Jump to content

Talk:Sayfo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Can there really have been 750,000 Assyrians killed, if the Armenian genocide killed "only" a million? I'd like to see some references here. - Mustafaa 03:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The number of relocated people including Armenians (and supposedly Assyrians) in 1915 is being inflated since 1960s. It started with 200.000 and increased upto 1.5 million. The controversial claims also started to say that 1.5 million poeple perished. But recent documents revealed that the exact number of relocated people, including only Armenians was 924,158. The number of deaths is not known. At this point it is inaccurate to claim that a million people died. And it is also inaccurate to say 750.000 Assyrians were killed while there are no documents in non of the involved parties' archives. - Cansın 14 May 2005

This is untry, Talaat numbers included only over 10 most populous cities, and converge with Cemal memopirs 1.5 million revacuated Armenians. Those excludes other peoples, Assyrians in fact, were even more undercounted than Armenians in Ottoman Statistics, for reasons that I would state later, but in any cases, numbers did not inflate in the 1960s. The 1.5 million deaths originate from German documents, not Armenians. Fadix 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear Fadix, Talat's notes are the first hand historical documents. And I am providing you the numbers of relocated Armenians from 18 cities he had recorded; Ankara-47.224, Erzurum-128.657, Adana-46.031, Bitlis-109.251, Halep-34.451, Bursa-66.413, Diyarbakir-61.002, Sivas-141.592, Trabzon-34.500, Elazig-74.206, Izmit-54.370, Samsun-26.374, Balikesir-8.290, Afyon-7.327, Kayseri-47.616, Maras-27.101, Nigde-5.101, Konya-4.381, Total:924.158. These are from written documents. Could you please provide the link (but an official resource, please) of the source you have used for 1.5 million? In his notes he had also written down the estimate of Armenian population in Ottoman Empire. According to his notes, by 1914 there were 1.187.818 Gregorian Armenians, 63,967 Catholic Armenians are living in the Empire and the total number was 1.256.403. He also added that there might be an error and he estimated the total population approximately as 1.500.000 which matches with Britain archives. I can also give the detailed demography of Armenian population according to his notes. And another record from his notes; after the relocation, the number of the Armenian orphans was 10.314 mostly in Halep who were later given to Turkish families in order to be brought up. He noted that after the relocation the number of the Armenians who were living in the cities, to which relocation policy had been applied, was 284.157. He also noted that there might be errors and he estimated the number as 250.000 to 400.000 (After the relocation). Besides, according to the Ottoman archives (mostly telgrams), the relocation policy was not applied to any other Christian rather than Armenians. Those, who did not obey this policy and tried to apply it to other Christians were harshly punished by Ottoman government itself. I am not a historian and my major is totally different. I cannot devote myself to these discussions, since I cannot spend effort to make an extensive research on the events. However, I believe, as the administrators your main duty should be to evaluate the historical documents of both sides. I believe you are only under the influence of very biased or one sided figures. I wish you become more neutral and more open in evaluation of this matter. --Cansın 23.09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Cansın, you have converted this article from one that seems exagerated to one that almost suggests that nothing untoward happened. Neither point of view can be considered neutral. Accurate information on these events is difficult to come by. The best thing to do, for now, is to compromise. --Gareth Hughes 19:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear Gareth Hughes, I disagree that the changed atricle suggests nothing happened. The references over this issue even on the web is unreliable and insufficient. Some Syrians even claim that "Assyrian" name was adopted by European missionaries which was wrong(according to some Syrians) and actually so called Assyrian people are Syrians. Currently, there is a big population of Assyrians in Syria and northern Iraq. However "genocide" claims have never been credited and internationally yet discussed nor disputed. The only well-established history regarding the events in 1915 is the uprising of Assyrians against Ottoman government alongside with Britain. The biggest mistake, which is usually made (intentionally or not), is the easy use of the word "genocide". Official UN documents recognize only one Holocaust; Jewish Holocaust. There are folders among UN documents with the names of Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Cambodia Genocide, Paraguay Genocide, however none of them are recognized as "genocide" yet due to the ongoing trials of the defendants. There is one folder with the name of "Armenian problem" however UN genocide convention does not recognize it as "genocide" as well. But at least Armenian claims are internationally disputed, recognized by some parliaments(even it sounds funny and too much political to me, since if there is no court decision noone can claim any defendant is guilty) and discussions over the issue is ongoing unlike the Assyrian claims. --Cansın 14 May 2005

If you added the word controversial three times to an article as short as this, would it not suggest that you were making a point. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a binding policy: the point of view of the Assyrians and Syriani cannot just be overwritten. I felt the article as was, originally written by an Assyrian, was too one sided, but I believe that there should be balanced. --Gareth Hughes 21:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gareth Hughes, I wish you had shown the same sensitivity to neutrality when a Assyrian had written the previous version also acknowledged by you as too one-sided. I am not really sure about your suggestions on how to make it more balanced. By the way you are right about your point on the use of "controversial", I am removing them since "claims" is enough. --Cansın 22.05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for lightening the tone of the article. I can assure you that I did speak to the original author, and have felt it necessary to revert some POV edits made in this and other articles. I don't claim to be neutral, but I desire to be. The official line of the Turkish government needs to be heard as well as the claims of Assyrians. --Gareth Hughes 12:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Accsuing a country with a massacre is not NPoV

This is a very serrious allegeation. Both sides views are not prestent. Thank you. Classifying something as "Genocide" will require serrious evidence, world-wide acceptance, else its a drag. NPov suggests both sides views/explanations are present. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Requested move

Assyrian Massacres → Assyrian Genocide – The article was unilaterally moved by Coolcat who didn't even care to change the content of the article or the links accordingly. I can't move the article back to its original title due to this edit by Coolcat: [1]. I request that the article is moved back to its original title, until a consensus for a move is archived. — Stereotek 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Support move to original title. The edit by User:Coolcat to prevent the move back short of via this venue shows obvious bad faith. — Davenbelle 20:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move back to original title. Stereotek 05:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move to original title. It is generally accepted that the Assyrian people within the Ottoman Empire were deliberatly wiped out as a result of a Genocide. Additionally I am finding the pattern of Coolcat's edits and involvement in any issue regarding Turkey to be very disturbing and not within the cooperative communal spirit of Wiki. --THOTH 14:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. violet/riga (t) 10:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This move vote is now closed - see the decision below.

