Talk:Sayfo

Archives
Untitled Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Aramean Genocide

The Sayfo was on the Aramean people! Not the assyrians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.200.148 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deaths in the Siirt Region

I hesitate to get involved in this argument, as this does not seem to be a topic where rational discussion is welcomed, but as the author of the recently-published book The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318-1913, in which I attempted to establish the number of Assyrian Christians in this part of the world on the eve of the First World War, I would like to point out that the numbers given in this article in the table of deaths in Christian villages in the Siirt region are wildly exaggerated (by a factor of about five, to be precise). Without going into unnecessary detail at present, the table in question has been dismissed by all reputable scholars and should not be used as evidence. If invited, I would be happy to cite authoritative sources for the Assyrian Christian population of the Siirt region in 1913, which was rather lower than the number of Assyrians alleged to have been killed there during WW1.

On the wider issue, the total number of Assyrian deaths cited in this article is about three times as high as reputable scholars would place it. There was indeed a massacre of Assyrians during World War I, and it was a deeply regrettable event. It cannot be excused by the fact that many Christians living inside the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire hoped for liberation by the Russians, and were therefore regarded as potential traitors by the Turkish authorities, nor by the fact that some Christian groups took up arms against the Turks before the massacres took place. It was, plainly and simply, a massacre. But please, let's not talk about genocide in this context. Genocide has a clear technical meaning, implying that the killers were aiming at the extinction of an entire race. What happened to the Assyrians was not genocide within the accepted meaning of the term. Most Assyrians living within the Ottoman Empire survived the war, even if they were forced to flee from their homes, and in many cases the Turks encouraged them to flee instead of killing them. We are talking about ethnic cleansing, not genocide. There is a difference.

I think Assyrians have every right to commemorate the events of World War I, which extinguished historic Syriac Christianity in districts where it had existed for many centuries. Some of the Assyrian Christian villages wiped out in WW1 were founded as early as the 3rd century AD, and many others are known to have been flourishing Christian centres during the Sassanian period, before the Muslim conquest. Their destruction is a tragedy, but I do not think their memory is best served by making exaggerated claims on their behalf.

Djwilms (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

in many cases the Turks encouraged them to flee instead of killing them. Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide considers any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

-- from Wikipedia article on Genocide.

What do you think happened to these people when they were forced to flee their homes? Even during their exodus, they were still within areas under Ottoman control; thus, they were still open to attacks by marauders, bandits, Kurdish militant groups, etc. Furthermore, many of them were forced into the Hakkari mountains. Yes, in many instances they were spared from being killed in exchange for exile. But the conditions to which they were subjected did not favour their survival at all. Death found these people either by the sword, or the harsh conditions of their exile. This aligns quite nicely with criterion (c): Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. The Ottomans wanted the Assyrian Christians gone through whatever means possible, and they surely did nothing to prevent the destruction of this ethnic group.

Let's say you're right, and that the amount of Assyrians who were killed was only one third of the 500-750,000 claimed by many scholars and by this article. That yields a conservative range of about 170,000 to 250,000. This is still a significant number, albeit to define a massacre as a genocide does not require that a death-toll quota be met. Furthermore, this would not account for the thousands who are claimed to have perished during exile.

I guess a good start would be for you to provide your "authoritative sources". --Šarukinu (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to my earlier remarks about exaggerated claims for the number of Assyrians killed in the Siirt district, I have now revisited the sources and refreshed my memory.

The total number of Assyrian Christians living in the Siirt district in 1913, on the eve of the First World War, was around 6,000 at most. The evidence is to be found in a 1913 report to the Vatican on the Chaldean church written by Joseph Tfkindji, a deacon from the church of Mardin. Tfinkdji's report is a sober and professional piece of work, and its high value has long been recognised by serious scholars of the Church of the East. After reviewing the history of the diocese since its foundation and listing its Chaldean bishops, he enumerated every village in the diocese with a Chaldean population and noted whether they had churches and priests. According to Tfinkdji, there were just under 4,500 Chaldean Christians in the Siirt district in 1913.

Tfinkdji's figures, of course, covered only the Chaldean population of the Siirt district. What about 'Nestorians', Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholics? Tfinkdji admitted that a few villages in the district were still 'semi-Nestorian', and there is other evidence that the Siirt district still contained a few 'Nestorian' families. However, all contemporary observers agree that, by 1913, they were vastly outnumbered by the Chaldeans. Furthermore, the Siirt district had always been an area of East Syrian settlement, and its West Syrian population in 1913 was minimal. Let's be over-generous and assume that there were perhaps 1,500 'Nestorians', Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholics in the district on the eve of the First World War. This gives a total Assyrian population for the district of 6,000. I myself would put it slightly lower, at about 5,000, but let's not quibble.

The broad picture painted by Tfinkdji is confirmed by the observations of Badger, Cutts and numerous other European observers who recorded their impressions of the Church of the East. Their figures for the number of Assyrian Christians in the Siirt district broadly agree, and suggest that the Assyrian Christian population rose from around 3,000 in the 1850s to a peak of 5,000 to 6,000 in 1913.

Against this background, the figures that appear in the article (published by Gabriele Yonan in the book Ein Vergessener Holocaust) are clearly absurd, and overstate the Assyrian Christian population of the Siirt district by a factor of between three and four. As I stated in my book The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318-1918 (published by CSCO in 2000), Yonan's list of Assyrian villages has no value except perhaps as a source for the existence of Assyrian communities in one or two 'Nestorian' villages in the Siirt district not included in Tfinkdji's list.

