Talk:Sayfo/Archive 3

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

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Most common title

The most common title for the article is Seyfo, not Assyrian genocide. Also in the syriac language, the genocide is not known as "the genocide on the assyrian or syriac people", it is only known as Seyfo. Seyfo = Sword.

Seyfo: [1]

Assyrian Genocide: [2]

The article should be moved to Seyfo. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

After you get to about page 4 the word "seyfo" stops referring the Assyrian Genocide and starts referring to some soccer player and shows up in pages in other languages, having another meaning totally. As Chaldean said above, "Seyfo Genocide" yields many many fewer results that "Assyrian Genocide", both with and without quotes. Assyrian Genocide is clearly the most common title. However, "Sayfo" is mentioned in the first paragraph along with its spelling in the Aramaic alphabet, so people are informed immediately of its next most popular name.

- Assyrian Genocide (with quotes) yields around 21,000 results
- Seyfo Genocide (without quotes) yields around 6,400
- Sayfo Genocide (without qotes) yields around 1,200

Waleeta (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statistics is no reliable method for establishing a neutral title. The only name more or less acknowledged by all Syriacs (Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldaeans alike) is Sayfo. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 17:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But the target audience is not only the Assyrians, but for scholarship in general, which is actually the "Assyrian Genocide". It is the most common used in English, it was the title used by the International Genocide Scholars Association, and it is what will be used to search. Anyway, it includes "Seyfo" in the first sentence.Waleeta (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ArameanSyriac, look at your results for Seyfo first. Most of the results are not refering to the genocide, but other things, such as French singers and what not. Assyrian genocide has proven previously is the most common term in the English language, and unless their is a reasonable argument to suggest otherwise, we are all wasting our time here. Benne, well, I don't know if I should reply to you. Chaldean (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

However, lets say we keep the current name, should the article only be talking about Assyrians and not mentioning Aramean-Syriacs? And no, Aramean-Syriacs are not included in Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article name should be Seyfo Genocide. It was committed on oromoye and chaldoye as well who don't accept the name suryoye. It is the same genocide on basically the same aramaic speaking people, but assyrians, arameans and chaldeans see themselves as separate peoples. The article name should be Seyfo Genocide because it does justice to all groups right to self-denomination, there should be redirects tough so that if somebody types "Assyrian Genocide" they will end up on the Seyfo Genocide article. This way we will keep the benefits of the fact that the term Assyrian Genocide is more well known but do justice tho the other groups who are not assyrians and don't accept the name. In time this way the term Seyfo Genocide will replace the incorrect term Assyrian Genocide. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The most common title is in fact the "Assyrian Genocide" and it is the most recognized term and it is what the International Association of Genocide Scholars use to describe the genocide when the association recognized it. Seyfo is also a word in the Western dialect and those who speak the eastern dialect do not commonly use the term. Besides, this is an English article. "Assyrian Genocide" is the most common and recognized usage and a quick google search confirms that. "Assyrian Genocide": 14,400. "Seyfo Genocide": 599.--Chcoc (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not Seyfo Genocide, it is called simply Seyfo, and it is refered as Seyfo in English aswell. The TriZ (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seyfo genocide without quotes in a search still only yields 6,070 and even then, most of the results say "Assyrian Genocide" with Seyfo in parenthesis. And again, the International Association of Genocide Scholars recognized it as the "Assyrian Genocide". "Seyfo" is not commonly used by people who do not speak the language/English speakers and is mostly commonly used by people who speak the west dialect even if they do speak the language. Whenever it is has been acknowledged, it has been as "Assyrian Genocide".--Chcoc (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the term Assyrian Genocide is that it is inaccurate. The assyrian genocide was committed on several aramaic speaking peoples not only on those who called themselves assyrians (which was not used widely among them anyway but more by foreigners). The name assyrian has been used incorrectly throughout the history of the aramaeans. They called them syrians first because they lived in that region and were the first christians there and later started to call them assyrians which is incorrect because they were aramaeans, not the ancient assyrians [3]. Even inside the assyrian community there is discussion between the clergy who use the term aramaean and nationalist groups who use the term assyrian. All groups have their own reasons for preferring a name and might not agree with each other but it IS a fact that not all aramaic speaking communities that were involved in the assyrian genocide accept the name assyrian and prefer their own names such as aramaeans and chaldeans. If you deny their right for recognition you might just as well delete this article and just accept the term armenian genocide and deny the assyrian right for recognition. I think having accurate information on wikipedia is more important than how many results google gives. It is not surprising that western scholars use the term assyrian and that google gives more results for that name since westerners were responsible for spreading that name around. Christian missionaries have been messing with the middle east for ages and are just as big a threat to orthodox syriac christianity as the oppressing countries in which they live. They are destroying the assyrian/aramaic/chaldean culture and religion by converting them to catholicism and imposing their language and culture on them. Besides I already solved the problem of people not knowing the name seyfo and typing assyrian genocide instead by making a redirect to seyfo so that those users will end up here. This way they will learn the term seyfo and the goals of wikipedia of informing and educating will be achieved. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also not true that seyfo is not understood by all syriac/aramaic speaking peoples but only by those who speak the west dialect. They all use the word seyfo for the genocide but some pronounce it differently and say sayfo or saipha. Even in other semitic languages all over the middle east and africa this word is understood, for example in arabic it is seyfe, in amharic and tigrinya it is säyf. This small difference is not as important as the big mistake of calling it assyrian genocide. I understand that westerners use the term assyrian genocide more often (since westerners spread this name around) like they use holocaust more often than shoah but there is a big difference. Holocaust doesn't refer to an ethnic identity and doesn't exclude other ethnic groups like the term assyrian genocide does. It merely means destruction (completely burnt in greek) and applies to everyone although it is used most to refer to the jewish genocide. In the sense that both holocaust and seyfo are words for destruction (burnt and sword) they are similar and they should be preferred to jewish genocide and assyrian genocide. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You just used http://www.aramnaharaim.org/ as the basis for your views and you are going into your own personal views which the majority of people do not agree with and that is a completely biased site without any real basis to back up their claims. It was recognized as the "Assyrian Genocide" by the International association of Genocide Scholars and has always most commonly been referred to as the "Assyrian Genocide". Seyfo is not commonly used by English speakers nor is it commonly used speakers of the eastern dialect. If you say 'saypa' to a east dialect speaker, 'seyfe' to an arabic speaker, 'säyf' to an amharic speaker, etc they will only think of the direct translation, "sword", and will not have any connection to the genocide. It is different than saying "Holocaust" for the Jewish genocide to an english speaker or just about anyone because that is the common usage for the genocide in the english language as opposed to "seyfo" which is only common usage to speakers of the west dialect.--Chcoc (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I used my own experience from discussions with assyrians and aramaeans (members of Assyrische Mesopotamische Vereniging Enschede if you are from holland) in combination with information from books and the internet as the basis for my views. I came to the conclusion that usually the clergy and the religious people of an ethnic group use their own ethnic names (aramaeans/oromoye, chaldeans/chaldoye etc) instead of the incorrect blanket term assyrian (which refers to the ancient assyrians or modern suryoye who claim descent from them, and doesn't include modern aramaeans, chaldeans and maronites who claim ancient aramaean or phoenician descent). These claims of descent are called aramaeanism [4], chaldeanism and phoenicianism (mostly lebanese maronites). The nationalist people disregard ethnic and religious differences and want to form a strong front using the name assyrian and claim ancient assyrian ancestry to have stronger claims for an assyrian homeland, this is called assyrianism. Mind the fact that the english word assyrian is not exactly the same as the name suryoyo in Neo-Aramaic. Suryoyo doesn't apply to the ancient assyrians (who are called athuroye in Neo-Aramaic) but only to the modern people while the english word assyrian is generally most known for the use of the ancient assyrian people (many people don't even know there is a modern assyrian people). If you are assyrian yourself you know all of this. Whether my views or the site I gave is biased or not doesn't even matter. The point is that there are various ethnic groups who don't accept the name assyrian (descent from ancient assyrians) and call themselves aramaeans, chaldeans, maronites etc. Do you deny the existence of these peoples or that they were the targets of the assyrian genocide? It would be outrageous if you did. Do you perhaps deny that ancient assyrians and aramaeans, chaldeans, phoenicians were separate peoples? If you don't, what is the problem then with using seyfo which would at least include the aramaeans and chaldeans? Even if eastern dialect speakers don't know the word seyfo (i don't agree) as implying to the assyrian genocide but know it only as the word sword, or even if not a single person in the world uses the word seyfo in that context it would be more right than using assyrian genocide which just gives wrong information. Create a new term like holocaust (holos=completely, kaustos=burnt) if you like, kolesh (kol=completely, esh=fire) for example or something similar but don't keep using assyrian genocide which is incorrect because it refers to ancient assyrians and modern suryoye who identify with them and excludes the modern suryoye, oromoye, chaldoye peoples who identify with the ancient aramaeans/chaldeans. I'll say it again. Factual correctness has precedence over what is most widely known in english, especially if the europeans (england, france) are themselves responsible for the confusion. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

