Talk:Sayfo/Archive 4

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 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 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)

Actually the appropriated battleships were being built by the British not Germany. I believe the British also appropriated some ships destined for several South American countries as well. (This type of thing is faily common during major war, especially if the military hardware is not going to an active ally). The problem with the seizure from the Ottoman point of view was that one of the ships was ready for delivery with an Ottoman crew actually in Britian at the time expecting to sail it home & the ship had been fully paid for. So Germany was actually putting the Ottomans in their debt rather than paying their debt.101.171.213.68 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Turks were not in addition to their misassociated crimes against the Armenian protected Christian descendant Mongol population of Turkey in the 20th century now repeated in mass genocide suspected this 2016 or preceding year 2015 against the Turco-Mongol population of Turkey including troops, of the Turkish army which is continued with European Union assistance including in Portugal and the Assacaias, Santarém district with mass Portuguese airforce bombardments against Turco-Mongol refugees and even their wives, usually held responsible for local Muslim Iraqi Arab genocides against the Christian Mongol descendant population of their region and there is no reason not to assume the statistics correct, because the doubters seem not ot have presented any opposing statistics or other proofs to their doubts. This is no justification for the current 7 to 12 million genocide against the Ottomans of the European Union and rest of the world, with brain tissue genocide and possible genocide and barring of Ottoman only way genocide refugees extending to Turkey itself currently, which needs to be urgently protested via international human rights lawyers and to the presidents of each country in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.217.190 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have the faintest idea what the above word salad is supposed to mean. Does it make sense to anyone else?The Famous Adventurer (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (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. 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, 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)

As a German whos grandfather was an SS Officer, and was present at one of Hilters famous speeches. Hitler actually hated Armeneans and slaughtered them along with russians, but my grandfather recalled a famous speech when the army was heading to Stalingrad that Hilter clearly stated to the German people they were decendants of ASSYRIANS!! The Mighty Assyrians!! As he called them. Dont believe me check the video out on youtube. It has subtitles, and its under "obama the next hitler". I dont know why they put it under that but watch. Hitler does say his forfathers are assyrians. Last I checked in the Holy Bible it was Assyria that would rise. No mention of Arameans, Chaldeans or whatever your religion denomination is. Chaldeans are like Jews. LOL they follow a religion, and identify with it as an identity. Sad many of you dont know your true history because your churches have brain washed you. Assyria is the only name in the bible remembered by God in the end.

Martin (Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.132.88 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I meant Armenians! Hitler didnt praise the real Aryans. Being aryan is just a language you speak it has no identity. I along with most germans hate when Iranians, Indians, Pakistanis, Armenians, and Kurds, and afghanis who are actually hindu races think they are white because they speak an aryan language. Arabs, Assyrians, and Jews are actually caucasion, and just speak a semetic language. Real Aryans like Kim Kardashian who is darker then my shit are not really considered white. However, they like to believe they are because Hitler misconstrewed the word "Aryan". In Hitlers eyes anyone who hated Jews was aryan. He called himself a decendant of Semtic Hittites, and Assyrians who are both semetic speakers. In Trier Germany there is Museum dedicated to the Assyrian King who invaded the city of Trier. It also states on a major plaque that "Assyrians were here before the Romans" so I have no doubt Assyrian blood runs through German veins. Intelligence, Astronomy, Science, technology gifts given to Germans by Assyrian knowledge. Life is more then listening to your churches. I am a Catholic German, but should I say I am Catholic instead of German? Chaldeans are really confused, and to be honest they are more Arab in mentality then anything. Arameans are the same, and I have nothing against you people its just sad when you dont know your own identity. In the bible it clearly states Assyria, Egypt, and Israel will be the three nations chosen in the end. For Chaldeans, and Arameans thats sad being GOD wont remember you as a nation, or anything. But in the end many will also be last, and those who are last will be first. I know the Assyrian people (whos culture and history I loved since a child) will prevail! As a German I know many here in Germany support you, and want to get rid of the islamic cancer. Its now not about being aryan, or semetic. Hitler hated anything that was a threat to the European race, and so today it would have been the Turks, and other Muslims gassed to death. Thrown in concentration camps. believe me when i tell you this, when push comes to shove Germans will erradicate you. I wish to see an assyrian state, and an end to islam. I also wish chaldeans, and Arameans would get there brain together. As for Armenians stop thinking hilter actually liked you. I mean you people could erase my meassage but please remember it forever. Armenians in Hilters eyes were garbage, and he called them just russian scum.