If you wish to get the POV and other tags removed from this article, you cannot go on giving credence to the wild exaggerations peddled by Assyrian nationalists. As a start, I suggest that you accept Tfinkdji's evidence for the population of the Siirt district in 1913 rather than Yonan's, and scale down the number of casualties accordingly. Otherwise this article will never be taken seriously by anybody outside the Assyrian community. This would be a great shame, and a sad disservice to the memory of Addai Scher and the thousands of other Assyrians massacred during the First World War.

Djwilms (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

With the same line of thought you could also call the attack of the europeans on the ottoman empire a genocide. The ottoman empire was weak and had huge debts and had difficulties with keeping their land together let alone wage war against other countries. Trough intimidation and trickery [1] they forced the ottomans into the war. As a result of this war armenian separatist groups backed by russians turned on the ottomans and caused the relocation and massacres of armenians and assyrians. Many other ottomans and even europeans themselves were killed or died of starvation. All these people were victims of a genocide caused by the europeans then. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be becoming more and more of a fantasist. The Ottoman Empire gleefully jumped into the First World War for its own vainglorious self-interest and immediately launched offensive campaigns to invade two of its neighbours (Russia and Persia), campaigns that were notable for their widespread massacres of civilian populations. Meowy 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How can I be a fantasist when I give sources for what I say? At most I could be misinformed by the sources I read. A fantasist is someone who makes things up, I clearly didn't do that. Don't personally attack me because you don't like what I say. Did you even read the article I linked to? Why don't you read the link [2] I gave or the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau article. It tells how 2 german battleships were chased by the british fleet and entered the port of istanbul. Because the germans already had a debt of 2 ships to the ottoman empire (they had appropriated 2 battleships ottomans had ordered germans to be build and had paid for) and they were surrounded by their enemies and had no way out, they made the 2 battleships a gift to the ottomans. The ottomans were happy because now they had their 2 battleships, the germans saved their 2 battleships from destruction and paid of their debt. The problem came when the german captains with their crew made an unauthorized attack on sevastopol while they were now part of the ottoman fleet and shouldn't be still fighting for the germans. This attack was seen as an attack by the ottoman empire by the russians. Offers by the ottoman empire to make amends and even an offer to join the allied forces were rejected by russia and the other allies. They were probably more interested in taking away lands from the ottoman empire which they saw as barely able to defend itself. Why else would they reject the offer by the ottomans to join them? This is what I call trickery and intimidation. By giving the 2 battleships and their crew to the ottoman empire and having the german captains attack sevastopol the germans dragged the ottoman empire unwillingly into the war. This is not something I made up. These are facts which I only give my opinion on. So how am I a fantast? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most common title

Comments prior to march 3 2009 have been archived by Chaldean on march 6 2009 and can be found in Archive 3, Most Common Title Section

---

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)

This topic has been discussed before, I suggest you look over the archive pages. Know that Wikipedia's policy in title pages is the most common name of the topic in the English language. We have gone over it before (against, see archives) and the conclusion is Assyrian genocide is the most common term in English. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, but I might take a while to reply. Iraqi 11:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(I took the liberty to quote your comment in "Removal of most of the assyrian genocide talk page, violation of etiquette" section in this section, because I didn't want to answer it in that section. I hope you don't mind Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC) )

You say that the most common english name should be used, I agree that in english "assyrian genocide" is used most but as I pointed out this term links the victims to the ancient assyrians and leaves out those who deny ancient assyrian descent such as those arameans, chaldeans and others who claim aramean or other descent. Many of them believe that assyrian is a term that european missionaries created for the use for the christian population of syria (roman/ottoman syria, including iraq) which replaced the term syrian which was used before to refer to christians of the (roman/ottoman) province of syria regardless whether they were assyrians or arameans (i think that over the centuries these peoples merged). Unfortunately with the creation of the (arab) country syria after world war I this name is not available anymore. A name beside assyrian or aramean should be used because they refer to an ethnic group which the other group doesn't accept. Shouldn't a neutral name like seyfo or any other name be used for this genocide which was committed on various christian groups who don't all accept the name assyrian or assyrian ethnicity/descent? What is most used shouldn't be more important than giving correct information. Don't you agree that assyrian genocide excludes arameans and is an insult to them? You could just as well delete this article and include assyrians and arameans in the armenian genocide article. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "Chaldean" is simply a religious term, invented by the Roman Catholic Church to describe a diocese that was set up in the 17th Century AD for those Assyrians who broke with the Church of The East and adopted Catholicism....Assyrians and Chaldeans are the SAME people. Regarding Arameans, among Christians from Iraq, Iran, South East Turkey and North East Syria it is only a TINY minority that would call themselves Aramean, This term is more common among Christians from Western and Central Syria, who are not Assyrians anyway. Regarding the continuity of being designated Assyrian, Tatian and Lucian called themselves Assyrians in their writings almost 2000 years ago! Assyrians were recognised as existing by the Achamaenids, Greeks, Parthians, Romans, Sassanids and Byzantines, Assyrians have been using specifically Assyrian personal names for thousands of years, there were temples to the god Ashur in northern Iraq as late as the 4th Century AD....check out the work of the eminent Finnish Assyriologist Simo Parpola or Saggs, in contrast there is no evidence of anyone calling themselves Chaldean until recently.........The most STUPID thing Assyrian (or if you like, Chaldo-Assyrian) people can do is to continue to split themselves by these pathetic arguments. If you are a Christian from western, central or southern Syria, sure, youre an Aramean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of most of the assyrian genocide talk page, violation of etiquette