This article needs to clearly explain in its introduction the relationship between the 'Assyrian Genocide' (which will be unfamiliar to most people) and the 'Armenian Genocide' (which is more a familiar historical event). The only reason I can think to not do this is for the political purpose of asserting the event as if it is in fact well established in the literature. Whether or not this *should* be the case is a question that the historical evidence itself can answer, but it is unhelpful (disingenius) to not clearly acknowledge the similarity between this event and a more well known event that happened at the same time and in the same place. Tjamesjones 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, any specific suggestions? — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:21 29 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I dont deny the Assyrian Genocide, and I have no reason to (as I am not from the Middle East at all, and am a Christian), however this article seems very POV to be rated B-Class. The way it is written in gives a very narratated and emotionally unrestrained account of what happened, for many people I understand why this would be, but using words like 'the Brital such and such' shows that this article is not written factually, but is trying to get a POV across. This is damaging not only to the point of an encylopedia but because people are more likely to believe in the overwhelming factual evidence for genocides such as these, (either Armeniana, Assyrian, Serbian-Muslim, whatever) if they are written in a factual manor.172.143.168.106 00:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

State the problems, and we'll fix it together Chaldean 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any modern sources for this? Alot of the early sources it could arguably be war time propaganda. The last paragraph in 'Reasons for the genocide' does not state any reason, it is not linked to the heading at all. Some sections need citing. Figures that aren't cited can't stay. 'Monuments' is unsourced and hints that other governments may have denied a memorial but doesnt not state any. I've tagged it cause i too think there are some issues here. Almost all the sources have a clear POV and there is no sources from the perpetrators. --Neon white 17:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also these three sections could be condensed into one with some parts trimmed 'Eyewitness accounts and quotes', 'Reports from the U.S. and Europe', 'Documented accounts of the massacre'. They are all similar in nature. The external links are also pretty excessive. see WP:EL--Neon white 18:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is some modern literature in Swedish. I agree that the article needs a lot of work though, especially with WP:CITE. But I don't think that qualifies as an NPOV problem. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:54 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about aina.org, but agiasofia.com is certainly not reliable. Elias, another thing that is certain is that your edit summary with the revert is not constructive. Deniz^T_C 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The agiasofia site is just citing reliable refs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:52 28 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like some of the external links were intended to be references and just weren't done correctly. The [[5]] article is about the monument which remains unreferenced in the article. --Neon white 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been too lazy to make refs out of them, so I've added them as external links in case anyone else wants to do it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:07 29 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

--- former section Bias problems ---

Is there a Turkish side to this argument? If so, I'd like to see it included in the article, otherwise it would end up being a one-sided article. Onur 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Turkish version: nothing happened. In other words, blatant denial. So the bias really is from the Turkish side. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:35 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Wow! The Turks protest the term genocide, so it must have been a genocide! Works like a charm doesnt it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.87.244.6 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No. First of all how about providing statistics for other populations besides just the Armenians and the Assyrians, like maybe the Turkish/Muslim population (whatever the Turks were considered under the Ottoman Empire)? That's one way of eliminating bias. Onur (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, scrap that. How about providing the Armenian and Assyrian population figures before and after World War I of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon where the Armenians and Assyrians from Turkey were relocated. Onur (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And then what? i.e. THEN will you accept that it was a genocide? Answer that first and then we can discuss.Xenovatis (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also do you accept the historicity of the Armenian Genocide? Again a straight yer or no answer will do.Xenovatis (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I still have more questions, but first this needs to be clarified before further questioning can continue. And no, I don't recognise the Armenian "genocide", either. Onur (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. If you are not convinced by the much more prevalent and plentiful evidence on the Armenian geoncide you are not going to be convinced by the evidence on the Assyrian one. I don't see how, under thses conditions, debate with you can or should continue.Xenovatis (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, unlike certain governments, I actually consider both sides of the story, and let me tell you that there is just as much prevalent and plentiful evidence for the Turkish side as there is the Armenian one. Do you really think that governments actually care about the histories of other countries? No, they don't, they just want to get more support from citizens. Many historians of the highest calibre and repute don't recognise the events as "genocide". The only reason why you recognise the events as genocide is because you're Greek. Simple. Why wouldn't you? After all, the most patriotic Greek is also the most anti-Turkish one. I've met many Greeks in my life and they're all hostile towards me. What have I done to them? Nothing, yet Greeks still discriminate against me because I'm Turkish, and let me tell you that I've never EVER done the same to a Greek. Going back to the point that we were discussing, tell me, Xenovatis, have YOU considered both sides of the story? Evidence from one side doesn't prove anything. And by the way, have you read the message that I left under the Some more quotes on the Assyrian Genocide section? Onur (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"let me tell you that I've never EVER done the same to a Greek" Erm you just did right now. If you repeat this kind of racism you will be reported so don't. Additionaly I wasn't referring to any governments but to WP itself which clearly labels the Armenian events as genocide. The two events, Armenian and Assyrian, are related, with the Armenian genocide being the one which is better documented and supported so this is why I asked. That is why I say you can't be reasonably expected to be convinced. I will continue posting academic sources and historian quotes. This is the proper basis of discussion and not ad-hominem and racist attacks of the sort you are engaging in. If you wish to debate any of the academic sources I will be happy to oblige you.Xenovatis (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no I didn't, all I was doing was telling the truth - Greeks have always been racist towards me. I am not discriminating against you. I'm letting you freely argue and engage in dialogue with me. Tell me, Xenovatis, when you had the inclination to remove the NPOV tag from the Assyrian genocide article, did you do so because you were purely, genuinely and honestly interested in Assyrian history, or simply because you thought it would be a great opportunity to blacken Turkey's reputation? Think about it. Think hard and reflect. I get gagged by Greek people at school all the time whenever I try to defend myself about the whole Cyprus issue. The moment I start trying to defend myself, they just tell me to shut up because they're not interested in the other side of the story. Well I am, and the last thing I will put up with is people trying to shut me up and violate my freedom of speech. I WILL NOT ALLOW, and I repeat, WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VIOLATE MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH by reporting me for stuff I haven't done, K?! I haven't done anything wrong to you whatsoever, so stop making fabricated accusations. On another note, read more of my responses to our other argument here. And by the way, I've read all of your evidence and you still haven't answered my basic question that I gave to you about seven comments ago in this section. Onur (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Onur you have the freedom to believe or not believe whatever you want, for me i am not disappointed at what you are saying, because its a given. We sort of expect that Turks would automatically deny the genocides (Assyrian Armenian Greek), its practically a given. And for me you are entitled to your opinion. I am one of those people who always tries to get both sides of the story before i make a final judgement and i have looked at both sides and i do staunchly believe that a genocide took place. I will also admit (being Assyrian) i have a bias in this matter, just as you do yourself. But lets just skip the question of 'did a genocide take place?' and lets first answer...knowing of of the situation of the Ottoman Empire pre-WWI is it difficult to see why a genocide or at least hostility against minorities within Turkey would flare up? -- Malik Danno (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

