Talk:Istanbul Pogrom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Extra suggestions

Some of these areas need to be sourced so that we can go and check the stats for ourselves. For example where is the evidence that people were forcibly circumsicised and that men and women were raped? There were many uprisings and civil unrest in Turkey throught the 1950's to today and this doesn't seem to be pattern? Could we have some more detailed sources?

Secondly there seems to be some confusion for me with all these statistics and no source - Who are these "many"? Please avoid "weasel words" and cite sources. It's probably true that someone said this, but we should say who said what. These witness events are written word for word so they must have copied and pasted from somewhere...where?

Thirdly, I've emailed Mehmet Ali Birand as his article has been sourced to ask him what he agrees on and what he doesn't from this article and whether he wants to comment on it.

I am trying to avoid having this read like original resource and willing to contribute what I am willing to learn about. LOVELLtheLIONHEART 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Damac's motives questioned

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 [1].

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. 82.145.231.79 03:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pogrom or riot?

I decided to name this article Istanbul Pogrom rather than Istanbul Riot, owing to the level of government involvement in the planning and execution of the event. As the Wikipedia entries on riots makes clear, riots are generally directed towards the authorities and lack clear organisation and planning. I felt that the Wikipedia definition of a pogrom as "a massive violent attack on a particular ethnic or religious group with simultaneous destruction of their environment" best describes the event discussed in the article.

While I am author of the article, I should point out that I am neither Greek nor Turkish and have no particular axe to grind in the topic. I expect that it will attract the (unwanted) attention of Turkish and Greek nationalists who will do their best to POV this article.--Damac 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the page being called Istanbul pogrom, a previous article entitled this was deleted in a vote for deletion process. I dont object to Istanbul riots however. Infact a search of "Istanbul pogroms" on google reveals 4 results, while "Istanbul riots" reveals 19. Most websites which used the term pogrom seem to be Greek. --A.Garnet 19:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I am Turkish and think that these events are a shame in the history of Turkey, I believe that the level of goverment involvement was not as described in the article. The government wanted to teach the local Greeks a lesson, they wanted to scare them, show that they could hold local Greeks captive against Greece, but the events definitely went beyond their expectations. They had to declare martial law to stop the events. They tried to get away by accusing the communists and leftists, who had nothing to do with the incidents. Finally they were tried and sentenced for their involvement. In any case, I believe pogrom is a strong word to use for these events. Prosure 20:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand the concerns about the title. This event has never been formerly been given a name in any language, and that is why I mentioned all the common variations in English, Greek and Turkish in the first paragraph. While working on the article, I gave careful and long consideration to a name. However, having learned about the level of government complicity in organising and executing the event, I decided that to describe the happenings as a riot is a misnomer. Riots are by their nature usually anti-government or anti-establishment and have very little in terms of advance preparation. That is why the events in Istanbul of 6-7 September cannot be adequately described as a riot. It was not a clash of two sides, such as can happen after a football game say, but an organised pogrom against a minority which was executed with extreme efficency and planning. That is what constitutes a pogrom according to the existing Wikipedia article. This event in question would have been out of place in the List of riots for those reasons.
True, some Greek sites do refer to it as a pogrom, but that does not necessarily mean that that is wrong. There are other Greek sites that refer to it in much harsher terms, such as genocide, which I think is completely over the top and inaccurate. --Damac 20:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I will have to dig up some sources to say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that "Istanbul Pogrom" is a phrase I've seen in historical works more often than "Istanbul Riots". Typically events orchestrated by a majority ethnic group against a minority ethnic group are described as "pogroms", while "riot" is more often used for mutual violence between groups, or violence by minority groups directed at a majority group or the government (for example, the 1992 Los Angeles riots). --Delirium 20:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should know that Wictionary defines pogrom as: The persecution of a particular group, usually on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. It defines riot as:

  1. Wanton or unrestrained behavior; uproar; tumult.
  2. Excessive and expensive feasting; wild and loose festivity; revelry.
  3. The tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by an unlawful assembly of three or more persons in the execution of some private object.

