Jump to content

Talk:Sayfo/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Nimrud

“Nimrod Shimun, the malik of the Jilu tribe, “ No he wan’t. He was an older cousin of Mar Benyamin Shimun. 174.251.169.201 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Gaunt (2006) calls him "The leader of the Jilu tribe, Nimrod Shimun (an elder cousin and bitter rival of the Patriarch)" (p. 126) and "Around this time, a major breach emerged within the Nestorian camp. Nimrod Shimun, the head of the Jilu tribe, had been a difficult rival to several Nestorian patriarchs. Although the conflict was not new, the risks were growing. He continued his opposition even during these trying times. Mar Shimun organized the assassination of Nimrod and six other leading members of his party at an ambush on May 22, 1915. The exact background is not known, but it must have had to do with issues of uniting the tribes for common defense. There was suspicion that Nimrod, who had good relations with the Ottoman authorities, was in contact with the government and could not be trusted. However, the course of events, which defeated the Jilu first of all, proved that they had no secret deal with the Ottomans." (p. 141) (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


Gaunt is mistaken on this. What are his sources? How could Nimrud be a malik of the Jilu tribe? He was a Qudshinaya. As for Mar Benyamin Shimun “orchestrating” his murder, this is pure speculation, and probably emanating from the controversial biography of Malik Loko who was very resentful and conflicted about the Mar Shimun family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.169.201 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The reference given is Hazqiyel Rayyis Gabriyel Beth-Malik Babane, Tash’ita d Aturaye [Assyrian history] (1975). The claim about Nimrod being the leader of Jilu and Mar Shimun having ordered his assassination is repeated in this book. It's always possible that the sources are wrong, but given the verifiability policy it's hard to justify changing the article unless there's a reliable source that contradicts these. (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


More secondary and tertiary sources. Try Marshimun.com and “The History of the Patriarchal Succession of the Mar Shimun Family,” by Theodore d’Mar Shimun. Or, I can put you in touch with Mar Shimun family members. Let’s get this settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.169.201 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, secondary sources are actually preferred—see WP:PSTS. David Gaunt is a reputable scholar and his writings are going to be considered more reliable than Theodore d’Mar Shimun’s recorded oral history or any other statements from Mar Shimun's family members, all of whom have a conflict of interest in this matter (at least as regards the assassination). (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

From: “The History of the Patriarchal Succession,” English ed. 2008)

[Theodore d’Mar Shimun] “. . . A large number of fighters from Upper and Lower Tyari, Tkhuma, Baz, and Dizan were granted a meeting with Patriarch Mar Benyamin in Dizan, where they suggested that, for its own safety, the patriarchal family travel south and settle in Upper Tyari. The entire Assyrian population of Barwar, Jilu, and Dizan were dying of hunger, and the group proposed raiding sheep from the Kurdish Sharapnayi villages, three hours from the valley of Qudshanis. Because it was a matter of life and death, Mar Benyamin had no choice but to approve the raid. Approximately three hundred men attacked the Sharapnayi villages and made off with almost three thousand sheep for the starving people of Dizan. As they neared Qudshanis, however, eight men separated from the group. They took a few sheep into that town and went to the home of Patriarch Mar Benyamin’s uncle Nimrud, who had not been on speaking terms with the rest of the d’Mar Shimun family, including the patriarch, for some time. The eight men claimed to be representing Mar Benyamin, who wanted to reconcile him and our family, at which Nimrud invited them to dine with his household. After dinner the eight told him to bring his family to the patriarchal home to discuss the reconciliation. Accompanied by the eight, they all set off for the patriarchal see even though none of the d’Mar Shimuns were in residence there. As they approached, the eight surrounded them, tied their hands behind their backs, and shot all but two of them who escaped. . . . It wasn’t until some time later . . . that our family heard of the killing of Nimrud and his family, although naturally Patriarch Mar Benyamin had been informed of it almost immediately. My mother, Esther, and my aunt Romi, were so devastated by this news that they were unable to eat for days. I was only a child of seven then, but I still remember watching my uncle Eshaya, a valiant young man of nineteen, pacing the garden of Malik Ismail’s house, mourning our loss and crying bitterly. Nimrud’s children were cousins of Patriarch Mar Benyamin, and his brothers and sisters were all raised together as one family. . . . [Eshaya had promised to marry Ester, Nimrud’s daughter]. After killing Nimrud and his family, the eight men went to Dizan, and two of them went to pay their respects to Patriarch Mar Benyamin. The patriarch was furiously pacing the room, barely able to contain himself. ‘How dare you come into my presence and face me after committing such a vicious crime? Who was behind you? Who put you up to this? You said you were getting sheep to save our people from starvation. Instead you went and murdered, murdered your own host and his family, set a trap for him, tricked him, killed him and his children. Is this right before God? What will you say to Him? How will you answer Him? Have you no thought of His Day of Wrath? In spite of Mar Benyamin’s anger, he was unable to take any action, paralyzed as he was because of the terrible onslaught against his entire people and the need to preserve unity among them. If he had taken action against the eight, there would have been trouble from those tribes who approved of their attack. Mar Benyamin thought it best to postpone dealing with the eight men until after things had settled down.” [MarShimun: pp. 75-76]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.169.201 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

“For Wikipedia purposes, secondary sources are actually preferred—see WP:PSTS. David Gaunt is a reputable scholar and his writings are going to be considered more reliable than Theodore d’Mar Shimun’s recorded oral history or any other statements from Mar Shimun's family members, all of whom have a conflict of interest in this matter (at least as regards the assassination). (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)”

You apparently aren’t going to be reasoned with. Am escalating this issue to Wikipedia because in your obstinate refusal to make a simple clarifying edit your political agenda/motives are suspect. This is incredible that you consider someone like Gaunt, who clearly got his data from unreliable sources (as admitted to me) is considered more reliable than the trustworthy and well respected published sources I’ve generously provided you. Something is clearly amiss with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.169.201 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

PS By your own reasoning, wouldn’t there also be a “conflict of interest” in Gaunt’s suspect source? Why are you so opposed to adding the simple qualifying word “possibly” to your wikipedia entry on this subject? If not, where is the proof that the murder was “orchestrated” by Mar Benyamin Shimun? Sure seems irresponsible and unacademic to me not to at least acknowledge the spuriousness of such a severe claim when there are reliable sources that either make no such claim or put serious doubt into such claims—especially considering the sources of those claims.