--- former section Neutrality? ---

The Article itself in my opinion is something which has not anything to do in an encyclopedia. Is Wikipedia now trying to accept this Propaganda articles? How the hell can sources like armenian-genocide.or g or aina.or g seriously be used here and other non serious sources? And than tommorow some guy comes with a side turk-genocide.or g and tries to sell the deaths of the Turks in the first World War also as a genocide. Of course you all will agree with him am I right? ...

This article hasn't anything to do in a serious encyclopedia. I would understand it if there had been court decisions or something like that (serious historians) but nothing like that exists.

I will list this article for deletion! We will see what will happen. --P223 (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Busy little bee, aren't you, p223 - you have been copypasting the same comments into multiple talk pages. Meowy 19:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point Meowy. Isn't this the definition of spamming? Dr.K. (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A Greek and an Armenian are answering why I am not wondering about that? The same guys sharing the same problems? You should stay neutral and not watch through nationalistic eyeglasses just because someone jiggles your world view or says something about other problems you have.

The only one spamming here is you Dr.K. Get your childish behavior somewhere else this isn't a chat! What am I copypasting Meowy? I am copypasting on two articles which have no place in a serious encyclopedia so what is your point? I will exhibit my list and my arguments when I have it ready. So you don't have to cry for it yet. In the moment I have some other things to do but you will get your honey from the bee don't worry as Wikipedia should no place for this kind of Propaganda articles. Before I list it for deletion I will link it here so that you and other Users who want the articles stay on Wikipedia can bring their points.

Just for the record. I stand by my comment of you spamming the articles because your AFD suggestion is frivolous, unhistorical, unacademic, regressive, reactionary, opportunistic and flies in the face of historical reality. But you cannot spam history. Your revisionist genocide denialism has been tried before and by more capable people (and organisations) than you but did not succeed. Also may I remind you of a few more policies such as WP:NPA, WP:AGF etc. etc. But for people of your ilk these are mere fine print. So instead of trying to harass and intimidate users by name calling I would suggest you clean up your act and your chosen subject of discussion before other users can take you seriously because, frankly, I don't. Dr.K. (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Think for some reasons the article should stay ... it makes more sense than writing this kind of unsubstantial comments in here. --P223 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy and Dr.K's points stand. Dr K's statement was not childish, compared to your racist rant. FYI: I'm not Armenian or Greek or Iranian(since you seem to have racial bigotry issues), so swing away at my ancestry. :-) Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't interested me if you are an alien, human or an animal just like your ancestors are unimportant and irrelevant in this case like your comment. What is your reference to the issue I am talking about? I don't see one sigle one just like the one of your two friends made before. Say something about the issue or keep silent!

You dare talk about references? What points can Wikipedians bring to a genocide denialist who single-handedly purports to refute the evidence of countless papers of the finest academic scholarship available? The very suggestion that you can single-handedly refute the loads of academic evidence available is insulting and proves the fact that your position is a nihilistic stunt at best and I wouldn't want to describe what it could be at worst. Don't misunderstand the fact that I have extended you the courtesy of a reply to mean that your positions are worthy of a response. Condemnation is the only appropriate response to such ahistoric primitivism. --Dr.K. (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way you don't need to have ancestors to take a position in issues like that just look at the edits you make and you see the same complexes the guys have who make Propaganda on issues I am talking about. So don't search excuses and use your brain before writing the same unsubstantial like your friends did before.

You instruct us to use our brains while you have thrown academic scholarship out of the window, maligned history, ignored facts and distorted reality? I wouldn't dare ask what you were using to accomplish all that because I'm sure it wasn't your brain. Dr.K. (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk when you have something important to say this isn't a chatroom. The same counts for other guys who get a panic attack because I say something they don't want to here. Nobody refuses you words which make sense ... just try it. --P223 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Take your own advice. You've spammed numerous sites with your racial bigotry(Armenians, Greeks, Iranians), and since I'm none of those you have no real response. Typical. You'd do well to learn real history before crossing my path. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am just going to give you some advice P223, even though I hesitate doing so because by my mere reply I honour your dubious mission and I think I just made a mistake by feeding you. Mind you, no matter what your reply may be, I will not respond further as you seem to be a person with particularly unpleasant manners and I am not going to act as either your target or your teacher even though you seem to badly need both. Let's cut to the chase: Put these articles on WP:AFD. Even as you have WP:SNOW of succeeding, this will be your first lesson on how Wikipedia works. Dr.K. (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you guys taking my comment out of context? Aren't you able to quote or what is your problem? Let my text stand there as it was even if your complexes don't allow it because of the things I said.

It doesn't interested me if you are an alien, human or an animal just like your ancestors are unimportant and irrelevant in this case like your comment. What is your reference to the issue I am talking about? I don't see one sigle one just like the one of your two friends made before. Say something about the issue or keep silent!

By the way you don't need to have ancestors to take a position in issues like that just look at the edits you make and you see the same complexes the guys have who make Propaganda on issues I am talking about. So don't search excuses and use your brain before writing the same unsubstantial like your friends did before.