Why did you (Chaldean) delete/remove most of the talk page of the assyrian genocide to archive 3 while people were in the middle of a hot discussion? Couldn't you handle the arguments in favor of a name other than assyrian genocide (which I now know you favor) that were given in the most common title section? Are you trying to prevent people from reading them? What was wrong with these arguments? I can't even revert the change you made, why is that? I get "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits" everytime I try to. It is bad etiquette to just remove someone's comments they have invested time in to write. I don't even know what to say to you that wouldn't be as rude as what you did. Does anyone know where I can report this? I am new to wikipedia and not very experienced. All arguments, even those who opposed me should be put back since this discussion is very useful because there is a big problem with naming the various assyrian, syriac, aramaic, chaldean groups. By discussing them a solution might come up. Maybe we shoud even make an article named "Assyrian/Aramaean/Chaldean Naming Controversy" or something like that, if it doesn't exist already. I'll give my arguments again so that people can see for themselves there was nothing wrong with them.

---

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 [5], 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 (which is used the most) in Neo-Aramaic. Suryoyo doesn't apply to the ancient assyrians (who are called athuroye in Neo-Aramaic) but only to the modern suryoyo (siryani in arabic, turkish) 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) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Ibrahim and welcome to Wikipedia. First know that when you want to start a new discussion in the talk page, make sure you put it at the buttom of the page and not at the top. Second:

"Why did you (Chaldean) delete/remove most of the talk page of the assyrian genocide to archive 3 while people were in the middle of a hot discussion?"

You replied to a discussion that was a year old, thus that's why I saw it as the need to archive it. So no, poeple were not "in he middle of a discussion."

"Couldn't you handle the arguments in favor of a name other than assyrian genocide "

This topic has been discussed before, I suggest you look over the archive pages. Know that Wikipedia's policy in title pages is the most common name of the topic in the English language. We have gone over it before (against, see archives) and the conclusion is Assyrian genocide is the most common term in English. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, but I might take a while to reply. Iraqi

" Maybe we shoud even make an article named "Assyrian/Aramaean/Chaldean Naming Controversy" or something like that"

We have created a page like that - see Assyrian name controversy. Maybe you should work on it since it needs major work. Iraqi (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

question

"Why did you (Chaldean) delete/remove most of the talk page of the assyrian genocide to archive 3 while people were in the middle of a hot discussion?"

answer

You replied to a discussion that was a year old, thus that's why I saw it as the need to archive it. So no, poeple were not "in he middle of a discussion."

I did reply to a discussion where the last reply was dated 10 July 2008 that's true, but what you fail to mention is that I got a reply the same day from users Chcoc and The TriZ and restarted this discussion in the period between march 3 2009 and march 6 2009 when you suddenly decided to delete/archive the talk page and left only the deaths in siirt section. By deleting the talk page you effectively stopped us from discussing this subject. I think it is very rude you did this. You should at least have left the most common title section and the new comments made by Chcoc, The TriZ and myself. I will come to the Assyrian name controversy article and contribute sometime but I already regret spending this much time on posting comments on wikipedia when anyone can come by and delete/move/archive your comments and make a mockery of your effort. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Ibrahim,

"I did reply to a discussion where the last reply was dated 10 July 2008 that's true, but what you fail to mention is that I got a reply the same day from users Chcoc and The TriZ "

I apologize for not seeing that others had replied, but please know that the reason I didn't realize it was because the discussion was at ''the top of the page rather then at the buttom. The way archiving a page works is you archive everything back and leave the most recent discussion (that is subject that is at the buttom of the page.) Noticed how I did not archive the discussion above this one (Deaths in the Siirt Region.) So if you had started a new discussion about the issue at the buttom of the page, then their wouldn't be any problems. Again, I apologize for the confussion. Please do not feel discouraged, it was simply a misunderstanding. It would be great if you joined us in the project. Iraqi (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that explains why there are often so many sections in a talk page who discuss basically the same thing. No problem then. I will open new discussions on the bottom of the page when the last comment was over 6 months ago. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, common for editors to try and hide things in talk-page archives. It usually happens when they want to make some major change that previous discussions might disagee with. Don't know if this is the case here, but too much ongoing material seems to have been pushed into the archive. Meowy 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "Chaldean" is simply a religious term, invented by the Roman Catholic Church to describe a diocese that was set up in the 17th Century AD for those Assyrians who broke with the Church of The East and adopted Catholicism....Assyrians and Chaldeans are the SAME people. Regarding Arameans, among Christians from Iraq, Iran, South East Turkey and North East Syria it is only a TINY minority that would call themselves Aramean, This term is more common among Christians from Western and Central Syria, who are not Assyrians anyway. Regarding the continuity of being designated Assyrian, Tatian and Lucian called themselves Assyrians in their writings almost 2000 years ago! Assyrians were recognised as existing by the Achamaenids, Greeks, Parthians, Romans, Sassanids and Byzantines, Assyrians have been using specifically Assyrian personal names for thousands of years, there were temples to the god Ashur in northern Iraq as late as the 4th Century AD....check out the work of the eminent Finnish Assyriologist Simo Parpola or Saggs, in contrast there is no evidence of anyone calling themselves Chaldean until recently.........The most STUPID thing Assyrian (or if you like, Chaldo-Assyrian) people can do is to continue to split themselves by these pathetic arguments. If you are a Christian from western, central or southern Syria, sure, youre an Aramean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Genocide?