Discussion

Mr. Coolcat, exactly why did you move the article from Assyrian Genocide to Assyrian Massacres? And why did you violate Wikipedias policies by doing it unilaterally? I have requested that the article should be moved back, until you archieve a concensus for a move. Anyway, I for one strongly oppose any move of the page as the subject discussed in the article clearly is an 'Assyrian Genocide'. Another fact is that Assyrian Genocide seems to be the most widely used term for the events discussed in this article. Google give me only 115 hits on 'Assyrian Massacres' [2] and no less than 956 when searching for 'Assyrian Genocide' [3] Stereotek 18:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You moved it without a concensus what are you talking about. Number of google hits is not how we name articles. I did not violate any policy, I only violated your unquestionable authority. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Page was originaly moved without a concensus. Google hits is not how we determine the name of the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
To understand how articles are named in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Eleassar777 19:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes Coolcat. The article was originally moved without any consensus by new user Yce, a few days ago. I moved it back, to it's original title (Assyrian Genocide), but then you moved it again, without any attempts to create consensus about a move from its original title. Stereotek 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The intent of this page is not to discuss CoolCat's bad faith or anything similar. Only voting and arguments. --Eleassar777 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps both Assyrian Genocide and Assyrian Massacres should be used in the title. --THOTH 14:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


My take before I vote

First of, the figure presented for the number of Victims does not make sense,(it is too absolute) in fact, it is more difficult to estimate the Assyrian losses than the Armenian losses.

Second of, while I agreed that the Assyrian massacres/genocide should have it's entry, I doubt it now, maybe what happened in Iraq in the 30s could have its own entry, but what happened in the last year of the Ottoman era, can not, in my opinion have its own entry.

This is why I believe this: What happened to the Assyrians is mentioned in most cases and Western works as a componment of the Armenian genocide, while I disagree with this, I believe articles should converge... on what most says, regardless of if its the truth or not. Because people should know how really positions are presented in the real world.

For those reason, I believe that the main page, should be added in the Armenian genocide entry, and that other entries regarding the Assyrian population estimates, and losses should be build. Much like the Holocaust entry that does not only include Jewish deaths.

Many officials in the Ottoman could even not make the differences between Assyrians and Armenians, in the East, both communities were so closer with eachothers.

That there is to be no Assyrian main page, can be compensated by the fact that there is much more visitor in the Armenian genocide entry, which makes justice to the victims.

But if that was to happen, the article already there, is not a Wiki article, and lack many important parts. I propose myself to marge the Assyrian cases in the Armenian genocide entry, and change the Armenian genocide timeline in a new entry, to save place for this new change.

Any comment? Fadix 15:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, when I first moved the "Assyrian Genocide" to "Assyrian Massacres", I didn't know about the Wiki policies. I apologize if I did it in wrong way. Secondly, although I do not find "Armenian Genocide" page neutral and accurate enough, I aggree most of the remarks in Fadix's comments above. Assyrian page can be merged with Armenian page based on the fact that the historical documents about the Assyrians are vague and there can not be a well established history according to google hits. --Cansın 19.27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

How many countries recognise assyrian genocide?

How many countries recognise the assyrian genocide? --E.A 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since when does a genocide must be recognized by countries? Moreover, unlike the armenians the Assyrians are a very weak people and therefore cannot 'lobby' their cause. Mass killing occured against this people so it's a genocide.

Since when must a genocide be recognized by foreign countries or the UN to be valid? Moreover, unlike the Armenians, the Assyrian diaspora is very weak people and therefore cannot 'lobby' its cause. Mass killing occured against this people in order to eliminated them and this makes the events a genocide.


Moreover I am going to remove the POV banner unless somebody disagree. --equitor 17:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple Solution

Throw in a couple of "allegedly"s and there'd be no POV problem.--Doug O'Connell 18:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggested move: Sayfo

Since the dreadful events described in this article affected a people that have a variety of ways to call themselves (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Suryoyo), I suggest to move the page to "Sayfo", since this is the name under which it is quite generally known among the people concerned (also Saypâ, Saypo), and to a growing extent also among people with a different background, that's at least my impression.

