but there's no mention of that; certainly because the experienced editor must have missed that important information. As we have no doubts about their goodwill, I have no other means to explain this omission. I am sure they do and will come up with many arguments, but that section must be removed. This is about a Nobel laureate, we can't change our attitude towards them since we have not been able to find an ethnic background. Thanks. --88.227.244.202 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unfortunate quote-mining and there is no mention of a controversy in RS's I've looked so far. So I deleted that section. Darwinian Ape talk 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinian Ape How is this quote-mining? This was widely reported by hundreds of articles. And I mean it when I says hundreds (see: [67]). And it's not quote-farming as the IP from Ankara seems to say. Sancar literally used the term "Allah'in gavuru" meaning infidels of God or God's infidels. There's no reason to believe that it was used to say "foreigner". There's an entire wikipedia article on just that term: Giaour. The first sentence of the article should say enough: "Giaour or Gawur or Ghiaour, written gâvur in modern Turkish (Turkish pronunciation: [ɟaˈʋur], /dʒaʊər/, from Persian: گور‎‎ gaur), is an offensive religious and ethnic slur, which is used by Muslims in Turkey and the Balkans to describe all who are non-Muslim." There's no reason not to believe that this kind of language has not created a stir in Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would seriously doubt his translation of his own words would read infidel. He obviously meant foreign westerners, I agree it's a pejorative word but not as near as the connotations of infidel in the English language. It's more of a political remark then a religious one.(the word can also mean "cruel") Also I really don't think there is enough information to write a section devoted to controversy. Yes there is a mini controversy about his ethnicity on the interwebz as can be expected, but that's hardly reflected in RS's unless I am missing something. And how you juxtaposed the section made me think it was a bit wp:synth. Darwinian Ape talk 22:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it did not mean foreign westerners. I'm a native speaker of the Turkish language and "Allah'in gavuru", or God's infidels means basically that they are infidels from a religious perspective or under God's eyes. Sancar himself is the one who clarified it for us by referencing "Allah" in his remark. Why would he try to say "God's foreigners": that simply doesn't make any sense. Indeed, there has been a controversy over his ethnicity for quite some time. Perhaps we can expand on that point. This is quite noteworthy material, especially with such a harsh reaction by him. The sources specifically say that he was "angry" at the BBC for even mentioning that he's anything but a Muslim Turk. In fact, some sources say that he was "disturbed" by it [68]. Even if you would like to assume your own definition of "gavur", the rest of his remarks are also noteworthy as well. He openly blames the English people for the chaos that is now happening in the Middle East as well. Also, the IP above is the sock of E4024 who has been socking out of Ankara for years now. I'll open a SPI soon. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with EtienneDolet here, both regarding the nature of Sancar's comments, and the fact that the IP is a sock of a banned user. If Sancar's comments were widely reported in the media, they are worthy of inclusion here. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a native speaker, and I know what "allah'ın gavuru" can mean in different contexts. Although it is hard to translate this kind of colloquial language, the translation might be equal to bloody westerners. And if you are native speaker you should know better not to translate it as "god's infidel" which makes no sense whatsoever. "Allah'ın" here is just an emphasis, as an atheist I use the phrase "allahın malı" all the time. I would translate that to bloody idiot. But in any case, we need to wait for Mr Sancar to clarify before attaching meanings, religious meanings I might add, to his off-the-cuff remarks on middle eastern politics. An article in which he is interviewed in English would clear the issue. I am by no means against the inclusion, but at this time it is undue to create a controversies section. Darwinian Ape talk 23:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to wait for Sancar to do anything. If he really wanted to clear things up, he would've done so already, even if he referred to the English as "bloody" or "damned". That's not language one would have to abide by, especially for a prize winning scientist such as himself. He meant what he said. So it's not a case of WP:UNDUE because there's no source that says he didn't. So there's no minority opinion being presented here. Such material would be not worth adding if it hasn't been widely reported. But that's clearly not the case either. So it's worthy of inclusion simply due to that fact alone. As for the meaning of "gavur", its definition is clearly defined in Wikipedia and in reliable secondary sources. To use the word Allah'in may be used as in "bloody" or "damn", but under its context, it doesn't appear so. Placing the word Allah next to gavur would only mean to clarify what he meant to say. And at any rate, why would he use 'foreigners' when he made it clear that it is the English who he's referring to? Above all: "orayı karıştırdılar yüz yıl önce, hâlâ karıştırıyorlar" refers Britain's involvement in the Middle East (English: "They stirred it up 100 years ago, and are still stirring things there.") We all know the Middle East being a hotbed of religious strife which is commonly blamed for by the infidels of Europe, or in this case: England. So his remarks could be summed up as follows: Those damn infidels have been stirring up things in the