Talk:Istanbul pogrom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Number of Greeks Remaining

This article seems to contradict that on Greeks in Turkey (which references it). That page gives the number of Greeks remaining in Istanbul as 3,000 and the total number in Turkey as 20,000. This page gives the total number in Turkey as 5,000. Which is correct?

I have no idea... There are many different sources on the net about this... as far as i know, the number of the Greeks in Istanbul is between 2,500-5,000 now. the figure of 20,000 probably includes the Greeks on Imbros and Tenedos (but they are too few now...), so, maybe some Antiochian Greeks are also included... Hectorian 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It excludes Muslim Greeks(mainly living around Trabzon) estimated about 200,000.

The number of people in Turkey around 1984 having Greek as their mother tongue was listed as 48,000 by this source: Heinz Kloss & Grant McConnel, Linguistic composition of the nations of the world, vol,5, Europe and USSR, Québec, Presses de l'Université Laval, 1984, ISBN 2-7637-7044-4.  --Lambiam 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exchange rates

So how much was 69.5 million lira in 1955 in USD, GBP, or some other well-known reference currency? The Turkish central bank's historical exchange rates series only goes back to 1996. cab 10:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Constantinople! ISTANBUL

I`ll erase all marks mentioning that the former name of Istanbul is Constatinople since it is not related. This article is not about Istanbul. Only the setting is in Istanbul. Thelorien 18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. See also: Istanbul (Not Constantinople). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Constantinople was used in the article when referring to the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the early 1920s, i.e. before the name was officially changed. That is perfectly legitimate in my mind. To claim, for example, that "Istanbul was the capital of the Byzantine Empire" would be an anachronism.--Damac 11:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Greeks would oppose strongly if Turkish Wikipedians want to use "Selanik" rather than "Thessaloniki" in the "Ottoman Empire related" part of the article of the city. Therefore, I'm erasing this Constantinople thing. By the way, I prepared an infobox but I don't know if people feel good about it. -- Deliogul (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Greeks may be offended, but that's not the point. The fact is that the reference to Constantinople referred specifically to the capital of the Byzantine empire. It would be anachronistic to refer to Istanbul as the capital of the Byzantine Empire. True, Selanik was the name of Thessaloniki, but before it was Selanik, it was Thessaloniki. The same cannot be said for Istanbul.---- Damac (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get the difference between the cases of Selanik and Istanbul. I mean, before Istanbul was named as Constantinople, it was Byzantium. Then let's write Byzantium instead of Istanbul?! Deliogul (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Istanbul name is applied because of Sakarya War, before ottoman archives were mostly using "Konstantiniye" as the name of city not Istanbul, which has a funny meaning in greek(to the city)

Lol, the whole name thing makes me laugh and cringe. When are Greeks going to realize anyhow that Istanbul means Eis Thn Polhn ?????Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources for expansion

Someone might want to cite this first-hand Turkish account from Milliyet:

--Adoniscik(t, c) 09:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Effect Of Democratic Party

New State

New-born Turkish state needed capital that is for foundation a new state which is modern and democratic. So first thing to do for development is create new industry. Starting of the creation of industry, government followed a way in that capital is controlled by state. After Great Depression and WW II, government thought to adjust states economy policy with liberalism, and between 1946-1950 elimination of state control started to collection of money on capitalists. These capitalists are Greeks, Armenians and Jews.

But the new state is described nation state that people are Turks and Greek, Armenian etc. people is described minority in Lausanne. For this description, government wanted to collect the money on new-born Turkish capitalists. Wealth taxes or giving business on Turkish people not enough for change.

The Power For Changing

Democratic Party won the election in 1950 with 52.68% vote percentage and took 408 chairs of 487 chairs in the Turkish National Assembly. The in 1954 DP won again and rose percentage to 57.61% and took 502 chairs of 541 chairs in TNA. This majority for both of these elections enough for changes that is wanted by DP to govern people in way which is useful for governors.

1950 ELECTIONS

Party President Votes Percentage (%) Chairs
Democratic Party Celâl Bayar 4,241,393 52.68 408
Republican People's Party İsmet İnönü 3,176,561 39.45 69
Free 383,282 4.76 9
Nation's Party Yusuf Hikmet Bayur 250,414 3.11 1
Total 8,051,650 100.00 487

1954 ELECTIONS

Party President Votes Percentage (%) Chairs
Democratic Party Adnan Menderes 5,151,550 57.61 502
Republican People's Party İsmet İnönü 3,161,696 35.36 31
Republican Nation's Party Osman Bölükbaşı 434,085 4.85 5
Free 137,318 1.54 3
Turkey Villager's Party Tahsin Demiray 57,011 0.64 0
Total 8,941,660 100.00 541


Political vision of DP was liberalism, so they started to change the state's way state control to liberalism. And it was wanted to change the capital from minority to Turks. They started to follow a way that is provoking people against minority and it happened easily with critical circumstances in Cyprus and Thrace. DP provoke people with Cyprus crisis and the Turks in Thrace's problems. Then DP supported to open offices in all over Turkey which names are Cyprus is Turkish state. These offices' occupation was provoking people against minority. It collected many people (in Sivas 145 people, in Trabzon 117 people, in Kastamonu 116 people, in Erzincan 111 people) and carried these people to Istanbul in 5th of September, the night before events. --Mesutjee (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews

Why does this article claim that Jews were targeted? Can anybody cite a reliable source that makes this claim? The article certainly does not give much details about this aspect of the pogrom -- from the information given in the article it seems that the effect on Jews was mostly collateral, similar to what was felt by Muslims. At any rate, including this article in Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims is far-fetched.--84.108.213.97 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could this article be any more POV?

I'm neither Turkish nor Greek (I'm Australian of Anglo-Irish descent) so I have no bias I'm aware of.

This article seems to paints a very one-sided picture of Greek-Turkish relations, and there are no discussion or links to any of the background causes of Greek-Turkish hostility. While this appears to have been a very ugly incident, it portrays the Greeks as absolute victims, and the only identified cause is "the desire for Turkification". From my own general knowledge there s a catalog of mutual hostilities and the Greek occupation of Izmir surely didn't help things. Much work to improve this article is needed to make it NPOV. Manning (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea about what happened during 6-7 September 1955. Greeks and other minorities who was living in Istanbul has nothing to do with the occupation of izmir which happened maybe 40 years before the event or another event. Greeks are the real native people of Istanbul. They have been living there for almost three thousand years. The pogrom is organized by Turkish government which is stated by many Turkish academicians, journalists and it is confessed by the intelligence agency of Turkey (MIT). The attack was directly against unarmed civillians. There can be no excuse for such an event. Telling that this page biased is almost equal to denial of the Jewish holocaust. It is today well known by the Turkish Academicians that the events like Istanbul Pogrom, Varlik Vergisi etc. was a part of the turkification process and seizing the assets of non-Muslim minority. Do not mix different events in your mind and justify a crime against humanity.Ali55te (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your inflamed rhetoric and nationalist viewpoint only proves my point about how unbalanced this article is. There is of course NO justification for such an inhumane event, I would never suggest there was. I am challenging the lack of balance behind the proper identification of the root causes. Greeks are guilty of hideous atrocities in Turkey - notably the massacre of unarmed civilians in Izmir. To suggest that there cannot be a link between such an attack on unarmed Greek civilians and the earlier atrocities against unarmed Turkish civilians perpetrated by Greece is utterly facetious. Equating this to the Jewish holocaust is also complete childish nonsense - the Jews never massacred unarmed Germans. Manning (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have lived in Turkey for a long time. I have only seen a very small racist extremist minorty group in Turkey who suggests that the events happened during 6-7 September 1955 was a provocation of the Greeks and some bla bla like you said. I suppose you have some bussiness ties with Turkey because I can not imagine another way of linking events happened around world war I to the istanbul pogrom. Do you know what happened in Izmir that time ? When the Turkish army occupied the city the towns where the Armenians and Greeks were living started to burn and the entire greek civilization was destroyed. Greeks were living in Izmır thousands yere before Turks comed to Anatolia. Today you can not see even a single trace of Greek civilization in İzmir. How does it happened ? Some aliens teleported the greek civilization from there ? It is enough to talk about events happened 40 years before Istanbul Pogrom.
Why do you think %95 of the turkish newspapers publish photos of Istanbul Pogrom events with the title of "Day of Shame for Turkey" which is "Türkiye için utanç gecesi" or "Türkiye için utanç günü" etc.. You can just google it and see. None of them ever mentions events that happened 40 years ago or trying to find an excuse for the barbarism that happened.
Here are some of the journalist from the biggest newspapers from Turkey. They talk about the real intentions behind the Istanbul Pogrom which is mainly the turkification process of the bussines in Turkey since the minorty greeks and armenians were very good businessman that time.