I think that it is perfectly clear now that Istanbul Pogrom is a totally acceptable name because the incidents described in the article were indeed incidents of persecution of the Greeks on the basis of their religion AND ethnic origin. REX 15:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only against the Greeks but against the Jews and the Armenians, too

Look here: [2] (in greek) Michalis Famelis 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'd seen some info in the Greek newspapers but can't fully understand it. Would you mind incorporating references to the Jews and Armenians into the article?--Damac 13:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I am interested in doing it some time in the near future. What hinders me is a rampant examinations period! Also, I only have a Kathimerini interview of Dilek Guven (the above link) whith only a small reference to the Jews and Armenians. And I don't quite know where to look for more info. More research is in order...Michalis Famelis 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

6-7 September Uprisings → Istanbul Pogrom – Was originally Istanbul Pogrom (once mentioned on the selected anniversary section on main page) and changed without any prior warning or discussion

Voting

  • Support. The move to 6-7 September Uprisings was done without discussion and justified on the false allegation that the author of the article is Greek, which is false. Damac 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is spin to describe a state-supported action as an "uprising".Sysin 07:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support to revert the move, although I feel there must be further discussion as to whether the title "instabul pogrom" is NPOV, as apparently there are people who dispute it. There is at least the need to clarify if "pogrom" is an NPOV term. -- Michalis Famelis 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I Support making the title of this entry "Istanbul Pogrom". The government seems to have enabled the rioters and mob to perform their violence. Nygdan 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Only references included which refer to pogrom are of Greek origin. See my reasons below. --A.Garnet 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is completely subjective to the Greek point of view - and I do not merely object to the title being reverted back. Plus I feel there is some victimaisation going on against the User Blue Sea. Where I fear he expressed his thoughts in the wrong manner, I agree with his reasoning. Thje original article does not read objectively and is NPOV. I feel we are damaging Wikipedia with such instances. I am now beginning to question other contributions of Damac. 206.207.175.69 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Blue sea has without any prior discussion or warning moved the Istanbul Pogrom to 6-7 September Uprisings. He also has heavily edited the article, removing among other things eyewitness reports of the event of Turkish writers.
I have reverted these changes and intend on having the move reverted also.
On my user page, Blue sea has accused me of benig a liar, POV, allegding (falsely) that I am Greek and questioning my academic credentials. For his and everyone else's information, I am not Greek and am a holder of a PhD in history.--Damac 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)--Damac 09:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Blue sea has gone on a rampage of revisionism, see for example The Chios Massacre before I fixed it up. Sysin 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I fully support reverting the move. User:Blue sea and his sock-puppets have manifestated very unappropriate conduct, here and on Damac's talk page. This alone discredits his edits. But there seems to be an actual grievance on the matter of the naming. User:Blue sea has pointed out that there should be references to prior events causing the mob to act the way it did. Maybe that view is under-represented in the article. And I'd hate to see this article become part of the long list of articles where Greek and Turkish ultra-nationalists perpetually editwar... (and that, dear User:Blue sea comes from a Greek, whom you believe are collectively aligned to pass a greek nationalistic line in wikipedia... Whatever happened to WP:AGF??). Let us all Assume Good Faith, stick to NPOV, make clear what is documented fact and what are opinions and estimates and make this article as good as it can be. -- Michalis Famelis 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the name, there is no other viable option. The event was a progrom if we take the Wikipedia definition of a progrom, which are government inspired attacks on minorities. It was not a revolt, as Blue sea argues. Neither can it be compared to the recent Paris riots which will never be described as a progrom simply because they do not meet the requirements of the definition.
The name issue was raised last September and no viable alternative was suggested. In 2005/06, there should be no shying away from hard truths no matter how unpalitable they are. That applies to all histories, Greek, Turkish or otherwise.
Regarding his other concern, namely prior events in Greece. Perhaps he is referring to the alleged bomb attack on Ataturk's birthplace in Salonica. It has long been proven (by a Turkish court) that this attack was planned by the Turkish secret services.
Blue sea is by all means welcome to enhance the article. However, by his own admission he knows very little about it. His basic (and it is very basic) argument is that he doesn't like what he reads because it's written by "Greek" "liars" and that he "will" read up on the incident to form an "objective" opinion. Quite clearly, he's going to do everything to enforce his subjective views on the subject.
Blue sky is not a serious Wikipedian. He uses sockpuppets, copies and pastes from nationalist websites, and refers to others as liars on the basis of their alleged nationality. --Damac 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of calling it a pogrom. The Army, apparently, did eventually intercede to stop it. But to call it a 'revolt' is absurd. A revolt is against the government, not against a minority. When the KKK was attacking blacks in the US south, they weren't revolutionaries, they were mob. A lynching is not a revolution.

