Talk:Mesut Özil

On the ethnicity of Mesut Ozil

 In progress

Analysis of the references claiming the Kurdish ethnicity

• The first reference in this Wikipedia article (link) is a blog entry in About.com by an author named Stewart Coggin (personal archived page). The entry had been alive till January 17, 2016, and was archived by the Internet Archive. The entry is not available at the time of writing via Google Search (see) or via the same author's collection of entries in the same rebranded website (now liveabout) (link). The entry contains the following sentence without any reference: "Ozil, a third-generation member of the Kurdish community in Germany,". Neither this remark nor any other remarks of this entry contain a verifiable reference or citation of any sort. I will e-mail him to kindly request any references available to his claim, and will share his feedback here if he replies.
• The second reference in this Wikipedia article (link) does not even contain a single word of "Kurdish" or "Mesut Ozil" - but the reason for this is that I think someone put a different link. Yet I didn't give up and found the original link of this claim (link). The news is from a Turkish website, and the news is based on a news agency named Peyamner News Agency (website). The original content from the news agency is not available online. The news had stated that Kurdistan Football Association has invited Ozil to Iraqi Kurdistan based on Ozil's remarks on his Diyarbakir-roots and Kurdishness. However, there is no single statement that Ozil has made that his ancestors are either from Diyarbakir (in contrast, the statements of his indicates that his ancestors are from Devrek (link)) or his ancestors are Kurdish.
• I will track how the main source of these claims had emerged - and will complete my investigation. So far, I have found out that various websites/outlets had put forward these claims based on an alleged ZDF interview on around 2010. My first impression is that that all these hypes began with a fake news, which needs a fact-checking. I am more than happy to be proven incorrect with supporting evidence. Will do the update in the near future.

 In progress

Analysis of the references claiming the Turkish ethnicity

• In his own words, Ozil has directly communicated the following statements on 22 Jul 2018 without any involvement of any third-party outlet in his Twitter account clarifying his ethnic background along the way during his controversial retirement (I / III II/III, III/III, Deutsche Welle-1, Deutsche Welle-2):

"They didn't criticize my performances, they didn't criticize the team's performances, they just criticized my Turkish ancestry and respect for my upbringing. This crosses a personal line that should never be crossed, as newspapers try to turn the nation of Germany against me."

"Does my Turkish heritage make me a more worthy target?

"Whilst I grew up in Germany, my family background has its roots firmly based in Turkey. I have two hearts, one German and one Turkish."

2 August 2024 changes

I have reverted the changes sourced to https://www.dw.com/en/mesut-ozil-turkey-gray-wolves-germany/a-66372121 because they are WP:UNDUE.

The DW article is about the Grey Wolves organisation and only mentions Özil once. Readers of the Özil article who want to know more about the Grey Wolves, intricacies of the symbolism and Turkic mythology can click on the "Grey Wolves" link. The DW article could be a good addition to our Grey Wolves article.

Also, this may seem pedantic but "In recent years the animal and three crescent moons have been adoped as symbols of […] Grey Wolves" is not supported by the source. The article does state "The moon crescents trace their meaning back to the war flag of the Ottomans, which depicted three arranged in a triangle. Today, they form the party logo of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which has been the main ally of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for years." and mentions the mythological roots of the grey wolf symbol so it does indicate historical roots of the symbolism. But there is nothing in the article that suggests anything happened recently. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The concept of WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE involves giving priority to viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. DW falls under the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list; while sources such Tagesspiegel, ZDF, Deutschlandfunk, Tagesschau do not nor has there ever been a discussion or consensus as to whether these are reliable sources. So per DUE, the only source that should stay is DW. The article goes into detail about Ozil, his tattoo and all of its symbolism, as well as how it relates to the Grey Wolves organization. It is far by the most comprehensive and neutral source present for this issue in the article. Sure the link to the Grey Wolves organization can be included for readers wishing to know more but that does not mean all other context should be removed from this article. Doing so is a violation of neutrality. Moreover, the fact an unsubstantiated allegation, lacking conclusive evidence of an affliation, is even included in this article could be argued as being UNDUE negative weight. But if it is to be included, then reliable sources providing context should be kept. The statement about symbols being adopted recently is not OR. If a source says that symbols predates the establishment of Turkey as a state and are now symbols of an organization that was established in the late 20th century and gained prominance in the 21st then obviously it is a recent adoption, relative to the age of the symbols. Instantwatym (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

while sources such Tagesspiegel, ZDF, Deutschlandfunk, Tagesschau do not nor has there ever been a discussion or consensus as to whether these are reliable sources. So per DUE, the only source that should stay is DW. That's not how we use Reliable sources/Perennial sources. WP:RSPMISSING states:

• "If your source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable, or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion." and "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present."
• "If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":"

To my knowledge, "we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable" applies to all of Tagesspiegel, ZDF, Deutschlandfunk and Tagesschau. You are welcome to initiate discussions of these sources at the notice board. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent removals

Hi folks. Isjadd773 has twice removed content about social media posts by Özil regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The content was reinstated by FPSalman In Isjadd773's revert they wrote You add a sources claiming the player called for the eradication of Israel because he posted a historical map of Palestine.