Talk when you have something important to say this isn't a chatroom. The same counts for other guys who get a panic attack because I say something they don't want to here. Nobody refuses you words which make sense ... just try it. --P223 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is my next friendly advice for you. Just click on the "Editing help" link below and there you will find a lot of ways how you can quote the things I have said when you aren't able to write it under the comment. So in future don't get my comment in pieces! And please keep your irrelevant stuff about me for yourself when you have nothing else to say. Thank you! --P223 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

--- former section Overall ---

This writings in this page are biased and supporting assyrian genocide(not approved scientificely);are offense to Turkish people and the Republic of Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oderebek (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Turks get offended, that's a good thing. What next, are you going to demand "respect" without showing any respect to others? Oh and by the way, please stop vandalising the article.[6] That certainly won't gain you any respect here on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OH SHUT UP!!! I'm sick and tired of your narrow-minded sh*t! Seriously, someone wipe this guy off Wikipedia! Onur (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike in real life, you can't wipe off' people in Wikipedia. Chaldean (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

...unfortunately, no you can't, but he definitely deserves to be. All he's doing is winding everybody up and being a nuisance. Onur (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony.... Chaldean (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking. I've just accused him of narrow-mindedness, and now that is exactly what you're demonstrating. I don't want to wipe him off the face of the planet, I just want him off Wikipedia because he's being a total nuisance. Is that really such a crime? Onur (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just found out that he's been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, so there's no point in arguing about this anymore, he's finally gotten what he deserves. Onur (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Are there actually any credible sources that use the term "Genocide" to refer to the Assyrian experience? The newspaper clips in the article speak of massacres rather than genocide. --83.228.52.8 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... if it's related to Turks than it's a genocide automatically, don't you know? --Gokhan 09:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty funny. In 1914, the the word genocide did not exsist, so its impossible for the papers to call it a genocide. More on the word, check out the article Genocide. Chaldean 14:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's of course, needless to say, in hindsight, a genocide. And there's no reason to believe the Turks who deny this, because they're very biased. And yes, it's true, the word Genocide is a post-World War II coinage by some Jew (can't remember his name). — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:12 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gokhan, you should DNA test yourself. Chances are, you're an Assyrian. You don't exactly look like a racially pure Turkic guy :) This is what they look like. Imagine that, nothing like your race. I really would check my genealogy if I were you, who knows, perhaps you are Assyrian :P — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:40 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a racist person who's full of hatred against Turkish people. Sorry about that. Please don't attack me, my family or my nationality. If you feel distress, I would suggest you to go out and enjoy a beer with your friends to relax. --Gokhan 15:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for this kind of talk here guys. Use the userpage of each other. Chaldean 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And there comes the racist card (typical). So now I'm a hardcore racist because I suggested that you may be Assyrian. Great logic. You found this suggestion, objectionable. I can only interpret it as a strong dislike for Assyrians from your part. You only devalue the word racist when you use it every chance you get for ad hominem purposes. I also don't understand how you got them impression of hate. It's a fact, you don't look like someone of genuine Turkic origins. "Turks" in Turkey, do have a lot of Greek, Assyrian and Armenian ancestry. This is an undisputed fact. I have to ask, do you believe this genocide happened? Come on now, be honest. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:50 14 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

You're still doing it. I demand you stop attacking my personality, my believes or my ancestry. --Gokhan 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You consider it an attack, if I suggest that you may be of Assyrian ancestry? You don't like Assyrians, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:53 15 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please stop accusing me of things I find offensive. I find racism and hatred very offensive, regardless of my own ancestry that you keep probing about. So please kindly stop doing this. --Gokhan 10:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You should perhaps go and look up what "racism" and "hatred" actually means. Clearly, you have no idea what it means. You shouldn't feel offended by issues you do not grasp. As for this genocide, in case you didn't know, the "Turks" not only murdered Assyrians, they also raped Assyrian women, and stole many of our women. Today, there are many "Turks" who think they are Turks, but in reality, they have Assyrian ancestry. So Gokhan, do you know your own roots? — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:43 15 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

It might be true that Turkish genes mixed with Anatolian races but it doesn't matter if you're not a racist, we (Turks) do not care what are we racially but as long as we are culturally Turkish and speak Turkish as a mother tongue that means we are Turkish. And I'm happy with eating the same foods with Greeks, listening the same music with Armenians, using many words same with Persians but having the same name with the legendary Turkish Khan. --Qghvz 11:49, 06 December 2007 (UTC)

You are still not Turks though. You are simply a miscegenation of many different native peoples of that region, and to some minor extent, of a Turkish race. Come on, what does Ataturk have in common with Genghis Khan in terms of race? Oh, he spoke a Turkish language. If you think speaking a language changes your race, then you have no idea what you're talking about. You may speak a Turkish language, but from a racial point of view, very few of you are actual Turkic peoples. Otherwise we might as well classify Afro-Americans as Germanic peoples because they speak English. That makes no sense. It might be true that Turkish genes mixed with Anatolian races but it doesn't matter if you're not a racist — It is of course true that there was a lot of mixing, and it should matter to you Turks because you are always nationalists, yet you ignore the racial aspects. Don't forget, nation means race. we (Turks) do not care what are we racially but as long as we are culturally Turkish and speak Turkish as a mother tongue that means we are Turkish. No. Speaking a Turkish language and adopting a Turkish culture (your culture is not Turkish, but rather, Islamic, which means it is a Semitic culture; you have for instance Arabic names like Mustafa and Abdullah) does not mean you are of a Turkic race. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, who told you that Cengiz Han was a Turk? At school, your teachers should have told you that he was a Mongolian, and Mongolians are NOT Turks. Secondly, you are making a big mistake in mixing up the terms "race" and "nation". Race does NOT mean nation. Who told you this? Before speaking the language of Assyrian nationalism and assessing the Turkishness of the Turks; go and read some books on the theory of nationalism i.e. B. Anderson, E. Hobsbawm. By that way you may understand that nation is just an invention of elites with the help of a common language and has little to do with race!!!81.214.157.239 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah we're Assyrians and we killed Assyrians.....so you have to accuse them now.I mean us... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.176.215 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder when the western scholars are going to find a relationship between the Young Turks and the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda. If the Young Turks are the ones who invented the genocide as a method; they should be responsible for all of the genocides that has been commited in the 20th century. Believe me, this is going to be the next stage of genocide debates in the western world.81.214.157.239 (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop it all of you! Look, EliasAlucard, whatever your name is - Turkish nationality law doesn't look at one's ancestry; it states that all people born within the borders of Turkey are Turkish citizens, and most people who reside in Turkey consider themselves as such, no matter where they really come from. I have a bit of Macedonian/Albanian blood in me, but I don't consider myself Macedonian/Albanian, I consider myself Turkish because my family is from Turkey, and even though I was born in and currently reside in London at the moment, I have both British and Turkish citizenship, not Macedonian or Albanian citizenship. Also, take Turkey's Afro-Turks - they originally came over during the Ottoman period as slaves, but even after slavery was abolished, none of them went back to Africa because they felt Turkish. You see, if you're a citizen of Turkey, Turks don't care where you're from, so so what if Gökhan might be Assyrian? If he feels Turkish he's Turkish, K? Geez, I'm sick and tired of arguing with such narrow-minded people. Onur (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

what kind of joke is this?