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2004/06/17/yazar/uras.html http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=246986 http://www10.muhalifgazete.com/20014-Bir-DP-tezgahi-olarak-6-7-Eylul.htm http://www.taraf.com.tr/ayse-hur/makale-6-7-eylulde-devletin-muhtesem-orgutlenmesi.htm http://www.sabah.com.tr/Yasam/2011/09/07/simdi-iade-sirasi-anilarda

I give you this links to show you that even the intellectuals in Turkey never links Istanbul Pogrom to other older events. If you can not understand Turkish you can try to learn it or try some translator. You can find hunderds of documents related to this event in English if you want. Before talking about the POV of an important historical event the first thing you should do is to research that topic exhaustively. I have never seen extremist point of view like you for a long time in wikipedia.Ali55te (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is based purely on general knowledge - there is a long history of enmity between Greeks and Turks, with both sides equally at fault (as far as I can see). I have no business dealings with Turkey or Greece, I am an Australian of Anglo-Saxon descent who has visited both Greece and Turkey, only as a tourist. You, on the other hand, clearly have a nationalist agenda, which makes just about everything you say suspect.
You remain determined to interpret my questioning of the POV status of the background as somehow arguing for the justification of this event. I'm not going to repeat my position on that any further. You've also described my viewpoint as 'extremist' simply because I disagree with you on a small issue within the article in terms of how the background is being treated. On that basis, it is apparent that you are incapable of dealing with this article in a rational manner, so I will no longer engage in discussion with you. PS I assure you, I have been at Wikipedia a LOT longer than you have. Manning (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Forget about the greeks and armenians during the pogrom, what about the Jews ? They share the same faith with greeks and armenians during the pogrom. They were the best businessman. What do they do according to your theory ? I am sure you can find an event they did maybe 2500 years ago ? You can start to read some academic articles about this issue http://projusticia.net/documents/istambul_pogrom1.pdf If you want more information about the attacks against the Jews during the Pogrom I can provide you. Ali55te (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand Manning. I'm neither Turkish nor Greek. As long as I know, unfortunately both Greek and Turkish peoples don't accept, cannot recognize their own systemic bias. Of course, we know there are more neutral persons among Greeks and Turks, but the number of them is very small. This problem caused by education, circumstance of them. You can find similar problem in talk pages such as Talk:Greek genocide, Talk:Turgut Reis. -- Takabeg (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Turks seem to be as rabid in their hatred of Greeks as the Greeks are in their hatred of the Turks. Neither side can ever admit to being also at fault, despite it being fairly apparent to outsiders. Our rabid nationalist editor above is just another sorry example. Manning (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It is exactly this kind of stereotyping that makes a mockery out of many Wikipedian tenets such as AGF and the motto: "The encyclopedia anyone can edit". Takabeg is selling his background as neither Greek nor Turk in order to imply that he is unbiased toward Greeks or Turks. Otherwise his background is completely unknown, undisclosed and unexamined. This is frankly ridiculous and unsupportable by logic. Takabeg is an anonymous user who shrewdly has not revealed one iota of information about his background. But if he makes a business out of examining other editors' backgrounds to determine their bias, why, pray tell, does he not disclose his own background so that other people can stereotype him in a similar manner? If background is that important in determining bias, then Takabeg has a duty to disclose his so that his biases can be assessed as well. He can't have it both ways. Why would I believe his claim that being non-Greek or non-Turk makes him unbiased toward these two ethnicities? He could very well be from a country that is friendly to either Greece or Turkey. Would that make him biased toward one or the other? He could be a conservative or a liberal. A Muslim, a Christian, a fundamentalist, a fascist or an atheist. Depending on which of the above he identifies with, he could oppose the socialists who govern Greece or the Islamists who govern Turkey, hate the Christians, despise democracy etc etc. If he is poor he may hate the capitalists or if he is rich he may be biased toward the poor. Basically being NPOV is a frame of mind not a matter of origin or background. It is not a matter of your origin because there are many other variables which determine POV toward a particular subject. Are you going to start asking people about their religious, political, social beliefs, their social background, rich, poor, middle class, ethnicity, religion, Irish, Irish Catholic, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Greek etc. before you allow them to edit articles? What utter nonsense. How completely unWikipedian. We do not need, or at least should not need, self-appointed NPOV saviours who advertise their lack of ethnic background as a ticket to automatic NPOV status. This is a racist attitude. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would add that whenever I see a user loudly proclaim how neutral they are, that's a red flag. Usually, the opposite is true. Kinda like Fox News claiming to be "fair and balanced", that sort of thing. User who are neutral on a particular topic generally don't feel the need to shout it at the top of their lungs. Athenean (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Especially using ethnic identifiers for assistance. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page of the Takebag, he speaks perfect Turkish with others and he understands all the Turkish references. But the way he approaches the topics is really complicated. For example just several days ago he started a sockpuppet investigation on me on the Armenian Genocide article just because the 100 sentences I wrote, one of them had a similarity to another users argument in another article. After this point I can not think he has a natural mind because you don't start sockpuppet investigation in the end of a scientific discusion. But anyway I apologized Manning before so if anyone has good scientific arguments to show that article is NPOV he can add his arguments with the references the dicussions always lead to hatred Ali55te (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Ali55te, you also use Turkish references and understand Turkish language (for example, [1]). But you are not a Turkish. User:MarshallBagramyan aslo understand Turkish language. But he is not a Turkish. As you know, all users who understand Turkish language are not Turkish users. Of course, the nationality, ethnicity of users is not important. The important is the neutrality of encyclopedia. Unfortunately, your approach is a long way from neutrality. Takabeg (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if you believe what you said: Of course, the nationality, ethnicity of users is not important. and you really agree that editor background doesn't matter, would it be too much to ask to not refer to your background as neither Greek nor Turkish in the future? Or to the ethnicity of other editors and their "systemic bias"? Or is too much to ask? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
When I find systemic bias of users, I point it out. I think that every Greek is not a Greek nationalist. Outside Wikipedia, I know some neutral Greeks. Takabeg (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. You think that all the Greek editors here have systemic bias, whatever that means. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It is a heavy-handed statement bordering on discrimination but I am not going to discuss this further because it is an utter waste of time. But you have not answered my first question: Are you going to keep referring to your background as neither Greek nor Turkish in the future? Do you think that by referring to your background this way earns you NPOV points? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out the massacres orginzed by a state is not nationalism. Raphael Lemkin spent his all lifetime to pass the genocide convention on U.N. He had a Jewish origin and he lost all his family during the holocaust. Is Raphael Lemkin a nationalist ? Ali55te (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can be whatever they want on the Internet. Any anonymous user can declare that they are not Greek and be born and raised Greek. They can declare that they are a man and be a woman and vice versa. That's why we use AGF in Wikipedia. But calling other users biased simply because of their ethnic background is AGF-killing. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise people into discussing improvement and mistakes in an article rather than making personal attacks on other editors. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point to a remark which you think was a personal attack? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
A better idea, let's all follow TheDarkLordSeth's advice and just focus on improving the article. I'll repeat my original opinion that the article suffers from POV, for the reasons I gave above - it seems to inaccurately portray this event as being completely isolated, as opposed to being located within the millieu of wider Greek-Turkish relations over time.
I'll gladly listen to arguments for/against this position that exclusively focus on the content. I am not interested in discussion with anyone who makes assertions about my (or anyone else's) motivation. I also do not believe that raising this question constitutes an attempt to legitimise an unjustifiable incident (in the same sense that discussions of American Foreign policy in connection with 9/11 are not an attempt to somehow justify 9/11). Manning (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. As long as we stop the generalisations as to how rabid one side is to its hatred of the other. Not to mention of course the distasteful disclaimers of ethnicity. I don't think remarks like these do anything to improve the article or anything else. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It might help all concerned to note that this article was started by an Irishman, who is neither Greek, Orthodox, Turkish or Muslim. Most of the article is still based on the original article. And that same Irishman would be greatly amused if anyone could level the charge of nationalism - of whatever variety - at him.--Damac (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
But Damac, the Irish and the Greeks are closely related :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
But seriously now, you can imagine what would have happened if I, or another Greek editor, had created this article, instead of you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Who created the article means nothing. It could be created by a Martian and still be biased. The current condition of the article, however, is important. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. That's how things are supposed to be viewed, ideally. But they don't. In fact even if a Martian edited it, someone would have come up with some Greek interplanetary connection :)Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationality camping on articles is always an issue but I know it to be wrong to discuss it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Consensus appears to be against the move at this time. Alpha Quadrant talk 00:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Istanbul Pogrom → Istanbul riots – Relisted. Right now the case appears there to support the change as the common name for this event. Some of the oppose examples and the data counts include results from wikipedia, despite what the query indicates. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) per WP:COMMONNAME

1955 Istanbul riots, Istanbul riots of 1955 are acceptable.

According to GoogleBooks Ngram Viewer comparison, Istanbul riots is most common.