Martin

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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.-- R a f y  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".-- R a f y  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?-- R a f y  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)

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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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 turkish 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)

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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  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)

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)
 * I think you are confusing calling an event something with what that event actually was. There is a page on Wikipedia listing many "genocides", most of which were not genocides - but these "genocides" are listed there simply because some source (usually a partisan or propagandistic one) has used the overused word "genocide" to describe an alleged event. However, an article about a specific genocide requires greater proof than that in order to justify the "genocide" part of the title. There is plentyful proof to justify the title of this article, so we do not actually need to resort to using discredited UN show-trials and their related political propaganda as reasons to use the word genocide. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 12:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, you need Un trials to call some event as a genocide otherwise  nazis clowns  like yourself  will call every single thing a genocide to manipulate the holocaust. massacres took place in history against muslims, christians,  turks ,armenians  ,greeks ,albanians, macedonians, slavs and so on. but there is only one holocaust because UN sees this as the only and real mass massacre of a nation. others so called genocides are made up genocides to serve the racist german cause nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.50.13 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all consider this your first and last warning, any more personal attacks will get you banned from editing.
 * There were claims of anti-Muslim massacres by Christians of Diyarbekir and Urfa, all historians I know either dismiss these claims or simply ignore them as Ottoman propaganda. Actually, even their Germans allies reported that the Ottomans were spreading anti-Christian rumours in those areas in order to incite the Muslims. It is interesting that when the Assyrians were driven out of Hakkari they showed surprising self restrain after they arrived in Urmia, even though they had Russian support. They went so far to share their food and shelter with the Kurds who were strikken by famine in late 1917, despite the fact that those took part in massacring them two years earlier. another example was when the Assyrian won Urmia following a fierce battle with its Muslims after the Russians retreated. There were no massacres against the Muslims who were left to stay in the city. However, some months later the Assyrian Patriarch was assassinated alongside 200 of his followers and reprisal attacks from both sides followed. When the Assyrians finally lost Urmia those who couldn't flee were completely annihilated.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 11:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rafy and Meowy ,

Please allow me to apologize for what I wrote on  02:32   27 april 2012. i am sorry for writing very inappropriate comments. i was very upset about the genocide claims and i behaved in a very wrong way. my wife is Assyrian(but they don't call themselves assyrian they call it something else) i talked a lot about this issue with my wife and her family. non of them believes if there was any genocides against Assyrian people. i secretly started searching about this issue and learnt so many information about assyrians and their history. sad thing is assyrian history has been changed and twisted so many times. i am not going to talk about all assyrian history but i will only say this: this is not a genocide at all. and yes assyrians did many massacres to muslims .and this is not a ottoman propaganda   at ll. British Secret Intelligence Service recorded massacres   committed by assyrians against  muslims population .Assyrian  leader at that time was AGHA PETROS.he did massacres in Urmia. and also please note that all the muslim population of   Rawanduz  iraq  was massacred by the assyrian militia in spring 1916. with the russian help, AGha petros also DID massacred the muslim population in Urmia .your claims about "there were no massacring the muslims"is just not true at all.Only in Hakkari region  there were 25 to 30 thousand heavly  armed assyrian militants. i understand that maybe you wrote this kind of comment to answers my negative comment but again i am so sorry. i wrote that comment because every conflict in history is being labeled as "genocide"now a days even its not a genocide. and usually this is done for propaganda purposes to get political support from the local population of the eastern countries. more than 3 million ottoman civilians were massacred by christian minorities with western and russian support but  no one bother to call it  a ottoman genocide or a turkish genocide. but when it comes to a non muslim population suddenly it is a "genocide". and when someone dis agrees with this kind of behavior is labeled as a racist or a genocide denialist.i am not against  Christians or any kind of religion but to be honest  i don't want to raise my kids with political lies. wikipedia is already rejected by world universities and acedemia .even high schools are seeing wikipedia as highly bias and one sided. may be but maybe it is time to let other people to speak in wikipedia so we can share and understand the both side of the story. i am again so sorry for my comment. i hope you accept my apology. i will delete what i wrote. i will wait couple days for you to see what i wrote here then i will delete it. take care God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam alen (talk • contribs) 13:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you had read the article you might have noticed that a small group known as the International Association of Genocide Scholars have labelled this event a genocide. We shouldn't forget also tens of genocide scholars and experts who support this label, those include Uğur Ümit Üngör, Hannibal B. Travis, [ http://www.amazon.com/Assyrian-Genocide-A-Documentary-History/dp/1558762620 Gabriele Yonan], David Gaunt, etc...
 * If you manage to publish yours and your wife's findings on the "Turkish Genocide" in an Academic journal then we might have something to talk about. Until then we stick to what experts tell us.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 13:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is exacly what i am talking about. the website you gave me about Uğur Ümit Üngör is  total propaganda .those people are not expert  at all. http://www.seyfocenter.com/. in the website, they believe that  hitler gave a speech about armenians "does anybody remember armenians"  http://www.seyfocenter.com/index.php?sid=10&aID=426  this  is pure propaganda, hitler never gave such a speech. this kind of propaganda is proven false. Nuremberg trials prove that hitler never gave any type of speech  about armenians. this is why propaganda websites should never be used as facts in wikipedia. i am sorry but we cannot call every tragic event a genocide based on   fascist agenda. i am asking kindly to change the name of this article or  delete  this article. we should never use other peoples blood for our  political interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam alen (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm confused here... Who are the fascists? Thoses Genocide scholars or the Seyfo Center which had interviewed some of them?-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 14:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Aramean Physical Genocide
In their original homelands, the cradle of the forefathers, the peaceful minded Arameans were trampled, ignored, despised, persecuted and murdered for centuries by various fanatical rulers and nations of the middle-east.