Contemporary sources usually speak of the events in terms of an Assyrian genocide, along with the Armenian genocide and Greek genocide by the Ottoman Empire, listing the Greek Orthodox, Syriac Christian and Armenian Christian victims together. For example, the International Association of Genocide Scholars reached a consensus that "the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks." After this resolution, the Dictionary of Genocide co-authored by eminent genocide scholar Samuel Totten, an expert on Holocaust education and the genocide in Darfur, contained an entry on the "Assyrian genocide." The President of Genocide Watch endorsed the "repudiation by the world's leading genocide scholars of the Turkish government's ninety year denial of the Ottoman Empire's genocides against its Christian populations, including Assyrians, Greeks, and Armenians."

The death toll of the Assyrian genocide was approximately 250,000, according to contemporary and more recent sources. "In 1918, according to the Los Angeles Times, Ambassador Morgenthau confirmed that the Ottoman Empire had 'massacred fully 2,000,000 men, women, and children -- Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians; fully 1,500,000 Armenians.'" With 250,000 Greeks among the dead, that makes Ambassador Morgenthau's estimate of Assyrian deaths about 250,000.

In 1918, about half of the Assyrians of Persia died of Turkish and Kurdish massacres and related outbreaks of starvation and disease. About 80 percent of Assyrian clergy and spiritual leaders had perished, threatening the nation's ability to survive as a unit. (talk) 7:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not enough source to call it genocide.Maybe it can be called massacre.Abbatai (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The assyrians have more right to call it a genocide than the armenians do. Both peoples were victims of massacres and with both the fact whether the massacres were ordered by the ottoman government government is disputed and whether it should be called a genocide when turkish victims in the balkan and crimea in WWI and so many other massacres/wars in the following decades are not called genocides. But if you were going to call it a genocide the assyrians have a better claim. The big difference between assyrians and armenians is that as far as I know assyrians hadn't formed separatist terrorist groups (there were nationalists though) and hadn't attacked ottomans as the armenians had done. With the young turks, reforms (secularism) were on their way and assyrians and armenians supported them at first but the armenians were influenced and backed by the russians and turned against the ottomans and pursued their independence from the ottoman empire. With the armenians you could call it a consequence of their uprise against the ottomans that so many of their civilians fell victim. The ottoman government had no choice but to relocate the armenians and the attacks on armenian civilians by kurdish, arab and turkish militia's (though not justifiable) was caused by the fear and hatred the ottoman civilians had of the approaching russians and their allies the dashnaks and hunchaks. The assyrians however (to my knowledge) had no contact with the russians and were basically the victims of the enmity between the armenian separatists and the local muslim civilians/militia's. In the ottoman empire you basically had only two kinds of christians; greeks and armenians. Even though assyrians are off course semitic and not related to armenians, they still were called "ermeni" and were attacked just as the armenians were.

The reason why there is not enough source for their genocide while somehow there is plenty for the armenians is because of the lobbying power the armenians have. Nobody knows about the assyrians who are the true victims of world war I. The ottomans were wrong because they had this dhimmi system which did not give complete equal rights to christians and jews (though better than rights jews had in europe or even blacks had in america till the 1960's) and caused their christian subjects to revolt. The armenians were wrong because they did not wait for the reforms/secularism the young turks were going to implement and attacked the ottomans when they were most vulnerable to gain independence. The europeans and russians were wrong for forcing the ottoman empire into the war and setting their minorities up against them and being greedy for ottoman lands. All of them have caused the victims which fell on all sides in the war, except for the assyrians who as far as I know neither supported the ottomans nor turned against them. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the not enough source for their genocide while plenty for the Armenians, User:dab summerized it perfectly here: Talk:Assyrian_genocide/Archive_3#recognition.2C_motivation. Iraqi (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is going too far to state that the Assyrians did not rise up against the Ottomans. Many Assyrian tribesmen from the mountain districts (particularly Tiyari) rose in support of the Russian invasion of eastern Turkey in the autumn of 1914, expecting the Russians to advance quickly through the Christian districts, drive out the Turks and incorporate much of eastern Turkey into the (Christian) Russian empire. Unfortunately for them, the Russian offensive stalled in the wake of the Battle of Sarikamish (December 1914 to January 1915), and the hoped-for liberation never occurred. By then, though, the Assyrians had committed themselves. From the Turkish point of view, they had shown that they were prepared to betray Turkey for Russia. The events of 1915 must be seen against this background. Turkey was at war, and the Turks were dealing with an untrustworthy minority that had openly backed their Russian enemies. This does not, of course, excuse the Turkish massacres of Armenian, Assyrian and other Christian groups, but it goes a long way towards explaining them.