According to google books,

-- Takabeg (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I want to add this as a opposition point also. The way Takebag organizes the search string filters all the useful results for Istanbul Pogrom. If you just search it like this < "pogrom" and " istanbul" -site:wikipedia.org -"wikipedia" > [2] You get 428 results and almost all the results are relevant to the Istanbul Pogrom. This is a classic propaganda movement of Turkish government. Changing the names of the crimes against humanity in order to make it sound more innocent. If you look at google scholar you can find significant amount of scientific articles which identifies events as Istanbul Pogrom. The event even identified as genocidal by respected academicians like Alfred_de_Zayas http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/865v4835x83m3757/ . The article has been named as Istanbul Pogrom on wikipedia for long years and it appeared on the main page several times and suddenly a user comes up with this very strange idea. Lastly I want to you to look at this short video about the propaganda movement of Turkish government from the mouth of a respected academician in Turkey I think it summerize everything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCebMq-GmH4&t=1m14s Ali55te (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment (neither support nor oppose) - Any statement that opens with a claim that it is "classic propaganda movement of Turkish government" should be struck. Argue the evidence, not your perception of the motivation.Manning (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want me to give examples about that I can give you hunderds. For example this is the funniest one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328285.stm I don't want to scatter the matter. I put my real evidence related to this issue also about google scholar and the Alfred de Zayas Ali55te (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I asked for evidence to support your claim that the original poster is engaging in "Turkish propaganda'. You are unable to support this claim, so you should retract it. But I suspect you won't, because you appear to have an axe to grind. Manning (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you will understand the propaganda after my latest comment about the missleading search strings. I am sorry if I offended you but I can not keep myself calm when obvious thinks happen like this.Ali55te (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - having looked more closely, this event does seem to meet the definition of a 'pogrom'. Arguing from WP:COMMONNAME requires that the referred sources be largely unbiased, and I don't think there is any hope of sorting through everything and making that determination. Hence we must go back to the source material and the relevant English language definitions, which leads us back to 'pogrom' as the appropriate term. While the rabid nationalist rhetoric of the previous oppose statement is irrelevant, there is still no strong argument to change the article name. Manning (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I investigated 6 results for 1955 + "Istanbul Pogrom" -Llc

Takabeg (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hilarious to see you refer to Speros Vryonis as "one of Greek nationalist intellectuals", considering that he is widely acclaimed among international academia and that he has not too infrequently been attacked by Greek nationalists as being simply too soft on the Turks.--Damac (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The way you organize the search string filters all the useful results. If you just search it like this < "pogrom" and " istanbul" -site:wikiepdia.org -"wikipedia" > You get 428 results and all the results are almost relevant to the point. Ali55te (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Example Scientific articles using the term Pogrom: This is just example academic documents including academicians from Turkey who uses the term "pogrom" I don't have time right now to continue but I will continue whenever I have time again.

at the time of the pogrom, urged Menderes to put the blame for the pogrom on the communists)

Ali55te (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ali55te - do NOT disrupt another editor's comment with your own opinion, especially not in bold, as you did in this diff. This is extremely bad form. You are free to disagree, but you must treat other editors with respect. So far you have accused me of being an extremist, and Takabeg of not knowing how to use Google, simply because we disagree with you. Stop it, or I'll take it to the admins for their review. (I am a retired admin in good standing, so I have a pretty good idea of what is acceptable behaviour.) Manning (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A pogrom is a specific form of a violent riot, an attack directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes and properties, businesses, and religious centres. The term usually carries connotation of spontaneous hatred within the majority population against certain (usually ethnic) minorities, which they see as dangerous and harming the interests of the majority. The riots described in the article were orchestrated by the Turkish military's Tactical Mobilization Group, and ipso facto a pogrom not a "riot". The circumstances of the article are described effectively by its title. A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against authority.The title "Istanbul riot" wont do. 23x2 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - A pogrom is a type of riot... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Please don't confuse issue. I didn't research whether this event was pogrom or not. I researched which name is more common in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. I didn't ask what you want.

1955 + Istanbul + riots without pogrom 374 1955 + Istanbul + pogrom without riots 104

Takabeg (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There is a trap/fallacy of the argument while utilizing Google search though. A country & affiliates with a population of 73+ millon will (on average) publish more books in regards to a specific event in its history than anyone else in which its propaganda will be reflected not excluding names/naming. We should be careful not to force Turkish POV as the definite truth/commonname. 23x2 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that it fits the definition of a pogrom. But if it really is more often called as "Istanbul riots" should we not better use the accepted terminology by most of the scholars? Filanca (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Riot" implies clashed between a group of "rioters" and the authorities. Here, the authorities bused the "rioters" in. They were on the same side. An ethnic community was targeted on the basis of its ethnicity. The events of September 1955 were a textbook pogrom. Pogroms don't come with more pogromyness than this one. Athenean (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Riots do not imply clashes between two groups. You can read the Riot and Pogrom Wiki pages. If you did, you'd realize that pogroms are a type of riot. If you're saying that this is not a riot then you're saying that this is not a pogrom. What would you like to call it? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
So then, according to your line of reasoning, we should use "pogrom" because much more specific, i.e. it is more informative than riot, which is very general. Or maybe we could just call it the "Istanbul Picnic". Athenean (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, please leave your personal feelings out of this. Second, the title is not made to be informative but made to reflect the most common use of the word or phrase associated with the article. The article is supposed to be informative, not the title. As I said, and as the wiki pages say, a pogrom is a riot. You said that the events of 1955 is not a riot. If it's not a riot then it's not a pogrom. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Since according to you the title is not supposed to be informative, that's why I proposed "Istanbul Picnic". Athenean (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I checked the riot page and there is one place where pogrom is mentioned and there is no reference which justifies that sentence. Can you give as some scientific arguments about why pogroms is a subgroup of riots and why the events happened around Europe in 1800s against Jews called as Pogrom which you can find a lot of in wikipedia. After that can you tell us with scientific arguments that the events happened in Istanbul can not be called as Pogrom ? Ali55te (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If you check the page for Pogrom which I told above you'd see the connection. If we actually use the dictionary definition then we'd see that a pogrom is strictly an act against Jews(1, 2). However, some words are used outside of their precise meaning and Wiki takes them into account. Hence, you read the page for Pogrom and learn that it's a type of a riot. So if you're gonna argue that scientific use of the word pogrom then it's kinda hard for you to argue for the use of in this article. Moving on, you can retract your implied statement that I claimed that the evens of 1955 cannot be called a pogrom. TheDarkLordSeth (talk)
  • Support - While I have no problem calling it a pogrom, "Istanbul Pogrom" is not the most common term to refer to event by a large margin. All the searches in Google(normal, scholar and book searches) gives much more results for "Istanbul Riots 1955". The question is: do we need to have a title in Wiki that is most common English name or do we need to have a title the way we want? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment As I mentioned earlier for example a very respected historian Alfred_de_Zayas calls this event as Istanbul Pogrom and he states that the nature of the event has many similarities with the U.N. genocide convention in his article http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/865v4835x83m3757/ Can you give us some examples from respected historians which states that this event is riot and cannot be called as pogrom ? Ali55te (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The related findings are already posted by Takabeg above. I don't really feel the need to name each single one of them. Wikipedia tells us to take the quantity(commonness) rather than quality when deciding on a name. Moreover, may I ask what's the purpose of mentioning Zayas's claim of the nature of the events being similar to the UN genocide convention other than pushing your POV? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the second paragraph of the title changing policy of wikipedia
An article title is a convenient label for the article, which distinguishes it from other articles. It need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject. Wikipedia's design makes it impossible for different articles to have the same title; the URL for each article as a webpage is generated from the title. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles: the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable.
So when I look at the five principles I can not see a principle which states that the most common name in google books will be the title of the article ? It needs to resembel titles for smilar articles which when I read another pogrom the events resembles what happened in Istanbul Pogrom and many others also mentioned this. I am including the example from Alfred de Zayas to show that the event in nature can be identified as Pogrom. Since you asked me I want to ask to you why you are suggesting a stable title for a long years to be changed ? Ali55te (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
If you bother to read the lower section of your help page you'd realize that Wiki suggests people to use the most common name. Looking at the five principles it's clear to see that "Istanbul Riots" fit them perfectly while "Istanbul Pogroms" fails at recognizability as the "Istanbul Riots" is used more than the other. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I can not see any specific rule which states that most common name will definitely used as a title for the article and recognizabilty is just 1 out of the 5 rules. But it is continously mentioned that it should reflect other encylopedias.
For example lets search this two strings in google,
encyclopedia "istanbul riots" -site:wikipedia.org -"wikipedia" ->118 results (riots might be seen strange here but you get even less results with the word riot)
encyclopedia "istanbul pogrom" -site:wikipedia.org -"wikipedia" ->1290 results
This means there is a big tendency in encylopedias as calling this event Istanbul Pogrom. Ali55te (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This is already explained to you. Check the initial post by Takabeg and you'll see the proper search parameters. Please do not base your arguments on search parameters that add non-related results to the issue just because it's convenient for your arguments. It's misleading for people who don't know much about this issue. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity TheDarkLordSeth, considering your thoughts about Kemal Mustafa, could you be a little bit biased? What do you think? Thanks23x2 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would label that as stalking. Please do not refer to the users but the article itself. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per well explained definition of Pogrom.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: These "events" have all the characterisations of a pogrom. For years, these events were ignored in Turkish and Greek historiography, each for different reasons, and the euphemistic term "September events" was used to describe them in those languages. However, recent sober academic accounts invariably use the term "pogrom" to describe them, in Turkey, in Greece and elsewhere. Wikipedia, as a scholarly effort, should really give more weight to how modern-day experts - people who have researched and documented the pogrom in such great detail - refer to it. Takabeg's campaigns to "use the most common name in English" is getting tedious. What next? To have Tinea cruris renamed to what it's most commonly known as in English? (Answer: Jock itch).--Damac (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The article itself talks of Turkish government paying a great sum of money in compensation. How is it exactly ignored? Takabeg's argument shows clear results of how the phrase "Istanbul riots" is used a lot more than what we have now. So the term riots, which is what a pogrom is, is used much more commonly. This is not a tactic to make it sound less negative, as a pogrom is a type of a riot, but to use the most common English name. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
So, your argument now is that the authorities had nothing to do with it (?). A pogrom is a specific type of a riot. Not all riots are pogroms. Just like an orange is a Citrus fruit, but not all citrus fruits are oranges. I suggest you read a bit more on what pogroms are. 23x2 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
A pogrom does not mean that government is involved as well. How can you suggest that we're trying to make it sound like government was not involved by using a word that doesn't necessarily mean that government is involved in exchange of an other word that doesn't necessarily mean that government is involved? I aready provided the Wiki links for riot and pogrom. You'd do good to take a look at it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te)