No worries if I’ve not convinced you, whoever you are, I’ll talk to Wikipedia and perhaps get back in touch with Mr. Gaunt himself if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.169.201 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Hmm, maybe you have a point. I can't find any non-Gaunt sources (at least in English) that mention Nimrod as a member of the Jilu tribe. If he wasn't, then the whole story falls apart. It's reasonable to believe that Gaunt has made a mistake in this case, so I'm taking out this claim. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I certainly hope you are considering my suggestions re: adding speculative wording to Gaunt’s claim about the murder—-since no one can prove what really happened, you can’t legitimately use accusatory or condemnatory language of certainty about a historical event without adding some sort of qualification. To do otherwise is 1.) Poor scholarship, and 2.) unethical. I do find it galling that the published memoirs of a family member who was very much respected in the Assyrian community is somehow given less credence than the writings of an academic who doesn’t even acknowledge such important sources or viewpoints when making obviously controversial and probably, intentionally inflammatory claims to better sell their work to the unsuspecting public and scholarly community. Again, why over-rely on an academic who clearly didn’t even bother to consult alternative sources on such a controversial statement? Not asking you to alter your wikipedia entry in any other way than to add a qualifying word of speculation and doubt like “possibly” before “orchestrated,” and to maybe add a footnote citing Theodore d’Mar Shimun’s important history.

Thank you.

  • IP, the outrage is misplaced—the entire incident isn't mentioned in the article anymore. However, I do recommend you email Professor Gaunt to let him know why you think he is wrong. He repeats this theory in recent publications to which he could issue corrections. (t · c) buidhe 23:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sayfo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


Important article, reading … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Minor points

  • loyal to the government, (although they feuded with each other) were – comma looks misplaced (should be behind the gloss?)
    • Rephrased
  • I wonder if "intertribal warfare" really needs a redlink. Is this term really well-defined or would it be an article about everything and nothing?
    • Removed
  • There were no missionaries in Salmas valley to protect Christians; although some local Muslims attempted to do so. – I think the ; should be a ,
    • Done
  • In April, Halil Kut arrived with reinforcements following a forced march from Rowanduz. – I don't follow, forced by what, and to where?
    • These are Ottoman troops, their commanders are the ones forcing them to march. Rephrased for clarity.
  • There were several other massacres killing hundreds of Christians – that sentence could have appeared in any of the sections; can this be more specific?
    • Clarified that this refers to Persian Azerbaijan in early 1915
  • appease German an Austrian – and?
    • Fixed