The fact that the Army stopped it in the end makes it a somewhat unusual pogrom. The archetypical pogroms are perhaps those organized by the elite under the Tsar in Russia against Russians who were Jewish. This event is rather close to that, even if different in some details. And, honestly, the Turkish people should accept responsibility for this disgusting event and just deal with it being called a Pogrom rather than a 'riot'. Their government enabled it, so what else can it really be called anyway? In Rwanda, during those recent genocidal wars, public figures were urging for action against other ethnicities, but not participating in it themselves. So what, it was still irresponsible, criminal and unethical. So Istanbul Pogrom it is. Nygdan 04:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some of Wikipedia's oldest guidelines and policies you should try to consider. I am referring to WP:AGF, WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, be assured, there exists no such thing as a Greek Wikipedians Conspiracy, unless you want there to be one... -- Michalis Famelis 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Presently, I object to the term pogrom as it seems to be based on a combination of Greek sources and the users own interpretation of what a pogrom is. In Wikipedia, we should not make interpretations of our own, but only reflect academic opinion on subjec matter. From the list of references given, the only ones which seem to use the term pogrom are Greek sources, even the inclusion of George Gilson is just a review of a Speros Vryonis book. Editor needs to prove that Pogrom is accepted by the majority of impartial scholars. --A.Garnet 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we consider naming the article The events of September or something like that? As is mentioned at the head of the article: the Σεπτεμβριανά in Greek and the 6-7 Eylül Olayları in Turkish (both literally Events of September) there is a seeming "consensus" among Greek and Turkish historians regarding the naming of the events. Personally, before this wikipedia article was started I knew of the events as Σεπτεμβριανά (Septemvriana). A side note here to A.Garnet: I don't think that the fact that people died in the events is disputed, as your previous edit summary indicates: I point you to the eye witness accounts given in the Witnesses sub-section of the article by western journalists. -- Michalis Famelis 15:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I am not arguing over whether people died or not, what I am saying is that any reader who takes time to read through those sources will realise that there is a discrepency between what some of those sources say, and what this article says. Birand says no people were killed, and this article says 16 people were killed. Considering Birand is placed among his references then there must be an explanation for this contradiction in figures. Also much of this article is based on one book by Speros Vryonis, and two web reviews of that book. This leads me to question whether the author of this aritcle has even read the Vryonis book, or is just going off the reviews by Greek news agencies. The reason I added the factualy innacuracy tag is because going from the editors sources, I have no idea whether the figures included here are indeed accurate or not. --A.Garnet 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But a disupute or denial over the death count hardly makes this disgusting event not a pogrom. Its also absurd that anyone can claim that this is some sort of attempt to intimidate turks. Nygdan 21:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing or denying the number of dead, or using it as a justification for abandoning/keeping the term Pogrom. It just highlights that this article is not well researched. It is based around one Greek book, and it seems the Turkish sources were thrown in there just to even things out without actually being used. The editor needs to provide more impartial sources which show us that the majority of people consider what happened in Istanbul a pogrom. If this cannot be done, then this article, no matter what your personal interpretations are, should be renamed. Also who is claiming that there is an attempt to intimidate Turks? --A.Garnet 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The best lie is one dressed as truth. All along this article was one sided and was not placed in context. No one is excusing the events, but nor should they be used for Hellenic propaganda in my opinion. Most of the eye-witness events are from Greeks. The only one Western point of view as suggested was by Ian Flemming and if one reads his actual version - it has nothing to do with rapes, murders or anything else. The uprisings on closer inspection does not read as a progrom but just two nationalist sects - the Orthodox Chruch instigated their parish while the Turkish nationalists instigated their own group. The Greek Patriach then contaminated or fabricated most of the eye-witness accounts. Damac knows how to spin a good yarn and I suppose that is thanks to his history degree - but this only shows that a Ph.D in history does not make an historian. I guess he enjoyed linking to rapes and to murders and created a "pogrom" - but we are not here to re-write or invent history. Are we? 206.207.175.69 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, hiding behind an anonymous user account hardly qualified you as "here", does it? Neither are we here to intimidate people, day in day out.
Neither are we here to vandalise articles on people like Hilary Duff for example [3].
I will repond to some of the criticisms of my article tomorrow. However, I would remind people that the tone being used here is unacceptable for Wikipedia. I have been attacked by one user in particular who has continued his abuse via sockpuppets. This kind of intimidation has no place on Wikipedia and only serves to undermine the standpoint he claims to represent. --Damac 16:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
User:206.207.175.69, your behavior is unacceptable. You are in complete violation of Wikipedia rules on civiity and personal attacks. It would be in the interest of your own credibility to calm down, be civil and discuss without making accusations against your fellow wikipedians. If you continue with such an aggresive behaviour, soon there will be none left to take you seriously. Everyone has their POV, we don't need to eat each other alive for this...
Apart from the behaviour part, it is easy to note that your claims stay unverified. Could you please direct us to the alleged actual version of Ian Flemming's testimony which you claim is being falsified? Could you please refer us to some reliable source that shows that the Ecumenical Patriarch fabricated eye-witness reports? And even if most eye-witness accounts in the article come from greeks (which I doubt) that does not mean anything, in its own right. It is as if you are saying that a witness is not reliable if he/she is of Greek origin. Wouldn't you agree that it is a bit overstated?
In short: calm down, man! --Michalis Famelis 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Name change