There are some difficulties in terminology. Sayfo is readily understood in West Syriac communities, but I'm not sure how widespread the use of the alternative pronunciation Saypâ is among East Syriacs. The name Assyrian is difficult because it was a label used by many of those killed at the time of the massacres, and it still hasn't widespread support among their descendents. Perhaps we should take note that the Holocaust is not headed Ha-Shoah in Wikipedia. --Gareth Hughes 20:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Saypa could redirect to Sayfo. The Syriac Genocide sounds awkward to me, but could be a neutral alternative.Benne 11:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Or do you have a better alternative? In the end, Assyrian genocide is not acceptable. The killings were directed against people many of whom did not identify themselves as Assyrians.Benne 20:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not have a better alternative, but I think the change of name will be as difficult as the present one. Sometimes an article has to have an inadequate name. In such cases, the lead section can make the case clear. --Gareth Hughes 21:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you when you say that renaming the article is not easy, that's why I started this discussion. But allowing an inadequate name is in my opinion not an option. The title Assyrian genocide is not only a distortion of history, it also explicitly excludes those Syriacs who do acknowledge their Aramean ancestry. Perhaps we could have a vote on this issue.Benne 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Move: Syriac Genocide

I have moved this page from Assyrian Genocide to Syriac Genocide. I know this is a very sensitive topic, prone to edit wars, but the page title could in my opinion not be continued. Many Syriacs do not want to be called Assyrians, many other Syriacs not as Arameans. Syriacs is the only term that seems to be rather neutral, and accepted by both sides. --Benne 16:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Since Assyrians and Syriacs are the same people and both died in the genocide. I think it should be renamed to the Assyrian/Syriac Genocide?--Sargon 14:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Many Syriacs do not consider themselves Assyrians, but Arameans. (Again others call themselves Chaldeans.)
Combinations of these names are not practical. Besides, what name should come first? Aramean/Assyrian/Syriac or Assyrian/Aramean/Syriac?
The name Syriacs is not associated with either side, and should therefore in my opinion be used to refer to the population.
--Benne 15:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people doesnnt know what Syriac is. Most think of it as a language, and again it is a language. Syriacs, Chaldeans, Arameans, Assyrians are all the same people and everyone knows that. People who refered themselves as Suryoye and Atouraye died in the genocide so therefore i think it should be changed to the Assyrian/Syriac genocide.--Sargon 18:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to Assyrian genocide,a s this is the most used term. Benne and his friends should stop changing every mention of Assyrians by Syriacs without any scientific support for this. If they go on without substantiating their moves I'll require the intervention of an administrator. --Pylambert 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes made today friday 20th

I have reverted to the prior state as the removal of 'supposed' and the like is not the way forward. It is not fixing the fact that people view this article as POV. -Localzuk (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Genocide?

It's always good to be backed with as many a source as possible, but the lack or number of it don't justify the use of the word 'alleged' to a VERY known historical FACT. I agree with Chaldean with the basic meaning of the world and I do think that it make possible for someone to believe that thousands and thousands of people weren't killed by the Turks. People who are toying with words are ignoring the entire Turkish history. 201.51.3.241 11:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged?! Alleged?! How about I put you on the phone with my Grandfather? This is ridiculus. Chaldean 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you find a neutral source that states this. I'm sorry for your grandfather, but Wikipedia has a no original research policy. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
To all the users who are removing the 'alleged' statement. Please provide a neutral source as evidence of this matter. Until such a time when this is presented, it will likely be reverted to the state which includes 'alleged'. This is in compliance with WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.-Localzuk (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "alleged" imediately makes a fact look like it is false, or at least dubious. Fotr example the British comedy show "Have I Got News For You" can make ludicrous comments and "news" reports every week, so long as they slip a couple of "allegedly" words in, and thus can't be sued. If I were to say that somebody was "allegedly" a bestiality-loving serial killer and child rapist, it wouldn't be defamation or slander because the word "alleged" makes it look untrue, or at least biased. Thus the word "alleged" in this article is in fact pro-Turkey and thus biased. I suggest removing the highly controversial "alleged" words, and sticking the "totaly disputed" tag on top, until such time as THAT can be removed, and the undeniable fact of the Genocide can be accepted by certain people..... John Miller—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.250.35 (talk • contribs) .

You are missing the point of our complaint with your edits. You must provide references to the changes you are making. Until such a time that you provide them, the changes will be reverted on sight - as they are not compliant with the policies and guidelines cited above. -Localzuk (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Here [[4]] is historical document; a 1920 letter by Assyro-Chaldean leader written to France begging to save his people. And in the letter it STATES that they have lost 100,000 people so far because of the massacre. Here [[5]] is a detailed number of deaths (go to the years between 1915 - 1922) and what villages were destroyed. Here [[6]] is a book that was written only 4 years after the geoncide by a EYEWITNESS and details the masssacre day by day. Is this good enough? Its not our fault that the rest of the world does not recongize it, our people have been well aware the rest of the world don't give a _ about us, not even the "christian/western" world. Many have been putting the genocide under the armenian geoncide, since they look at that event as a representation of the whole christians of the middle east. But even Armenian community are well aware and recongnize our own genocide [[7]]

And by the way, British politicians in Britian's House of Commons recently discussed the genocide [[8]]. They don't talk about fake things in the house of commons. Would the French government let Assyrians built a monument about the genocide of it didn't occure? [[9]]. Would Swedish political parties bring it up if it didn't occur? [[10]]

This is ridiculus. When you say alleged, you are letting the possibility of it never happening. Stop acting like a Turkish nationlist and let the TRUTH be published. Chaldean 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not understand my complaint. Changes that are made must be verifiable. Therefore, the references must be presented when these changes are made. If they are not then people, like myself, will revert as new information that is unreferenced is not admissable. However, the references you provide look perfect and I do not object to the change. I will add these references into the article itself to prevent any further complaints. -Localzuk (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please could you also provide a reference to a site which isn't specifically linked with a single POV, such as an associated press article or some other international media coverage. The links you have provided do seem to be both from very biased organisations and I do not think it will hold out for very long before someone complains about the changes. -Localzuk (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For God's sake it is a EYEWITNESS account book. The letter was one of the few things that have survived despite turkey destroying evidence of the genocide for the past 80 years. What more do you want? And what do you mean baised? The source shows PICTURES of British politicans talking about the genocide. Chaldean 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stay calm. What I mean is that all the evidence you have just provided is from syriac sources. This will lead to people stating that it is a syriac conspiracy etc... As has been stated in various other places, and has lead to a lot of complaints about it on this site. Information must be verifiable from various media outlets not just ones that already are, as people will say, biased against the other side of the argument. Showing a picture of people talking is not verifiable - it is just a picture. If a reference to an agency such as the AP, BBC or CNN could be provided that would be enough to prevent any future problems. -Localzuk (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will will find more sources and will have a detailed report about this soon, with evidence. All I asked for now is to remove the word "alleged." This is ridiculus. The event did take place, and is confirmed by many historians. Chaldean 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Genocide

