Talk:Can Yaman

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Can.yaman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Full protection

Due to the ongoing edit war, this page has been protected from editing for a period of four days so that discussion can take place and consensus established for the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

False accusations and claims

This page contains false statements and accusations under the 'controversies' section. These false accusations are extremely harmful and have no legal documentation to support them. The suppprting reference links to these claims are fallacious and do not represent the truth. Please omit this section. SD (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I comment as an uninvolved but experienced editor. I'm not sure about the glass incident, but the rest of the section was no more than unnecessary gossip and trivia, likely undue for the article (WP:UNDUE). Legal documents are primary sources for Wikipedia and should not be used for this (WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPPRIMARY). Not being Turkish, it's difficult for me to evaluate the newspapers, but tabloid ones are best avoided (WP:TABLOID). Other than investigating if the news sources are reliable and mainstream, the reliable sources noticeboard and its archives could potentially be consulted (WP:RSN). Also relevant would be WP:NOTNEWS: is the incident notable enough (i.e. caused enough scandal), will it matter to readers in ten years? —PaleoNeonate – 09:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Can Yaman. I have put all the discussions into one section, semi-protected the article for one month, and warned several users about making legal threats. The dispute is over reports of a court case. The discussion needs to focus on the reliability of the sourcing and whether inclusion is necessary per WP:UNDUE. Other newspapers have covered this, e.g. Hurriyet.[1]. Fences&Windows 14:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

All the news reports cite this original report in Sabah: Karahan, Ömer (29 March 2019). "Can Yaman bardak fırlattı cezayı yedi". Günaydın. Sabah.. Fences&Windows 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Dispute about alleged incident in a BLP. Fences&Windows 14:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This one says the court fined him for insulting/defamation [2] Bogazicili (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

More sources about the incident. CNN Turkey[3] El Mundo[4] Seems to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As Bogazicili has pointed out in his note, the final outcome of the question is that Mr. Yaman was fined for insulting/defamation, basically for insulting her in the heat of the confrontation, since in none of the three times that Ms. Soyder bringed the case any court could found proofs that the glass (actually a paper cup as usually on sets) was thrown at her. Articles as the one from El Mundo El Mundo[5]is an example of why this matter should be taken carefully. Mr.Yaman is starting to be well known in so many places outside of Turkey and most outlets relay on Wikipedia to get an accurate information since Turkish outlets are not easily available outside the country. The article quoted exactly what Wikipedia said back then about the matter. — Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of fame. When the subject gained that, they tend to lose many of the normal privacy rights that are afforded private citizens. Personally, I think the sourcing on this is weak at best. None of these really give any details that the others don't. All we get from them is what is written in the article. I mean, we can't even summarize it, because it's already summarized so short it's impossible to shorten it anymore. Of course, something may be lost in translation, which is why it would be helpful for someone who can read Turkish to evaluate these sources.

But first you need to decide what it is you want to accomplish. Do you want to remove this information from the article entirely? Or do you want to expand it to include all these details you just stated?

Keep in mind, that you could find more sources that give better details, but by doing that you are giving this information more weight, meaning it will stand out more against his other achievements, making it more prominent in the article, and that can be even worse that just leaving it alone in many cases. On the other hand, if you want to remove it entirely from the article, then you have some hurdles to overcome.

Regardless of the other sources' reliability, the CNN source is very likely a reliable source. As far as I can tell, this is not a criminal case, so I doubt WP:BLPCRIME applies. (Of course, I'm going by US law, as I don't know Turkish law.) So what that leaves is the issue of weight. Are we giving too much weight to this compared to the size of the article? To determine that, we need to compare the info in these sources with all the others sources on this guy. By that, I mean, imagine if you took all of the sources and stacked them onto a scale, and put the sources for this info on the other side. How much weight would this info have in comparison? Then we need to give it the appropriate amount of space in the article, in the right proportions. This is a very short article, and, because the sourcing on this is so light, it may not even deserve a single sentence. Does that make sense?

Either way, we really need someone who can read Turkish and evaluate all of these sources. I guessing you speak Turkish? Correct? Perhaps you can help. Maybe someone else will come along who can check these sources and help make that determination. The problem I'm having, and likely many others here as well, is that we can't read Turkish, so we need some good input about why 1.) these sources are not reliable, or 2.) why we are giving too much weight to this in the article. Can you help with that? Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the sources said courts fined him for insulting ("hakaret suçu"). Not actually sure if that'd meet the English or legal definition of defamation. Bogazicili (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

See, in the US, people don't get fined for insulting others, so that's weird to me. But "insulting" in English refers to verbal insults, which fall under freedom of speech. People who are strong and believe in themselves are nearly impossible to insult, not matter what anyone says about them. Throwing a glass at someone, on the other hand, well, that would be assault under US law, which would be a felony, and as such would fall under WP:BLPCRIME. But I don't know if either or both of these things are considered criminal acts in Turkey, and that makes a difference in how we deal with them under policy. I'm assuming simply because the penalty was a fine and not jail time, that this was considered a civil matter under Turkish law, not a criminal one, in which case BLPCRIME does not apply.

I do think, at the very least, the fact that his punishment was a fine should be added to help balance it out, because simply saying "guilty" makes it sound bigger than it turned out to be.

But then again, I think the sourcing on this is weak. Was this really a glass? In English a "glass" is a tall, drinking container made from actual glass material. If it was a paper cup, as suggested above, then that's entirely different. Given the short size of this article, and the very limited amount of information available on this incident, I'm more inclined to think we're giving too much weight to this one incident when put into the scope of his entire life and career. Given what I've seen, I'm of the opinion that even one sentence is too much in proportion to the size of the article, under WP:WEIGHT. To fix that, I really see two options, which is either remove the sentence, or expand the rest of the article to a much, much larger size. But then again, weight is determined by weighing the sources. Not just the sources in the article, but all sources out there about the subject, and then putting the info in its proper percentage. With celebrities in specific, that's our yardstick for deciding what is important and what is trivial fluff, and properly weighing the sources really requires someone who can fluently speak the language of them. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The source does not say anything about court reaching a verdict about anything being thrown. If you are so confused about this, it clearly shows the current wording is wrong. Throwing a glass was an allegation. Neither source says anything about the court agreeing with that.Bogazicili (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Religion of can ya man? 203.171.100.81 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Social media blogs

about canyaman 102.90.66.242 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)