They faced ethnic cleansing, deportations, slaughtering, pogroms and killings in a way that even the “wild animals” would be ashamed. The climax of terror and ethnic cleansing against the Arameans of Mesopotamie was reached in 1915-18, when – although exact numbers are unknown-, approximately 600.000 of them were brutally slaughtered, whose innocent blood is still crying for justice!

According to Fr. Dale Johnson, a American who became a Syrian Orthodox priest, the Arameans of Aram-Naharaim have since their conversion to Christendom get faced with 38 distinct massacres. We shall in the framework of this subject discuss the genocide of 1895 and 1915-1918 by means of few quotes.

American Ambassador Henry Morgenthau

Aramean - Armenian - Greek Genocide

Henry Morgenthau was United States ambassador to Ottoman Turkey between 1913 and 1916. In his book 'Henry Morgenthau's story' we read about the Genocide of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, including Arameans who are mentioned by the synonym Syrians.

CHAPTER XXII:

"And now the Young Turks, who had adopted so many of Abdul Hamid's ideas, also made his Armenian policy their own. Their passion for Turkifying the nation seemed to demand logically the extermination of all Christians---Greeks, Syrians (= Arameans), and Armenians. ....... They would destroy all Greeks, Syrians (= Arameans), Armenians, and other Christians, move Moslem families into their homes and into their farms, and so make sure that these territories would not similarly be taken away from Turkey.

CHAPTER XV:

He had been a thorn in the side of Talaat and Enver for some time, and they were perfectly content that he should exercise his imperious and stubborn nature against the Syrians (= Arameans), Armenians, and other non-Moslem elements in the Mediterranean provinces.

CHAPTER XXIV

The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks. The story which I have told about the Armenians I could also tell with certain modifications about the Greeks and the Syrians (=Arameans). ...... it was probably for the reason that the civilized world did not protest against these deportations that the Turks afterward decided to apply the same methods on a larger scale not only to the Greeks but to the Armenians, Syrians (= Arameans), Nestorians (= Arameans), and others of its subject peoples.

Morgenthau mentions three nations who were exterminated by the Turks, namely: Armenians, Greeks, Syrians and Nestorians.

“Syrians” is synonym for Arameans. The Arameans of the Old Testament are called Syrians in the New Testament. More about: Syrians/Arameans: http://www.aramnahrin.org/English/Testimonies_Historians.htm

“Nestorians” is unfortunately heretic name applied to the East- Syrians or East- Arameans.

East- West- Arameans has to do with the geography at the beginning of the Christianity. Roughly speaking, river the Euphrates was de border. The Arameans living Eastern of Euphrates, the Persian Empire, were called “East- Arameans” or “East- Syrians”; thus Nestorians who later became known as “Chaldeans” (1552) and again later as “Assyrians” (19th century).