I would like to propose the "Syriac Genocide" be moved to the "Assyrian Genocide" as it has always been. I have not seen not one source calling the massacre as the "Syriac Genocide." Last week on January 30, 2006 when Britian's House of Commons discussed the issue, they reffered to the incident as the "Assyrian Genocide." Whenever their is a protest, it is called what is has always been: [11] 

Chaldean 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Support:

Oppose:

  • Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC) -- "Assyrian" is not a neutral term: it excludes those people who call themselves Arameans, Suryoye/Suryaye (Syriacs), or Chaldeans. Besides, the name is not unanimously supported by scientists, even though some people try to make us believe it is. In this regard I would like to mention Theodor Nöldeke, John Joseph, J.-M. Fiey.

Neutral:

  • Aldux: Passed to neutral; I've just found this in The paths of history, by which it seems they are both correct: "the christian armenians (and partly also the Christian Assyrians - also called Syrians or Aramaeans) were clearly ready to help the Russsians. On 11, June 1915, the Turkish government ordered the wholesale deportation of the Christian (i.e. mainly Armenian) population in the deserts of Northern Mesopotamia." A note in the same book adds "a small number of Christian Assyrians (actually Aramaeans) reached Russian Transcaucasia".

By the text I've reported it seems there is a diference between Assyrians and Aramaeans. Opinions? Aldux 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Discussion

  • Benne, you are simply wrong.
Nobody calls themselfs Aramean. Not one community or village. Where are you getting this from?
Chaldeans are Assyrians that belong the the Catholic Church. It doesn't matter what I like to call myself, but speaking scientifically, I am Assyrian, wether I like it or not. Its like some Italian in America likes to call himself American, but not Italian - it doesn't stop him being under the number of Italians in American. Go to any part of of Iraq (were the majority of Chaldean reside,) they don't deny being Assyrian. They see themselfs as Assyrian first, before Catholic.
Syriac is not a ethnicity. It is a term to coin Assyrians and Meronites, since Meronites don't like to be called arab, and preffer Syriac. As far as I can remember, no Meronite were massacred. It was only Assyrians in what is today Turkey and Iran.
"the name is not unanimously supported by scientists " - Prove it. The people you metioned are Europeans/Westerners. We have to remember that we are talking about an event that occured in the ME. And we have to listen to ME "scientists" first, before Westerners, Specially the ones that witnessed it/was part of their time. If you have no source, your not credable.

In conclusion, I would only aprove the term "Syriac Genocide" if Meronites were massacred in a genocide way too (in terms of the numbers and the way they were killed.) Chaldean 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Benne I have read some of your ridiculus rants in this page.

"I disagree. Many Syriacs do not consider themselves Assyrians, but Arameans. (Again others call themselves Chaldeans.) "

I am still waiting for you to show me any person that calls himself Aramean. I call myself Chaldean, but that doesn't replace my ethnicity. How come the Armenian genocide isn't called the "Armenian Orthodox" Genocide?

And for the last time, Syriac is not a ethnicity. It is only a term used to coin Assyrians and Meronites. Wikipedia is not a place to "make everyone happy." It stats facts, facts, and facts. Chaldean 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


And as for Google:
"Assyrian Genocide" - 11,700
"Syriac Genocide" - 131
Chaldean 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Maronites were massacred not only during WWI but before it they were one of the most dicriminated group. They should be included in the Assyrian genocide entry even if the term Assyrian might be restrictive. Fad (ix) 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what we're talking here: Armenian, Assyrian and Greek civilian populations were massacred, deported and again massacred or starved to death in 1915-1918 by the Ottoman army under the Young Turks regime for political (panturanism) and strategic (they were considered as a fifth column) reasons, their genocide(s) (I'd rather think there was only one genocide including all of them) was the result of a deliberate policy. Whereas the famine in Lebanon during the WWI killed people of all creeds and ethnicities. As for the pre-WWI massacres of Maronites (reciprocal massacres of Maronites and Druzes) they should be addressed to in the History of Lebanon#Sectarian conflict: European Powers begin to intervene section. Maronites are neither Assyrians or Syriacs (even if Benne wrongfully included them in his misleading Syriacs box), their church belong to the Syriac Christianity (i.e. those churches that use Syriac as a liturgic language), that's all. Pylambert 11:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Aldux, I did have not moved the page, not once, please dont accuse people of things of nowhere. I think it was sargonious. Anyways, I think now its pretty fair to move it, doesn't everybody think so? Chaldean 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Chaldean, believe me, you got it all wrong. I know perfectly it was Sargonious. Probably you misinterpreted the edit summary "rv to Chaldean - YOU CAN'T MOVE LIKE THIS, you'll ruin the history page"; which simply means that I reverted to the last version you made. Believe me, if there's somebody careful to not move wanton accusations, it's me. As for moving, we should wait till 10 February: it's good norm to keep polls open for five or seven days. After this, it'll be easy to find an administrator to move Syriac genocide to Assyrian genocide. But please don't simply copy-and-paste; as Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page explains, The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page before and after the move in one place, as if the page had always been named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that. Aldux 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arameans

You are all simply trying to erase the fact that many Suryoye do NOT call themselves "Assyrians", and do NOT want to be referred to as such, but rather as "Arameans" or "Suryoye/Suryaye".