We must remove edits of User:Ali55te. If we permit his/her edits, he/she may give up. Because he/she will know all of his/her efforts will become wasted. If we don't permit his/her edits he/she mill come back here. Takabeg (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Athenean claimed that The edits are valid even though the user may be a sock - I am re-instating them as my own. But two of third of these sources are written in Turkish language. It's difficult to be accepted as User:Athenean's own. Takabeg (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


I disagree. I think the edits are valid, regardless of whether the user is a sock. Besides, CU showed the account was unrelated to that of Xebulon. I have asked the blocking admin why he blocked the account, but he hasn't responded yet. Anyway, Alfred de Zayas is a reliable source. I have re-instated the additions, thus you should treat them as if they were my own. And I know some Turkish, too (though not much). Athenean (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the sentence with Alfred de Zayas's source is acceptable. But we have to write it with our own wording. About Turkish sources, we have to pay attention to the fact that User:Ali55te twisted sources for his/her own original explanation. Above all, we must not make forhabitual offenders like him/her to get a taste of sockpuppecy. Takabeg (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I will work on re-wording Alfred de Zayas. I am certainly not proposing to re-instate everything Ali55te added. But what is reliably sourced and relevant to the article shouldn't be automatically removed just because the account may be a sock. Material should be carefully scrutinized, and if it passes the test, be kept. Athenean (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dilek Güven clearly the states in the previous reference that was removed by Ali55te patroned by Athenean explicitly said that the DP paid 60 million in compensation. Now, Athenean is pushing for an edit by Ali55te claiming that they only paid 6.5 million referencing to a published work by the same person but one that we can't actually check. This is an obvious alteration of the article. Takabeg can you please revert at least this part of Ali55te's edit? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. I think that Takabeg is right that edits of the socks should not be permited, but only after getting the confirmation that user is sock of another user who also participated in editing of this article. If I am not wrong, there is no such confirmation in this case and Ali55te is proven to be "almost certainly Red X Unrelated". Without confirmation that Ali55te is sock puppet of user who already edited this article I think that editing of Ali55te can not be reverted only because suspicion that he/she might be a sock-puppet.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. I agree. But there is also a more general principle at work here. Normally, at least from my experience with sockpuppetry, socks try to push fringe and POV edits most of the time. That's why they become socks in the first place; because they want to push some POV or other. But if an edit they made provides good information, then suppressing it doesn't make any sense. Because noone can suppress valid information on dogma alone. We must be pragmatic and not dogmatic when it comes to valid information which can enrich Wikipedia. Hiding and banning information based on who found it first is not sustainable. Information is not dependent on who researched or found it first. It is only dependent on validity and verifiability. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you in case of "valid information which can enrich Wikipedia".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Antidiskriminator. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
And Antiskriminator, you were right: User:Ali55te was not a sock. See this link to his block log: 08:46, 2 October 2011 AGK (talk | contribs) unblocked "Ali55te (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Blocked the wrong account when reading SPI results). You were the only one to alert us of this possibility. Thank you for assuming good faith for User:Ali55te so early in the game. It was very nice meeting you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you but it was Athenean who noticed mistake with Ali55te's block and informed responsible admin about it. Nice meeting you too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You are too modest Antidiskriminator. While I thank Athenean for pointing this out to the people at SPI, you came here yesterday and gave us a neutral report about Al55te and alerted everyone to the problems of the SPI investigation. You played a big part also. Thank you again for that. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to add a point about the compensetation issue. Here is the fulltext of the book by dilek guven. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38160637/Dilek-Guven-6-7-Eylul-Olaylar%C4%B1 You can open page 44 and read the text(page 44 of the book not the pdf file). Ali55te (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Next time, please read your source carefully. There is nothing in page 44. If you read further you realize that there are different sections of the compensation. You either tried to push your POV or you made a very bad edit. On page 58, Güven talks about the Turkish Assembly allocating 60 million Turkish liras for compensation. On the next page it says that 12.7 million Turkish liras was paid to churches and the rest was distributed among applicants. You went against a source that was being used to back up the 60 million figure from the same writer just because you didn't read an other document or you deliberately twisted this source to push a POV. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The part where the figure you give mentioned is on page 44 of the pdf file, not the document contrary to what you say. That figure is merely one portion of the compensation given. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It is the 54th page of the pdf document and 44th page of the book. I gave the reference with respect to the book so that anyone who has the book can see it. If you follow the page there are also other figures which show the huge uncompansated damage of the churches, schools etc.. if you have time you can add them. Ali55te (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
And if you read page 49 of the document you realize that that's not the case. Please be more careful next time. I edited the relevant section to accurately portray the reference. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You are still not writing the uncompansated amount. It says the amount of compansation reuqested for the churches was 39 million but 12.7 million paid. The figures on page 44 is also needs to be explaiend diferently. I will add the figures soon Ali55te (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I added the 150 million figure by the German embassy mentioned in the document. I need other sources for other claims. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If you're gonna add what's not compensated in detail then you need to add what's compensated in detail as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You wrote to the article that 12.7 million is compensated for the churches but in the book that sentence says that 12.7 million compansated for 39 million request. You already wrote the detail and now you are avoiding to write the whole sentence. Ali55te (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I added the 39 million figure as well. I was not avoiding to write the whole sentence. I simply found it unnecessary to mention the 39 million figure. You're simply trying to make it look worse than what it is. You made that clear by trying to alter the article. I hope now you know how to examine a document. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The uncompensated amount is 2 times more than the compensated amount and you say that it is unimportant ? Apart from that the figures mentioned I mentioned in page 44 is different from the church compansation and the 60 million. Before the page where this 12.7 million and 60 million is mentioned there is a sentence which says that 60 million budged for compensation is no where close to compansate the total damage. Ali55te (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. The claimed damages is 2 times more than the compensated amount. It doesn't make the real damage 2 times more. You're simply trying to make it look worse. Your previous edit was clear on claiming that the whole compensation amount was 6.7 million Turkish liras. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually 12,7 million was initially approved for compenations to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but finally only 4,6 mil. were approved. All this happened 2 years after the Pogrom.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be civil to avoid instant reverts by removing sourced content and using wrong edit summaries, [[3]] (there is no talkpage explanation for this).Alexikoua (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I need you to provide a real source on Turkish estimations rather than a source from a Greek writer that only Greeks can read. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry? can you please explain how this activity this kind of activity? In general academic sources, even written in Greek should be respected. If you don't understand Greek this is not a reason to blindly remove it from here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You can provide it as a claim from a Greek author and when you can come up with other sources, Turkish included, you can have it as a fact on the article. At the moment, it's simply a claim by a Greek author and should be labeled as such. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Partisan Language

