Talk:Istanbul pogrom

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? [[1]]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 [[2]]? 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[3]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) [4]: "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) [5]: "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: [6]: "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 [[7]] (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)

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)

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.[8]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)