This refers to one of the sentences Isjadd773 removed: "Özil shared numerous Instagram story templates, including one on 31 May 2024 showing a map on which the word "Israel" has been crossed out and replaced with "Palestine" in handwriting. This was interpreted as a wish for a dissolution of the state of Israel.". This sentence is not only supported by the n-tv article which was used as an inline citation. This interpretation was also widely covered by major German news outlets. Here are some examples:

• Der Spiegel: "Damit spricht sich der Weltmeister von 2014 offen gegen das Existenzrecht Israels aus, das in Deutschland als Staatsräson gilt." - translation: "In doing so, the 2014 world champion is openly speaking out against Israel's right to exist, which is considered a national interest in Germany."
• Stern: "Als wäre es völlig normal, dem Staat Israel quasi das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, folgen im Anschluss ein Bild mit Freunden und ein Video aus dem Fitnessstudio." - translation: "As if it were completely normal to deny the state of Israel its right to exist, this is followed by a picture with friends and a video from the gym."
• Tagesspiegel: "Der ehemaligen Fußball-Nationalspielers Mesut Özil hat in einem Instagram-Post erneut die Auslöschung Israels gefordert." - translation: "Former international footballer Mesut Özil has once again called for Israel to be wiped out in an Instagram post."

Questions for @Isjadd773:

• Why do you consider n-tv unreliable?
• Before removing the content, did you check whether other sources apart from n-tv reported on this? If so, what did you find?

@FPSalman: and others, please also weigh in.

Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you @Robby.is.on: for starting this discussion and reverting the article! I totally share your opinion that the sources in the article are strong enough to clarify Özil‘s real attitude towards Israel and its existence. There cannot be different opinions on his Instagram posts. It is crystal clear that he strongly refuses the existence of a Jewish state and he has furthermore not mentioned the October 7th attacks on Israeli people, which obviously had genocidal intentions, a single time. Özil developed into a far-right extremist over the last couple of years which his actions and public statements clearly emphasise.

@Isjadd773:: I really don‘t understand your problem with mentioning all of those aspects in the article. I don’t want to insinuate anything, but it seems that you are trying to downplay what Hamas is doing the entire time and blame Israel for every of their actions. As long as Israel is not officially sentenced for committing a genocide by the international court of justice, there is officially NO genocide! So stop saying that! The “sources“ that you tried to mention are again: Ridiculous! Facts and real (!) sources don‘t care about your feelings and what some pseudointellectual institutions try to tell us!

One more thing: If you seriously try to downplay what Hamas is doing, accuse Israel for being genocidal and refuse the world’s only Jewish nation‘s right to exist then it should be considered to ban you from Wikipedia for a lifetime!--FPSalman (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not an article on the Israel-Hamas conflict but since you made some asserations, Ill respond accordingly. A state or regime not officially being sentenced for war crimes or comitting a genoicide (despite ongoing proceeding at the ICC) does not necessarily absolve them. If you are aware, Germany was not officially implicated for comitting a genoicide during WWII. It was only after the allies had won. And in any case I did not say that Israel is committing a genocide but rather that other prominent organizations have labelled their actions a genocide. So in light of how serious the issue is, consensus reliable sources should be used for any content relating to it (which is not the case here). The sources used have never been deemed reliable per any prior consensus or discussions on Wikipedia. Hence they dont adhere to WP:RS. As for you last point, no one said anything about that whatsoever. This dispute is over the content and sources about an Instagram post, not a debate about my opinions of sovereignty or the actions of Hamas or the IDF. Isjadd773 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

FPSalman, please "comment on content, not on the contributor" (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). It's besser to avoid speculating about the intentions of other editors. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

For a source to be realiable, there must be prior consensus on it. This is not the case here. You determining that the aforemetioed publications are reliable based on your individual opinion is irrelevant in the matter. The sources included have never been discussed as reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard, nor are the listed under WP:RSP. You had similar issues with the Grey Wolves dispute, so its advisible that you read through WP:RS Morever, sources that are not reliable constitute undueweight when included and should be removed. Please read WP:DUE and WP:NPOV for guidance.