Middle East and continue to do so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is undue to create a section called controversies when there is no source that I can see that treats this as a controversy, the nationality issue is a minor curiosity at best, it can be included as a one line sentence perhaps. But the context of the conversation which involves the phrase "allahın gavuru" is about the British involvement in the middle east, presumably referring to the Post-Great war involvement of Britain in the area. You say "why would he use 'foreigners' when he made it clear that it is the English who he's referring to?" It's because gavur is a pejorative word used to describe all foreigners especially, westerners. The word infidel is closer to the Turkish word "Kafir" which actually has religious connotations, if he actually meant to say infidels he would have used that word. I see no indication of any religious context whatsoever. You are making a connection through OR by saying the middle east is "a hotbed of religious strife which is commonly blamed for by the infidels of Europe" We should wait for additional sources and I am not talking about the tabloids reporting the same interview, you have to remember this is a BLP article, so we should be extra careful not to misrepresent the views of its subject. Darwinian Ape talk 01:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Turkish media appears to praise his response to the BBC. But that doesn't mean we should. Sancar's pretty lucky this news item hasn't been translated into an English source yet. But that shouldn't matter. Especially under Wikipedia's standards. I see this as controversial, and I would assume any other Wikipedian that considers calling the English people "damned infidels" or "damned 'foreigners'" would too. And again, he is talking specifically about the English people: "Kızıyorum ona, çünkü bunlar" and " İngiltere’de kaç çeşit..." He is very specific about who he is referring to. I don't see any reference to "westerners" or "foreigners" other than the whole English infidels who stir things up in the Middle East bit. And "kafir" is not a common term to denote infidels. You know that. But for those who don't, a simple google search can help: [69]. The word has been commonly 100 years ago but rarely used today, even by Turkish sources. Gavur is a much more popular word to denote infidels. Even today, entire cities and villages use the term to describe Christian inhabited places (i.e. Gavur Izmir, Gawar, Gavur mahallesi, and etc...or is Izmir part of the west too?) One must also keep in mind that the definition of gavur can be found not only on English Wikipedia and Wikitionary, but on Turkish Wikipedia and Vikisözlük as well. That's the consensus on how the word should be used and defined. Nowhere do I see the word Yabancı or stranger as its definition. And to say it is used as such would be OR on your part, not mine. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should absolutely not praise his response, but neither can we say it's controversial, we have to be neutral. "I see this as controversial" is not a valid reason to create a controversy section and the definition of POV. So that's not a valid argument. Yes he means English people in that instance when he says gavur, do you think English are not foreign to him. And he is harshly criticizing them, it's understandable that he uses pejorative words. But are they religiously motivated? I highly doubt it. You mentioned "gavur Izmir" which is actually an example of how the word changed its meaning. Izmir, if you don't know, as any other city in Turkey is predominantly Muslim. Yet the people there are much more secular(politically anyway) than the rest of the country, and although the history of the term "gavur izmir" has a different reason, it's now used because of the westernization of the city. There is nothing OR about me saying the connotations of the word gavur is not religious in this context, it's merely a linguistic determination. I don't know why you said he is lucky, I seriously hope the western media picks up on those remarks and asks him about them, so that we can have a comprehensive answer from him. And if he is, really saying what you think he's saying, it would be a controversy and the media would call it a controversy(or something along these lines) and we can add that section, its not like there hasn't been any other racist/bigoted Nobel winner. But there has not been such a thing. All we have a couple of vague comments in an interview, not a controversy. And your enthusiasm to add that section is not helpful especially because it's a BLP article. If you really like to expand this article, I would suggest adding a research section which I am planing on doing so in the near future. I would appreciate any help you can give. That's a solid ground we can work on, not these gossipy news. But, no one cares about recentism anymore. Darwinian Ape talk 04:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the word kafir is still in use and in fact is one of my favorite words.:) Darwinian Ape talk 04:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but his ethnic identity was a controversy, and this has been cited by various third-party sources.
  • Nobel ödülü alan Prof. Aziz Sancar etnik köken tartışmalarına tepki gösterdi. BBC'nin telefon ettiğini aktaran Sancar şöyle konuştu: "İlk sorduğu soru... Bana 'Arap mısınız, kısmen mi Türk'sünüz' diye sorarak saygısızlık yaptılar. (Milliyet)
  • Mithat Sancar T24'e yaptığı açıklamada, 2015 Nobel Kimya Ödülü'nü alan üç bilim insanından biri olan Aziz Sancar'ın etnik kökeniyle ilgili tartışmalar için "İnsanların bu kadar kısırlaşmış ve daralmış algı dünyası içinde olması hüzün verici" yorumunu yaptı. (Hurriyet)
  • Etnik köken tartışmaları Aziz Sancar'ı kızdırdı (MyNet)
  • BBC'den Aziz Sancar'a büyük saygısızlık haberi. Nobel ödülü alan Prof. Aziz Sancar , BBC'nin kendisine yöneltiği etnik köken sorusuna büyük tepki gösterdi. (Star)