Shouldn't we consider renaming the article? Both Istanbul Pogrom and Istanbul Riots are open to the accusation of POV; and, more important, they're not much used by scholars and sources in general to refer to the events. Instead I propose naming it Events of September, which is how Greeks and Turks seem commonly to refer to it (Septembriana); after all, it's not up to wikipedia to give strength to little used terms.--Aldux 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

English sources do refer to its as pogroms. Where do you see the POV? Miskin 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some do; but the title is far from being an immediately recognizable way to refer to the events. Our gol should be to search the standard name, the most used one; I can't help finding strange objecting to using the name that both people use. Or are we going to say that since the Greek article is titled Septembriana it has an anti-Greek intention? After all, it wasn't me who first proposed this possibility, but a Greek editor, User:Michalis Famelis.--Aldux 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If it is internationally more accepted, I could certainly live with "Septembriana", but the event was absolutely no less a pogrom. - Gilgamesh 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Septembriana is that is makes no sense to nobody except the Greeks. Miskin 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have no doubt the event was a pogrom; the question is if we shouldn't prefer Events of September, a name which has a long history beside, or Istanbul Pogrom, which isn't really a very common name judging from the hits.--Aldux 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you find that the article name "Organised persecution of ethnic Germans" meets standard scholarly terminology or exist as a scholarly term at all? Miskin 19:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I did some Googles for names. In alphabetical order:

The search events-of-september was more than 6,000,000 hits, but the vast majority of them are about September 11. It would appear that "İstanbul Riot" prevails in English, and the name seems actually toned down from what the name could be, and it appears to reflect political sensitivities then and now. But let's ask the question here—what is a pogrom and what is a riot, and what are the distinctions between them? Let's look at the first lines of each article:

  • Riots occur when crowds or even small groups of people have gathered and are committing or seem about to commit crimes or acts of violence usually in reaction to a perceived grievance or out of dissent, but sometimes for no immediately apparent reason. Riots have arisen over poor working or living conditions, government oppression, efforts at taxation or conscription, conflicts between races or religions, or even the outcome of a sporting event or as protest against perceived cultural colonialism.
  • Pogrom (from Russian: погром; from "громить" - to wreak havoc, to demolish violently) is a form of riot, a massive violent attack on a particular group; ethnic, religious or other, primarily characterized by destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murders, in some cases to the degree of massacre. The term has historically been used to denote massive acts of violence, either spontaneous or premeditated, against Jews, but has been applied to similar incidents against other, mostly minority, groups.

Since the event was planned and organized in advance and targeted a specific group, I would say the current title is encyclopedic, though I would probably rename it İstanbul Pogrom for the sake of spelling. I don't think "Events of September" or even "Events of September 6" are appropriate, as many things happened on September 6 and most of them were not in İstanbul nor in the 1950s. - Gilgamesh 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WWII Persecution

I deleted this statement: "During the Second World War, Greeks, Jews, and Armenians were subjected to penal laws and arbitrary detention in labour camps."

Maybe someone can educate me--I've read this before, but I've found almost no sourcing. If this is true, I'd like to see it cited, and perhaps you could update this on one of the Rep. of Turkey pages too. Until then, I think we should dwell on the persecution which we can verify. There's enough of it. --Hashshashin 01:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited

Out of courtesy I am giving other editors tonight to add sources to back up the content on Istanbul pogrom. Tomorrow I'm going to start removing large blocks of text per WP:BLP. In addition, I will most likely be adding the NPOV tag unless drastic changes are made, as this appears to be POV OR. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources are provided at the foot of the article. By far, most of the information comes from Prof Speros Vryonis book which runs into 600 pages, including 8 appendixes, and 90 pages of photographs.
Speros Vryonis, The Mechanism of Catastrophe: The Turkish Pogrom of September 6-7, 1955, and the Destruction of the Greek Community of Istanbul, New York: Greekworks.com 2005, ISBN 978-0-9747660-3
Requesting that every single line be footnoted is, IMO, an attempt to sabotage the article, but if you insist, I'd ask you that you provide reasonable time to do so. Every single line of this article can be backed up with references from Vryonis book, which relies extensively on Turkish, Greek, British and US sources.--Damac 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Armenian Deaths

I am really puzzled that this is mentioned twice..Read this and tell me whatever does it mean between 13 and 16 Greeks and at least one Armenian (including two Orthodox clerics) died during or after the pogrom as a result of beatings and arsons.[2] Atleast one armenian including two clerics..kindly put a correction to it..or explain what it means..how one person means two clerics..??

The "(including two Orthodox clerics)" refers to the complete set of numbers mentioned, i.e. Greeks and Armenians. Two clerics died as a result of being attacked during the pogrom: one Greek and one Armenian.--Damac 20:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)