And even ignoring the sources themselves, the content is nonsensical. If an individual posted hisotrical maps of lets say the Roman Empire, would they calling for the eradication of most of continental Europe and a return of the Roman Empire to its prior glory? That could be one interpretation or they could be simply acknowledging history. The sources here assert something that the individual did not. So if you were to even take this issue to the reliable sources noticeboard, you would have strong support based on the context, irrespective of other [non-RS] sources making the same asseration.

To avoid 3RR, I will not revert today but will eventually, along with a admin noticeboard discussions about the issues on this article and within that section. I will notify you of the discussion at that time. Thanks. Isjadd773 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How can somebody write so many sentences without really saying anything? Your argumentation does not follow any logic. According to it, anyone could start posting whatever kind of map online, crossing out whatever sovereign nation and then just say “Hey, it’s just my opinion without a deeper meaning and nothing has nothing to do with nothing, so there is nothing to accuse me of.”--FPSalman (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS is not something negotiable. You added sources that havent been deemed reliable. Consensus reliable sources report facts as opposed to unfounded asserations. Looking at the map itself, it included Israel-Occupied Terrorities, and if you are aware Israels occupation of these terrorities has been deemed illegal as of 2024 by the International Court of Justice. So if this was a debate about asserations, we could even assert that the player is calling for an end to illegal occupation of these terrorities as opposed to eradication. But at end of the day, the player did not say anything so theres no need for nuance. The point is the content is not reported by reliable sources, its based on unfounded asserations of the authors, and does adhere to WP:RS, WP:DUE or WP:NPOV. Removal is justified. Isjadd773 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

For a source to be realiable, there must be prior consensus on it. As I explained in the section above this one, that is an unfounded assertion. I won't repeat everything but I'll add that RSPMISSING also mentions examples of sources which are not listed at WP:RSP but are definitely reliable: "This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature, The Lancet and Science."

If an individual posted hisotrical maps of lets say the Roman Empire, would they calling for the eradication of most of continental Europe and a return of the Roman Empire to its prior glory? It's not just historical maps. Özil posted maps with Israel explicitly crossed out. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources have not been deemed or assessed as reliable. Hence its disputed whether they adhere WP:RS. The precedent of removing contentious and poorly sourced content is outlined under WP:GRAPEVINE section of WP:BLP. Pushing viewpoints reported by sources that have not been deemed reliable further violates WP:DUE by giving undue weight contentious content. A source not being assessed as reliable per a prior consensus does not deem it reliable per RSPMISSING. Reliability still needs to be established for contentious or disputed sources on biographies of living persons.

If we assess the reliability of the sources based on the content included per things such as context matters. All authors falsely claim that Ozil posted a map of Israel. This is unequivocally false with no room for dispute. The map is of Israel AND Palestine AND Illegaly Occupied Israeli Territories as determined by the ICJ. Off that alone we can determine that any and every source claiming this was a map of Israel alone is not reliable, without further discussion. The additional assumption of eradication of Israel based on map which also included illegally occupied territories looks even more ridiculous in this context. Isjadd773 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources have not been deemed or assessed as reliable. Hence its disputed whether they adhere WP:RS. These are major German news outlets known for factual reporting. Please take it to RS:N if you doubt these sources.

Your personal opinions on the reporting don't come into the matter. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Isjadd773: The user Robby.is.on has already explained the reliability of every single source. They are reliable in German and in English. Like it or not! Undo the article once again and you will be reported! Free Israel!--FPSalman (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to report and include me in the discussion and reference this talk page discussion as well when you do so. You can make a case on the BLP noticeboard and/or the ANI noticeboard. Isjadd773 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. The onus and burden falls on editors introducing new contentious material in a BLP article to prove that a source of the content reliable. Your personal opinion that sources are reliable because they are "major German news outlets" does not necessarily make them so (e.g., DailyMail in the UK and RT in Russia are major news outlets and there is consensus that both are unrealiable sources). Start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about the aforementioned sources and if consensus deems them reliable then you can include them in the article. Until then, contentious material will still be omitted per WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLP, WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:RS. Isjadd773 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the removed content with improved sourcing.

The sources cited "directly support[] the material" as WP:BURDEN demands. The sources are "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "reputable newspapers" as WP:SOURCES demands. Isjadd773, you haven't given evidence that would contradict that except that you disagree with their reporting on this issue. But you cannot simply categorise all the German major news outlets reporting on this issue as "unreliable" because you disagree with their reporting on this issue.

Start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about the aforementioned sources and if consensus deems them reliable then you can include them in the article. RSPMISSING states:

• "If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives" and
• "If you do not find what you're looking for, please start a discussion about it there. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with."

I'm not concerned about the sources. Anyone who is needs to visit RS:N. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)