Major points

  • There is nothing on the lead on motives, and the role of the Ottoman government; should there?
    • Added a bit on the Ottoman government's role and possible motives for the genocide.
  • While reading, I was quite confused about your use of synonyms:
  • You seem to interchangeably use "Assyrian", "Syriac Christian", etc. as synonyms (?). I know that this is discussed in the terminology section, but it would really help and avoid confusion if you stick with one term if you refer to the same thing.
  • I try to use Syriac for those affected in Diyarbekir (who are mostly followers of the Syriac Orthodox or Syriac Catholic Church) vs. Assyrian for Hakkari/Persia. That is what many sources use and some descendants prefer.
  • However, that was not clear to me while I read, and these differences do not seem to be mentioned in the "terminology" section. I fear that the average reader might be like me and gets confused. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • is Iranian Aserbaidschan = Urmia? Again, restricting to one term will help.
  • Done, now uses Persian Azerbaijan and Urmia only for the city itself. Technically the Ottomans only occupied the western part of Persian Azerbaijan but I think it is more clear than using Urmia both for a poorly defined region and the city.
  • same with Iran / Persia
  • Done (now uses Persia)
  • I recommend to introduce new names, e.g. "Ottoman commander Halil Kut". I was wondering if the latter is Russian or whatever side, and needed to click on the article to find out.
    • Done
  • I had problems follow the events discussed in the article both geographically and temporally.
    • Whenever you introduce geographical names, it would help to briefly state where those are (e.g., "Further in the south, in Bashkale", or "In Bashkale, in the north of Hakkari,"; I invented the locations).
      • I've attempted to do this. There are a few locations, such as Midan (somewhere in northern Iraq) and Sahin Ghal'e (apparently a mountain pass in Western Iran) where I cannot pin down where they are.
    • Optional: The maps are very prominent in the article but I didn't find them of much use with understanding the article. It is very difficult to find mentioned geographical names in the maps. The big map reads "Hakkari is the mountains to the center-right of the map", but in fact the whole map is mountain, and I can't find the name "Hakkari" anywhere. I know that this is not a GA matter, but should you bring it to FA, you could consider having custom made maps that show 1) all geographical names mentioned, and 2) people and army movements. If that map gets too full, maybe you could use the same map for the two years, showing only the movements relevant for the respective year. I can imagine that such a map would really help a lot.
      • Unfortunately the only Wikipedian made map is not entirely accurate, so I don't think it can be used. The big map might not have "Hakkari" labeled, but I've added the location more precisely in the caption. It does show where many points of interest such as Qudshanis, Bashkale, Tyari etc. are.
  • What confused me the most is the lack of chronology. I think this makes it really hard for the reader. It starts with "Ottoman occupation of Urmia (January to May 1915)", but the next section "Ethnic cleansing of Hakkari" is about 1914. Similar in the following sections. Placing everything in chronological order would really help, as time is an important red thread a reader can follow. Alternatively, an overview paragraph might be a possibility that gives the reader the necessary orientation.
    • I can see that the organization is a challenge. Unfortunately, although the Assyrian genocide is usually treated as one event with one name, it is far from clear that it's one event. The Ottomans did not perceive the different Syriac confessions to be one group and did not target them together. It does not seem to be the case that the Syriac Orthodox in Diyarbekir were killed for the same reason as Hakkari Assyrians, for example. Separating by region is what most of the sources do. I did change the order so Hakkari goes before Persian Azerbaijan.
  • This is a long and complicated article, so I would like to read a second time once the above are addressed, when I also will put a stronger focus on the Aftermath and Legacy sections. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The Assyrians recalled being promised an independent country by the British if they held out against Ottoman attacks. – Comes a bit out of nothing, and the connection to the paragraph is not clear to me. Did the British promise this or did the Assyrians only claim it?
    • I moved this sentence and added information. Basically, it is disputed if this was ever made but the Assyrians believed it was.
  • The Christian militias in Persian Azerbaijan proved no match for the organized Ottoman army in 1918 – I am confused why this isn't included in the section "Ethnic violence in Persia"; I thought that section would cover Persia completely as the section title would indicate.
  • The Christian militias in Persian Azerbaijan proved no match for the organized Ottoman army in 1918 – I lost orientation here; how does this connect to the previous paragraph (about the same region if I understand correctly?). Did the Ottoman army attack after Russians withdrew? There could be more context here. (Edit: I see, this becomes a bit clearer with the following sentences, but succession of information could still be improved).
    • Reordered
  • Ethnic violence in Persia – Should that section be named "Ethnic violence in Persian Azerbaijan"?
    • Done
  • The Persian government refused to allow the return of Assyrians who had fled as requested by the United Kingdom – is this out of chronology? Following the text, they are still in the process of fleeing.
    • Reordered
  • Sorry for the delay and slow progress, I'm a bit busy in real life. One reply for an older issue and a few new comments above; will try to get to the rest soonish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • and Mustafa Kemal – he is best known under Atatürk, maybe add that name? Or introduce?
    • Rephrased to avoid mentioning him
  • Although in most places where they were targeted, Christians were killed without resistance, when they resisted, the Ottoman authorities at the highest level directly ordered attacks on Syriac Christians. – That sentence is difficult to read and does not seem to be ideal: It says that when Christians resisted, Syriac Christians get attacked? Even when these resisting Christians are not Syriac Christians?
    • I ended up removing this sentence. Gaunt is making a point about the sources available, which go into more detail on cases where there was armed resistance. These records weren't created when the central government was not involved in the killing.
  • The Sayfo is mentioned to be a political genocide, but the broader context, motivation of the Ottomans, and the role of nationalism does not become very clear, I feel this is still a bit of a weak spot of the article.
    • I've expanded a bit in the World War I section, but I 'm not sure there's more to say in reliable sources. There is a ton written about the causes of the Armenian genocide but the literature on the Sayfo is much more thin and I don't think it would be appropriate to simply port over that information without a reliable source that ties it directly to the Sayfo.
  • "several MPs" – can you link that?
    • Done
  • That's everything from me – and sorry again for the delay. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

. Change Assyrian to Aramean/Syriac. The name or even ethnicity Assyrian don't actually exist. There is no historical proof that Assyrian died NOT die out 2500 years ago. The truth is that Assyrian ethnicity does not exist, it died out 500-400 bce, not so long after it's own empire. Even arabic scholars dispute that assyrians existed in the arabic caliphate that existed for 500 years. Username432124 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is also known as the Assyrian genocide. If Assyrians do not exist, or did not exist, it doesn't change that it was also known as the Assyrian genocide. The article even goes into detail in the terminology section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Some Considerations

are divided into mutually antagonistic churches

I don't know if this is a good way to characterize the present moment.  Half my family is Chaldean the other is Assyrian Church of the East.  There's tons of marriage across church lines in both the Middle East and diaspora.  Assyrian gatherings are attended by all different denominations.  The heads of the churches listed often meet together https://twitter.com/RobPutrus/status/1495142928049754116 http://www.fides.org/en/news/71010-ASIA_IRAQ_United_in_Christ_Chaldean_Patriarch_Louis_Raphael_Sako_pays_a_visit_to_Mar_Awa_III_the_new_Patriarch_of_the_Assyrian_Church_of_the_East.  


in part because its targets were divided between mutually antagonistic churches and did not develop a collective identity

I agree with the sentiment that more cohesion across church lines in the past would have lent itself to better awareness but this almost suggests we're amorphous.  I'll give you an example.  Toma Audo from the Chaldean church helped formalize a lot the grammar for our language in written form. George Kiraz from the Syriac Orthodox church helped modernize our alphabet for modern computers.  And a strongly identified Assyrian who piggybacked off the work of the former two, created the Assyrian (Syriac) keyboard for iOS which is currently on over a billion iPhones right now.  These are people, who by sharing a collective identity, were able to contribute to the same, singular, linguistic goal across several generations.

