User talk:Damac/Archive 2

Istanbul Pogrom TO BE RE-WRITTEN
I am afraid the user Damac is a lier as he is Greek and does have a Greek POV. This article is full of lies and propaganda and the usage of the word pogrom is used to incite racial hatred. peopel should not use Wikipedia for there own racial sensitivities. Wikipedia is not here for such hooliganism. Though as more Greeks inflitrate the international satge - such as tennis - even hooliganism will become prevalent there. I will do my own objective research on this issue and changes will be made. I take serious issue with many disputed events that are being recorded here as historical FACT. Or apart from "not being" a Greek is Damac a learned historian, too?

I will also bring forth reasons for the riots, which are not made clear, such as retaliations for the Greek governmental perscution of Thrace Turks, where they cannot praticse their religion, women kidnapped, raped and forced to change their names and religion.

Greece has been taken many time to the European court of human rights on this matter. I will prepare an article on these issues. It is time that the truth really was written.

I am sick to death when people hijack Wikipedia for their own bigotry and prejudices.

Enough is enough. 82.145.231.79 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merhaba, User:82.145.231.79


 * First of all, I'm not Greek, but am from Ireland. Secondly, I am an historian and hold a Ph.D. in history. What are your qualifications?


 * There is nothing in that article that has not appeared in the Turkish press and there are a number of Turkish articles listed in the sources section.


 * For your information, I am researching the history of Ottoman mosques in Greece and think it is a disgrace how these buildings have been neglected by the Greek authorities.


 * Feel free to make any changes to the article in question as you see fit. I will review each one for its merits.


 * Best, --Damac 09:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you have "created" has appeared in any Turkish articles. The sources you have used are at best second-rate and you have copied and pasted to create an false impression of the riots. It just stinks of bigotry and nothing else. You fail to take in factor the events before and after and the reasons why the uprisings happened. You make it sound as though Turks just did it for fun. Half of the so-called "witness" stories are fabricated, forced by the Orthodox church upon certain people to badmouth the Turkish government. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Oh, by the way I am British, an assistant professor at Nottingham University. If you are so interested as you claim in the state of the mosques, I would be more concerned with the state of the people in Western Thrace. Or do you find Greek life more valuable?

I am sorry but people like you who try to calmly hijack Wikipedia for your bigoted aims frankly disgust me. Writing that it is a pogrom won't make it one or your absurdities any more real.

I find it laughable that you are getting all the Greeks you can to vote to rename it again. What will this prove? That you are right? Shall I do the same and gather all the Turkish people to vote on it, too? And begin a campaign to get every article of atrocities by the Greeks of Pomaks and Turks in Thrace to be called pogroms? 82.145.231.63 15:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've little credibility. If you looked through my edits, you'll see that I have contributed to articles on the minorities living in Greece, including the Turks of Thrace, the Chams, the Pomaks and others.


 * I seriously doubt your academic credentials.


 * I have no wish to debate at the level you have engaged in. You make one false personal attack on me after the other. I am using the proceedures outlined by Wikipedia to resolve this issue.--Damac 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI φιλε damac - when someone moves an article, like User:Blue sea did, you cen revert it, unless any changes have been made to the original article. By editing the original "pogrom" page, you made it impossible for the Blue Sea's edit to be undone without admin intervention. I know that was not your intention, I'm just letting you know for future reference. Sysin 09:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What you say is laughable. I have read your so-called contributions to these articles and then see how you write the article on the events arising in Istanbul. You put it out of context and not into the context of the events that were going on around the world at the time. I REPEAT AGAIN you have used unsubstantiated articles, accounts that were contaminated an dsimply not true, and teh reading of yoru article smacks of bigotry. I REPEAT AGAIN I WILL NOT LET THIS GO and I will make sure that Wikipedia is not used as a platform for people such as yourself - whatever mask of 'intelligence' you choose to hide under is of no consequence. Simply comparing your "contributions" to the deprived Islamic minorities of Greece and your "article" on the Istanbul riots is enough in my opinion to show where your true loyalitis lie - it is not with Wikipedia or to educate - but merely to vilify. I will take this further. 82.145.231.57 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