There are plenty of people who call themselves "Arameans", "Aramaeans", "Aramäer", "Araméens", or "Arameeërs". Don't turn a blind eye to this fact, no matter how many "scientists" state otherwise. It cannot and should not be denied that they also belong to the people who suffered so bitterly, especially in the year 1915. It's a terrible shame you are so "democratically" denying them their rightful place in history.

Who are the Arameans?

Genozid (Sayfo) 1914 - 1918 an den christlichen Aramäern im Osmanischen Reich

Der Völkermord / Genozid (Sayfo) an den Aramäern

Apparently, on Wikipedia there is no place for these kind of voices to be heard, because Assyrianists, or people who support their case want all Syrians, both East Syrians and West Syrians, to conform to their idea of identity. It's a shame! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


"You are all simply trying to erase the fact that many Suryoye do NOT call themselves "Assyrians", and do NOT want to be referred to as such, but rather as "Arameans" or "Suryoye/Suryaye"."

1. Nobody calls themselfs aremean. 2. Suryoye is used mostly by despora Meronites who do not wish to be called arabs, and despora Assyrians, Chaldeans, people of the Syrian Orthodox church who want to be united politically. Chaldean 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(answer to Aldux) The only problem, again, is that for religious and political reasons some activists and clerics, mostly belonging to the (very small) Syriac Orthodox church whose Patriarchal see is in Damascus (in Syria, whose governemnt is Arab nationalist and not respectful of non-Arab minorities), try to favorize the use of "Syriacs" (which is only a religious denomination) or "Arameans" (which is a linguistic, not an ethnic, denomination). Chaldean is right, "Arameans" is only used here in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany by the medias and by some activists (because it stresses the fact that they speak "the language of Christ"). Among themselves, they identify as members of the Syriac Orthodox Chruch (süryani in Turkish) and as Christians. You must also keep in mind that if they migrated towards Western Europe, that's mostly because they were caught between the Turkish army and the Kurdish insurgents, most of their families were very rural, many didn't even speak Turkish, they were not political activists, just refugees from a region where a civil war was going on, in which they were no active part, only "collateral damages". Many of them don't want to have any part in politics, even at the local level here in Belgium (there's only one municipal councillor from their community, and he's become quite controversial lately because of a chuchr dispute over the designation of a new bishop next Sunday in Brussels). --Pylambert 13:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Süryani doesn't mean "Syriac Orthodox", it is the Turkish equivalent (originally Arabic) of the self-appellation Suryoye (West Syrian pronunciation) or Suryāye (as pronounced by East Syrians), and has for centuries been translated as "Syrians".
It is nonsense that "Arameans" is not an ethnicity. What do you base that upon? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Süryani is not used for Keldani, who are Chaldeans, nor for Nasturi, who are "Nestorians". "Arameans" has never been used as an ethnicity, I'm not the one who has to prove that is is not used ! --Pylambert 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's easier to prove it has been used, than to prove the opposite. Please check out www.aramnaharaim.org and you'll find out that also patriarchs of the Church of the East considered the East Syrians to be Arameans. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


hi i am reading this for a while and i want to say something to benne: do you know that REAL arameans live in syria in villages near damascus. they are moslem and some christians. they speak an version of aramaic that we Assyrians(syriacs, chaldeans, etc.) do not understand. we are not related to them and it is a shame that some assyrians are claiming the real arameans identity, that is stealing an identity. in holland once a real aramean complained about the fake ones supported by a dutch professor, but the people didn't care and went on stealing the aramean identity.

--Suryani 18:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

benne, i also want to let you know that www.aramnaharaim.org is a racist website and that is well known at our community in the netherlands.--Suryani 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Assyrian Genocide

I agree, it's NEVER been called the Syriac genocide. It occured in Assyrian lands not Syria. Hakkari is the home of my ancestors whom after the Genocide were driven to Iraq.

Sayfo or Seyfo

The only neutral name for the 1915 events, widely known, often used in academic circles, and largely accepted by both West Syrians and East Syrians, by people who identify themselves as Arameans, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, is Sayfo, or Seyfo (sword in Syriac), without being tied to one of the subgroups.

In the article, it could be stated that it is also called Aramean genocide, Assyrian genocide, or Syriac genocide.

If Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia with articles written from a neutral point of view, I'm strongly convinced that either Sayfo or Seyfo should be used, rather than any other name. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Benne, you are simply not right. I have asked you to show me people in the middle east that call themselfs aramean, and you have not. And even if they did, nothing justfying changing the title of a event out of nowhere because of some people decided to call themselfs something different. Throughout history, the event was never called Sayfo or Syriac genocide. It has always been the Assyrian genocide. Plain it simple. You can't change history for your own interest. You know what would be neutral? Calling all of the genocide of armenians, assyrians and greeks "Asia Minor Holocoast." But it didnt happen, and historians and the people of that time decided differently. They choose the Armenian Geonocide and Assyrian Genocide. Chaldean 20:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself ... First you ask me to prove that there are people in the ME who call themselves "Arameans", then you say that it wouldn't make a difference. You simply don't want to hear the truth. How can you say that "Sayfo" was never used? That's a shameless lie, and you know it!
In Germany, for example, the name "Aramäer" is used quite extensively by Suryoye themselves, but also by the media. That's an indeniable fact.
My sole interest is to present a neutral, truthful image of the sufferings that were inflicted on the people whom I have come to respect deeply.
I care more about stating facts then not hurting some peoples feelings. You talked about Germany. How many times do I have to keep on telling you that these terms are only used in despora. "Syriac" is nowhere (except in the Syriac Orthodox Church which has no more then 20,000 members) to be found back home, where it counts. I did not contract myself, I said the ones that change what they want to be called in despora does not contribute to anything. You can call yourself whatever you want, you can't change your ethnicity. And I once again state the most important part of this whole debate: these terms of armeans or syriacs are not found in present day Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Not today or before the genocide. Chaldean 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, stick to the facts then, don't try to deny them. (Sure you contradicted yourself, read back your own remarks.)
Not only in the diaspora, but also in Turkey, people refer to themselves as Suryoye, (or Süryani in Turkish), and also as Oromoye (Arami). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not explaining myself well, since I have a hard time with English. As for Turkey.....I beg you to show me a sizable population that calls themself Suraya or Arami or Aramean. Chaldean 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurds

I wanted to know why what I wrote was edited out? "These areas had also a sizeble Kurdish population as well. To get the Kurds on their side, the Ottoman government promised the kurds a future independent state in exchange. This lead the kurds being under direct control of the Ottoman army."

Indeed this is true. You can go ask any Kurdish historian and he will likewise tell you so. We have to remember that the kurdish community were not exactly on the same side/page with each other before WWI arrived. Chaldean 20:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it was specifically edited out but again would cite the need for references. You need to reference any addition as per WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS. Unless additions are referenced, it is highly likely that people will object, and call the article POV and it does not help wikipedia become a more reliable source. -Localzuk (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this article, still is in need of alot of work in terms of sources, sources, sources. People plase help out :) Chaldean 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Chaldean, why have you re-added the information that was removed without adding a source? Also, why did you mark it as minor? The guidelines state that minor changes are only those that are small changes to text (such as spelling) and reformatting. -Localzuk (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Which part are you talking about? The not recongizing part? You need a citation for assyrians not having any political power in the 20th century after the genocide? Chaldean 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You have added These areas had also a sizeble Kurdish population as well. To get the Kurds on their side, the Ottoman government promised the kurds a future independent state in exchange. This lead the kurds being under direct control of the Ottoman army. This needs references for the first bit and the rest (each being a chunk) IMO. -Localzuk (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not add this part, don't know how this happend? I agreed that we would get sources first for that part. But I was talking about this "Assyrian historians claim not having any real political power throughout the 20th century is what primerly lead to the unrecognition of the genocide." Chaldean 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. Sorry -Localzuk (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I edited it due to lack of sources. The point is that its extremely hard to believe that an empire passes through a genocide to keep certain territories, and then after winning it would give up a big chunk of its empire so that the Kurds could be indipendent. This is a strange behaviour for an empire. For this reasons, if you want to put the text this way, there's going to be necessity of good independent sourcing. Cheers. Aldux 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem Chaldean 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


the empire did not promise an independent state, they called for jihad and the protection of islamic soil, kurds joined in and fought alongside turks the empire was weak and fought only for their survival , kurds were considered as loyal and good troops the role of the kurds in otoman history is not known enough , kurds played a big role in fighting off shia incursions from persia , and prpotecting the land against the imperial russian army the kurdish lords were in fact independent states under otoman supremacy , until the otoman empire made the first contract with german weapon companies, a lot of the weapons were in fact produced by kurds and kurdistan or kurdish areas were home to over 700 fortresses , kurdish tribal armies fought sometimes by themself against invading iranian armies and onetime they even invaded baghdad and azerbaijan atatürk or the young turks talked about turkey , being the country of kurds and turks , it was until turkey was independence , and the state strong enough to centralize power , that they forbid kurdish language and everything kurdish to create a new upper identy , turkish modelled after italy and france that is why , today there is no enough resarch about it , they did not promise an independent state but an equal state , in which bote people can live that is why , the turkish liberation war should be called , kurdish-turkish liberation war kurds were the only non turkish population group fighting to the end alongsode turks and until turkey was independence

Debate misguided?

I see a lot of debate about the Assyrian/Syriac question, but has anyone thought to question the use of the word genocide in this article? Which scholars support this view? Which organisations recognise an Assyrian genocide occuring? To what degree does the academic community verify that Assyrians experience a genocide? What is the International Association of Genocide Scholars view? It seems the article has already portrayed the Assyrian experience as an uncontestable example of genocide, but I would like to see proof of this. --A.Garnet 19:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone wrote it here, it would be more inclusive to say "Asia Minor genocide", or "genocide of the Anatolian Christians". But as Armenians pushed for its recognition as the "Armenian genocide", others, like the Assyrians and the Pontic Greeks, didn't have the choice and used their ethnonyms to name "their" genocide. The recognition of the Armenian genocide is in reality inclusive of the two other ones, they're not distinct. --Pylambert 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree there, the Military tribunal has not equated Christians with Armenians. Also, the Assyrian genocide term is much too vague, does it exclude what happened in Iraq in the 30s? For many reasons, that was why I already proposed in the past to move it in a section of the Armenian genocide article, because it is hardly quoted in books alone but nearly always reffered in works covering the Armenian genocide. The Pontus Greeks tragedy on the other hand can be separated and is isolated by its specific date.
Exactly, its not like the Armenians genocide and the assyrian genocide were to different events at two different locations. Almost all Assyrians villages had population of Armenian. It was a selfish mistake by the armenians to do what they did, but what can we do know? Assyrian people reffer to it now as the assyrian genocide and armenians call theirs armenian genocide. Chaldean 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What you call selfishness does not originate from Armenians, the Germans isolated the Armenian cases, so as the allies, so as the Military tribunal, some like Nogales does sometimes use the term Christians, but still isolate the Armenians. This can be compared with the Holocaust, which generally refers to the destruction of the European Jews, but may also includes the Gypises even thought some Uniqueness pushers like Lewy will object to such an inclusion. Fad (ix) 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The European Jews were massacred because they were Jewish. The Armenians were massacred mostly because they were Christian, not because of their ethnicity. So the title "Armenian Genocide" is simply misleading. They didn't die because they were Armenian. Chaldean 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not true, it was clearly specified that the administraive measures implemented against the Armenians should not be implemented against other Christians, later all were thrown in the same bag, but Armenians being Christian was one of the factors and not the causes. Fad (ix) 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Move protection