Is it worthwhile mentioning Toma Audo in this article?  He was the highest ranking Assyrian Catholic clergy who was killed in the genocide.


not understanding the broader political context

Since the Greek genocide and Armenian genocide don't include a similar claim, unless it can be explained why Assyrians (as opposed to other victims of genocide) are uniquely unqualified to understand their own genocide, my preference is to remove this.


The English word "Assyrian" was in use but did not designate all of the various sectarian groups targeted by the Sayfo. Therefore, according to historian David Gaunt, "speaking of an 'Assyrian Genocide' is anachronistic".

The term "Genocide" wasn't coined until 1944, does that mean speaking of an "Armenian Genocide", or "Greek Genocide" is anachronistic?   We've always called ourselves Suraye, Suroye, Suryoye in our respective flavor of Neo-Aramaic.  However the question now is, what do we call ourselves in English?  Regarding "The English word 'Assyrian'", Suraya (ܣܘܼܪܵܝܵܐ) comes from Asoraya (ܐ݇ܣܘܼܪܵܝܵܐ), compare the similarities (only the first character is different):

ܣܘܼܪܵܝܵܐ
ܐ݇ܣܘܼܪܵܝܵܐ

Asoraya, literally translates to "Assyrian" in English.  Etymologically, "Assyrian" has always been a catch-all term for all ethnic Assyrians regardless of church affiliation, regardless if someone rejects this term or misunderstands it to only mean a subset of sectarian groups.


Terms for Syriac Christians such as "Assyrian", "Syriac", "Aramean", and "Chaldean" have become politicized, and there is no universally accepted term

I prefer the phrasing in Assyrian people which is less opinionated:

Assyrians (ܣܘܪ̈ܝܐ, Sūrāyē/Sūrōyē) are an ethnic group indigenous to the Middle East. Some self-identify as Syriacs, Chaldeans, or Arameans.


The Assyrians, who historically speak different varieties of Neo-Aramaic

Can we rewrite this to something cleaner like what's in Assyrian people, ex.

Assyrians, who speak the Neo-Aramaic branch of Semitic languages...

A lot of the wording in this article can be improved by drawing from the phrasing of the article on Assyrian people and Assyrian continuity


some Syriac Orthodox adherents still subscribe to an Assyrian identity

This makes it seems like a vanishingly small minority is subscribing to an Assyrian identity.  In reality most Syriacs do identify as ethnic Assyrians.  Yes you might be able to cherrypick examples in sports, or social media posts (mostly older folks) but that's not representative of the whole community.  I'm not sure some of these academics understand the full extent of linguistic, cultural and yes... religious overlap across church lines.  The difference is less discrete than what's implied. For example most Chaldeans I've known don't even speak the Chaldean dialect, they speak something else like the Iraqi Koine or Urmian dialect.  If these researchers have been to our weddings, ate our food in our homes or celebrated our holidays I think they would see how their perception of sectarianism is overstated due to the sectarian diversity in our communities.

Notwithstanding a more nuanced understanding of overlap between subgroups, I think this article's over reliance on Gaunt's views are justified because of how thoroughly he details all of the massacres and expulsions.  Can the article be broadened to encompass a wider range of academics?  I personally think Hannibal Travis https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KPYwnGMAAAAJ is worthy of inclusion, in particular his "The Ottoman Genocide of the Assyrians during World War I". Perhaps also Sargon Donabed https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A_-yXSUAAAAJ.


and marked by intertribal warfare.

This wording is vague, does it imply Assyrians of different tribes fought against each other, or Assyrian tribes fought non-Assyrian tribes?


probably originate in heterogenous populations native to eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia

This wording is vague and can be interpreted as Assyrians not being homogenous and their origins are not well understood.  It also doesn't go further back than the 1st century.  IMO, the lead section of Assyrian continuity does a better job explaining this

contemporary scholarship generally supports Assyrian continuity, recognizing the modern Assyrians as descendants of the Aramaic-speaking populations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire

I'm not sure if this is beyond the scope of the background section, but modern genetic studies show that Assyrians are a homogenous ethnic group with no genetic differences across church lines (ie. sectarianism is purely on religio-political lines.)


the Assyro-Chaldean delegation stated that its losses were 250,000, about half its prewar population; it is unknown if this figure is accurate
the desire of the Christians to be compensated for the extent of their suffering, it would have been natural for them to have exaggerated the figures

Characterizing the upper limit as "exaggerated" or emphasizing suspicion around the upper limits by creating a verification table paints surviving Assyrians as opportunistic and untruthful.  I tallied up what was in the table and it came out to 180,000 for the higher estimates and honestly I was expecting it to be much lower based on how the article was setting everything up.  While the ratio of 250,000/180,000 is much lower than that of the ratio of upper/lower estimates for the Greek genocide and Armenian genocide, neither of these articles include similar qualifiers for the upper limits - they simply just state them.

I think something like this should suffice for the lead

Researchers have estimated the death toll to be 180,000

And then simply state the 250,000 per the delegation later in the article w/o the narrative.


In Neo-Aramaic, the genocide is usually called Sayfo or Seyfo (ܣܝܦܐ), a cognate of the Arabic saif meaning 'sword', which since the tenth century has also meant 'extermination' or 'extinction'.

Per this definition, other semitic languages like Amharic, Maltese and Hebrew have cognates, so why single out the Arabic one?  Also why is the English definition of the Arabic's cognate used instead of the English definition of ܣܝܦܐ (which is derived from Classical Syriac.). I'd prefer this:

Assyrians call the genocide Sayfo or Seyfo (ܣܝܦܐ), meaning a slaughter. [1]


Targeting of non-Armenian Christians

This is in the same vein as the previous comment, but why are Assyrian Christians being referred to as non-Armenian Christians?  Were there any "non-Armenian Christians" who weren't ethnic Assyrians that this section is referring to? You should just call this

Targeting of Assyrian Christians in Diyarbekir

Unintentional dispossession of the Assyrian name by academics and journalists (ex. "Christians of Iraq flee ISIS") limits our ability to raise awareness for our indigenous rights in our homeland. Calling us by our ethnic name acknowledges our indigeneity as an ancient peoples.