Djwilms (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What "Russian Offensive"? There was no "Russian offensive" or "Russian invasion of eastern Turkey in the autumn of 1914"! Are you here only to spread propaganda and distortions? Meowy 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Meowy,

Propaganda and distortions? The Russians invaded eastern Turkey in November 1914. I suggest you open your atlas at whatever page contains Turkey and Russia, read the Wikipedia article Bergmann Offensive, then write me a graceful note of apology.

Sometimes I despair of the quality of contributions to Wikipedia. What is the point of trying to create a comprehensive encyclopedia if people can't even be bothered to check the facts before rushing into print?

Djwilms (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware of the Muslim casulties in Anatolia during ww1 as well.Why you only focus on Christian deaths.During the war 2.5 muslims also died then we should claim there was one more genocide.I dont deny thousands of Assyrians died in ww1 but it was not ordered by Ottoman Government to eradicate Assyrians.At least there is no evidence for that.Your thoughts arenot enough to call it genocide.If you insist on, please tell me the difference between massacre, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.Abbatai (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbatai do you have a reliable source that there was a turkish genocide, if not you need to stop soapboxing as this is not a forum. There are other venues to argue for or against genocides and wikipedia talkpages are not one of them. May I suggest Topix. VartanM (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither I nor you have reliable source but there is an article about your claims so you should stop soapboxing too.Please dont tell me waht I should do, go focus on your propaganda pages.Abbatai (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Djwilms,

No apology is deserved. Spreading propaganda and distortions seems to be your game on this page. You claimed "many Assyrian tribesmen from the mountain districts (particularly Tiyari) rose in support of the Russian invasion of eastern Turkey in the autumn of 1914, expecting the Russians to advance quickly through the Christian districts, drive out the Turks and incorporate much of eastern Turkey into the (Christian) Russian empire". There is not a word of truth in that entire sentence!

Russia had no plans for an invasion of Turkey, it had a strategy "based on active defense with possibly some local offensive" (Muratoff and Allen, "Caucasian Battlefields", 1953, p240), and (from p242 of the same book) "in October 1914, the strength of the Caucasian army was laid out on the basis of an operational plan which envisaged an active defence against a local superiority of force". This was Russia's strategy against Turkey throughout the war.

The Bergman offensive (or, more correctly, "Bergman's offensive") was a strictly local manoeuvre, a defensive measure designed to protect Russian border districts from incursions by Kurdish Hamidiye divisions. However, Bergmann, "who had none of the qualities which are necessary in a commander", advanced further than his orders required, was overexposed, and then had to retreat when faced with a strong Turkish counter offensive. As a result, Russian territory in the lower Choruh valley had to be abandoned, and Borchka, Artvin and Ardanuch were occupied by the Turks. Meowy 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Meowy,

I did not say that the Bergmann Offensive was a success, merely that it had taken place.

Several years ago, when I was working on my book The Ecclesiastical Organization of the Church of the East, I noted a number of references in Wigram and other authorities to clashes between Assyrians and Kurds in the Tiyari district (and Gawar too) in the autumn of 1914. None of this stuff went into the book, as the publishers wanted me to stop at 1913, but I've got a draft somewhere of a chapter covering the First World War which was never used. Give me a few days to consult it, and I should then be in a position to back up my assertions.

I had no idea how touchy everybody is on this subject until I started pointing out factual errors in this article. Clearly, for my next book, I need to write a sequel to The Ecclesiastical Organization that covers the Assyrian experience in the First World War. Massacre in the Mountains, perhaps? Outsiders are so often better at doing this kind of thing, because, unlike the main parties to the dispute, they can be neutral. I will know I have succeeded if my narrative, which will be based on fact, not myth, manages to upset both Turks and Assyrians alike.

Djwilms (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope always to be more than just touchy about blatantly false statements. I will repeat my earlier opinion, and expand on it somewhat: there was not a word of truth in that entire paragraph you wrote beginning "I think it is going too far to state...". And I note your backtracking: "clashes between Assyrians and Kurds in the Tiyari district" is a far cry from your earlier claim about a (non-existant) Assyrian rebellion to support a (non-existant) Russian invasion of eastern Turkey in the autumn of 1914. Meowy 14:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

Could Australia's recognition of the genocide be applied to the one and only state that has recognised the Assyrian genocide? http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=31165 --Yohanun (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The Commonwealth of Australia did not and does not recognize the so-called "Assyrian genocide". Although, Fairfield City Council, a local government authority located in Western Sydney has decided to erect a monument dedicated to the victims of the event, such body does not have legislative authority under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Nor does it represent the Commonwealth of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.209.236 (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Article should be called alleged genocide

Genocide is a crime, as it is clear from this spurious article, an International Court Convened for War Crimes has not convicted the Ottomans. There being no convinction, the Ottomans can not be said to have committed genocide. The same is true for the alleged Armenian Genocide.

Therefore, people who keep referring to genocide, despite there being insufficient evidence to allege the same are ignoring international laws and customs.

MOTIVE

There was no genocide. Hence, the authors of this article cannot find a motive. To suggest religion as a motive is ludicrous! The Ottomans, fostered, and assisted both the Armenian and Assyrian communities to foster. The same Ottomans also assisted jewish people, even sending ships to save them from the Inquisition.

It is a sad fact that as a result of Assyrian and Armenian uprising in South Eastern Anatolia thousands of Ottoman people (Turks, Kurds, Turkomans, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs, & others) lost their lives, some battled to defend their (Ottoman) lands, others were traitors battling alongside the Russians, English, and French.