you guys are like jokes came out of movies. armenian, pontic, assyrian... what is next? lets see. hmm german genocide..yep, during ww1, those who wanted to be on side of allies killed millions of germans. british genocide.. in the war of gallipoli we killed hundreds of thousands britons systematically. french genocide.. yes we killed them, too. kurdish genocide. you know we always kill them, cause they are freedom fighters. red indisn genocide.. we were the ones killed millions of native americans actually.

just because we didnt assimilated these people, we are accused of this things. we should have colonized all of them just like britons and the french. ohh algeria didnt deserve its independence, right?

all of armenians, greeks, assyrians, jews, turks, kurds whatever, they all lived peacefully for thousands of year, and they still live. if any of these people try to split the country which some of them did in the past. they paid this with their life.. dont think turks didnt affected by this. those of you still think there is genocides by turks to other minorities have to read memoirs by armenian grandmothers, greeks grandfathers living in turkey... i bet you'll find interesting things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.124.253 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ohh i forgot, we were the ones killing hundreds of thousands of bosnians, not serbians. serbians are good, nice, smart orthodox people backed by russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.124.253 (talk • contribs)

armenians, greeks, assyrians, jews, turks, kurds whatever, they all lived peacefully for thousands of year, and they still live. - No they don't. They killed them all off. Hense Turkey being 99.7% muslim today. Chaldean 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they lived all in harmony together. I guess that's why the Greek city of Constantinople doesn't have any Greeks today. It's just Islam, the religion of peace, at work. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:54 16 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

These is still a few thousands of Greeks living in Istanbul. And most of the Greeks left Istanbul in the 20th century; after the foundation of the Turkish Republic. That means, up to that time (which is nearly 500 years), Greeks and Muslims lived peacefully in the city. And the events that took place in the 20th century has nothing to do with Islam but with politics among Turkey and Greece (because of the Cyprus issue). Please go and get more information about Turkish history before simply blaming the Islam. By the way, did you know that the members of the Turkish minority in Greece are not allowed to call them Turks? There are lots of things you should learn about Turkey before simply blaming it with genocides!!! 81.214.157.239 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

you sure about turkey has 99.7 percent muslim? just fyi only 75 percent of the country are turks. we didnt converted arabics and kurds to islam, they were already. and you sure thats because of we killed of you christians? you gotta read more okay, go read the agreements we done with greece 80 years ago or look at your people who immigrated to another countries. if there was no population exchange between turkiye and greece there would be more than 2 millions greeks living in the country. you are just a joke like your little armenian and pontic puppies.

and other one, why arent there a lot of greeks in istanbul? there used to be. after agreements and pogrom, i guess you dont even know about it. things done by greeks in cyprus in 1960s caused them to get of the city, ok? i aint gonna something different. if you did something good, you get your gift. if you did something bad, you pay for it. and i have to say this also. i dont care anyone's ethnicity in turkey. all minorities, regardless of their religion and race are my friends. people such as you who think we killed you, i just feel sorry because simply you are brainwashed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.29.241 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1) A lot of Assyrians emigrated from Turkey due to oppression from the peaceful [sic] Muslims. 2) Yes, I am aware of the extremely peaceful Istanbul pogroms. The Turks are the most peaceful and harmonious people on Earth. They have never harmed anyone. </end of irony> — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:15 16 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

i guess you dont even know about it. - no actually you don't know about it, because the population exchange between Greece was not for Greeks in Istanbul, Smyrna, and other cities. You need to do more reading. And Turkey still remains to be 99.7% muslim - in another words, their are practically no Armenians, Assyrians, or Greeks anymore. Chaldean 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is geting ridiculous how many more anti-turkish pages are going to open up before somthing is done

Nobody is attacking modern-day Turkey. Turkey is one of the few secular true-democracies in the region, and overall is probably better than a lot of the Eastern European countries. But that doesn't mean that the past didn't happen. And while I realize that there were many factors in the genocide, most genocides are like that. The Holocaust, being a completely systematic murder to get rid of all the Jews, is actually rare as far as genocide goes. You can't just deny the past. It doesn't make you guilty of it because it happened in your country, nor does it make the modern Turkish Republic guilty of it, as it has realized the dangers of a theocratic empire, and changed. But they are guilty of refusing to recognize it. 137.155.191.51 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

this article is absolutely fake. Syriac people was not enemies of Ottoman Empire. and their numbers were not so massive, like today. armenians in here have a big psychological problems.--195.174.9.187 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Literature

I've added some more literature here: Assyrian Genocide#Literature. This can be used as references. — Mega Man (talk · contribs) 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Meowy 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)==Genocide or Pogrom?== I suggest that "IF" there is a difference of opinion about the use of the term/word "Genocide", which was coined post WWII, then let's use a more historically "correct" term: "POGROM". See definition- "Pogrom, a Russian word that originally had several meanings, such as "beating," "defeat," "smashing," or "destruction," has come to be identified with violent attacks on the persons and property of one ethnicity by large crowds of other ethnicities, in particular, attacks on Jews by ethnic Russians. The first occurrence that historians generally agree was a pogrom took place in Odessa in 1821, and pogroms against Armenians took place in Azerbaijan in 1988 and 1990." No matter what you call it, it's all the same, "man's inhumanity to man". Sparing over words is like Genocide vs Pogrom (or any other term) is like "Fiddling while Rome burns". Let's banish Man's inhumanity to Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.152.35 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you object to calling it genocide? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A pogrom can involve no killing at all. A pogrom is not genocide, though genocide can include pogrom and pogrom-like events. Pogrom would be a extremely inaccurate term to use to describe what happened to the Ottoman Empire's Assyrian population. Meowy 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because a pogrom doesn't have to involve any killing, that doesn't mean it CAN'T involve any. Besides, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a pogrom is "an organised massacre of a particular ethnic group"; the definition of massacre is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people"; finally, the definition of slaughter is "the killing of a large number of people in a cruel or violent way", therefore a pogrom HAS TO involve killing, otherwise it wouldn't be a pogrom, it would be persecution which wouldn't fit into this context because we know that people died. Onur (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality Disputed Tag

There is not point in keeping that post the IAGS recognition of the events as genocide and I find it morally suspect that there are genocide denialists here who would still do. There is no tag on the Armenian Genocide article and there shouldn't be one here. Xenovatis (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to undo the removal. What proof is there to say that IAGS is reliable? Besides, you're Greek - how do I know that you're not deliberately targeting Turkey?. Onur (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IAGS is composed of competent scholars on the field of Genocide and was founded with the purpose of studuing it. It is a reliable academic source composed of academics focusing on this particular field of research and employed full time at many of the world's universities. It is ludicrous for an anonymous persona on the internet to call their credential into question. As for me being Greek it might surprise you to learn that it has no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of my statements and the facts I present. To answer your question however the IAGS report specifically mentions the Assyrian and Greek Genocides. Besides Greek or Assyrian it didn't really make much of a difference to the Young Turks regime.