The Arameans living Western of Euphrates, the Roman Empire, were called “West- Arameans” or “West- Syrians” or in short just “Syrians”. And sometimes both the East- as well and the West- Arameans are called “Syrians”; if not specifically indicated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Nazi clown writes "Turkish and Kurdish soldiers started the killing in every city, every village and every street, where ever the Christians lived. They murded and massacred children, women and men. Their evilness and methods did not know any limits. Allow me to provide you with a key example by quoting a western diploma..."(a page long nonsense) MMM, interesting you wrote down all this nonsense propaganda but you did not include the most important information  in your NAZI writings:Fritz Bronsart von Schellendorf  .He was the chief of the Ottoman General Staff ,head of  almost all the arm forces in ottoman empire. This "man "PLANNED AND ORDERED  the deportation of armenians which is called ARMENIAN GENOCIDE  in present day .he also made the plan  to "deport"    greeks, and all of the Christian population in ottoman empire. today, the thing you call systematic  genocides of armenians, greeks,and all other christians was planned by German Generals with Fritz Bronsart von Schellendorf being the cheif of the Ottoman general staff. WHY DIDNT YOU WRITE DOWN THIS INFORMATION ON YOUR PROPAGANDA ? ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam alen (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
Assyrian genocide → Assyrian Genocide – Capitialization would be more appropriate considering that the category page is capitalized, as more most other genocide articles (Armenian Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Burundian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, ect.). Charles Essie (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – over-capitalization on the category page is not a reason to go against MOS:CAPS; nor are any other article over-capitalizations. Evidence that others should be lowercase is easy to find: , , .  Dicklyon (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Request – can someone please combine nom's other genocide cap requests with this one so we can discuss as a multi-move? Dicklyon (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not a proper name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the proper name per COMMONNAME, search it at google, and you will see that everyone captializes it except Wikipedia! Charles Essie (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cambodian genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Map in the infobox
What is the source of the information in the map in the infobox (question especially directed to, its creator)? Where, for example, did the creator obtain the information that the genocide occurred in Antakia? The city is not mentioned even once in the article or in Hannibal Travis' article on the genocide, and a Google Books search has yielded no results. For Marash, there only seems to be a brief mention of the city in the letter of the French ambassador in de Courtois' book. For Sivas, there is a claim that Assyrians were massacred there in an article by Anahit Khosroeva, but it does not seem to have any sources for that. The same lack of sources applies, for example, for the claim that some Assyrians fled to Beirut, which I have not managed to find in any reliable sources.

As such, even though it was certainly created in good faith and I thank its creator, the map appears to contain elements of original research and I propose its removal from the article unless any further sources are provided for these claims. --GGT (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the map per the reason above. However, looking for an image to replace it, I spotted several problems with the images currently in the article as well. Firstly, I had personally added an "image of death rafts" to the article, however, upon further investigation, it appears that it originates from this website (aina.org), which is basically aimed at propaganda and is by no means reliable. Joseph Naayem is also an Assyrian reverend, his account is a biased primary resource and can by no means be accepted as proof without support of secondary resources, even if we assume that aina.org was truthful in their presentation of these images. The death raft image is anyway said to be "similar" to the ones used in this case, not photographic evidence, but the assertion that these are indeed death rafts is ungrounded, given the lack of such images for the much well-covered Armenian Genocide. All other images are also basically from the same website and purportedly from primary accounts, some are claimed to be the works of Near East Relief, but that is not supported by the evidence, even though I have spent some time rigorously looking for it. Again, a Google search and similar other Google searches provide no evidence that Leonardo de Mango indeed had such a drawing. The photo for the dead Assyrian civilians appears to be verified by a Rutgers University webpage, but this webpage has used aina.org to collect their information and presents disproportionately high death figures of 750,000, not grounded in any possible historical interpretation. We cannot possibly retain these images in the article without reliable secondary support, and as such, I am removing them immediately as possible misinformation. --GGT (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lesser extent or?...
As of yet I have added that the spillover of the Assyrian genocide in neighbouring Persia by the Ottoman troops was lesser extent as compared to the ones killed in the territories of the Ottoman Empire. However, still some ~50,000 Assyrians got killed by Ottoman Troops in Persia. My question is, should we remove lesser extent in the phrase in the lede, or remove that it was lesser extent? 50,000 is about half of the amount of Assyrians killed in the Ottoman Empire, and is a very significant number.

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WRONG TITLE NAME!
Hello!

The name of this page is not a good name for the page! The genocide was on Arameans and Assyrians! I feel so bad for my Aramean ancestors that its called in wikipedia ' Assyrian genocide' too. At least we should change it in Assyrian/Aramean Genocide! I dont accept this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.153.68 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Assyrian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118231442/http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/PRelease16Dec07IAGS_Officially_Recognizes_Assyrian_Greek_Genocides.pdf to http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/PRelease16Dec07IAGS_Officially_Recognizes_Assyrian_Greek_Genocides.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=565

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2016
82.183.13.108 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Please, be correct when you name different ethnic people, the people in Diyarbakir were not assyrian. respect the facts! you should write arameic!!