I wanted to bring up a point mentioned in the GA review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayfo/GA1.

You seem to interchangeably use "Assyrian", "Syriac Christian", etc. as synonyms

I think the article could be made most intelligible by just calling "Syriac Christian", "Assyrian" and specifying the church affiliation at the beginning of each section while continuing to refer to them as "Assyrian" throughout the section. Why is this characterized by the academic community as anything other than a genocide against ethnic Assyrians?  There are examples of preferred treatment based on ethnicity (ex. Assyrian vs Armenian)

In some places, all Christians were killed equally, but elsewhere, local officials spared Syriacs while targeting Armenians

but I don't think that cohabiting ethnic Assyrians were treated more/less harshly based on church affiliation (ex. Chaldean vs Syriac.)   This underscores ethnic lines being more important than church lines in determining the fate of ethnic Assyrians. On Vahaduo, Assyrian_North, Assyrian_West and Assyrian_South have a distance of about 1 from each other.  By comparison Western Armenians and Eastern Armenians have a distance of about 4 from each other.  Yet academia characterizes one as a genocide against ethnic Armenians while not fully characterizing the other as a genocide against ethnic Assyrians.  Within the our communities and elsewhere[2] this is considered to be a genocide against ethnic Assyrians, something modern scholarship is beginning to reflect.


the mass slaughter and deportation of Syriac Christians

Referring to the ethnic Assyrians who were killed in the Assyrian genocide as Syriac Christians is confusing, because while all ethnic Assyrians killed were indeed Syriac Christians, not all Syriac Christians are ethnic Assyrians.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity#/media/File:Syriac_Christian_denominations.svg. Melkite Greek, Greek Orthodox and Maronite have no ethnic Assyrians while Syriac Orthodox has a decent amount of ethnic Assyrians.  The remaining are all ethnic Assyrian.  While the chart makes it clear that not all Syriac Christians actually belong to the Syriac church, that's something most people, ethnic Assyrians included, won't be able to delineate when reading the numerous occurrences of "Syriac" in this article.


I'm an Assyrian Christian so I obviously have a bias but I felt that there's a subtle orientalist undertone that's present in some places.  My hope is this article can be continually improved to chip away at that, beyond the examples I pointed out.  If you have the chance, please read through the recently improved Assyrian continuity.  I think it strikes a better tone with respect to this. That said, I feel the strongest portions of the article are those that detail the massacres, expulsions and their respective timelines and locations. Please take all of these considerations with a grain of salt and normalize for my bias. I trust your guys' best judgement to make the appropriate improvements as you see fit. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:C041:93E0:F91B:32D3 (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I have implemented some of them.
  • The death toll. As far as I know, there is no source that exists stating that the overall death toll is 180,000, so stating that would be original research. Gaunt's position is that there is not enough information to make an accurate estimate. Some sources cite the Paris Peace Conference figure since there are no others available.
  • Targeting Assyrians by ethnicity. Sources generally agree that Assyrians were not targeted for their ethnicity per se, and in fact there was not much of a collective Assyrian identity in the Ottoman Empire before 1915. Rather, they were targeted for belonging to particular religious denominations, for being Christian, or for being "Armenian". There is evidence that Syriac Orthodox were sometimes treated more leniently than other confessional groups (one hypothesis is their lack of connection to foreign influence compared to other churches).
  • Hannibal Travis' expertise is in copyright law, not history. This unfortunately shows in his publications, which show a lack of nuance and source criticism, and advancement of some ideas that are not mainstream to say the least. As far as I know, Donabed has not written much about the Sayfo. As noted in his article David Gaunt is considered the leading scholar in this area. For the record, I consider the following sources to be the best available: Gaunt and Hellot-Bellier for Hakkari and Azerbaijan, Kaiser, Gaunt, and Üngor for Diyarbekir. (t · c) buidhe 11:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to continue to drop in comments in the talk page but now that I understand how succinct your writing style is, I need to be pithier to be respectful of your time.
  • Regarding the death toll - I didn't realize summing the estimations from different massacres amounts to original research but you're right. My issue was with how the upper estimate is being harped on but the upper estimates of the Greek and Armenian genocides, though much higher, are not in their respective articles. But we can let this one go, I'm probably being too sensitive about it.
  • Regarding ethnicity, I'll create some more sections in the talk page about this relating to this.
  • On Travis, that's a fair point. I'm actually curious, what ideas of his are not mainstream?
Thanks again and please let me know any way you prefer me to adapt my communication style to optimize for intelligibility. You're the primary steward of this article so it's important I know how to get through to you in the best way. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:697A:3559:E8DC:AF66 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
On Travis, in his 2017 book he claims: "Ignorance of and inattention to Christian and Yezidi persecution led to yet another genocide, peaking in 2014–2015." -> I think ISIS is usually blamed for this. The idea that better knowledge of the Assyrian genocide could have stymied ISIS is a theory that I've never seen in any other source.
He also asserts: "The Assyrians represent a unique case in scholarship, as a population repeatedly denied the opportunity of having a recognized claim to a distinct ethnic, national, and religious continuity with its ancestors." I guess he has never heard of denial of Kurds or the repeated claims by many Israelis that Palestinians don't really exist.
Later in the book, he misrepresents Uğur Ümit Üngör's criticism of his work and doubles down on refusal to acknowledge events such as ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims as an important trigger for the World War I genocides. This is widely accepted and not controversial in Armenian genocide studies.
In his 2006 paper, Travis states, "The Turks extended their policy of exterminating the Christians of the empire to the Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, and Lebanese." -> genocide isn't committed by an ethnic group such as "the Turks", rather by individuals, states and organizations. There is no acknowledgement that the concept of a Greek genocide is highly controversial in scholarship, especially for the World War I period, or that the Lebanese famine is not generally considered a case of genocide.
He also greatly overemphasizes the 1914 Ottoman jihad proclamation in leading to anti-Christian atrocities, even though most evidence points to this proclamation having very limited effect.
More broadly, he repeatedly suggests that Western countries are at fault for not intervening more on behalf of Christian minorities in the Middle East, ignoring the body of research and scholarship arguing that, for example, Western intervention in the Ottoman Empire fueled suspicion of Armenians as a fifth column, foreign-sponsored Armenian reforms did more harm than good, or missionaries in the 19th century Middle East worsened relations between Muslims and Christians and therefore contributed to violence.
Now, most of these things are indicators of strong political bias rather than getting the facts wrong, but I would still argue that there are much better sources to cite. (t · c) buidhe 16:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Yikes - Thanks so much for taking the time to succinctly lay all this out... I actually know people who are related to him. I had no idea he harbored these ideas. I can now point other people, Assyrians included, to your summary.
After reading this, yes I agree he has strong political bias and constructs these statements in a post-hoc sort of way. IE academia masquerading as activism. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:7CE1:2F12:AFAF:1A2B (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Two different meanings for "Assyrian"