http://www.genocidescholars.org/aboutus.html

The International Association of Genocide Scholars is a global, interdisciplinary, non-partisan organization that seeks to further research and teaching about the nature, causes, and consequences of genocide, and advance policy studies on prevention of genocide. The Association, founded in 1994, meets to consider comparative research, important new work, case studies, the links between genocide and other human rights violations, and prevention and punishment of genocide. A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policy makers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention. Membership is open to interested persons worldwide.

http://www.genocidescholars.org/ http://www.genocidetext.net/iags_resolution_supporting_documentation.htm IAGS President Gregory Stanton may be contacted at iagspresident@aol.com

Xenovatis (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, like I'm really going to believe all that from someone who copy-pastes straight from their sources (in this case, IAGS). Of course they're going to make themselves look reliable, otherwise nobody would believe them. That, my friend, is the concept of selling oneself. People do it all the time, in job/university interviews, in adverts, practically everywhere, therefore in this day and age it is very important to always read between the lines. Onur (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the email, I'm going to have a long talk with this guy. Onur (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. But first let me ask. If I show you that IAGS is reliable source composed of actual scholars will you then concede that the NPOV tag be removed? Or are you just trolling? Xenovatis (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Me? Trolling? How is wanting to keep the NPOV tag up trolling? I'm doing the complete opposite of trolling. I'm warning users that the page isn't neutral enough and that this needs to be fixed. Plus I don't need your proof, because I'm actually going to be talking to the IAGS president myself. Onur (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes well done. In the mean time however you still haven't answered my question. Please do so.Unless you are evading it of course.Xenovatis (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I already did answer your question, quote: "I don't need your proof, because I'm actually going to be talking to the IAGS president myself" unquote. Onur (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. Your answering your own misgivings is patently absurd since a negative answer would be verifiable by you alone. So answer it and stop evading like a child. If it is shown that they are reliable will you withdraw your objection or are you just stalling and fillibustering? Try to give a straight answer or is that too much to expect?Xenovatis (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not stalling or filibustering. Who do you think I'm going to believe? You or the president of IAGS himself? You've already demonstrated your unreliability by copy-pasting "evidence" of the Assyrian "genocide" straight from the IAGS website. In the meantime, how about answering my request under the Bias problems section. You see, people immediately go and label the events as genocide when there are still some unanswered questions. Onur (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh so now the IAGS is a reliabel organization? And you still didn't give a straight answer. Are you capable of that? I repeat the question: If it is shown that IAGS is a reliable organization and that it did recognize the Assyrian Genocide as such will you then withdraw your objections? Now either answer or stop wasting people's time.Xenovatis (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well how about you answer my question which I gave to you in my previous comment (you know, the whole bias problems thing)? That would make things so much clearer. I'm not going to talk to the IAGS president about the Assyrian "genocide", I'm going to be talking to him about the organisation itself. Besides, you're no more reliable than he is because the only places where you'll get your information from are the IAGS website and Wikipedia. And stop making these accusations of filibustering and all that jazz. I could say the same thing about you, not respecting my decision to reject your "proof" and talk to the IAGS president and wasting my time making me have to talk to you and deal with your crap! That's it! Stop trolling, Xenovatis! Onur (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IAGS recognition

This is the link directly to the IAGS website

Assyrian and Greek http://genocidescholars.org/images/PRelease16Dec07IAGS_Officially_Recognizes_Assyrian_Greek_Genocides.pdf

Armenian, Assyrian and Greek http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire.pdf

Xenovatis (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more quotes on the Assyrian Genocide

Please find below some more quotes for inclusion into the article that support the genocide thesis for the fate of the Assyrian populaion.

The Holocaust in Comparative and Historical Perspective, R. J. Rummel, 1998, Idea a Journal of Social Issues Vol.3, no.2

These genocides not only involved the Holocaust and the killing of the Armenians, the best known of this century's genocides, but also the lesser known genocide of Gypsies by the Nazis and of Greeks by the Turks.

Human Rights - International Law - and the Armenian Genocide - Yerevan, 20 April 2005 - Paper by Alfred de Zayas, JD, PhD (Secretary-General, PEN International, Centre Suisse romande)

Thus the Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire, who had suffered persecution and massacres in the nineteenth century, were subjected to genocide under the cover of the First World War, culminating in the murder of some 1.5 million Armenians , and the ethnic cleansing of the Greek and Assyrian communities of Anatolia. Already in 1915 the Turkish massacres against the Armenians were described by the British and French Governments as "crimes against humanity" Article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres stipulated that the Turkish officials responsible for the massacres would be handed over to the Allies to be tried by an international criminal tribunal. Article 144 stipulated that the confiscated property should be returned.

The Genocide Convention of 1948 and other United Nations Conventions strengthen the claims of genocide victims, including the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians of Asia Minor, the indigenous peoples of North and South America, and the many other "unsung victims" mentioned above. The Convention did not create their rights, since the Convention was only declarative -- not constitutive of the pre-existing law of nations. The Convention, however, sets up a mechanism that can be useful in the context of the Armenian Genocide

Taner Akcam interview

http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/Is-It-Still-Genocide-if-Your-Allies-Did-It/cef7381e-fe46-102a-aeb9-000e0c6dcf76.html

My central argument in A Shameful Act was that the Armenian Genocide was not an isolated act against Armenians but a part of a demographic policy enacted during World War I. It had two main components. One was against the Muslim non-Turkish population, who were redistributed, relocated and resettled among the Turkish population with the aim of assimilation. The second was against the Christian population, the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians. The goal was to get the Christians out of Anatolia, what we now know as Turkey-to forcibly move them to Greece or Iran. Or, in the case of the Armenians, to eliminate them altogether.

In 1914, Anatolia was about 25 to 30 percent Christian. After the war it was 3 to 4 percent. The aim was to reduce the Christian population to no more than 5 or 10 percent so that they would have little sway in Turkey. Based on Ottoman documents we can prove this policy existed. The genocidal intent can be shown. What I began in A Shameful Act I will conclude in this book, based only on Ottoman documents.

Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, Elizabeth Burns Coleman, Kevin White

p.82

The French classical scholar, Pierre Vidal-Naguet, labelled denialists the assassins of memory’. In the case of the Jews, the denialists are not always the genocidaires. In the case of the Armenians, however, they are.

Turkish denialism of the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians is official, riven, driven, constant, rampant and increasing each year since the events of 1915 to 1922. It is state-funded, with special departments and units in overseas missions whose sole purpose is to dilute, counter, minimise, trivialise and relativise every reference to the events which encompassed a genocide of Armenians, Pontian Greeks and Assyrian Christians in Asia Minor.

Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Confronting the Armenian Genocide. Richard G. Hovannisian

p.35

The Armenians and Greeks were not the only non-Turkish minority to suffer during World War 1 and their fates may not be divorced from the broader context. Assyrian (especially Nestorian) Christians in western Persia. Diarbekir, Van, and Bidis provinces (particularly in their strongholds in the Hakkiari highlands) were massacred alongside Armenians in 1915

Dr Panayotis Diamadis, The Assyrians in the Christian Asia Minor Holocaust, Delivered at the “Assyrians After Assyria: Persecutions International Conference, University of Sydney, Sunday July 2 2000

p.2

As we heard at last year’s Portraits of Christian Asia Minor Conference at Macquarie University, the events that led to the disappearance of Christianity from the lands where it thrived for some 1900 years, can collectively be called the Christian Asia Minor Holocaust. In the space of one decade, the Christian population of the regions that now constitute the Republic of Turkey went from some five million souls to less than 700 000. This figure has since fallen to less than 200 000.

p.10

The United Nations Convention states that any of these acts, committed with the intent to destroy a certain group, in whole or in part, constitute genocide. The Assyrian people have suffered not only one, but all, of these acts. The Assyrian Genocide, indeed the Christian Asia Minor Holocaust continue to this day.

Mark Levene, Creating a Modern "Zone of Genocide": The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878–1923, Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1998 12(3):393-433

http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/393 Abstract

The persistence of genocide or near-genocidal incidents from the 1890s through the 1990s, committed by Ottoman and successor Turkish and Iraqi states against Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, and Pontic Greek communities in Eastern Anatolia, is striking.

Schaller, Dominik J. and Zimmerer, Jürgen (2008) Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies - introduction, Journal of Genocide Research, 10:1, 7 - 14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623520801950820

p.10

The one-sided association of the Armenian genocide with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire is a relatively new phenomenon. In the postwar period, Western observers were well aware that the Young Turks’ policy of extermination was multifaceted. Henry Morgenthau, who served as US ambassador in Constantinople until 1916, for example, stated in his memoirs: “The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks.

p.11

The genocidal quality of the murderous campaigns against Greeks and Assyrians is obvious. Historians who realize that the Young Turks’ population and extermination policies have to be analysed together and understood as an entity are therefore often tempted to speak of a “Christian genocide.” This approach, however, is insofar inadequate as it ignores the Young Turks’ massive violence against non-Christians.

p.11

The Young Turks’ overall aim was a demographic reorganization of the Ottoman Empire. All deportations were planned and supervised by the “Directorate for the Settlement of Tribes and Immigrants” that belonged to the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior. A relatively small number of government administrators were thus chiefly involved in the coordination of the murder and expulsion of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and other minority groups.29 Therefore, the isolated study and emphasis of a single group’s victimhood during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire fails to really understand Young Turks’ motives and aims or its grand design.

Joan A. Argenter and R. McKenna Brown, ed. On the Margins of Nations: Endangered Languages and Language Rights, Bath, England: FEL 2004 ISBN: 0 9538248 61.

“From Lingua Franca to Endangered Language: The Legal Aspects of the Preservation of Aramaic in Iraq”

The writing of vernacular Aramaic is of recent introduction, first among the eastern Assyrians, mainly those living in eastern Anatolia (upper Mesopotamia) and northwest Iran (around Urmi and Salamas), and in the late 20th century, among Aramaic speakers in the west, mainly scattered in a Diaspora set off by the World War I genocide of Christians (Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians living in what has become Turkey). The Protestant churches, promoted in the 19th century by British, German and American missionaries, use the vernacular language, as does to a great extent, the Church of the East.

Xenovatis (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

~~This section is reserved for Onur to post his ad hominems in. Please don't post here. Onur please use this section for your ad hominems.Xenovatis (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)~~

Since when are you the boss of everything? Let people talk if they want to! You have no right to restrict their speech and to patronise me with such patronising titles. By accusing me of giving ad hominems, you're just being a hypocrite because that's exactly what you're doing - targeting me, personally, rather than my arguments. I may well be incorrect in everything I say, but you are no better. Onur (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, all you're doing is wasting your time and increasing the length of the situation even further. None of what you've copy-pasted has actually answered my question, so all this crap is still null and void. Onur (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you use that kind of language again I will report you for personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.Xenovatis (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME?! I'm not calling you crap, I'm calling the info that you've provided crap, so how is that a personal attack? I could say the same thing about you, talking to me as if I'm some kind of child. You're not my mother, and fabricated accusations aren't going to get me to change my mind on this "genocide" issue, either, so don't even bother. You might think Turks are all a bunch of idiots or vromoshilloi or whatever you call them, but this Turk certainly isn't, so stop trying to patronise me because it's not working. If you report me for a personal attack, I'll do exactly the same to you because that's exactly what you're doing. Onur (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am splitting this in order to keep one section free of abuse so as to post all the sources there without it being in danger of deletion by administrators.Xenovatis (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so are you planning on getting this removed, huh? Can't take a little criticism, eh Xenovatis? I refuse to be gagged in this way, because it is against my freedom of speech. I haven't said anything harmful to you whatsoever. Onur (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I've removed the title. I understand Latin, you know, so there you go patronising me again by ridiculing me! That, there, is pure evidence of your patronisation, and therefore my accusations cannot be considered as "ad hominem". Well, they are, but I have good reason to do so. All you're doing is being patronising. Onur (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

undiscussed move

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"Assyrian genocide" is the most commonly used term by a factor of about 20. Don't do major moves like that before seeking consensus first, and certainly not before doing some minimal research. dab (𒁳) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article names should not be based after google results. VegardNorman (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegard what are you doing moving pages without concent first? Please undo your edit. And yes, wikipedia does have a rule that suggest google search results should be used as one way of deciding name titles. Chaldean (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey then the article should be named as Seyfo.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL <-- 130 000

VegardNorman (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the results of seyfo, most are not reffering to the genocide, but other things such as Seyfo Soley. Seyfo Genocide [[7]] is the actual results and it doesnt add up to more then 700. As dab says, Don't do major moves like that before seeking consensus first, or else you will be stopped taken seriously by others. Chaldean (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And also Assyrian genocide may refer to all assyrian genocides, and that can be misleading and confusing. VegardNorman (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. Simele massacre is a reference to a certian genocide. What other genocide are you refering to now? Chaldean (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And also the syriac-aramean popultion was killed during seyfo. VegardNorman (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No person between 1914 to 1922 called themselves Aramean; what part of this don't you understand? I mean its really simple. The Syriacs that died, concidered themselves Assyrian (such as Naum Faik, Ashur Yousif, to name a few). Hence the more common name of Assyrian genocide. Chaldean (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No one called them self for the english name aramean, but in our langague very many called them selfs for oromoye. none of them spoke english, or knew the english name for oromoye. VegardNorman (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Most if not all Syriac Orthod/Syriac/Nestorian/Chaldean didn't speak English either, how was this genocide then named Assyrian genocide by the Western languages? Chaldean (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! I apologize for interupting but I wanted to ask if either of you would be interested in or available to help incorporating the sources I provided above in the article itself, if indeed you feel they should. Thank you. Xenovatis (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Also wanted to ask what citations exactly are missing and where you think they might be found so that we can get rid of the citations warning as well.Xenovatis (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting this as an unilateral move without consensus. Carve out a consensus first. "Seyfo genocide" gets some 600 hits, compared to 16,000 for "Assyrian genocide". There is no question that the latter is the most current term by a wide margin. Carve out a consensus first. Address the naming disputes at Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. Consensus should be recorded at a guideline page, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Assyrian/Syriac-related articles). dab (𒁳) 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not known as Seyfo Geonicide because of Seyfo is the name on the genoicide in swedish, syriac, english, german etc. It is more known as Seyfo And many countriues does not take the Seyfo as a geonicide, like TUrkeyVegardNorman (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegard, honestly your not making any sense at all right now. Your arguement is very poor. Chaldean (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