TRYING TO PUT THREATS ON MY TALK PAGE ARE USELESS. You know I have to tell all you Greeks that this type of persecution doesn't frighten me in the least. I am not as used to it say as the poor Turkish women of Thrace that has been continually raped and forced to have their identities changed in Greece simply to be able to get a job...talk about ASSIMILATION - Greeks know it all too well. Nothing you can do will make me cow down. I HAVE AS MATTER OF PRINCIPLE asked people who are favourable to my view to stay away - just to see how many Greeks nationalists would rear their ugly heads. Keep them coming folks - we like to know who you are. 82.145.231.77 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User:LOVELLtheLIONHEART's Suggestions
I am making some suggestions for amendments to this article - and as such have not carried them out yet. After Damac's motives were questioned about the writing of this article (I added the title below to section off my talk) I suggest it is a relevant article - but needs amendments because it has been written in a subjective point of view (even if he says he has no axe to grind). He obviously has sympathies with certain groups - which is natural - if you check his user page.

1. Firstly it should be made clear on the article that that not only its neutrality but its facts are disputed too - so I would add totallydisputed in place of NPOV.

2. Secondly I would add as a note on the article that word pogrom was used as a concious decision by the writer himself (even though this seemingly goes against using wikipeadia as an original source in that he is putting his own slant on his research - yes the definition Wikipedia holds of a pogrom might with argument catch this in its net - but what do all the sources say) and that both Greek sources and Turkish sources and English ones for that matter do not use the word pogrom. We must not forget that this article might be used by people as verifiable sources - so merely adding the reason in a talk page is not sufficent in my opinon.

3. Thirdly it has to be put in historical context, that goverment of 1955 was close to fascisim in the sense that Arabic was also outlawed and that the religion was trying to be reformed - with the "call to prayer" in mosques sung in Turkish. But the government was a response BY THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED THEM IN to international events around them - and one can also assume that Greek provocation from Athens (as in Cyprus) was rife. What was Athens situation like in 1955?

4. Fourthly, both sides of the events must be told. Unfounded accusations have been made against the Orthodox Church I feel, and these need to be cleared up.

5. Fifth point - Using Mehemt Ali Birand's article as a "source" for everything said above is obviously misleading when M.A Birand does not mention any deaths or casualities. I believe in Damac's good intention in that he did not intendingly mislead. I think it just shows that he came to this article he wanted to create with a certain point of view and just found evidence to back it up. I am going to guess (and forgive me if I am wrong) but he probably didnt't even read M.A. Brand's article and just thought the initial paragraph was enough - if you follow the link you'll see that you have to be a member to read the full article.

But once these are cleared up this could become a strong article to help inform and educate bothsides. 82.145.231.132 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind coming out of the woodword and revealing who you are. I don't engage in discussion with persons anon.--Damac 13:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a username. Do I need to get one for you to talk wıth me on this matter? I want to make these changes but am dicussing first? Or do you want my real name? Do you need an email contact? Please let me know. 82.145.231.132 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed you've added me as a sock puppet for Blue Sea? Can I ask what led you to this conclusion? 82.145.231.132 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like you to register with Wikpedia. No, you do not have to use your real name or provide your email address for public view. You are currently posting as an anonymous user which makes it difficult for other Wikipedians to see what you have been up to on Wikipedia.
 * You are User:Blue sea. All the evidence points to it. If you look at User_talk:Blue_sea, you'll note that on January 25, User:Blue sea, User:Steven Banks and User:82.145.231.79 posted on the same topics consultatively.
 * In addition, do you not see a resemblance between the following ISPs?