At times the article uses "Assyrian" to refer to all ethnic Assyrians, including those who are from the Syriac churches

also known as the Assyrian genocide
The Assyrians were divided into mutually antagonistic churches
and have been spearheaded by the Assyrian diaspora

and at other times, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayfo/GA1, it refers exclusively to ethnic Assyrians "for Hakkari/Persia", excluding ethnic Assyrians of the Syriac churches.


This becomes especially confusing when "Assyrian" appears next to "Syriac Christians" for example

was the mass slaughter and deportation of Assyrian/Syriac Christians

"Assyrian" links to the article for all ethnic Assyrians, including those who are from the Syriac churches. While "Syriac Christians" links to the article for all Syriac Christians, including the millions in India and Lebanon who are not ethnically Assyrian. The article oscillates back and forth between millet identifiers and ethnicity when describing victims. It would help alleviate confusion if there was more consistency 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:C54:9925:ED16:D67 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will think about a way to make usage more consistent. (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Dope sauce 🎉.
If you needed ideas on how to make the usage more consistent, please check out Assyrian_continuity#19th_century_identities_and_developments and Assyrian_continuity#Contemporary_identities_and_name_debate.
I know I mentioned this article before but I can't think of a better example of making this complicated word soup matter much easier to understand 🧠 than by taking 5 minutes to read these two sections.
Furthermore you might want to check out the recent edits which helped bring the article out of a lot of the same naming issues to a higher level of clarity. The primary editor has a very deep understanding of the situation and was able to explain it in an easy to understand way 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:C54:9925:ED16:D67 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore you might want to check out recent edits
^ Actually ignore this part of my comment, it's just a huge wall of text which is not very useful for the purposes of understanding the nomenclature 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:7CE1:2F12:AFAF:1A2B (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Targeting of non-Armenian Christians

According to 1915 genocide in Diyarbekir, half the victims were ethnic Armenians and the other half were ethnic Assyrians. I'm against characterizing ethnic Assyrians as "non-Armenians". For example the section can be titled

  • Targeting of Christians Diyarbekir
  • Targeting of Assyrians Diyarbekir
  • Targeting of Syriacs Diyarbekir

In other parts of this article and the aforementioned one, occurrences of "non-Armenians" can be replaced with "Assyrians" or "Syriacs". These changes would still maintain the sentiment behind the "non-Armenian" citations, that in places, Armenians were unfavored compared to other Christians, while still appropriately naming the ethnic Assyrians who were killed.

This would bring consistency with phrasing elsewhere in the article:

In some places, all Christians were killed equally, but elsewhere, local officials spared Syriacs while targeting Armenians 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:C54:9925:ED16:D67 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

While almost all victims were either Syriac or Armenian, the small Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic populations of Diyarbekir were also targeted. I think this is why the sources use "non-Armenian". I've clarified this point in the article. (t · c) buidhe 17:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Considering half the victims were Syriac Christians, I would disagree if the sources characterized the Armenian and Greek victims as non-Syriac Christians instead of calling them Armenian or Greek respectively. But until there is different sourcing for Diyarbekir which calls Syriacs "Syriacs", I appreciate you making this clarification. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:E149:D4BB:6636:C359 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Undo weight given to reconciliation

Despite partaking in several massacres in the Sayfo including the assassination of Mar Shimun XIX Benyamin, Simko Shikak has a street named after him, is venerated in classroom textbooks and enjoys an elevated status as a pop culture figure https://twitter.com/hejaacar1/status/1449000595495469061/photo/1.

Similar things can be said of many mass murderers of innocent Assyrians like Bedr Khan Beg whose page has been scrubbed clean of his instigation of the 1843 and 1846 massacres in Hakkari, aghas of the Massacres of Diyarbekir (1895) and Bakr Sidqi who led the Simele massacre. Despite years of negotiations, descendents of victims of the Simele massacre have been denied the right to exhume these mass graves with assistance of forensic experts to prevent evidence tampering. In 2016, a mural was intentionally constructed in front of an Assyrian village to celebrate the murderer of an Assyrian MP, Francis Shabo.

