Talk:Sayfo/Archive 2

SPECULATIVE ARTICLE & ANTI-TURKISH PROPAGANDA
The references are the newspapers of the enemy of Ottoman government of the war time. How can a newspaper news be a scientific evidence! Some photographs of some dead people are reported to belong to Assyrians but how can we know? That is stupid! I think this new invention shows Wikipedia is no more a reliable source! IF ONE PARTY CLAIMS THAT THERE IS A GENOCIDE, THEY SHOULD GO TO COURT TO PROVE THIS. AND HISTORIAN WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS SHOULD ARGUE AND MAKE A DECISION. OTHERWISE THESE CLAIMS AND THIS ARTICLE ARE JUST SEEN AS PROPAGANDA!

(Genocide of Christians in Asia Minor?)
I dont know what fairy tales they are telling you guys, but it doesnt make sense that there was a Christian Genocide in Turkey. First of all the claim is based on a wrong assumption that Ottomanswere seperating the people according to their religion in 1915. That was in much older times; and when they were, all the beliefs were respected. Please remember who took care of the Jews that were being massacred in Spain in 16th century. Around 1915 the military leaders of the country who came to power with a coup were positivists and their policy was not based on religion but race, namely Panturkism, which was a reaction to the nationalist-seperatist movements in the empire. On the other hand I do not believe that Greeks or Assyrians in Asia Minor were subject to genocide at any time during the Ottoman reign. I do not see a reason why they should be. Many Armenians were deported and were killed on the way during the war, because they were helping Russians. But I suspect that Assyrians could have helped Russians, considering where they live. And Turks are not Barbarians, the stories told on this page seem very exaggerated and unreal, because they depict Turks as lunatics cutting the finger joints one by one. I think there was a military code during the time to prevent such execution.


 * First of all, this article is NOT an attack on the Turkish people, it's shedding light on the massacres committed by the Ottoman government, the members of which are most likely long dead now. As for the military code you are assuming, during times of war there is no such thing: take a look at the US soldiers and how they have tortured Iraqi prisoners and civilians, even under a so-called "military code". Go back nearly a century, and this "code" is less likely to have existed, let alone to have been obeyed. The problem with your argument is that it's all based on assumptions. The information from this article comes from extensive documentation. Now I don't know if you're supporting Turkish propaganda, but the genocide did happen. There are still many people from that generation alive today, and they have had to carry the horrors with them for nearly a century now. Also it wasn't mainly Ottoman troops that were carrying out the genocide, it was also largely the Kurdish paramilitary, to whom the Ottoman government offered incentives for their cooperation. There's a lot more behind this event which you obviously have not sufficiently researched. So before you deny the cold deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, please do the appropriate research.Šarukinu 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(no title)
If anyone, without a reasonable doubt, say that the events that took place circa 1915 were genocide, then let them show proof while they are saying it. There is nothing in this articvel that even remotely resembles any factual evidence. What you are doing here is complete and utter revisionist propoganda. I am deeply offended that in a intellectual forum such as WikiPedia, this type of behaviour is allowed. I urge all those who read this arcticle to question the motives of the authors. This "judge, jury, and executioner" type of behavior is vile and disgusting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oguz1 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 October 2006.
 * The crimes committed against minorities in the Ottoman Empire during World War One are both well documented and widely accepted by Western scholars. -- Augustgrahl 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

00:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article IS an attack on Turkish national psyche. What is striking is that when Turks defend themselves and their history, it is always put aside by the Armenian diaspora as propaganda and denial. NO! We are not denying there was war and famine and cholera and death. World War 1 was one of hte most blackening times in human history. I want Armenians to stop hi-jacking WW 1 as their loss. EVERYONE LOST!!!! Turks will not accept your one sided view of history which is in itself very, very very much inspired by Armenian nationalism as is the Turkish side of the argument. We want Armenians to shut up and let third parties look at his issue without the noise of the Armenian propaganda machine. I don't think you'll like what see behid the so called 'underdog' mask that you've been living under so far....