 * User:82.145.231.45
 * User:82.145.231.57
 * User:82.145.231.63
 * User:82.145.231.77
 * User:82.145.231.79
 * User:82.145.231.132
 * This involves someone accessing the internet from the same internet provider and using the same internet account. According to Wikipedia rules, you should be banned.
 * We're not idiots on Wikipedia, User:Blue sea!--Damac 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not the user Blue Sea and if this is the way you write your articles and try and prove your points my discussion stands that amendments should be made to yoru article. I could come from the smae area and same provider as Blue Sea - I do not know. Though I did ring up my internet provider and you are incorrect on one score. It does not have to be the same Internet account. But I didnt want to register until I had tried out Wikipedia is all. You accusations are unbiased - though I don't blame you taking into account the recent attacks on you personally. I have checked all the sockpuppets you mention and it seems that Blue Sea is clever enough to change his IP completely at some intervals? Why are not then all the sockpuppets you have listed the same? Check one that begins with 200. Is it not possible that Blue Sea is using false IP's or something and you really doN't know his IP? Else how could they be varied? However, my suggestion still stand and I do want this discussed. Please don't avoid the issues I have raised. If you continue to block debate then I don't see how this is going to be resolved. In my other two posts I just copied and past my other post's signature. I will not do so this time. 82.145.231.200 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm not going to waste my time debating with people who couldn't be bothered to take the one minute it takes to register with Wikipedia. By all means check out Wikipedia and see what it is all about. Once you've made up your mind on whether you want to join, then get back to me. Otherwise, I'm not interested.
 * I believe I am right on the ISPs. I've had similar problems with Irish nationalists. Maybe I got it wrong with the 200 ISP, but what about the others?
 * Do what everyone else does and sign up. It only takes a few seconds. --Damac 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Damac. I've signed up and I will continue this on the talk page of the relevant article. LOVELLtheLIONHEART 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Damac and others are Hijacking Wikipedia and Abusing Powers to promote a Greek POV all across any Turkish related articles

 * Other perpertrators and vandals include (and yes administrators can be vandals too with secret agendas)
 * Sysin and as User:Globo
 * Delirium
 * Latinus et al
 * Michalis Famelis

All these 'people' have their dirty fingers in tankering with any Turkish related articles tryng to create a racially motivated bias against Turks. And getting such a biased and incorrect and inconclusive article as the Istanbul pogrom as a feature article at Wikipedia merely proves how many of these people there are hijacking Wikipedia.

Here is Latinus asking Damac at his talk page whether they could "get away" with deleting some pro-Turkish sites.

Sysin has attempted to change the articles on Greek genocides agains Western Thrace minorities.

Globo likes to reword Turkish genocide by Greeks as uprisings - but when Istanbul pogrom is written it becomes a featured article. 

Michalis pretends to be so moderate, when he is acting as their voice of reason - in a good cop bad cop routine. He actually defending Damac when his "research" on the pogrom and his usage of a Turkish source was actually MISREPRESENTED AND FALSE. Talk:Istanbul_Pogrom

These people and their contribitions should be checked and observed closely. 62.177.208.126 21:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't usually respond to these kind of attacks, but I would like to point out that
 * a) I am not Greek
 * b) I am not involved in the "tankering" of Turkish-related articles to create racial bias.


 * I'd also like to point out that User:Blue sea's contributions need to be checked. Take for example his The Chios Massacre, which he created on 25 January using his sockpuppet User:Steven Banks and which he redirected to Chios three days later using an anonymous sockpuppet. Why? In his original article he claimed that the Chios Massacre involved thousands of Turkish victims, which is, simply, completely in contradiction of historical fact.


 * I did not respond to Latinus' request to have the articles on the massacres of Turks in Greece deleted because I believe and know that massacres took place. In fact, I have been planning to write about these incidents.


 * User:Blue sea, you'll get no where if you continue to engage in personal attacks and to write sloppy articles. You are your and your causes own worst enemy!--Damac 11:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Then surely this proves the agenda of Latinus and that there are ADMINISTRATORS actually defending filth like him. Now people should realise why I have lost faith in Wikipedia - people who dress up lies that sound like truth and walk the line and do things in the rules cam just about write what they want - and once on Wikipedia they are creating their own history for ulterior motives. My second posting for listing these users was initially because of Latinus' request to have these articles speedily deleted. Blue sea 23:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Damac
I'll keep my English plain and simple so that you can understand it this time Damac.