no, he has a point. So the suggestion is to move this page to "Seyfo". This is a possibility, but I must say that "Assyrian genocide" appears to be the more common and more recognizable term by far. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How does It is not known as Seyfo Geonicide because of Seyfo is the name on the genoicide in swedish, syriac, english, german etc. make sense? If it is known as seyfo, why is it not more common then Assyrian genocide per search results? Chaldean (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let us see:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (16,000/39/7/10)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (138,000/132/36/26 -- includes many offtopic and non-English hits)

Assuming that any English language occurrence of "Seyfo" in the sense intended here will also mention "genocide" somewhere, I get (8,400/20/2/4). This appears sensible. "Seyfo" appears to be occurring about half as often as "Assyrian genocide". This means that we cannot rule out the move off hand and need to treat Seyfo as a valid candidate. Some argument of why we should pick it as article title even though it is used slightly less often is in order though. Is it more encyclopedic? More neutral? including the hits on Sayfo,

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I get another (2,300/5/3/1). Taken together, Sayfo/Seyfo compares to Assyrian genocide approximately like (11k/25/5/5) to (16k/39/7/10), thus occurring between 1.5 and 2 times less frequent. dab (𒁳) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More neutral? I dont think you quite understand the scope of this; during this time of 1910s, there was no such thing as naming contreversy, since most/many syriacs considered themselves as Assyrian (again, per Naum Faik, Ashur Yousif, among others). Besides, Seyfo is discussed in the article as well, so its not like the word is not mentioned. Chaldean (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

sure, but the present article is written in 2008, not 1910. It may be that Seyfo is the better title now. I am not saying it is, but per the survey above, it is certainly a valid candidate. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a poor arguement. A name of an historic event is not ought to change over time. And how have you concluded Seyfo is the better argument? Besides, I think its important to follow what the general monuments dedicated to the issue use [[8]]Chaldean (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

that's nonsense. of course terminology changes over time. Much of the terminology used in the 1911 Britannica, for example, is outdated and would today be considered Eurocentric, British imperialist, or what have you. We are looking for the most current name in contemporary encyclopedic English language sources. This and nothing else is what debates on article titles are about. dab (𒁳) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We are looking for the most current name in contemporary encyclopedic English language sources. - if that is the case, then certainly its Assyrian genocide. Your eariler arguement was the title isnt as neutral as seyfo, which is what I called a poor arguement. Chaldean (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some pretty sophisiticated methods of genocide-denial on Wikipedia (one of the most subtle being the use of obscure sections of copyright laws to remove images) but burying one away by changeing its name to a name nobody has heard of is the best I've seen yet. "Assyrian Genocide" is the only appropriate title for this entry. Meowy 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Then see it this way, the name "Assyrian genocide", is the most common name in google hits but on the other hand, our forefathers didn't die for the Assyrian name, the Assyrian cause was not their cause. They died because of that they were Syriac Christians. Nowadays, people are using the name "Assyrian genocide" in a way in which they believe will help them create a new Assyrian country in north Iraq. And if you wonder why the name Assyrian would help, it's because the Assyrians have a big part of the Iraqi history. Like the Jews in Israel. You see the connections? The Jews got their old country back after the holocaust, the Assyrians hope to get their old country back after the "Assyrian genocide". The TriZ (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No its not the most common name:

Seyfo:
Assyrian Genocide:

AramaeanSyriac (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Seyfo is refering mostly to other things then the genocide. Look up your results. Chaldean (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Resources for citations

Help yourself to these links:

I moved the EL as many of them were not labeled and seemed to be of tangential relevance. We already have a Further Reading. If you find something useful among them, please cite it; don't stick it into the References or External links, where no-one can tell what claim it is used to support. Some of them may already be cited, but it's hard to tell because. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reports from the U.S. and Europe

I failed to find the following article in the NYT archives:

The New York Times's editor V. Rockwell published an article in 1916, with the title "The Number of Armenian and Assyrian Victims". In the article, he stated:

Not only the Armenians are unfortunate: the Assyrians were also wiped out and each tenth was murdered. [...] A lot of Assyrians perished but no one knows how many exactly....within six months the Young Turks managed to do what the "Old Turks" were not able to do during six centuries. [...] Thousands of Assyrians vanished from the face of the earth.^{[citation needed]}

In November 1919 the periodical French Asia wrote:

the Assyrian massacres resembled the Armenian slaughters. And as about this nation, which had 250 thousand victims, has been spoken much less, it is necessary to inform the world about it.^{[citation needed]}

Please provide a proper citations for both; they have been unsourced for a whole year, so I moved the section here. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

recognition, motivation

from this, I conclude that the "Assyrian genocide" is found discussed so rarely not because its historicity is disputed, but because it was really part of the same events discussed under Armenian genocide. The Turks+Kurds did not massacre specific ethnicities, they massacred Christians, i.e. they didn't mind if you were Greek, Assyrian or Armenian, they just wanted to do away with the Christian populations. The contemporary reports on the events recognize this, and talk of a "massacre of Christians by the Ottomans", not of a Greek vs. an Assyrian vs. an Armenian genocide as three independent events. In this sense, it seems to be the case that Armenian genocide is really a misnomer, because it refers to a persecution of Christians resulting in some 2.5 million dead, of which some 1.5 million happened to be Armenians, 0.7 million Assyrians and 0.3 million Greeks. Compare "Holocaust" which was predominantly, but not exclusively, a massacre of Jews (about 6 million Jewish victims out of a total 12 million victims). I am not sure what to do about this. This seems to be very much in progress, with rather recent calls to recognize the Assyrian genocide either "independently" or as part of a larger "Armenian genocide". The problem seems to be that it wasn't an ethnicity that was being persecuted, but a religion, which nevertheless resulted in near-extinction of certain ethnicities (hence making it a genocide de facto). --dab (𒁳) 12:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First Line is a Wrong

Currently the first line is: The Assyrian Genocide (also known as Sayfo or Seyfo) was committed against the Assyrian/Syriac population of the Ottoman Empire near the end of the First World War by the Young Turks.[1] However looking on the source the author never says that. This is false plagiarism!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Danno (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)