I'd like to ask you remove this claim which gives undo weight to reconciliation:

In 1995, the Kurdish TV station MED TV began to broadcast programs on the Sayfo—the first time this history had been articulated for a broader audience. It was discovered that Kurds did not object to the programs and in 1995 the Kurdish Parliament in Exile officially recognized the Sayfo as a genocide, which helped Kurdish and Assyrian activists work together.

Kurdish Parliament in Exile doesn't even have a page and MED TV is a defunct tv show that ran for only 4 years and was alleged to have incited violence (see: MED TV#Quotations.) I don't think this section should be included.

Perhaps the article should mention the continued celebration of these mass murderers and how that affects the Assyrian community's ability to process generational trauma. If you search "Naming one street of Ankawa after Simko" into google scholar you'll find an article but idk if he's a RS. There's probably other stuff out there though. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a RS although it has limited relation to this topic. The content about MED tv is now removed. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Toma Audo

I think Toma Audo should be mentioned in Sayfo#Aftermath. If you search "Thomas Audo" or "Toma Audo" in "Collective and State Violence in Turkey" you should get a match. Once you have an RS, you can probably include it briefly by replacing

The Ottoman invasion was followed by killings of Christians.

With something like

The Ottoman invasion was followed by killings of Christians, including the Chaldean Archbishop of Urmia, Toma Audo.

I could be wrong but I think both Toma Audo and Addai Sher were the two most notable Chaldeans and possibly the only two archbishops of the Chaldean church who died in the genocide (needs verification.). This website has a link "Deceased Only" to step through the history: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/rite/ch.html 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is mostly a note to myself in case I can come back and expand it)
Category:People who died in the Assyrian genocide
2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Done (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Death of Mar Shimun

According to Shimun XIX Benyamin

In March 1918, Mar Benyamin along with many of his 150 bodyguards were assassinated by Simko Shikak (Ismail Agha Shikak), a Kurdish agha, in the town of Kuhnashahir in Salmas (Persia) under a truce flag (see Assyrian genocide)

Currently the article is missing the truce flag detail which I think is pretty critical. It merely states "On 16 March, Mar Shimun was assassinated". Is this claim urban legend or is backed by RS? If the latter, perhaps it should be mentioned 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Gaunt, "the Mar Shimun and many of his guards were ambushed and murdered by Simko, chief of the Shekak tribe. Mar Shimun was leaving a meeting with Simko, held ostensibly to form an alliance to create an Assyrian–Kurdish state, but it was a trap, and Simko's men fired shots from the roofs as they left. The assassination was assumed to have been instigated by agents of the Persian government who had growing concerns that the increasing empowerment of the Christians would result in the loss of this part of Persia to an Armenian–Assyrian state." (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There's an extended discussion on pages 75–77 of The Political Development of the Kurds in Iran (possibly Gaunt's source?): "Both leaders, understanding that they could not ignore each other, planned to meet for negotiations about future joint operations against the Iranians and Turks. They met in Kohneh-Shahr (Salmas) in March 1918. The meeting appeared satisfactory until the end, when the two leaders shook hands and Mar Shimun left. Then Simko signaled to his men, who were hiding on the rooftops, to open fire on Mar Shimun and 150 of his armed men. It is believed that the first bullet was fired by Simko himself and aimed at Mar Shimun. Almost all the Christians were killed." (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the account I most remember. Honestly this should be included in the article, it sounds so Hollywood and dramatic w/ the shots being fired from the rooftop and the first shot being from Simko himself. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
That's a really interesting detail, I never knew there was a perception of a burgeoning Armenian-Assyrian alliance that could develop into statehood. 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Strategy for promoting consistency in ethnic/religious identifiers

My frustration is not misplaced on the editors, but rather the clergy who maintain this word soup and downstream of that, the sources that apply this terminology loosely by which the article needs to abide. Outside of this article it's confusing to reliably determine what terms like Syriac or Syriac Christian mean.

A possible strategy for improving the naming conventions used in this article is to clearly define religious/ethnic identifiers to have only 1 meaning. Until we do that, we won't be able to stick to 1 term to refer to the same thing consistently. So for example

We can then comb through every occurrence of these terms and if a more narrow definition is available, use that. For example if "Syriac Christians" is being used to refer to "Syriacs", then we replace it with "Syriacs".

The hard part about this exercise is that the sources themselves don't always use the most narrow terms, but I just wanted to throw the idea out there. We gotta inch our way towards FA status 2600:1010:B01F:8DDD:550C:2CBF:3037:B799 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Unlike the Armenian genocide and Greek genocide pages, this page noticeably lacks {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Could it be added? I currently can't edit the article. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Is anyone opposed to adding a infobox? Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am—if it gives any information at all, it would make certain figures and dates seem much more definite than reliable sources allow us to be. (t · c) buidhe 04:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a bad idea in principle. What's wrong with the Lausanne Conference estimates? Obviously we don't want to play fast and loose with the facts in a dubious infobox, thereby marring an featured article, but is it really that problematic to tease out the more tangible details? People have short attention spans, and infoboxes are a good way of conveying core information quickly. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's doing the reader a favor to give the casualty estimates without saying where they come from. Since the accuracy of the estimates is not known. Likewise, I'm not sure that the infobox could give sufficiently accurate information about perpetrators, causes, or really anything else that might be considered for inclusion (except the location where it occurred, which isn't in as much dispute.) (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The death toll why did the person remove it while it being sourced

Explain Gangster1232231 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no valid sources here. You need to provide the full citation not just a shortened reference. Also, the edit needs to explain where the numbers come from with more specificity than just "other sources". If the death toll was that high why did Assyrian representatives dramatically underestimate it at the Paris Peace Conference? (t · c) buidhe 01:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
My sources are estimates,i do not ask why but one source of mine was litterally made by an assyrian,im sorry for not knowing how to add sources,i have many sources stating an estimate of 700k died.how can we know why the number is dramatically lower?because its an estimate,if theres anyway i can send these sources i have please tell me. Assyrianchad (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why no info box?