There's hundreds of more sources. In fact, it's the first thing BBC has asked him. Even his uncle got involved. So his response to it can be definitely notable under that context. To dismiss this entirely just because you don't want it to be called "Controversial" is not how things work here, especially when such information has been cited by hundreds of sources. If you so insisted, you could have wanted to change the Section header to "Political views" or "Personal views", but you haven't suggested that either. In fact, we could even go about using your definition of the term: "damn foreigners" but just because you decided that the current definition is different, you went along and deleted an entire sourced section. Your definition of Gavur is still not the one accepted by Wikipedia or Wikitionary. Even Turkish Wikipedia and Vikisözlük disagrees with that assessment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To say that there hasn't been a controversy or a row when it came to his ethnicity is simply not true. In addition to the sources EtienneDolet provided above, major news agencies, like the BBC and the New York times, chimed in on the debate as well. The New York Times article is as follows:

Instead of jubilation, a debate erupted on social media about whether he is truly Turkish, given that he is a distant relative of a lawmaker in the Kurdish party and was born in the Kurdish-dominated southeast. In an interview with the BBC, Dr. Sancar said: “I do not speak Kurdish. I am Turkish. That’s it.”

In fact, the NYT article gives more weight to the controversy rather than his scientific achievements, as do many other news agencies. That goes to show that we need to have a least a mention about the debate and his reaction to it.
Now, when it comes to the word gavur, I have yet to have seen any Turkish dictionary provide the "stranger" definition. Almost all dictionary and etymology sources define gavur as "non-believer" or "infidel". Here are some pretty strong sources worth mentioning:
  • Türk Dil Kurumu: 1. isim, din b. Dinsiz kimse 2. din b. Müslüman olmayan kimse 3. sıfat Merhametsiz, acımasız 4. sıfat İnatçı
  • Langenscheidt Pocket Turkish Dictionary: 1. giaour, unbeliever, non-Moslem; 2. fig. merciless, cruel; obstinate; -, aliisu gibi as heavy as lead. gavurluk 1. unbelief: 2. fig. cruelty; ~ etmek to act cruelly.
  • TurkishDictionary.net: 1. vulg. giaour, non-Muslim; Christian. 2. vulg. infidel, unbeliever. 3. colloq. merciless, cruel, heartless; obstinate.
Again, nowhere have I seen gavur being defined as 'stranger'. That's complete OR and should be disregarded. In fact, I stumbled upon a source that says the following: "A Muslim from another country would be yabanci, but never gavur." Clearly, Sancar was referring to western infidels in his remarks. Երևանցի talk 09:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the word gavur means infidel in that context is a misrepresentation, and it's a known usage if not formal.(Galat-ı meşhur) It's not OR to disagree with the translation. There are nuances to every language that makes it hard to translate sometimes, this is one of them. And this is all the more reason we should wait for another source before adding it in the article. And the hundreds of sources you mentioned are all based on one interview, not to mention most Turkish media outlets are notoriously bad at fact checking and correct reporting. Darwinian Ape talk 14:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that section again and added the bit about ethnicity to the early life and career section, please consider this is a WP:BLP article and we need more than a vague comment to write a controversy section, in fact those kind of sections are discouraged in BLP's. Darwinian Ape talk 14:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's three users that agree with adding the content back to the article. You have yet provided a source that defines gavur as "foreigner". As this point, it is up to you to disprove, through the use of reliable sources, that there either hasn't been a debate over his ethnicity, or that gavur means "foreigner". We'll act accordingly from thereon. I also changed the title of the section to "Ethnicity debate" for now since there's no denying that there was a debate over his ethnicity on social and news media. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in his T24 interview, he stated that he grew up a "nationalist" (ülkücü). I'll have to add that bit to the article too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the current title, though the "gavur" bit is not related nor it's some continuous part of a controversy. My main issue was that there was not one source treating it as a controversy and when adding unsourced or poorly sourced info in BLP's the burden of the proof lies on the one who want to add it not the other way around. The gavur bit still looks like a synth the way it's positioned and I still think highly unlikely that there is a religious context behind it. But the title seems like a good compromise, at least for now. T24 source seems good for personal details, though we should be careful not to make it an autobiography. Darwinian Ape talk 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposition: I think we should create a political views section where his political views (e.g his nationalist background and so on) are explained. The gavur bit can also have a place there with a larger context (i.e the criticism of west-mainly England-)Darwinian Ape talk 21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad we're moving forward. But I'm going to have to disagree with the Political view assessment because Sancar was referring to the BBC regarding a specific interview he had with them over the debate. In other words, they're directly connected. His response to the questioning over this debate is quite notable in that regard. However, if we have any sources where he overtly talks about his political views, I don't mind having a Political views section. On that note, I think his nationalist upbringing will be more relevant for such a section. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose until a clear consensus over the meaning of "Allah's Giaur" in the context of the question, assumptions whether he "specifically referred the BBC, English people or the reporter, or the "mindset and general attitube of outsiders of the ME region, the Iraqi, Syrian wars and those who started them" is pretty moot. Which I will describe: "Infidel" is one of the direct dictionary translations of the term; but he goes on to say : "I'm not asking him/her (the reporter) how many ethnicities are there in England. There are catholics, english, germans and so on in the USA, but when you ask them who they are; they simply say "American". But when they (People referred as "Allah's giaur" in his previous remarks) ; ask; they must insist whether you are a Kurd or Arab (or Turk). It is the first question of the BBC reporter asked me over the phone interview" - in t24 article. It's a political remark and should be stated so. He is disturbed about this (and being the first question of the said reporter (and the ethnicity of the reporter isn't stated either) and this should be strongly emphasized.