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please state your request in "Change X to Y" format as it is unclear where you want corrections. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> <font color="#00AC1D">talk 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Assyrian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709140204/http://riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____21484.aspx to http://riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____21484.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Operation Nemesis
Did they make operation like this?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did who make operation like this? The page says what it says. It is a matter of justice. When the standard justice procedure aren't followed, and criminals walk free and enjoy their life, the ordinary people who lost their families decide they need to do something about it. To this date, no turk has been prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. Compare that to the case of the Rwandan genocide and the war crimes between Serbians and Croatians. 207.61.145.4 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assyrian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/yv544142p5rnx055/?p=91e7dbe895ec4cbf9eef0ad842fef76a&pi=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108001526/http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/proclamations/proc_armenian.html to http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/proclamations/proc_armenian.html
 * Added tag to http://www.greek-genocide.org/monument_columbia.html
 * Added tag to http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/yv544142p5rnx055/?p=91e7dbe895ec4cbf9eef0ad842fef76a&pi=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assyrian genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312063459/http://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/upload/hutxy19692/FINAL_Assyrian_Memorial_ConsultationPaper.pdf to http://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/upload/hutxy19692/FINAL_Assyrian_Memorial_ConsultationPaper.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321064308/http://www.ermenisoykirimi.net/thesis.pdf to http://www.ermenisoykirimi.net/thesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019
Please change Death Toll from 150,000-300,000 to 250,000-400,000 172.89.70.232 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Failure to prosecute does not amount to absence of a crime
Somewhere in the discussion above it was stated that this should not be referred to as a genocide but an alleged genocide. The first and simple reason to avoid bowing to such "history revisionist" requests is that nobody is going to search for "Alleged Assyrian Genocide", they will search for "Assyrian Genocide" whether they believe it happened or not, and whether they believe it was a genocide or not.

The main thrust of the argument, however, was that no prosecution of the guilty parties took place, and it is therefore factually incorrect (and presumably offensive to the descendent of the guilty parties) to refer to it as anything other than an allegation. This whole notion that "we must protect the feelings of people no matter what" is a toxic cancer upon society. No doubt that statement is going to offend some poor pineapple who has cancer or has lost a relative to cancer or whatever. The point is in this kind of topic, it is impossible to avoid offending somebody, somewhere, because there is always going to be some fool with a chip on his or her shoulder.

The whole argument can be shot down very easily:


 * At the end of the First World War, the British and French were too busy plundering and punishing Germany to bother much with the Ottomans, who were not considered to have rich pickings.


 * Unlike the Nazis, the Ottomans did not faithfully document their atrocities, so there was not a clear trail of evidence leading back to specific individuals who could be prosecuted easily.


 * Turkey was still an important overland trade route in those days, and nobody wanted the responsibility of trying to manage what basically amounted to a "second Egypt" as a colony. Egypt had already proved to be such a burden, adopting Turkey and all its problems would not have been a very palatable option. If it had been a century or two earlier, then definitely a different situation, but with automobiles, excellent shipping, and even air transport available, the overland route had significantly declined in importance to the point that the problems of taking responsibility for the Turkish people far outweighed any potential advantages. At the time, people in Europe were mostly still very racist, and typically considered non-whites as untermenschen,long before Hitler coined the term.


 * The crimes were undertaken by such a diverse cast of perpetrators that bringing them all to justice, or working out who was guilty and who was not, would have been an extremely difficult task, and probably an impossible one. To punish entire populations for the actions of a few would have amounted to an additional genocide perpetrated in the name of justice (not that most Europeans of the time would have seen much wrong with that).


 * Just about everyone in those days was doing it or had done it. So first, it was not viewed with the same kind of horror that it is today, and second to highlight the wrongness of it would have shone a light on the atrocities committed by the other nations. The treatment of the Boers by the British, for example. The atrocities of Leopold II in the Congo Free State. Britain's awful crimes against the Indians and the Irish. British (and later, American) genocide against the Native Americans. The list can go on for pages. To point out that the Turks had farted may have drawn attention to the fact that other European nations had soiled themselves so badly that they were covered in shit to such an extent it should never have been possible to wash it off... but the fact that so many in this talk page seem unaware of those events indicates that at some point they have managed to do just that.


 * Stalin and Churchill were never prosecuted for their atrocities, which were far worse than those perpetrated by the Ottomans.


 * The League of Nations is well known to have been corrupt, ineffective, biased, and weak. If that were not so, we would still have a League of Nations today.

These crimes involved the systematic rounding up and execution of thousands of people, even hundreds of thousands. Those who were not killed were either put to slavery or exiled (with little or no hope of surviving). This fits all the criteria for a definition of genocide, so to try and downplay that is not only foolish but a cruel insult to the victims.

Arguments over the semantics of what to call the crime in terms of the ethnic group involved are equally ridiculous. This is an English language version of the encyclopedia. Call it whatever you want in other language versions, but in English this name is the name applied by anthropologists to that group of people as a collective noun. It may be unfair, but that returns to the previous statement that this kind of problem should not be considered a problem (poor pineapple syndrome), and that because it has become in such widespread use, there is no going back even if we wanted to. There are too many books and articles already published using the term.