The "Reactions" sections seems to contain non-encyclopedic phrases to describe certain things such as "NSS exfiltrated him" or "NSS cooked a report". Anyone who knows the proper terms in the place of exfiltrate and cook up please take the time to read this section and fix it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Deaths?

No one died!(Write the names who were killed then!) Böri (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"An outstanding feature of the Istanbul riot: no one was killed" (Richard D. Robinson, The First Turkish Republic: a case study in national development, Harvard University Press, 1965, p. 157.)

Accroding to Dilek Güven, 10-12 deaths, 60 rape incidents were recorded. But the number of rape incident is estimated about 400. Takabeg (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

He's not talking about rape cases, but deaths. It's unlikely that there were no deaths. You could however add it as a view of Richard D. Robinson. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
He ? As long as I know, Dilek Güven is female. Takabeg (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
He, as in Böri. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Maddede "estimates vary from 13 to 30 or more" yazıyor, bütün Wikipedia okuyucuları böyle görüyor. Hayali Katliamlar yaratmayın! Böri (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ölen olsaydı her yıl isimleri anılırdı.(Bütün Türkiye o isimleri ezbere bilmiş olurdu.) Ölen falan yok! Atıp tutuyorsunuz. Atıp tutmak budur! En fazla 1-2 kişiyi kandırabilirsiniz. Böri (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You personal attacker, must read Wikipedia:Assume good faith again and again. Takabeg (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits by Alexikoua

The most recents edits by Alexikoua seems to discard information from multiple sources giving similar numbers in favor of a Greek source with a higher number. I reverted his edits to avoid a push of POV. The edit seems to contradict in itself as well while introducing non-encyclopedia language. The number 30 is merely an estimation of one Greek author. Please provide better and more sources before going through such edits. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's a top graded academic, secondary material. I would suggest to discuss the topic before initiating massive removals sourced from academic material. Also can you please explain what's the reason for this revert? [[4]]Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I already did mention it. You're making a huge edit in favor of a single possibly biased source that in a way you can't. First of all, you're ignoring a couple of other sources in favor of a single source. Second, there is no reliable way for us to actually check the source as it's in Greek and nobody's gonna take your word for it. Third, On one section you use the number of deaths as 30 as an exact number to describe confirmed deaths and on an other section you use the same number as an estimation. Your edit contradicts in this sense and introduced a lot of POV language such the part where you stay "pathetic stance" and others. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Im sorry but it's off course not a single possibly biased sourced, but a top graded secondary academic one. The way you instant remove every sources you don't even try to read as biased can be considered as disruptive activity. I propose to insert all estimations of the number of deaths, during these events there were also unrecorded deaths (like Chrysanthos Mandas whose body was never found).

By the way, how you explain this massive revert [[5]]? Even the paragraph of the police activity is back with the -cn- tag, something that reveals a childish revert warring activity, without giving the slightest explanation yet.Alexikoua (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not repeat the same claim when it was addressed already. Also saying that I hate the source doesn't help you either. You provided a source, a single source, to disregard every other. You didn't simply added it as an other estimation of deaths but you added it as the number of deaths. You can add the source without overwriting the other sources and simply mention it yet an other estimation. At least avoid the unnecessary language this time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The source is academic, and appears reliable. There is no reason not to include it. The only argument against it is that it is Greek, and therefore "possibly biased". This means the objecting user doesn't really know whether it is, but assumes that it is biased solely because it's in Greek. That is not a valid approach. If we removed sources solely because some users they were "possibly biased", we couldn't use any sources. And even if a source is biased, we can still include it provided it is done in proper fashion. The criterion for inclusion of sources is reliability, not "neutrality". All sources have some bias (that of the person who wrote them. Regarding the "pathetic", that is just a translation error. In Greek, "παθητικός" means "passive", not "pathetic". It is a common mistake, and easily fixed. Athenean (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
When I read the above I couldn't help to notice what a strange thing happens here[6]DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not lie about what other's argue. You can surely include the source but not in the way Alexikoua did. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This was a translation error indeed, but in general Libitzouni is based on mainstream material, especially Vryonis and Guven.Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yet, it goes contrary what those other mainstream materials say. I'm sure you'll be able to push your own POV though. It's quite apparent from you sentence where you start with "According to estimates of the Turkish economic services and foreign banks" and source a Greek author rather than Turkish economic services and foreign banks which you would need to in a neutral place. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No sources were replaced or removed. Only a cn tag was removed, and that is a good thing. I don't know what you're on about. By the way, mentioning another user's name in a talkpage heading is a violation of talkpage guidelines. It is incivil and a form of personal attack. Don't do it again. Athenean (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Never ever misrepresent a Wiki rule to make a case against an other member. This is the second time you're blatantly lying. Don't do it again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about talkpage rules

unproductive diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:TALKNEW#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Never address other users in a heading". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't say "Never address other users' edits in a heading". Do not twist rules for your convenience. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
[7]: "While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That requires me to attack him. I did not. That's pretty clear. I simply pointed out what's wrong with his edit. Do not twist Wiki rules to your own convenience. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
[8]: "to attack other users by naming them in the heading"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You're still missing the attacking part. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
What part of ""Never address other users in a heading" do you not understand? It is quite simple. Did you or did you not mention Alexikoua in a talkpage heading? The only one who is "twisting wiki rules" is you, with your wikilawyering about "yes but it doesn't say you can't mention another user's edits in a talkpage heading". This is wikilawyering of a high order. I am going to change the heading, and if you continue to edit-war and wikilawyer, I will report you (for edit warring both on the article and on the talkpage) and see to it that you are banned from this article like you were from Armenian Genocide. Clear? I have zero tolerance for this kind of nonsense. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
My past actions should be no concern to you. The Wiki rule is clear. What my title is is clear. It addresses the edits by a specific user the same way the thread above this one does. Trying to twist Wiki rules to your own liking and personally attacking an other member is not allowed in Wiki. If you continue to do it it will be dealt with. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said your behavior is not appropriate. Reporting me would save me the time to report you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? And what would you report me for? Reverting your violation of talkpage guidelines? But please do, that would WP:BOOMERANG. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you are misreading that talkpage guideline. What the rule is trying to say is that a heading should not make it appear as if the poster was trying to initiate a discussion only with a user he criticizes, i.e. he should not say something like == Hey Alexikoua, stop writing nonsense!== ("A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user") The guideline specifically allows headings that are "about" somebody else's edits, so a heading of the style == Recent edits by XYZ == is perfectly acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation. Talkpage guideline is clear and explains that naming other users in talkpage section name is an attack: [9]: "to attack other users by naming them in the heading"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, you may disagree, but you are wrong, and your view is isolated. Project-wide common practice doesn't support your interpretation. These types of headings are used all over the place, and nobody except you has ever objected to them. Discussion over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Continued content discussion

The estimation by Libitsouni (at least 30) is also mentioned by de Zayas [[10]] (fortunately this is in english). Hope there is no problem to have in infobox this estimation too.Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

An estimation given by the patriarchate. You need to point that out. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that in the source, the exact quote is: Speros Vryonis, Jr., e Mechanism of Catastrophe, New York, 2005, Appendix B, “List of 37 dead in the pogrom,” pp. 581 et seq. Thirty victims are identified, three unidentified bodies were dug out of destroyed shops, and three burned bodies were found in a sack in Beikta. Leônidas Koumakês, e Miracle, Athens 1982, speaks of the death of over twenty people, pp. 54-55; Lois Whitman of Helsinki Watch lists fifteen deaths in e Greeks of Turkey, p. 50; Senator Homer Capehart and journalist Noel Barber reported sixteen deaths.Alexikoua (talk)
Check the reference 13 that is used to back up the number of deaths. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
no. 13 says nothing about number of deaths, but about churches, cemetaries, schools.Alexikoua (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
True, I read it wrong but you were still using the number 30 as the least number of deaths discarding other sources. I'm fixing that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I've already fixed that, minimum is 13 in the box.Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Small note about the name of the article: someone should use online translator for this article and will find that almost all other languages use word "POGROM". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.72.50.73 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Most editors opposed the name change of this article, so why was it changed?