There is evidence (not opinion) of civilian Turkish and Kurdish deaths in the thousands at the hands of Armenian and Assyrian malicia. Surely, these people were not killed because of the Armenian and Assyrian brand of Christianity required the destruction of muslims. These civilians were killed at the hands of opportunistic people within the Assryrian and Armenian Communities, that hoped for their own State. Perhaps they were even promised a State in return for killing the Turks (note: in the west all muslims were known as Turks).

This is from Suzy David,Deputy Secretary General Assyrian Universal Alliance : "When Turkey entered the war in November 1914, the Assyrians were filled with hope. Those that lived in Turkish Mesopotamia and Persia thought that liberation was imminent. It was a time of promises for an independent statehood in the sacred soil of their ancestors. To that end, Assyrians subjected to hundreds of years of continuous persecution and massacres, sided with the allies for protection, first with the Russians from May 1915 to October 1917, then with the British forces following the Bolshevik Revolution."

RECOGNITION

Without conviction, what good is recognition of the allegation. Even if parliaments were to ignore the abscence of a conviction and for various political reasons pass genocide recognition resolutions, what does this achieve for the Assyrians of this era.

One must remember that when the Ottomans arrived in Anatolia there was no Assyrian or Armenian kingdom or State. There is mention of a vassal kingdom serving room before the time of Christ. If some Armenians and Assyrians chose to side with Ottoman enemies, making it impossible to distinguish friend from foe during WWI can the Ottomans be criticised for relocating the population. In an era where thousands of lives were lost and the Empire was in Chaos, one might be critical of the empire not being able to feed, protect (from bandits, rebels and revenge attacks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altay209 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no Intrnational Court Of War Crimes in WW1, so of course the Ottomans were not brought to trial!

Genocide and mass killings of anarmed, men, women and children did occur, and on a huge scale, and they are well documented in British, Russian, French, American, German and indeed Ottoman records. There is a huge body of evidence.

You also forget the massacres of the 19th century.

The Christian population were treated as second class, Kuffars and Dhimmis. The Ottomans and their Kurdish servants feared an uprising by the oppressed Assyrian, Armenian and Greek Christians after WW1 was declared. They feared they would side with Christian Russia and Britain, so they immediately embarked on massacres of Christian peoples in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. This was done to ensure there was no rebellion. Also the Young Turks were inherently racist, and wished to ethnically cleanse the country of non Turks. Modern Turkey is much the same, with minorities being banned from giving children, non Turkish names and teaching their languages openly.

By the way, Assyria rilded parts of Turkey as far back as 1900 BC before the Turks even existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to get in a discussion about 2nd class citezenship because it leads to me saying "Situation in Europe was worse" because it realy was. The Ottoman government id tax its Christian population more, this meant that they did not have to be conscripted in to the Ottoman Millitary, a fine price I say. Secondly the members of a religion had different courts to which they were trialed. This is because the religious teachings followed by that group dictated certain punishments be likewise. The Ottomans did not embark on an exodus to ethnicaly cleanse Anatolia of Christians. The events started in 1915 when the Russian army came to Van and here the Armenian residents all 1,500 of them slaughtered the garison now what does this tell us. The killings were both sided and they were not unprovoked. What do you do to a potntial threat, you deport them! It is during these deportations what happened happened, but the numbers are not close. The empire at the time could not even feeed its own troops and 1.5million died of hunger and starvation. It is because of this people died, hunger and starvation during the deportations, not a genocide and not the numbers given. So please read before you express your "supported" claims.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proof

For any genocide claim to be attributed to a state proof is needed. Articles from American magazines cannot be labeled as proof. This article requires military reports from Ottoman army. If no proof can be provided then the name of the article cannot be labeled as "Assyrian Genocide". I expect Wiki to be less emotional and more professional. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

If someone could help me to issue an official title change on wiki I'd appreciate it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

This posting is to inform the above editor, and any other editors, that any change in article title will be considered contentious by me. This means that a change of the title will now not be possible without going through the proper extended sequence of procedures defined by Wikipedia. Meowy 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the present title of this article is absurd. The best way forward, in my view, would be to create an article entitled Assyrians in the First World War, covering both the Turkish attacks on Christians and the atrocities committed by the Assyrians at Urmia in 1918 (massacre of Moslem civilians). The fact that some Assyrians want to exploit the fashionable advantages of victimhood by going for genocide status is probably worth a paragraph, but not more.

Djwilms (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would the above be part of the same flight of your imagination that I recall once claimed a (non-existant) Assyrian rebellion to support a (non-existant) Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire? Meowy 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that Agha Petros and his 'Jelos' massacred large numbers of Moslems in Urmia in 1918?