I added his words from the t24 article; should be clear what he meant by the term "Giaour". He quite elabotarely explained what he meant by the term "giaur". Not "English" people or not in only literal meaning of "infidel". Either quote him directly or not quote at all.

176.43.48.50 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The definition of Gavur has been discussed in detail up above. There's been a WP:CONSENSUS to have it included in this article in that way. As for the long quotation, I don't think it brings anything new or noteworthy to the ethnicity debate. I'll have to remove that as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is all about the meaning of "gaiur" - "gavur" ; not the sentence or the context. "I don't think it brings anything new" is not a valid reason to remove direct quotations of the person in question. Moreover; the version provided is a commentary of his interview; not even half a translation; given the sources are in Turkish. Current version: "He then referred to the English people as "gâvur" (i.e. "infidels") who he blamed for stirring problems in the Middle East." is not even close to what he meant by direct; word for word translation of his interview. Where did he say "English people" ? Did he mention religion? So with what reason (infidel) explanation is added? Is it a striking feature of his usage of the word "gavur" in the interview and moreover; its definition in wikipedia is not enough; a pointer is needed? There's a wikipedia article detailing the word. He never mentioned "English People" in the interview yet it appears here. If this is indeed a debate; the paramount importance should be given to his words; not "interpretations" or "personal opinions". I'll have to remove the sentence on the grounds of being libel and make it discussed in the noticeboard if you insist. 176.43.48.50 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you'll have to read the discussion above. See WP:CONSENSUS. The current version is agreed by more than three users for obvious reasons. The overwhelming amount of sources, including dictionaries and phrase books, refer to Gavur as a derogatory term used against non-Muslim Western society. More importantly, this is the definition adopted by Wikitionary and Wikipedia itself. I have yet seen a dictionary refer to Gavur as anything but that. I'll also change English people to the West to avoid any other misunderstandings. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to refer the translation to the noticeboard. Not only new meanings are invented " ...as a derogatory term used against non-Muslim Western society. More importantly, this is the definition adopted by Wikitionary and Wikipedia itself. where neither current wikipedia nor wiktionary says anything about "Western Society"; how did you change "the English People" to "the West" ? Those are important terms that should be used in correct context; not the context one wants to see. Definitely the consensus is biased as well. Should be discussed per : WP:BLPSOURCES Mulkhan (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) (Note: Same user as 176.43.48.50 ; I've recently registered to the wikipedia)[reply]
  • This sentence indeed feels wrong to me. Probably inaccurate summary of sources I cannot read due to language. I don't speak Turkish and cannot check the source, and this feels like a pushing of the content into the article. I suggest leaving it out, or else providing translation of the sources and more rationale as to its inclusion. But mainly, I suggest leaving this out of the BLP unless a source directly comments on the use of the word as being a controversy. SageRad (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we aren't really proposing to include the word 'controversy' anymore. Indeed, finding a source that calls it a controversy is important. But there's no doubt that there's a debate over his ethnicity. His response and reaction to that debate is indeed noteworthy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there're no reliable sources calling it a "controversy"; personal or group opinions can't be considerd as "noteworthy" or "important" because it's a BLP, not a political debate or translation forum. Until it appears as a controversy in mutually agreeable reliable sources; it should be left out. Mulkhan (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This quote was widely reported. It wouldn't be very wise to not include this. Երևանցի talk 18:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something being "widely reported" is not a "serious, reliable source"; especially for a "controversial" issue like this.Mulkhan (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there is indeed a debate over his ethnicity and this has been extensively reported by numerous news media outlets. Whether you want to use the word 'controversy' to describe it shouldn't be a factor at that point. Me and several other users have pointed that out above already. In fact, as long as it is widely reported, it should be significant enough to included per WP:NOTABLENEWS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mulkhan, for the sake of perhaps reaching an agreement, what was the proposal that you wanted? Was it something along these lines? We can perhaps work with this proposal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never disagreed including a direct translation. So for now, I set aside the West or English bit and made a more direct translation that is pretty much a word-by-word alignment with the T24 source, as you suggested. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We already moved from this; please see below Mulkhan (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm copying the current situation of the debate from WP:BLPN in order to show the last point reached : The discussion is still open; for concerns about policy issues:
  • Since it's an original research not sourced as a "controversy" by any reliable (or ANY) source; (which is admitted by the editor Étienne Dolet in the talk page : (Indeed, finding a source that calls it a controversy is important) I'll be removing it on the grounds of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.", in addition to violation of the WP:NOR and should be immediate per : WP:BLPREMOVE and suggest complete removal of the debate in the talk page and protection of the section by an admin in case any vandalism may occur. " Mulkhan (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't to say the debate over his ethnicity shouldn't been included. After all, it's among the first thing reporters ask about him. His reaction to it should also be noteworthy to that effect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Nope; the arguements in the "controversies section" in the talk page was made without referencing a single reliable source. Since the interview was not perceived as being "controversial" in any reliable source; pushing it with arguements sourced with original research is just arguing for the sake of arguing. And since there's nothing controversial about the interview; adding it to the article is pointless. And WP:NOTABLENEWS is not a valid counter arguement since the interview was there for some time and assuming it'll gain "controversial" status should have no place in a BLP. If it becomes controversial in the future; it might be discussed again for inclusion; after assesing the compliance of WP:BLPSOURCES. Mulkhan (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is advocating the use of the word 'controversial'. However, it can be added per WP:NOTABLENEWS since the interview, along with the quote, has received wide coverage. A simple google search of the quote alone yields 600+ results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP clearly stipulates: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Unless you come up with reliable sources; this "controversy" has no place in a BLP or it's talk page. EOD. Mulkhan (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EtienneDolet, the issue is that your Google search link which you say gives 600+ results just shows that there are 600+ results on the interview itself -- lots and lots of reprinted versions of it most likely, on many sources. However, this is not the same as having a single reliable source that supports what you seem to want to include in the article, which i take to be some sort of innuendo that Sancar's words were bad in some way -- anti-West or anti-non-Islamic or whatever the case may be. That is a negative innuendo, and therefore to include this claim in a biography of a living person would require some strong sourcing, and that is not provided by a Google search showing that the interview has been printed by many sources. That doesn't support the claim as i hear you stating it. SageRad (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SageRad, but who's to say that the current sources aren't strong enough already? I understand that this is a BLP article, but no one really doubts the validity of this interview. Let's not forget that Sancar is openly nationalist and, like many nationalists in Turkey, may view Europe and its Christian society with suspicion. There's no surprise that only 6% of Turks have a favorable opinion towards Christians ([70]). Therefore, calling people "God's infidels" (i.e. Allah'in gavurlari) shouldn't really surprise anyone. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mulkhan (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source showing it's significance to be included in the article; this "quote" should be removed, from BLP and here; "controversies section" for reasons stated above. Already it was changed after "consensus" and added repeatedly without discussing in the discussion board. The discussion should be clear enough Mulkhan (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


