Talk:Istanbul pogrom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Turkey (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Greece (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

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

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 (talkcontribs)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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 (talkcontribs)
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[edit]

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.[1]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 [2]. 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.[3] 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" [4]DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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 [5], 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Lede change[edit]

The lede goes into too much detail about the responsible parts that planned the pogrom: The riots were orchestrated by Tactical Mobilization Group, the seat of Operation Gladio's Turkish branch; the Counter-Guerrilla, and National Security Service, the precursor of today's National Intelligence Organization. A non-Turkish speaker will certainly not understand that the pogrom was planned by the Turkish government. Thus a more simple version is neccesary for this part: "it had been carried out by Turkish agents under orders from the Turkish government" per [[6]] or slightly more precise: orchestrated by the government of Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. by same source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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