Can someone explain what happened here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.197.230 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A small number of editors opposed a name change, but their arguments weren't based on policy/guidelines, the most relevant being WP:COMMONNAME. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A small number agreed, most opposed. I count 6 editors Opposesd and 2 Supported. So what was the point of asking the editors if their judgements are dismissed out hand. The result of the move request reads:
The result of the move request was: Not moved Consensus appears to be against the move at this time. Alpha Quadrant talk 00:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So what went wrong, why was the article title changed anyway? Bizarrely it seems the is another Macedonia debate - most famously, the google search statistic. I mean, after the first 1000 hits google separates the words and searches for them in difference contexts and individually, that is why the 'riots' word is more used - anywhere - on wikipedia than Pogrom. Look at what a little research proves:
  • 1955 Istanbul + Pogrom = 60k Google hits
  • 1955 Istanbul + Riots = 738k Google hits
  • 1955 Istanbul + unhappiness = 818k Google hits
  • 1955 Istanbul + protest + 897k Google hits.
  • 1955 Istanbul + troubles = 4.8 Million Google hits.
  • 1955 Istanbul + disturbance = 5 Million Google hits
Embarrassing.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.197.230 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It makes more sense to search a smaller set of generally more reliable items, such as Google Books, and because we're looking for a name, one must search for the specific phrase for it to be relevant. When you search Google Books for the specific phrase "Istanbul pogrom", you get exactly 17 hits, four of which are books by "Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, John McBrewster" reprinting Wikipedia content (and therefore of no value). "Istanbul riots" is six times as common. The phrases "Istanbul unhappiness", "Istanbul protest", "Istanbul troubles" and "Istanbul disturbance" get zero hits (or zero relevant hits). There's no need to be embarrassed by your flawed searches, though, as many people make the same errors. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
But there is a procedure for renamings and you rode roughshod over it. Yes, a small number of editors opposed your proposal, but an even smaller element - you and you alone - went ahead and made the changes regardless. On what authority, I may ask?--Damac (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't aware of the discussion until after I moved the article. However, when I was informed of it, I did read the discussion after the move, and discovered that the comments there weren't relevant to the move. Wikipedia is not ruled by process. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, you have made a big mistake here and turned this page into a shambles, here is why:
  • You say the phrase 'Istanbul Riots' is 6 times as common as 'Istanbul pogrom' in Google books. Of course it is with an unrefined search as there have been riots in Istanbul for centuries. If you refine the search however to books written in the 21st century, which you didn't, it shows us why this article was correct before you moved it without reading the discussion page. There have been riots in Istanbul non-stop but only a few Pogroms and this is why it is important to use the correct wording and refined search that reflects reality and not agendas. If you use the Google Books search engine properly you will see in two seconds the unbelievable mistake you made. Let me show you - on the left hand side on Google search, (whether it be books or anything else), you can refine you search. Seeing as the Pogroms are still written about, pick 21st Century to see what comes up concerning the last 12 years/. - nice and up to date common usage is what we are looking for correct? - Last 12 years a good reflection of that, no? If you do this you will see it is equal. More frighteningly, if you further refine '1955 Istanbul pogrom' and '1955 Istanbul riots' this century also on Google books it reads 1955 istanbul pogrom - 766 hits and 1955 Istanbul Riots - 458 hits!!! I tried you warn use using Google is unreliable when changing specific titles. This is exactly what caused the Macedonia shambles - clearly no lessons were learned there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.247.163 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but that's complete and utter rot. The vast majority of the hits on Google books for "Istanbul riots" turn out to be direct references to the topic of this article - in fact, I could find only one hit that wasn't a reference to the topic of this article. I'm not sure why one would have to restrict the search only to sources printed in the 21st century; any source written since 1955 is perfectly valid. And again, you must enclose the search phrase in quotation marks if you are looking for a specific phrase/name of the riots. No relevant searches of Google books return 766 hits, or even 458 hits! It's not Google that is "unreliable" here, it's your search methods. Here are the relevant searches, for books published since 1955, removing the publishers that just print the contents of Wikipedia articles, and other false positives:

  • +"the istanbul pogrom" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing" : 7 hits
  • +"the istanbul riots" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing": 86 hits

Reading through the results it quickly becomes apparent that there are almost no false positives in the second search, and that "Istanbul riots" is ten times as common in reliable sources as "Istanbul pogrom". Please stop wasting our time with the results of irrelevant searches. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the bizarre belief there have only been one set of riots since 1955 in Istanbul! Lets keep the 1955 in there I think not to disgrace wikipedia and define the exact date of the event which you omitted from your last search. And of course it is relevant to use the last 12 years, the Republic of Macedonia for example was called FYROM 10 years ago, lots of things change in 65 years - Lets keep this search to common, current and general usage. The results done with your methods (quotation marks etc) but including the date '1955' and in the last 12 years as Wikipedia is not interested what the disturbances were called in 1967... (remember, many books come up in both searches further cementing the fact of the use of 'Pogrom' (1955 in Military History: Conflicts in 1955 for example)):
  • 1955 Istanbul Porgrom in quotations, google books/magazines search, last 12 years = 776 hits
  • 1955 Istanbul Riots in quotations, google books/magazines search, last 12 years = 464 hits
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.109.120 (talk • contribs)
When we do the way you suggest "Istanbul riots" is still much more common:
  • +1955 +"the istanbul pogrom" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing": 6 hits
  • +1955 +"the istanbul riots" -"General Books LLC" -"vdm publishing"" 268hits
What's the relevance of checking only 21st century books? 1955 is fairly recent history. When you do a purely 21st century search the "Istanbul Riots" name is still used more than the other. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Easynet Connect IP editor from the U.K., as I said, when I looked at the search results, I could find only one hit that wasn't a reference to the topic of this article - this already answered your claim regarding "the bizarre belief there have only been one set of riots since 1955 in Istanbul". I've asked you once politely to stop wasting our time with irrelevant searches. I'll ask you a second time now. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When riots are orchestrated by government, in this case "The riots were orchestrated by the Turkish government", then they are known as pogroms. The same applies to Russia. The Wikipedia definition for pogrom is, "A pogrom... is a form of violent riot, a mob attack directed against a minority group, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes and properties, businesses, and religious centres." Ergo, the article needs to be labelled 'Isanbul Pogroms', or even 'Istanbul anti-Greek pogroms', or 'Istanbul 1955 pogroms'. Politis (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree using google books as a reference to change the page is not a good reason to rename the article, as the words can mean something else. Nocturnal781 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As I see we had a wp:ninja initiative, so I believe we should go back to previous title. If we have new evidence/arguments an appropriate move request is always welcomed.Alexikoua (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the original title needs to be re-introduced. Especially since Istanbul has had riots recently (just like London, Athens, Seattle, Paris, etc) and there is a clear difference between a pogrom and a riot. Politis (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A pogram is a riot by definition and the "Istanbul Riots" is the more commonly used term as proved above. We can't really dismiss Wikipedia rules and guidelines for the convenience of some people. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The two words are different and mean different things. London had Summer riots in 2011, not Summer pogroms. The original title reflected the difference between those two words. On its own, Isanbul riots, means nothing, especially since there are many riots in major European cities, including in 21st century Istanbul. Politis (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMONNAME, not by how Wikipedia editors would like to classify an event. There's no getting around that. Sorry. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
@Politis, you're wrong. The two words are not the exact things but they're not different as well. A pogrom is a form of a riot. Every pogrom is a riot but not every riot is a pogrom. Rest of your arguments are just invalid. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@ TheDark, The Wikipedia definition of riot is, "A form of civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against authority, property or people." The article clearly states that there was state intervention and people fled. Neither of us seem to object to the body of the article, so I dont understand why you disagree with the title to include 'pogrom' which fits the definition of what happened. Politis (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So,if I go by the definition of pogrom, this is not a pogrom either? Becuase if you check the Wikipedia page for the term you'd see "a pogrom (Russian: погро́м) is a form of violent riot, a mob attack directed against a minority group, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes and properties, businesses, and religious centres" or by the definition of Werner Bergmann as "a unilateral, nongovernmental form of collective violence initiated by the majority population against a largely defenseless ethnic group, and occurring when the majority expect the state to provide them with no assistance in overcoming a (perceived) threat from the minority." The first one doesn't mention government involvement and the second one mentions nongovernmental form explicitly. So, a pogrom is a type of riot but this incident is not a pogrom? The article only contains allegations for government involvement as well. Even if we take them at face value they do not hold the government as a whole responsible for these acts. Can we please stop the use of such double standards now please? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you over government. By the definition provided in your response, we must change the name of the article Alexandria pogroms, into 'Alexandria riots'. I have no objection to changing the title of that article. But the pogroms provided as examples in the start of the pogrom article, echo what happened in Istanbul. User Jayjg surely sees. Politis (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:COMMONNAME. We don't name articles based on our own or any other definition; rather, we name articles based on the name most commonly given the events by reliable sources. Any discussion based on definitions will be unsuccessful and lead nowhere. Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Politis, what is the point of introducing the government element? You said before that involvement of the government makes this a pogrom, yet, I've shown you to be dead wrong. The definition of pogrom involves non-existence of the government involvement. You know the argument for commonness of "Istanbul pogrom" has failed so you made that definition argument, yet, you're contradicting yourself and the definition. What is your purpose? The most common name is not "Istanbul pogrom" and the definition of pogrom is not applicable to Istanbul riots if we are to go by your definition. So, why are you trying to change the name to your liking? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, definitions are not relevant here, and any discussion based on them will lead nowhere. All we care about is WP:COMMONNAME. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I got it. You've said a couple of times already. Repeating it won't make want see why he's trying to push contradicting arguments any less. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Minimize or maximize