Just as a personal aside, I find it very interesting that modern day Germans, for the most part, have no trouble in admitting that the crimes of Nazi Germany took place and that they were a mistake, and even among those who do not really see those events as a mistake at least are willing to acknowledge them as a reality. On the other hand, modern day Turks seem very uncomfortable with accepting the wrongfulness of the atrocities committed by the Ottomans, Kurds, Chechens, etc, against the Armenians, the Greeks, and the so-called Assyrians. One would expect the modern Turks to want to distance themselves from the actions of their near-ancestors in the same way that the modern Germans have distanced themselves from the actions of the Nazis. By attempting to downplay and cover up the scale and wrongfulness of the actions, the modern Turks are not distancing themselves from the guilt, but rather implicating themselves in it (from my point of view, anyway). None of this is said out of disrespect for modern Turkey. I love many things about that country and there are many very nice people living there. It is a shameful thing to attempt to conceal the injustices of the past in the name of patriotic pride, however.

--หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While this was an excellent write-up, you are responding to something written 8 years ago. What is your intention here? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess if there is an agenda at all, it is to shine some light on the case that issues of semantics alone should not be sufficient to derail a scholarly discussion of a topic, especially when it is a topic of such importance as genocide. I also would hope that people can allow themselves to swallow feelings of hurt patriotism and not allow that to be their causus belli to wage war on Wikipedians and their articles, demanding edits and changes that are unnecessary and in many cases completely unreasonable, as they would be made for the sole reason of apologism and soothing the patriotic ego.


 * It's also a big problem that in many countries nowadays there is a tendency to avoid offending anyone, no matter what the cost may be. This is counter-productive, suppresses the development of understanding, and allows offended minorities to revise history to suit their own distorted view of it. Real history needs to be written from a point of view that considers both sides of a conflict and draws reasonable conclusions based on all the available evidence (sadly, much of history is indeed written by the victors), not allowing it to be bent to favor one side because a certain group finds the truth offensive.


 * As for the time factor, I think it should not matter if there is an interval of 8 seconds, or 8 years, or 8 million years, the words they have written are there for posterity, and all written words can have influence. When there's something that's clearly unbalanced and also critical of the article based on many unfounded arguments, especially when most of the arguments are simply matters of semantics over what words should be used to avoid offending anyone, I think a counterbalance is necessary.


 * I didn't write that huge wave of text to annoy anyone, stir up trouble, reopen old wounds, or whatever else. I spoke from sincere feeling that denial of genocide should always be considered as a very serious matter that can't be easily ignored or dismissed. If genocide is something that can be glossed over by semantics, then it will be too easy to repeat the episodes of which these people feel such shame that they see a need to apply gloss over the top.

--หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Documented Accounts of the Genocide
Hi everybody. I found an audiobook of a documented account of the Assyrian Genocide, and the story is told by a lady named Habiba in her own words from 1915. It is 46 minutes long and contains details about the genocide that have not yet been seen on the internet in capacity other than some obscure hard-to-find corner of Google Books, which makes this video a valuable and unique primary source. The account is an excerpt from a book published in 1915 called "Shall This Nation Die" by Joseph Naayem. Therefore, I felt that adding this video to the "Documented Accounts of the Genocide" section is something that might be worth considering. The video link is adjacent to the right side of this post and labeled underneath "External Video".

Here is the link to the book, and the content in the video is based on content starting on page 218 in the book: https://books.google.com/books?id=hokGAQAAIAAJ&dq=Shall%20This%20Nation%20Die&pg=PA218

I'm not sure how to add this audiobook/youtube video to the wikipedia article because there's some kind of lock icon preventing me from doing that, so maybe somebody else can help. Thanks for the help.

0limits (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)0limits
 * I have added the book to the "Further Reading" section as the section you mentioned is sort of just for newspaper accounts versus books. Thank you for this wonderful find! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Great. Can you add the audiobook in the "eyewitness accounts" section as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0limits (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is included in the same area I placed the regular book.Check it out! It's precisely the last thing readers can read on the page for the moment (this may change in all fairness though). :) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 07:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well thanks for adding it. As long as it's accessible, that's the most important thing, even if it's buried all the way at the bottom. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0limits (talk • contribs) 07:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2019
The first sentence of the last paragraph in the section "Assyrian resistance in Tur Abdin." Change "After hours of gun-battle, the Assyrians defeated the Kurds and drove them out, but there were many casualties on both sides regardless." to "After hours of gun-battle, the Assyrians drove the Kurds away, though both sides experienced many casualties."