1. You keep saying how you have Turkish friends and keep quoting little Turkish phrases at me - and it reminds me of that saying "I am not racist I have may black friends."

2. Secondly I am not embarrassed by anything. I actually first wanted that list to encompass all the so called genocides to show that it wasn't some Empire going to different regions of its lands and killing races for the fun of it it was quelling uprisings at a time when people were wanting their independence - because I believe their is a difference between putting down uprisings as genocide and labelling (as you did) a event in the 1950's as a pogrom which obviously tries to hark back to the Jewish pogroms in Eastern Europe and Russia. The context that happened in was a time when that government - fascist or no - was the first governement of Turkey to be actually democratically voted in. You use a language and events which are disputed, and yet you say it is NPOV. I disagree. Doesn't matter how many times you say "hello" or "good evening" to me in Turkish. I had more problem with the word pogrom and with some of the supposed events that took place.

3. That went in by accident and the minute I realisd this I re-directed it to the Chios article.

4. Yes I am foul mouthed and angry - because I've had enough. So you are Catholic - that's fine - and I do not profess anything - the history around me shows how thanks to the Catholic religion Orthodxy almost went extinct and most Greeks see the Pontif as the devil himself - Greeks told me this as hey guess what I have many Greek friends, too - even if I do call the ones in here idiots.

5. And yes I believe you should contribute to those articles to make up for what you did with the istanbul article. Unkowningly you have done a great mis-service there. And hey if the true object of building up your contributions list with improving those articles is to prove me wrong about your tinkerings with Turkish articles then still go for it. But I will be interested to see if you call these pogroms or geneocides or use words such as displacement and riots. After all it really all is in the inetpretation isn't it? Blue sea 05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I know what I am and what I'm not and I certainly don't have to prove it to the likes of you.


 * 2. The 1955 Pogrom was not an act of genocide and I never said that. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word pogrom in any reputable English dictionary, Wikipedia or Wictionary and you will read that a pogrom is a campaign of violence orchestrated by a government against a minority. That is what happened in 1955. It was not an uprising - these are planned by groups against a government - nor was it a riot, which is a spontaneous outburst of violence against authority. To call what happened in Istanbul in 1955 the "September Uprising" or the "September Events" is so completely miss the significance altogether.


 * I'd also like to remind you that the head of the same democratically elected government was executed on the orders of a Turkish court.


 * 3. Utter BS. A look at the editing history shows that your claim "That went in by accident and the minute I realisd this I re-directed it to the Chios article" is a lie:


 * 04:07, 28 January 2006 82.145.231.45
 * 09:16, 26 January 2006 Sysin (rv; vandalism)
 * 05:00, 26 January 2006 82.145.231.57
 * 18:08, 25 January 2006 Sysin (Setting the record straight.)
 * 08:55, 25 January 2006 Blue sea
 * 08:05, 25 January 2006 Steven Banks


 * You started the Chios Massacre article (claiming Turks were the victims) on 25 January. You then edited it using your own name. User:Sysin then corrected the article and you reverted it. After Sysin re-corrected the article, you blanked it and moved it to Chios. It has since been re-established as an article and now explains the truth about the incident. It's so ironic, but thanks to you there now is another article out there describing a massacre of Greeks by the Ottoman military. Are you now part of this Greek cabal?


 * 4. I was baptised a Catholic, but like you, profess no faith.


 * 5. I will contribute articles on the massacres of Turks and Muslims in Greece during the War of Independence out of service to Wikipedia and not to you. I owe you nothing. I will name the articles according to the information I find on these incidents - I'm certainly not going to make my mind up in advance and will research my articles throughly.--Damac 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Blue Sea's Reply

 * 1. I know what I am and what I'm not and I certainly don't have to prove it to the likes of you.