As discussed above, there really is no controversy section to be added. The debate surrounding his ethnicity should remain though since it received wide coverage. --Երևանցի talk 10:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only English source seems to be NyTimes article; and its main scope is political issues within Turkey (title: Deadly Ankara Attack Not Enough to Unify a Polarized Turkey [1] ) and the writer of the article assumed A.Sancar's cousin is worthy to be noted because of his affiliation with the HDP.
I think WP:PUBLICFIGURE should be given priority in this case: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Mulkhan (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a number of English sources, but amongst particularly reliable sources, apart from the NYTimes article, there is a good piece by Anadolu Agency and another, quite enlightening AA interview with his brother. While I'm perfectly aware that AA is the Turkish government's mouthpiece, in this particular case I don't see a reason to doubt its reliability. Together they should clarify the ethnicity issue, so I added both of them. PanchoS (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/world/europe/ankara-terror-attack-turkey-nobel-prize-chemistry.html

Circadian clock?

[edit]

Do we have to know what the circadian clock is? Why don't you even give it a simple link? Is the structure of this article the best? The first section should include education ("Early life and education"), and then should follow a section on "Academic career". His philanthrophic works should be covered by another section. (There is a good source in one of the references of the controversial and unnecessary "Controversies" section.) Which other Nobel laurate has such a poor page in Wikipedia? I reckon he would have a better one if he had invented himself some ethnical identity. Read the above discussion also. --88.227.244.202 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No controversy

[edit]

There is no controversy/debate anymore, Aziz already clarified his position. He's Turkish. If you claim otherwise you must have an anti-Turkish agenda because it's already clearly stated by him. --92slim (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the explanation for "giaour" because it's linked to the article so it should be neutral now. --92slim (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Arab-speaking"

[edit]

I recently accepted a pending change that removed the "Arabic-speaking" note about Sancar's family. This was later reverted by another editor, who may have not seen my accepting comment in the review log. They left a note on my talk page, and I penned this response: 

Hi @PanchoS. In my accept comment (Which should be visible in the review log), I noted that the CNNTurk review currently sourcing the statement appears to support the IP. When asked about his mother language, Sancar replied that they spoke Arabic but grew up speaking Turkish. CNNTurk, as the standing source, does not appear to support the version of the article that includes "Arabic" as his family ethnicity. I am fine with maintaining the status quo, but that was how I read the CNNTurk source and decided to handle the pending edit. Since the IP was not replacing with a different unsourced ethnic group, it would be my position that since this is in contention and does not have a clearly supporting source, it should be removed. -- ferret (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To expand on that, while I understand that the prose is technically noting that they spoke Arabic, it links in a way that suggests their ethnicity. They also spoke Turkish though, which is covered in the same sources. As such, I still believe it should simply be removed from this sentence. If a later sentence wishes to note the various languages he (and his family) speaks, that would seem more appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Having now read through the talk page in more detail and checking through some revisions, I see that this was initially added in this diff, obviously to note Arab ethnicity. The article and talk page clearly show this is a contentious addition, and I am not sure I see evidence of a consensus that this should have been included. A few edits later, it was changed in this diff to "Arab-speaking", which is more inline with the source (CNNTurk).

However, the source in use, and several others, appear to always mention "We grew up speaking Turkish" or similar in the same paragraphs. As such, I view the inclusion of Arabic-speaking, especially in light of how it was original added as "Arab", as an attempt to suggest ethnicity, which is in contention. I believe "Arabic-speaking" should simply be removed, or converted into a standalone sentence that better clarifies that Sancar's parent's spoke Arabic, but that the family grew up speaking Turkish, as sources indicate. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, having read even further back, Arabic-speaking (And the CNNTurk source) appears to have been first introduced here, by the same editor I previously noted had added "Arab". I stand by my statements however, that in light of the ethnicity contentions, this is an effort to label his ethnicity as Arab, which is clearly in contention. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aziz Sancar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aziz Sancar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origins :D

[edit]

Aziz Sancar's Brother Tahir Sancar also gave information about his family: Our hometown is the Savur district of Mardin. Our descent is from the Hasi Branch of the Oghuz Turkic Tribe. Source : https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2015/gundem/aziz-sancarin-agabeyi-sozcuye-konustu-955517/ which living human has the origin part , on this wikipedia site ? Cenk847 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aziz_Sancar&oldid=1199200993"