I've protected this page from being moved. That last name, Jihad against Assyria, was not discussed and is so highly politicised that I'm amazed that anyone thought it was a good idea. This is a collaborative project: work with each other. --Gareth Hughes 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jihad against Assyria? Guys do we need to remind ourselfs that wikipedia is not a place to create new things/titles such as Syriac Genocide or Jihad against Assyria. Chaldean 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
A vote is still going on to put it back to Assyrian genocide, and up to now there are 7 for, 1 against (Benne) and 1 neutral. I also object to the "Syriacs" box: "Syriac christianity" would be OK, but Benne has taken from the beginning a fanatical attitude on everything touching Assyrians, replacing everywhere "Assyrians" by "Syriacs" (like here) and pushing for the use of "Syriacs" to designate a large part of Middle Eastern Christians, including even Maronites and Melkites. Other articles will have to be cleaned up and "Assyrians" restored in place of "Syriacs". Pylambert 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's quite an exaggeration, Monsieur. I do not change everything that's called "Assyrian" here on Wikipedia. However, I do object to using "Assyrian" as an umbrella name for the Suryoye/Suryāye (who have for centuries been called "Syrians" in English and more recently "Syriacs"), simply because that name is not accepted nor appreciated by many of the people concerned. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't have a problem with the Syriac box. Chaldean 16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian Massacres in Turkey would encompass Greeks and Armenians as well. I would rather see that.

King Legit

Well, I've just removed the move protection from this article. I don't want that to be an invitation to move it. I suggest if two logged-on users agree on a new name they should move the article there. If someone moves the article without discussion and someone else agreeing with them, I think we can all consider that bad manners all round. --Gareth Hughes 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The straw poll above seems to be pretty clear that we want to move this article back to Assyrian genocide. I know that Benne has voiced an objection, but does anyone else object to this move? --Gareth Hughes 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Question: Should the second word "genocide" be capitalized? --Khoikhoi 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Capitalising the G implies that it is a proper name: the genocide is called 'Syriac/Assyrian Genocide'. I do not believe this to be the case. Rather, this is about the 'genocide of Syriacs/Assyrians'. The article Armenian Genocide has the capitalisation, because this has become the name of that genocide. How many people prefer 'Sayfo' as the name? --Gareth Hughes 22:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should be "xxxxx genocide" not "xxxx Genocide". Aldux 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aldux. And all mentions of "Syriacs" and links towards Syriacs should accordingly be replaced in the article by Assyrians, otherwise the move back would be useless (+ all the links towards the article). And articles Syriacs, Chaldeans and even Assyro-Chaldeans could also be merged with Assyrian people. And let's not forget the misleading and inaccurate Syriacs box. I don't volunteer to do it, I rather let it to somebody less sanguinary than me ;-) --Pylambert 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
" And articles Syriacs, Chaldeans and even Assyro-Chaldeans could also be merged with Assyrian people." I agree with you on this, with the exception of the Syriac page. I will propose a vote on this as well, after we finish taking care of this issue. Chaldean 19:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not move, consensus has not been reached

I strongly object to the very idea of straw polls on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a democracy.

And that's not because I apparently represent a minority in this issue, but because I believe consensus should be reached in order to present a neutral point of view, rather than ignoring minorities by simple voting.

On this page, I stated earlier that I do not fancy the title "Syriac genocide" that much, but that I moved the article because I object to the title "Assyrian genocide", because the adjective "Assyrian"

  1. does not represent a neutral POV;
  2. has become politicised;
  3. is disputed by scholars (as stated in the Assyrian people article);
  4. is rejected and resented by a considerable part of the Suryoye/Suryāye.

Personally, I strongly favour the name Sayfo. The only objections I've heard so far came from Garzo (because of varying spellings), and Chaldean, who said that the name Sayfo has never been used before, a statement that is provably untrue.

