This page 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. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This move vote is now closed - see the decision below.
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)
Perhaps both Assyrian Genocide and Assyrian Massacres should be used in the title. -- THOTH 14:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Throw in a couple of "allegedly"s and there'd be no POV problem.-- Doug O'Connell 18:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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) .
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 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:
Neutral:
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
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
-- 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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Christian Massacres in Turkey would encompass Greeks and Armenians as well. I would rather see that.
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)
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"
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)
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)
Why not call this what it is. The year of the Sword. That's what it's called in Assyrian. Sayfo. King Legit
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
This page 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. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This move vote is now closed - see the decision below.
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)
Perhaps both Assyrian Genocide and Assyrian Massacres should be used in the title. -- THOTH 14:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Throw in a couple of "allegedly"s and there'd be no POV problem.-- Doug O'Connell 18:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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) .
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 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:
Neutral:
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
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
-- 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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Christian Massacres in Turkey would encompass Greeks and Armenians as well. I would rather see that.
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)
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"
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)
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)
Why not call this what it is. The year of the Sword. That's what it's called in Assyrian. Sayfo. King Legit
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.