Djwilms (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that there was a genocide of the Syrian Christian population on the basis that long after the event there were some minor reprisal attacks for that (in your opinion non-existant) genocide? If so, your attitudes seems to be on the same level of that of the crudest Armenian Genocide-denialist propaganda from Turkey. That stuff is full of nothing but race hate - "those evil Armenians invent a genocide so that they have an excuse for killing our innocent people for their pleasure". From a person who has mentioned on (too many) occasions their forthcoming book, I find your casual contempt for your subject matter disturbing. Look at your own words, you characterised Turkish actions as merely "attacks", yet Assyrian reactions are called "atrocites" and "massacres". Though I've seen similar attitudes amongst certain academics who would probably sell their daughters to get an excavation permit for a Classical Greek site in Turkey, yet say the Greeks (every last one of them, everywhere in the Ottoman Empire) got what they deserved in 1922 and the Turks are guilty of nothing. Meowy 11:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, the state of this article is lamentable. Made worse since it seems that the descendants of its survivors can't even decide what to call themselves. I doubt that those doing the killing troubled themselves with such things. Meowy 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My view is very simple. In 1915 the Turks attempted to remove suspect Christian groups (Armenians, Assyrians) from sensitive areas close to the battlefront against the Russians by an inexcusable act of ethnic cleansing. Tens of thousands of Assyrians were killed in this process, and tens of thousands more made homeless. The Turkish intention was not genocide, nor was the scale of the killing on a level normally considered necessary for a technical definition of genocide. Calling the massacres and forced removals genocide is therefore unwarranted and unhelpful. It merely darkens counsel. The Assyrians themselves, under the leadership of that appalling brigand Agha Petros, took reprisals in 1918 in Urmia against helpless Moslem civilians which, if on a smaller scale than the Turkish and Kurdish massacres of 1915, were equally inexcusable. Both the Turks and the Assyrians should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but modern Assyrians can console themselves with the thought that the Turks massacred more innocent civilians than Agha Petros did.

Djwilms (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So your attitudes are on the same level as that of the crudest Armenian Genocide-denialist propaganda from Turkey. Meowy 14:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For their to be a genocide at the levels said for me there has to be proof and I mean proof. There needs to be stacks of bones 10s of meters high bodies lined in rows after rows in various places. This is called a genocide, not a few bones of those perished due to starvation or diseas. This was the case in the Holocaust but here I fail to see the mountain high piles of human misery which was claimed to have happened. Not even all the professors in the world could convience me without that stone cold proof barbarism.Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong. What there needs to be is recognition by the academic or legal community that the events constitute genocide under the UN definition of Genocide. This exists though it will never convinve a commited genocide denialist.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

if so then you should call yourself a genocide denialist because armenians and christian minorities murdered hundreds of thousand turks to help russians to invade and destroy the ottoman empire. you are basically denying the turkish genocide. i am suggesting aditors to delete this article . this article is nothing but a source of nazi propaganda machine . wikipedia should never have made up genocides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.50.13 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing is a form of genocide, and genocide was a crime prior to World War II

The United Nations General Assembly charged Yugoslavia with genocide for practicing ethnic cleansing in 1991. They repeated the charge several times in the 1990s. The UN expressly called ethnic cleansing a "form of genocide." (Washington Post, Feb. 13, 1994). There was no conviction by an international court at the time. Therefore, the comment that calling an event genocide must await an international court is just as absurd as saying that the United States cannot be described as having practiced slavery until an international court convicts it of that crime (slavery is a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).

Moreover, the Nazis were indicted for genocide at Nuremberg in 1946 even though the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was not written until 1948. (New Word 'Genocide' Used In War Crime Indictment, New York Times, Oct. 22, 1945). West Germany did not ratify the Genocide Convention until 1954. See Wikipedia article on Nikola Jorgic. East Germany did not accede to the convention until 1973. See Wiki on List of parties to the Genocide Convention.

Individuals have been convicted for genocide based on far smaller massacres than those in the Assyrian genocide. These include Krstic (convicted in UN court) and Karadzic (held civilly liable in US court). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Histornomicon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Assyrian people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

The problem with this article is not that the historicity of the genocide is in any way disputed, but its artificial division along ethnic lines. The sources cited concern the "Ottoman Empire's genocides against its Christian populations", including Armenian, Greek and Syriac Christians. It appears to be only Wikipedia insisting that this requires three articles, one about Armenians, one about Greeks and one about Syriacs. If we follow our references, the best treatment would be an article on the Ottoman genocide of Christian minorities, period. --dab (𒁳) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what a Greek user had proposed in one of those pages for the same reasons. I believe it was user Anothroskon. 87.202.148.214 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In Eastern Turkey in particular the killing of Syriac Orthodox, Chaldeans and Nestorians was not well separated from the killing of Armenians. It was the same event. In any case, there was no "Assyrian Genocide" since there was no concept of an Assyrian to kill. To those responsible they were Christians or they members of one of three distinct groups: Syriac Orthodox, Chaldeans and Nestorians. Ordtoy (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Percentages

It would be nice to see the percentages in Disappeared columns of the tables below - but I was unable to edit the article. I've added some of the percentages here, in case anyone would like to copy and paste them back to the article. Wikiboer (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian population in Diyarbakır Province before and after World War I
	Sect	Before World War I	Disappeared	After World War I
Armenians	Gregorians (Apostolic)	60,000	58,000 (96.7%)	2,000
	Armenian Catholics	12,500	11,500 (92%)	1,000
Assyrians	Chaldean Catholics	11,120	10,010 (90%)	1,110
	Syrian Catholic	5,600	3,450 (61.6%)	2,150
	Syrian Jacobite	84,725	60,725 (71.7%)	24,000
	Total	173,945	143,685 (82.6%)	30,260

Christian population in Mardin province before and after World War I
	Sect	Before World War I	Disappeared	After World War I
Armenians	Catholics	10,500	10,200 (97.1%)	300
Assyrians	Chaldean Catholics	7,870	6,800 (86.4%)	1,070
	Syrian Catholic	3,850	700 (18.1%)	3,150
	Syrian Jacobite	51,725	29,725 (57.5%)	22,000
	Total	73,945	49,875 (67.4%)	24,070

likely garbling

"Outbreak of war

The Ottoman Empire began massacring Assyrians in the nineteenth century, a time of friendly relations between the Ottomans and the British, who were defending the Ottomans from the Russian Empire's efforts to exterminate communities of Orthodox Christians."