I would like to urge the administrators not to move the page just yet on the basis of fewer than ten votes, but rather try to establish a consensus on this issue. Once again I'd like to stress that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Neutrality can not be reached by numbers. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All true, but we are consensus driven. There is a problem with the word sayfo being a transcription of the western pronunciation, when many of those who died in this awful event used the eastern pronunciation. Official sources within the Syriac Orthodox Church always use Sayfo (which is translated sword), and I believe that the Assyrian Church of the East officially refers to the genocide as Qatel d'Ama Aturaya (which is translated Assyrian genocide). So, the official, church sources use different names. Technically, anything other than these is a new coinage. Such a coinage might be prefereble if it results in compromise, but there seems to be dissatisfaction over the name Syriac genocide. Can anyone find a better way through this confusion? --Gareth Hughes 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a more general article over ethnic and religious cleansing, massacres and genocides in the late Ottoman Empire, including Armenians, Pontic Greeks and the various Neo-Aramaic Christian speakers, but also Yazidis and some others. Anyway, there are historical and legal definitions of what can be called a genocide and we're dealing here with a mix of ethnic and religious cleansing, massacres and genocides. The article should also include more about the instrumentation of the various minorities in the Ottoman Empire by the Great Powers of the time, who are ultimately not quite innocent in these matters: Russia and the UK ("Assyrian levies"), but also France ("bataillon assyro-chaldéen" created in 1921 in the French Mandate in Syria) used all these people like France did in Algeria with Harkis or Israel with the the South Lebanon Liberation Army, or the USA with the Montagnards/Hmongs in Indochina. --Pylambert 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well Armenian Genocide rightly has its own article, due to the magnitude of the slaughter. I think it would be interesting to write an article on the combined experience of communities in Turkey at the end of the Ottoman Empire, but I would not for one moment suggest that the fearful experiences of Aramaic-speaking Christians in eastern Turkey should go without an article. I beleive there is certainly enough to say about this to warrant an article. --Gareth Hughes 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand what is the problem. Since when does Wikipedia create new terms just so that one person does not feel offended? My God, why can't we just state what the world has stated since the event - Assyrian genocide. "Personally, I strongly favour the name Sayfo." But people dont know the event as "Sayfo"! When a person wants to search this topic, his not going to type in "Sayfo," he is going to type Assyrian genocide. Chaldean 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


The Time Has Come to Move the Page

Its been 10 days since the poll began, Garzo don't you agree that we should move the page now? Chaldean 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed and all references to "Syriacs" replaced by "Assyrians", with an introductory note saying that the term Assyrians here includes all Neo-Aramaic speaking Christians, regardless of their church denominations. And the page should be protected just afterwards against any new attempt to move/rename it, and against its modification by not-registered (IP) users. After that, it'll be time to merge the Syriacs, Chaldeans, Assyro-Chaldeans and Assyrian people articles in one same article Assyrian people with the same introductory note, and protect all four pages against attempt to move/rename them (or recreate them under "Syriac people", "Chaldean people" or "Assyro-Chaldean peopl", "Chaldeo-Assyrian people" or "Chaldoassyrian people"). A third step will be to suppress the Syriacs box, there's already a category:Assyrians, that's enough. We need to move on, it is not a question of democracy, but of accuracy and of respect towards the students and other lay users of wikipedia, who are presently deceived by all these erroneous articles. --Pylambert 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not call this what it is. The year of the Sword. That's what it's called in Assyrian. Sayfo.King Legit

Please do not use Cut And Paste to rename a page: it destroys the page history. If you want to move a page, use the Move button. If it tells you can't move the page, because the target already exists (as in this case), you have to ask an admin to do it. Please don't Cut And Paste. — Gareth Hughes 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Very Cheap of you Benne

[12] 16:27, 8. Jan 2006 Benne.de K (- Völkermord an den Assyrern wurde nach Völkermord an den Aramäern verschoben)

Shame on you. Chaldean 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


You missed one:
8 januari 2006 kl.16.17 Benne m (flyttade Assyriska folkmordet till [[Syrianska folkmordet)
--Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Language of the article

I think that this article needs a LOT of improvement in the way it's written. I quickly went through it yesterday and today, and tried to remove the most obvious ones. There's still a lot of language mistakes, spelling mistakes, etc. There also is a lot of repetition (e.g. it gives some background info, and then says that the people were massacred over and over and over again). For example, the Holocaust article doesn't tell the 10 000 different incidents, but just the general info. I think that it's enough if just the general info is told, and not a story of every time 60+ people were killed. Even after reading the article, I don't really get what happened. The article just doesn't tell the big picture of things. It's like... it's the same if in World War II there were descriptions of each battle, but no text of the big picture, like "Operation Barbarossa", "D-day", "Pacific theater", etc. Also, there's way too many long quotes. We need to write this article in our own words and summarise the quotes. I think that 400 word+ quotes are a bit too much.--HJV 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on many of your points. The thing you have to understand is that, this is a very old event that is not as well documented as other events we know about..so we only only bits and pieces like some of the events I mentioned here and there. I mean, there was no big "D-day"-event. The genocide was bits by bits, little bit here and there, village by village. So, we have only stated the stories we know. I kind of didn't like how undetailed the Armenian genocide page was. I mean, you want good details of events, so that the reader can almost feel the event. Chaldean 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


It is a hoax

This genocide is a lie.--Simon Bolivar1994 07:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Because Ottomans and Assyrians is a in good relations.İt is a imperialist hoax.Likewise Armenian genocide is a same hoax--85.104.126.137 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit of article

I cleaned up some errors of language and punctuation. I tried to organize it more logically, but you may not agree with what I've done.

The article in not complete. Some parts need to be filled in. More references are needed. KarenAnn 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I have just begun a copy-edit of the this article as well. In the leading paragragh I see the following: The Syriac name Qeṭlā ḏ-‘Amā Āṯûrāyā (ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ). Usually I am able to see special characters but apparently not this time. Does anyone else have this problem? Or is my browser just not adequate this time? JenLouise 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Syriac? If you can't, then you need to download Syriac fonts. If you're talking about the Latin special characters, I can't see all of them either. --334 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have finished copy-editing the article and think that it reads fine in terms of spelling and grammar. I am therefore going to remove the copy-edit tag seeings as the article also has a clean-up tag. Also I have got rid of many of the links that we featured more than once as Wiki guidelines say only link the first instance of something. JenLouise 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The genocide

The genocide took place in TurAbdin mostly, not hakkari and urmia, well there too but mostly TurAbdin id like to see it written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.185.79 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 September 2006.

It was not in one small area? Do you have any idea how small Tur Abdin is? This was a MASS event that stretched from Urmia to Smyrna. Chaldean 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sayfo/Archive_1&oldid=1026714666"