Move Request
''It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time!'' --  tariq abjotu  10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is perfect where it sits, the Armenian and Assyrian genocide are very similar if were going to change one were going to change both since most historians prefer genocide it should stay that way, Nareklm 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention
Just want to bring to your attention the Hakkâri Province page. I understand that it's a part of WikiProject Turkey, and Turkey hasn't acknowledged the genocide yet, but I still feel that the wording they used is negligent of the nature of the Assyrian deaths and relocations, and the assassination of the patriarch at that time, Mar Shimun. Here's what is written on that page, concerning the Assyrians:

"In Ottoman times, there were also numerous Assyrian tribes in the province, though fighting during the First World War forced most of into Persia and Iraq. The Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East was also resident in Hakkâri Province until then."

Since nobody appears to be taking part in the discussion on that page, I thought I'd bring it to our attention here, where more people seem to be discussing the genocide. Somebody please advise as to what actions we should take on that page.Šarukinu 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hakarri province page is a stub. Their is no real article their yet. One their is one in the future, then we can have a history section and talk about its inhabitants througout history. Chaldean 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, I wasn't aware that it was a stub. But even so, I think the information there is leaving out some critical facts, like I mentioned above.Šarukinu 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

neutrality
This article isn't written from a neutral point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.250.162 (talk • contribs).

Anything specifically? --334 04:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of victims
This article say that only 275,000 were killed during the Genocide though that number only represents the Assyrians under Mar Shimuns control in the Hakkari mountains. This is the number that their "clan" showed in the delegation held in Paris, but this number only referred to their losses. The losses in other parts of the Ottoman Empire were excluded and the total amount of Assyrians to die are between 500.000 - 750.000.


 * This is disputed. I believe the 275-225,000 is the total Assyrian massacre, including Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Ortho/Catholics. The reliable sources most say 225-275. Chaldean 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Why don't we just blame the Holocaust on the Turks as well while we're at it. Perhaps the massacre of indigenous Indians and Aboriginals as well. Or maybe Mayans and Hutus etcetera as well, Darfur, Palestine, Ethiopia, Algeria, the Van revolt when about a couple of hundred thousand Muslims were killed (Mccarthy). If we just blãme it all on the Turks, we can get away with nearly anything, can't we? Perhaps It's just the easy way out to blame the Turks for everything: High taxes, Cyprus, Irak, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, JFK, the Inquisition, Ireland, the Basque conflict, abuse of US power etc etc etc etc etc, the list just doesn't end....does it?

The difference is that the Turks WERE responsible for the Syriac/Armenian/Hellenic Genocides(and continue to deny it).

Assyrian vs Assyro-Chaldean vs Syriac
Sorry to bring this one up again, but "Assyrian Genocide" DOES make it look as though it was Assyrians alone, and implies the exclusion of Chaldeans, Jacobites, Syriac Catholics, and Maronites. While the Assyrians may have been the most persecuted of the Syriacs, there were several hundred thousand deaths amongst other Syriacs. I understand that the term "Assyrian" may be synonomous with Syriac/Syrian Christians to some people, but I am Syriac and not Assyrian, and find the term "Assyrian Genocide" somewhat misleading. What is the most commonly used term? What is the most accurate term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.199 (talk • contribs)
 * Well guess what; the Syriacs (Jacobite, Syriac Catholic) that got massacred in Turkey considered themselves Assyrian during that time. Read about Ashur Yousif, Naum Faiq, Shamoun Hanna Haydo, among others. This separation ethnicity phenomenon in the diaspora is relatively new. Chaldean 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The most accurate term, historically, is Assyrian. We have always called ourselves that. If you are a "Syriac", then you are an Assyrian. Chaldean is right, that the this separation is something new in the diaspora. Where do you think Syriac/Syrian comes from? Assyrian, of course. Watch this and learn some of our history. And the Chaldean Catholics are Assyrian as well. It's just the name of the Church, after an old Neo-Babylonian civilisation. It doesn't mean they're not Assyrians. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:12 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)