Why is there no info box on this otherwise excellent article? It seems to be the convention that articles regarding discrete persecution-related events include info boxes, why does this article not have one? Can one be introduced? Pietrus1 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes can be helpful, but in this case I don't think they are. Most of the fields are disputed, unknown, or lose important nuance when squeezed into an infobox. The prose in the lead does a better job of informing the reader where it took place and the lack of reliable information on deaths. (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. My disagreement regards the extent to which people look to wikipedia's info boxes for this sort of information and search engines scrape that information. Would it not be better to create an info box with most of the relevant boxes left as "See x" in the interest of the popular dissemination of this information? For example, the Holocaust article (which you seem to be active in?) cites the number of victims as "around 6 million Jews". I would like to present the information here even more vaguely than that. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

About the death toll

Most sources would agree there is a general lack of documents & evidence when it comes to estimating the death toll, although it's possible that Assyrian leaders at the Paris Peace Conference could have had more documents that have not survived. Also, they had an incentive for exaggerating it. This is why the credible sources I'm aware of either accept this claim at face value or point out that it could be an overestimate. For the additional numbers added to the article, what is the evidence basis behind them? 750,000 is particularly incredible given that it would be roughly equal to the number of Armenian deaths despite the lower Assyrian/Syriac population before the war in the areas targeted for genocide. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel it would be good to present that information alongside the other numbers with appropriate sourcing, personally. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Which information? What "appropriate sourcing"? (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean presenting this information alongside all instances of dubious casualty claims. For example, in the lead we have: "At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Assyro-Chaldean delegation said that its losses were 250,000, about half the prewar population. The accuracy of this figure is unknown. They later revised their estimate to 275,000 dead at the Lausanne Conference in 1923". In my view, this should be revised with a link down to the Historiography section, which includes sources on the nature of these claims. People often get very attached to these figures in events like this (one way or another), so in my opinion, such claims of X casualties should not be presented without reference to sources casting doubt on the figures unless sources are not credible. "Appropriate sourcing" refers to those sort of sources. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That's what I attempted to do by mentioning that the accuracy of the figures is not known. What kind of revision are you looking for? I think it could be misleading to say that "historian David Gaunt writes that the delegation had an incentive to exaggerate and the accuracy of the figure is unknown" beccause it's not just Gaunt's opinion, no one else knows either. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood your original comment a bit. My point is just that I would generally like to see all estimates presented with due weight. I specifically dislike the lead, especially given that such figures are disputed. Something generally in line with: "casualty estimation has proven fraught (see #section)" would seem preferable. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with mentioning alternative estimates that are widely mentioned in sources, but these don't exist. The vast majority of sources only cite the delegation estimates because that's all there is, although these figures are doubtful and impossible to confirm. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Good to know in case I ever run across a different estimate. What do you think about revising the lead? Pietrus1 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. It currently states the most commonly listed estimate as well as the problems with it. "casualty estimation has proven fraught (see #section)" is not as informative and does not really summarize the relevant body section. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you happen to know of examples from other articles where totals are similarly disputed for comparison? Perhaps one has settled on a more agreeable alternative to this situation? Pietrus1 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not aware of another comparable case to this one. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
In that case, how about this revision in line with what was said in this thread: "At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Assyro-Chaldean delegation said that its losses were 250,000, about half the prewar population. While this remains the most commonly-cited estimate for the number of victims of the Sayfo, the accuracy of this figure is unknown. They later revised their estimate to 275,000 dead at the Lausanne Conference in 1923."
I see that you made a revision renaming the historiography section. Thanks for that. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This would be a reasonable suggestion if it could be sourced. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any source that says this directly, making it original research that we cannot use in mainspace. (t · c) buidhe 04:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Then would you mind if I expanded out the death toll section with the same Gaunt journal article that includes information on information supporting that figure? We currently have the only that 50% or more were killed, but he goes into greater detail that I think is relevant. He mentions that he includes multipled more detailed local estimates of massacre totals in his book "Massacres, Resistance, Protectors: Muslim-Christian Relations in Eastern Anatolia during World War I" as well. I do not currently have access to that, however. Pietrus1 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed but the table already has information on other sources of data and local estimates, what are you proposition to add (the Gaunt 2008 book can be accessed through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library) (t · c) buidhe 16:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
My proposition is to draw a stronger connection between Gaunt's usage of the "50%" statistic on which the 250,000 estimate is based and the various local estimates. In effect, I would be attempting to better capture the meaning of this line "...it
would have been natural for them to have exaggerated the figures—but, in fact, a 50% death rate may have been exceeded in some places." What is in the death toll section now did not make the connection fully clear to me until I read the source. I actually do not have access to the Wikipedia library either. I am active relatively infrequently, though my account is old enough. I mostly have edited more obscure topics (300~ total edits). I have been primarily working on the 1980s assimilation campaign and ethnic cleansing of Bulgarian Turks of late, for instance. I would imagine I will slide back into inactivity eventually. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure go ahead and make any edits that you think improve clarity based on these sources. If you email me, I can send you the relevant parts from ''Massacres, Resistance, Protectors''. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Sent! Thank you. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sayfo/Archive_5&oldid=1233522101"