I corrected what Aziz Nesin wrote I did not minimize the suffering, so this[1] personal attack is not necessary however the editors must also be careful for exaggeration.DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To find new sources about these atrocities is easy. Just Google and you will easily find sources supporting that these atrocities occurred. Just nitpicking on one source and making it appear that only one priest was circumsised without using Google to check, is minimising the atrocities. And I do not need your caution about exaggeration. There is no exaggeration in my reliable sources. I also supplied the quotes and the exact links to make them completely verifiable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again this has nothing to do with my edit, I was not the one who added Aziz Nesin, I only correctly restored the sentence according to the source which was already present.Your aggressive personal attacks and assumptions against my user are wrong. Besides you added the same info (snippet source) which was already present in the article.[11]Hope that assumption of source's reliability does not depend on WP:LIKE and WP:IDLI.

Also I want to say something of the Hagia Sophia edit where you showed the same erroneous behavior, I don't think you or someone else will realize your mistake there. Because I lowered the column length from 20 to 10 meter you assumed I was minimizing "something". I actually corrected the true length of the column, (it was about the largest eight at the floor level, their diameter is 1,5 meter).

But I see that you have no clue about the architecture of the building, so once again you erroneously undid my edit and searched for sources where a column height of 20 meter is found, than you added sources which mention a column height of 20 meter, but what you did not realize is that you added information of a different place of the building. The source you added referred to the height of the four piers which carry the dome, they are not real columns but actually square walls much more than 1,5 diameter. But you did not realize that the word column/pier is used interchangeably in some sources about architecture and this was also the case in this source.

So the truth is that the eight largest columns in the Hagia Sophia are 10 meter in lenght and the four walls on which the dome rests are above 20 meter. I was not planning to explain this but since I have told this here. You can correct the info if you want, or the wrong info can still be left in the article, it is your choice, I will not edit it as it shows the power of ignorance. So I now hope from this case that you learn how wrong it is to have negative assumptions.DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not addressing the substance of my arguments so I am going to repeat one more time: The atrocities of the pogrom were on such a large scale that to come to the article like you did and change the victim priests to only one without checking Google to see if more priests were victims is not acceptable but it does fit a certain pattern. Your comments about Hagia Sophia are also unfair personal attacks the same as your edit-summaries at the article there. I have only one thing to say: I supplied a Turkish reference which gives the maximum height of the columns as 24.3 meters. That is all. We are talking about the maximum height, not about the height of the other columns but the highest columns. Your comments therefore that some columns are 10 metres high are irrelevant. In your nasty personal attack you talk about my clue regarding the architecture of Hagia Sophia. That shows the lack of your clue about our policy of verifiability WP:V. I have supplied a reliable source from the municipality of Istanbul which supports that the maximum column height is 24.3 m. You do not appear to understand that once a source verifies the maximum height that is it. End of story. So I advise you to read the verifiability policy again and to stop your silly personal attacks about my clue. Also your remarks about aggressive personal attacks are aggressive personal attacks in and of themselves. I suggest you tone it down. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you lying? I did not change the victim of priests to one, I deleted the unsourced sentence which stated that the majority of the circumcised where priests but I see that you still do not understand my edits on this page and on Hagia Sophia and you still do not seem to understand your mistakes. "Some columns" are not 10 meter, the biggest are 10 meter, the source referring to 24 meter is the four wall corners who support the dome and are called in this source interchangeably with the word column.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I will explain it simple, it is stated that a door is 15 meter in height, I rightly correct this to 5 meter, than you search for sources for 15 meter, you find a source which describes the roof as 15 meter high, than you add this to "prove" that the door was 15 meter in height. But you were mistaken, in the source the roof was also called "door" in this case but symbolically. Without understanding, you find sources of a different part of the building and use those sources for another part. And than think that I am wrong.

But I see clearly that you have no understanding of the architecture of Hagia Sophia, if you had we should not have this discussion.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC) But I can not waste my time with this, if you can understand your mistake you can change it or it can stay the way you like or understand.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn;t expect anthing better from you than your base personal attacks. Either that or you did not understand what I told you in which case I excuse you. I told you: You are not addressing the substance of my arguments so I am going to repeat one more time: The atrocities of the pogrom were on such a large scale that to come to the article like you did and change the victim priests to only one without checking Google to see if more priests were victims is not acceptable but it does fit a certain pattern. and you did just that: It's right here in you edit summary:

Aziz Nesin states that among the circumsized men was 1 priest, he does not mention that the majority were priests.

So you did reduce "priests" to "1 priest". Did you say to yourself: "Yes Aziz Nesin says one priest but given the size of the atrocities during the pogrom there may well have been many more priests. Let me check Google to make sure before I change "priests" to a "single priest"." Did you check Google? No. Why? Based on your record so far I conclude that the reason was because it was convenient for your POV. That's why. As far as Hagia Sophia this is what I added including the reference:

<nowiki>The largest columns are of granite, 24.3 metres high,<ref name=İstanbul>{{cite web|title=Hagia Sofia|url=http://www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/en-US/1-Places-To-Go/mosques/Pages/hagia-sofia.aspx|publisher=İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi|quote=The dome is supported on four columns with 24,3 meters height.}}</ref>