It is currently poorly worded. "Defeated and drove out" is repetitive, and the regardless on the end is not needed. ElderGnomeChild (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Syriacs(Arameans) is historically accurate
the correct and accurate description is Syriac Aramaic Assyrian is not the correct name, the name came as a result of a political Assyrian national movement no relating to the fact. The proof is the presence of a lot of Syriac churches in the area for hundreds of years Irqwegl (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated Recognition
There have been some recent updates that should be added to the "Recognition" section.

In 2020, the State of Arizona officially recognized the Assyrian Genocide. Here are some sources:

http://www.aina.org/news/20200303173214.htm

https://www.seyfocenter.com/english/the-state-of-arizona-recognizes-the-assyrian-genocide/

https://trackbill.com/bill/arizona-house-concurrent-resolution-2006-assyrian-genocide-remembrance-day/1796482/

In 2020, the government of Syria also recognized the Assyrian Genocide. Here are some sources:

http://www.aina.org/news/20200213112942.htm

https://massispost.com/2020/02/syrian-parliament-adopts-resolution-recognizing-the-armenian-genocide/ - "The website quoted the head of the Council’s Arab and Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Committee, MP Boutros Morjana as saying: 'There is no doubt that the massacre certainly occurred and there was a genocide of the Armenian, Assyrian and Syriac peoples. It is time to recognize this genocide.'"

https://armenianweekly.com/2020/02/17/finally-after-105-years-syria-recognizes-the-armenian-genocide/ - "The text of the parliament’s resolution also referred to the genocide of Assyrians and Syriacs"

There is also a bill currently in the House Foreign Affairs Committee called H. Res. 537, which could potentially recognize the Assyrian Genocide. The bill has not made it out of Committee yet, but it still may be worth mentioning on the Recognition Section. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/537/text

Here is an attachment that shows other governing bodies that recognize the Assyrian Genocide that may not be mentioned on the Wikipedia Page as well: http://www.aina.org/genocide100.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:200:5c40:e16c:851e:d9a8:edc1 (talk) 11:48, March 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting those links, however as far as your edit request goes: Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.	Thanks! DarthFlappy (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to "Recognition" Section
The "Recognition" section should be updated to include the government of the sate of Arizona, and the government of the nation of Syria. Here are reliable sources for both:

http://www.aina.org/news/20200303173214.htm

https://www.seyfocenter.com/english/the-state-of-arizona-recognizes-the-assyrian-genocide/

https://trackbill.com/bill/arizona-house-concurrent-resolution-2006-assyrian-genocide-remembrance-day/1796482/

http://www.aina.org/news/20200213112942.htm

https://massispost.com/2020/02/syrian-parliament-adopts-resolution-recognizing-the-armenian-genocide/

https://armenianweekly.com/2020/02/17/finally-after-105-years-syria-recognizes-the-armenian-genocide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:200:5c40:c4bb:36a:c4fe:fc69 (talk) 13:34, March 13, 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, it appears you are an IP hopper. This can make communication really hard, so I suggest you don't communicate within your own IP talk page . and regularly check back on talk pages you've talked on. Instead of doing that, I suggest you make an account. See WP:BENEFITS. PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply (Talk) 21:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC); edited 21:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Title
Since the page includes information about all Syriac churches, the name ‘Assyrian’ is incorrect. The genocide did not only affect ‘Assyrians’ but also ethnic ‘Syriac-Arameans’. I would recommend to change the title of the page to the ‘Syriac Genocide’ to include all people who suffered under this genocide and not only the Assyrians.

Also it’s possible to use the term “Assyrian/Aramean Genocide” or “Aramaic Genocide” since all Syriac churches have in common that they speak Aramaic. Therefore the terms “Syriac Genocide” and “Aramaic Genocide” are academic known terms and very often used by governments to refer to this genocide.

MixedButHumann (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the title
Should the title be changed to ‘Syriac Genocide’ / Aramaic Genocide’ / ‘Aramean/Assyrian Genocide’?MixedButHumann (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC matter. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * user:Redrose64, it actually is. I see this discussion started several times on the archive pages without reaching consensus. MixedButHumann (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go with Redrose64 on this. In the link provided, it specifically states that moves/renames should not be handled by the RfC process.  One may disagree with this policy, but that policy can only be changed via discussion at policy page, not here, and not by a single editor.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's been discussed before, then those discussions should have been linked right at the start. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * user:Redrose64 How Can I link them? And where can I otherwise discuss about the name of this page? User:A D Monroe III MixedButHumann (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Help:Linking shows you how to make links. You discuss the name of an article on its talk page, i.e. here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:Requested move for the full formal procedure. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the name should be changed, so that nobody is doscriminated Drmartinbey (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sayfo
The title should be Sayfo and not Seyfo, just a tiny spelling correction since it’s spelled ܣܰܝܦܳܐ. Johannesgabrielsson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Name
Search term with Google Scholar hits: Some scholars such as Mark Levene consider "Assyrian" to be a misnomer. In addition, although the label of genocide is defended by some it is by no means universally accepted by scholars The title can therefore be considered a WP:POVNAME since one should as far as possible avoid "appear as endorsing one side of an issue". I therefore consider it best to rename the article Seyfo which appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Seyfo" 408
 * "Assyrian genocide" 356
 * "Sayfo" 1915 206