Seems a bit unlikely that Russians were exterminating Orthodox Christians!

Dhyandeva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

It also doesn't make much sense to me. After I read the review of the book used as a reference posted at Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010, it seems that the writer of this passage has confused Orthodox Russia with a brief mention of persecution of non-Chalcedonians by the Byzantine emperors.--Rafy talk 02:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be less inclined to assume an innocent confusion - I've seen similar exact reversals of reality in other articles. Thank you for making those recent additions to the article, they have much improved it. A while ago I saw an old postcard reproducing that "painting showing the stoning of the Christian population of Siirt" and wondered what event it depicted. Meowy 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tur abdin

It is totally wrong to call "the present day Tur Abdin region" with Siirt, Van, and any other official "provinces". the present day they do not have this region officially. This sentence must be corrected. Today "Tur abdin" is only an area which included by province Mardin.Entuluve (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere is it stated that those were "official provinces" or that those regions belong to "the present day Tur Abdin region".--Rafy talk 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No? As it reads "the Tur Abdin, Hakkari, Van, Siirt regions of present-day southeastern Turkey and the Urmia region of northwestern Iran" I suggest that there is a clarification needed. Because this sentence is needed to be corrected since it is same both in "englsh" and "simple english" wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entuluve (talk • contribs) 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions that those historical regions are currently located in modern Turkey and Iran respectively, which is obvious. So what needs to be clarified exactly?--Rafy talk 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarify if it is "past" tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entuluve (talk • contribs) 09:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking that you wanted it clarified that Tur Abdin is the name of a geographical region, but that Hakkari, Van, and Sirt are modern provinces of Turkey. I've edited the text to try and do that. Meowy 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The day this began

The Armenian genocide is recognized as beginning on April 24, 1915.

What date did the Assyrian Genocide begin on? The Greek Genocide too, if anyone knows it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Turkish archives, it is ordered not to be touched to other christian citizen but armenians right after 25th of April. Central government has been informed that local submissions forced "all non-muslim" citizens to migrate. this order as following:

You were ordered to be having military and political precautions only against Armenians thus you should certainly not apply these precaution orders against any other christian citizens, and you should immediately stop this unacceptable, lethal and worst behavior and report back the factual/actual situation.

Ermeniler hakkında ittihaz edilen tedabir-i inzibatiye ve siyasiyetnin diğer Hıristiyanlara teşmili kat'iyyen geyr-i ca'iz olduğundan efkar-ı umumiye üzerinde pek fena tesir bırakacak ve bi'lhassa ale'l-itlak Hırisiyanların hayatını tehdid edecek bu kabil vekayi'e derhal hitam verilmesi ve hakikat-ı halin işarı,

According to this statement, it seems there is no certain start date for massacres and migrating, but only submissions' autonomus applications against Assyrian people.Entuluve (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"April 24, 1915" is just a symbolic date, the genocide had already started by that date in many areas (and localised genocidal massacres of Assyrians and Armenians had begun as early as the end of 1914 during the Ottoman occupation of the Urmia region in Persia). I don't think those doing the killing distinguised between Armenians and Assyrians - certainly the Kurds didn't. Nogales (in "4 years beneath the Crescent" talks about seeing the aftermath of the massacres of Assyrian Christians in Siirt and various other places. I don't have the book to check, but it would have been just after the Ottoman forces retreated from Van, so I presume it would be in late May or in June that Nogales would have reached Siirt - so I wonder if the "late 1915" date in the article is correct. Meowy 19:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is not clear whether the early massacres in Urmia were the work of the Ottoman army or simply done by their Kurdish allies who were probably motivated by the Ottoman Jihad fatwa. The first "Ottoman" massacres started in Albaq and Gawar in early spring 1915 and culminated after an official "deceleration of war" by the Patriarch of the East in May. The Genocide remembrance day is also held at 24 April.--Rafy talk 23:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflictions were already started before 24th April. For exmple in Rumelia about Greeks, in Armenia about Tasnksutyun. At 24th there was an order for Armenian intelligency would be arrested. This is the date it is officially started. According to German archives, in several parts of Anatolia, there was already conflictions among Tashnaks, Armenian people, Kurds and Ottoman "tabaa". After declining of Ottoman alliance by Tashnaks, there started everything. So, this period was one such Armenian or Turk people were living in same village sometimes, but do not trust each other. So 24th of April is never symbolic because "genocide" started this day for Armenians. Before this Ottoman government was not able to cease the conflicts among Kurd Beys, Turk peasants, Armenian peasants and Tashnaksutyun (which probably subvensed by Csardom of Russia.) In this conflict most probably some Asuri tribes were involved too.Entuluve (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)