Your original research notwithstanding it speaks for itself. That is why it is still in the article. Because it is a verifiable fact backed by a reliable source. No silly explanations about "roofs" or "doors" or personal attacks that your opponents "don't understand architecture". No original research. No lies. No BS. Now try to emulate that. Not that I have any hope about that of course given the BS you have demonstrated you are capable of just above. Regardless, I'll AGF you are not a liar. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I only removed "mainly priests" from the text, and wrote this "Aziz Nesin states that among the circumcised men was 1 priest, he does not mention that the majority were priests" as explanation. Nowhere did I say that only one priest was circumcised, so stop lying and assuming things that I did not do.DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That source mentions the four walls, those are more than 20 meter, but the actual columns (are pillars) are 10 meter, columns is a word used interchangeably for "columns" and walls. Look one time at the plan of Hagia Sophia.DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

that among the circumcised men was 1 priest= "one priest was circumcised". You reduced the number of circumcised priests to one without looking for sources to easily verify the plural "priests". You closed your eyes to this easily verifiable fact. Why? Because it suited your purpose. Exactly as I told you. So stop your personal attacks and your blatant misrepresentations. It will not make the facts go away. As far as Hagia Sophia you are incapable of understanding what I am telling you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are again lying and trying to discredit me, I have corrected the sentence according to the source of Aziz Nesin which was already present. The sentence was: men were circumcised, "mainly priests" however the source of Aziz Nesin dos not say that they were mainly priests but only 1, so I removed "mainly priests". I did nothing else. This is what I did [12]. This was my explanation:"rm mainly priests, Aziz Nesin states that among the circumsized men was 1 priest, he does not mention that the majority were priests" You have very biased assumptions of me and the Hagia Sophia dispute I also rightfully corrected the meter of the columns but it does not matter if you can't understand, do not lie anymore.DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is the source of Aziz Nesin: "That night, many men shouting and screaming were Islamized forcefully by the cruel knife. Among those circumcised there was also a priest."[1]

You are still skirting my question: You reduced the number of circumcised priests to one without looking for sources to easily verify the plural "priests". You closed your eyes to this easily verifiable fact. Why? You have avoided answering my question. You are already discredited. You have discredited yourself by avoiding my questions and revealing the POV which drives you. You try to maximise the position of your "camp" and minimise that of your "enemies". You see Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLE in which you have to win. I am not interested in your games. You have also discredited yourself with your vicious and unwarranted personal attacks, a tactic you use with all of your perceived "opponents". But I will not reply to your base attacks any longer. I am not going to waste my time uselessly arguing with a discredited editor such as yourself. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No I am not biased that is your own wrong assumption, If I was biased would I made here a massacre of Greeks by Turks.[13] You have a very aggressive tone against me and please don't accuse me of WP:BATTLE and "closing eyes", your own behavior comes close to that description. The fact that you are making such a big issue about a correct small edit already shows how aggressive you are against me. Your "question" is a distortion of my edit. The only thing I did was correcting what the original source said, this is not wrong, this is what should be done.
Aziz Nesin mentions among the circumcised men in the quote box only 1 priest, but his source was used to claim the majority of victims was. So I did not lower the number of circumcised priests to 1, that is what you make of it. I only removed "mainly" in the case of circumcised men told by Aziz Nesin's source.
I do not have the obligation to further look for more information about this because my edit was based on the present Nesin source. I corrected that the majority of victims was not priest according to the present source of Nesin. However if you can find more reliable information that priests were the majority than you are free to add it, I never objected to that. I do not personally attack anyone so before assuming why edited and understanding my edit you should not aggressively accuse me in the first place.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But your friend Alexikoua seems to fit exactly in your description of me "WP:BATTLE" [14]DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Aziz Nesin, Salkım Salkım Asılacak Adamlar (1987) quoted in: (Vryonis, 2005, p.225), as quoted in: (Gilson, 2005).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul riots → Istanbul pogrom – I'm still shocked as to why this title is Istanbul riots. If it were riots, that would mean Greeks were involved in plundering their own shops and churches...this doesn't make sense. Also, Istanbul riots could mean ANY riot...for example, the one that just happened 2-3 months ago. Hence, I propose changing this to Istanbul pogroms. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose – a move rationale about a 1955 event that doesn't even refer to what it's called in sources seems like just an opinion. Come back with information. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The common name of this title is almost impossible to search since there has been dozens of riots in Istanbul throughout the decades, before and after 1955. Normally, I check the common name for an issue like this but it is practically impossible. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per norm. Riots doesn't make sense. I have to note that the last move (from pogrom->riots) was performed as a wp:ninja initiative, without any discussion at all.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Slight oppose I'm not sure the sourcing done by User:Jayjg above isn't still valid. The main issue would seem to be ambiguity, so why not "1955 Istanbul riots"? Frankly, to me, "pogrom" implies rather more than a dozen deaths.Pinkbeast (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, but even if that's the case, the number if victims in estimated around 30, so that is more than a dozen. --Երևանցի talk 16:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment We don't base the title of events based off of the number of deaths it has produced. This was a pogrom and a rather succesful one which has left a once rich Greek community, numbering in the 100s of thousands to a mere 3,000 people. Riots make it seem like the event had Greek participants which equally terrorized their own Churches and businesses. It is very sad that the title has been as such for two years! Even as a common name this title should change.

1955 Istanbul Pogrom in quotations, google books/magazines search, last 12 years = 776 hits

  • 1955 Istanbul Riots in quotations, google books/magazines search, last 12 years = 464 hits Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment We often do base the title of events on just such a thing. "Massacre" is an example of such a title Pinkbeast (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is the term riot in itself which is defined as: a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd. If there were mutual massacres involved, such articles must be entitled Massacres of such and such for example. But if its unilateral massacre, massacre of such and such would be acceptable. Above all, however, the common name in google and academic sources reflect this as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is a classic example of a pogrom. Also, the word "riot" suggests that it was just a social unrest, while this was a clear act against the Greeks of Istanbul and nobody seems to dispute that. --Երևանցի talk 16:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Procedural - it is unfortunate that no reason appears at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Mangled submission? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Istanbul riots" is hopelessly generic. There have been lots of riots in Istanbul throughout its history. On the other hand, the the term "Pogrom" is widely used to refer to the cents of 1955 [15], and the events themselves are perhaps a textbook example of a pogrom. Athenean (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The term "riots" is pratically censorship. Similar to how most massacres in Turkey are labeled "uprisings". HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

article has NPOV

This article has some NPOV, which I am trying to correct. How does one anecdote of one priest undergoing forced circumcision become "men were forcibly circumsized"? There's also various other nonsense, subbing in Muslim for Turkish. Please stop reverting my edits Axexikoua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to be somwhat more precise to explain what's the pov issue. In general when a Turkish reference says "musumanlar" it means Muslim.Alexikoua (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

0 death claim based on a 1960s publication

The claim that there were no deaths as a result of the pogrom is interesting enough, however taking into account that investigation in Turkey about the details and what exactly happened during these hours continued for decades (due to strict censorship in Turkey, while the supposed trials took place six year latter with inconsistent conclusions), someone can clearly conclude that a huge variety of academic level-secondary sources which confirm exactly the opposite (some of the victims were identified), easily refute a claim of the 60s.Alexikoua (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I am not sure which new information came to surface after 1965, 10 years after the pogrom. The only non-DP-controlled investigation in Turkey, to the best of my knowledge, was conducted in 1960. Any witness who were silenced by DP would be expected to speak up by then, since the atmosphere was highly anti-DP, and the sole aim of the government was to sentence the DP leaders, so they gathered all the evidence they could. One could still accuse the author at the source of not conducting the research thoroughly enough, but it seems to be a credible source, published by Harvard University Press. However, you are right that the source seems singular, so we probably should not change the infobox unless other modern sources supporting it are added; but I think the claim still deserves to be mentioned in the article, to note what the perception was at the time, if nothing else.
However, I find the information that there were some corpses were identified extremely interesting. Do you know if their names are available in any source? I think at least a few of them could be mentioned in the article by name, especially those for whom some additional details are known, like occupation, personal data and information about the way they died. This would serve to further repudiate 1965 source; and also since the number of dead is not very high, I think this carries not only anecdotal (i.e. better reflecting the great tragedy) but also encyclopedic value. I think the "Personal violence" section would greatly benefit if you could add some information about that.--Cfsenel (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw a documentary somewhere that the priest of Balıklı Greek Church was killed, and a witness account that the mother of a woman who was raped in Paşamahalle was killed by defenestration. Do any of the sources accessible to you confirm those? The same documentary also mentioned that Greek cemeteries were desecrated, and bodies were unearthed. I guess this could tangle up the counting of the dead. Do you know any sources that address this issue? I will also try to find what sources the documentary used.--Cfsenel (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The article currently does say that Bishop Gerasimos of Pamphilos died later in Balıklı Greek Hospital. Maybe the documentary refers to this incident, and got it slightly wrong.--Cfsenel (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Istanbul pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 18:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Istanbul pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Istanbul pogrom. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Istanbul pogrom. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Istanbul pogrom. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istanbul pogrom. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_pogrom/Archive_2&oldid=1198234494"