Talk:Sivas massacre

Page move

I moved the page from "1993 Sivas massacre" to "Sivas massacre" since most English-language news sources refer to it this way. The date will still be mentioned in the body of the text. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Content from Sivas incidents

"Protested by many Turkish and Kurdish singers e.g. Grup Yorum, Arif Sağ, Musa Eroğlu, Selda Bağcan, İlkay Akkaya and more, who sang Aşık Veysel's song "Sivas Ellerinde Sazim Calinir", the tragic and much-condemned incident has been a turnpoint in Turkish political history, with the Government taking a harder stance against religious fanaticism, militant Islam and antisecularism." Aramgar (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alevi massacre?

The events were not only about Alevi's. Aziz Nesin, an atheist was also one of the main targets, while other Sunni intellectuals were also tried to be killed. Khutuck (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aziz Nesin was THE main target, not merely one of the targets. Watch this video [1]. You can hear the murderers shouting "Sivas Azize mezar olacak" which means "Sivas is going to be the grave/tomb of Aziz". Off course secularism and democracy in general was also attacked. The crowd chanted slogans like "laiklik kahrolsun" which means "to hell with secularism" and "Sheriat Isteriz" which means "We want sharia law". The festival that was attacked was about celebrating an alevi saint Pir Sultan Abdal and alevi culture in general. Aziz Nesin who was a socialist and atheist had strong ties with the alevi community (who are secularists and mostly left wing) and attended the Pir Sultan Abdal Festival. Aziz Nesin's and other non-alevi attendant’s presence doesn't change the fact that it was an attack on an alevi festival and the alevi community. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an attack on atheists and atheism, Alevis were bystanders then and hijackers of spotlight after (which in my eyes makes them no less heinous than the attacking mob). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.36.211 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kebap shop controversy

There is in fact a kebap restaurant on the ground floor, and the thought of cooking meat and people burnt to death is certainly disturbing. Wikipedia requires statements to be sourced and presented in a neutral point of view. Regrettably, this section does not meet those requirements.

Currently a "kebap" restaurant is at work at the ground floor of this hotel. This has caused many controversies but the restaurant refused to shut down business. A kebap restaurant with meat cooking on the barbeques at this very hotel where people were burnt to death is significant. Yet Turkish authorities seem to have taken no measures to prevent this.

Please find a source about the kebap shop controversy. Turhish language sources are fine too. Aramgar (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Topicality of Basbaglar massacre

Basbaglar is most definitely related within the context of contemporary social climate- of which, its inclusion is important, furnishing the reader with similar events happening very close in time, within the same country.Mavigogun (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to find a source (Reliable Source) that supports that. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to smear the victims by linking them with the PKK. Jd2718 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have concluded that a link is being made for political purposes, and are editorializing based on your interpretation- no conclusion, as you indicated, has been expressed on this page. While I acknowledge that some have explicitly attempted to draw such a connection, it is neither my intention nor result. Redacting this element amounts to POV editing; the content, depicting in a very minor way the socio political climate at the time, is very much related- it is for the reader to interpret- not us.--Mavigogun (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether I am right or wrong, it needs a source. At this point all we have is the claim of one editor against the claim of another. WP:RS will resolve this. Take a few days, and see if you can find something. Jd2718 (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic entries are by their nature distillation of fact- the result of judgment and discretion. The topicality of well cited referenced material is a mater of judgment and discretion necessarily informed by a neutral point of view and common sense. The citing of unrelated guidelines (references for the material in question are cited in the parent article) after attributing motivation beyond content and editorializing based on political preference is lamentable- but forgivable, considering the incendiary nature of previous material posted to this same article.

Frankly, while sympathetic to the concerns motivating the call for redaction, it is to me reactionary and misplaced- and as yet unsupported. Demonstrate the merit of your view.--Mavigogun (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Reliable Source to support the relationship between the events? The burden falls on the editor claiming existence; we don't prove negatives. Jd2718 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No causative connection is being asserted- only a utility to the reader for assessing the climate in which the event occurred. This is akin to including information on concurrent- but not contributory -developments in aviation at the Wright Brother article detailing their work. Likewise, the article for the Columbine High School massacre includes in its 'see also' section link-outs to related events -without direct connection- due to topical nature. The item poses no undue burden, is topical, and has utility. You seem to be speaking to the previously voiced presumption that an assertion of cause is implied or intended- an apprehension that I have explicitly made clear is incorrect and is not supported by the current wording.Mavigogun (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrate that this item in particular, out of scores dealing with Turkey in the early 1990s, has utility. Certainly "the climate in which the event occurred" would pertain to things that had been occurring previous to the Sivas Massacre, why choose an event that occurred after? And why one event, and not a link to a general article? This argument, as stated, is full of holes. Jd2718 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2 massacres within 3 days of each other? The rational is far from 'full of holes': I have done much to accommodate your questions, yet you seem determined to refuse to get the point. If you are motivated to include other related incidents, then by all means do so- but not doings so is no justification of omitting this reference. Instead of just saying 'your thinking is bad', try addressing opposing ideas in a compelling way. As is, your response has been wanting: rather than adopting a position of collaboration, you choose to speak in minimalistic proclamations and issue edicts. If your position is solid, educate. Discounting solicited justifications without addressing the same is in no way productive. Mavigogun (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to the proceeding: I became aware of both these events as link-outs similar to those described above. They both painted part of the picture of the socio political landscape, as did the fringe conspiracy theories of causative connection between the two- the very existence of which add to the understanding of the prevalent mindset of a not insignificant element in Turkish culture. While the blatantly partisan entries on the subject were in need of address in service to maintaining a neutral point of view, entire removal of the same was not in service to this article; we would do well to include an aside, carefully characterized so as not to lend contrived credence, that makes mention of this aspect of the public interpretation/confabulation of these events- as they are every much a part as the fire itself.Mavigogun (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Source it. Your judgment, my judgment, they do not replace sources. All you have offered is your own judgment. Jd2718 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your rational for the edit you call for is not a mater of sourcing- your linking the inclusion to sourcing is fallacious. Your lack of address to my address of your concerns mitigates further consideration of your position.Mavigogun (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sevket Kazan , the ex Minister of Justice , voluntarily assigned himself to defend the criminals

Controversial and Islamist Minister of Justice , Sevket Kazan assigned himself to defend most of the criminals against the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.196.218 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• If it's uncited (and potentially libelous) it should be removed. I will move that paragraph here; it can be restored if it can be cited.

Sevket Kazan , ex Minister of Justice from Islamist Refah Party was defending the criminals against the state. All sentences were pardoned by the subsequent Islamist governments.

If there is a reliable source, please feel free to put it back in. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Salafists

I wouldn't say that they were Salafists ....... I think that would just push the responsibility away......... I think "islamists- or radical conservative muslims who felt offended because of Aziz Nesins book" would be appropriate

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sivas massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218064532/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/news-274125-sivas-massacre-case-drops-due-to-statute-of-limitations.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-274125-sivas-massacre-case-drops-due-to-statute-of-limitations.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=162446

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)