 * I only ask for proof on the progom, your character is impotant to you - for me it holds no significance.


 * 2. The 1955 Pogrom was not an act of genocide and I never said that. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word pogrom in any reputable English dictionary, Wikipedia or Wictionary and you will read that a pogrom is a campaign of violence orchestrated by a government against a minority. That is what happened in 1955. It was not an uprising - these are planned by groups against a government - nor was it a riot, which is a spontaneous outburst of violence against authority. To call what happened in Istanbul in 1955 the "September Uprising" or the "September Events" is so completely miss the significance altogether.


 * For starters it is still disputed whether that government did actually do so - and if this is the only reason for stating it is a progom then it is at best flimsy - because as you say Menderes was used as a scapegoat by a very quick trial where proof was scare - they used him as a scapegoat becuase his ideas were radical and extreme - he wanted to ban arabic for example and made the call to prayer in Turkish. I still hold pogrom is wrong. I havent missed the significance - I am actually in the picture as a person who has direct knowledge, someone like you who is of Irish descent and breathing the Athens air shouldn't discount what I have to say. I do not profess to be an expert on the potato famine or why the Irish were segregated along with the blanks in America - but you with your little smattering of Turkish (enough not even to bother to read Mehmet Ali Birand's article but just quote it as a source) seem to think you know Turkish political history so well. Plus - if it is even labelled as a pogrom in Greek history - who are you to rewrite it on the basis that there is questionable evidence that their might have been government involvement?

I also took to question the statements (which you have changed since then) about men and women being raped - did you check your sources and then change it solely to the rape of women - and where where men forcibly circumscied in the streets? I have been asking for these sources for ages. Blue sea 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to remind you that the head of the same democratically elected government was executed on the orders of a Turkish court.


 * Thank you for reminding me. Blue sea 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Utter BS. A look at the editing history shows that your claim "That went in by accident and the minute I realisd this I re-directed it to the Chios article" is a lie:


 * 04:07, 28 January 2006 82.145.231.45
 * 09:16, 26 January 2006 Sysin (rv; vandalism)
 * 05:00, 26 January 2006 82.145.231.57
 * 18:08, 25 January 2006 Sysin (Setting the record straight.)
 * 08:55, 25 January 2006 Blue sea
 * 08:05, 25 January 2006 Steven Banks


 * You started the Chios Massacre article (claiming Turks were the victims) on 25 January. You then edited it using your own name. User:Sysin then corrected the article and you reverted it. After Sysin re-corrected the article, you blanked it and moved it to Chios. It has since been re-established as an article and now explains the truth about the incident. It's so ironic, but thanks to you there now is another article out there describing a massacre of Greeks by the Ottoman military. Are you now part of this Greek cabal?


 * This is your danger and your biggest flaw Damac - this proves how dangerous assumption is. From just that list you have interpreted my actions my THOUGHTS and my intentions with no other colloboration. Is this how you write your articles? No other side of the story? Any evidence can be used to justify any argument if you use enough words. I reverted because I was actually going to rectify on that page - then it dawned on me there might be an article and when I found out there was I redirected. Blue sea 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. I was baptised a Catholic, but like you, profess no faith.


 * What do you mean like me? When have I professed a faith or none? Blue sea 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 5. I will contribute articles on the massacres of Turks and Muslims in Greece during the War of Independence out of service to Wikipedia and not to you. I owe you nothing. I will name the articles according to the information I find on these incidents - I'm certainly not going to make my mind up in advance and will research my articles throughly.--Damac 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You really dont understand what I write do you? I didnt say do it for me - though my attacking you might now have you in a defensive stance to pad out your contribution list a little in a different way - but I said do it for Wikipedia and try to make up for that shameful article. And sorry to say you do make up your mind in advance - and I am really worried if closed minded people like you are contributing to Wikipedia. As I say I await with interest to see how you write the murders of Turks in Thrace - I am sure there will be no pogroms or geneocides mentioned will there? Blue sea 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)