 * Targets of the genocide: Many sources do not state that the genocide only targeted "Assyrians":
 * For example, Kaiser's chapter cited in the introduction refers to "Nestorians, Syrian Orthodox Christians" but does not mention "Assyrians"
 * David Gaunt's paper uses the phrase "Assyrian Genocide" but immediately adds that it "involved many non-Armenian Christian groups native to eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia. Among them were the Assyrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Church, the Syriac Orthodox, and some smaller sects"
 * "Unlike the Armenian Genocide, the genocide of Arameans, Assyrians, and Chaldeans has not received much attention in either the media or scholarship."
 * One book on the subject is titled "Let Them Not Return: Sayfo – The Genocide Against the Assyrian, Syriac, and Chaldean Christians in the Ottoman Empire".
 * Uğur Ümit Üngör refers to the "genocidal persecution of Ottoman Armenians and Ottoman Syriacs"
 * Although many authors use "Assyrian" as "a convenient  shorthand  for  populations  with  Aramaic-speaking  and  Syriac-reading  roots,  or  for  adherents  of  Syrian  rite churches (Chaldean, Nestorian, and Protestant converts from Chaldean or Nestorian  churches)." (Hannibal Travis), I don't see the harm in spelling out the targeted groups. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear I don't agree with your lack of procedure in moving a particularly controversial and sensitive article name without any discussion with any other editors and only after four days of making your suggestion without even making a RM.


 * As you have pointed out, 'Assyrian' is the blanket term used by many authors, and is also used by a number of governments, and as such on Wikipedia it is the accepted common term to refer to adherents of those churches. The issue at hand is the use of 'Assyrian' merely to refer to adherents of the Church of the East, as opposed to its use as a blanket term. I agree I see no harm in spelling out the targeted churches, with the understanding that their adherents are all ethnically regarded as Assyrian. Mugsalot (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "ethnically regarded as Assyrian" by some authors, by no means all. The Assyrian people article states in its second sentence that there are various ethnonyms used by people who are classified as "Assyrian". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Buidhe that it is not the common term as I also stated on the talkpage of Tur Abdin. Is there a solution to describe these groups by one name? Or is it better to name the groups apart?Reldex (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * / can you please attend  that the term Assyrian is by no means an universal or general accepted name among various denominations of Syriac Christianity. The user keeps making disruptive edits and pays no attention to the ongoing name controversy of Syriac Christians and also fully ignores the edits and statements that were made by Buidhe regarding this article. Reldex (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * How come this was done without a RM? Highly controversial subject; have to agree on the opinion of lack of procedure on this one.
 * As for WP:COMMONNAME, what is the relevance of including non-English results? English-only results on Google Scholar for "Assyrian genocide" is 333, while 247 for "Seyfo". That was an unfortunate conclusion. Shmayo (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that there's a way to filter Google Scholar results by language. I don't feel too strongly about the move location, by another measure the Google NGRAMS result is higher for "Assyrian genocide". (However, common name is just one criterion of the article titles policy, other things need to be taken into account.) But if it is moved back, it needs to be clear that, as stated above, "Assyrian is by no means a universal or general accepted name among various denominations of Syriac Christianity". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that there's a way to filter Google Scholar results by language. I don't feel too strongly about the move location, by another measure the Google NGRAMS result is higher for "Assyrian genocide". (However, common name is just one criterion of the article titles policy, other things need to be taken into account.) But if it is moved back, it needs to be clear that, as stated above, "Assyrian is by no means a universal or general accepted name among various denominations of Syriac Christianity". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * With a whole section on terminology, I think that is stated clearly. Shmayo (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

According to MOS:BOLDSYN, only "significant alternative titles" should be bolded in the first sentence. NGRAMS search shows that the only names common enough to appear in the results are: Assyrian genocide, Seyfo, and Sayfo. It doesn't appear that the other names are significant enough to merit bolding in the lead, although they could be discussed in the terminology section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The term "genocide" should be restored in the title of this article, since it was used in all previous versions of the title, from 2006 to 2020. Other articles on similar subjects include the same defining term. Here are some data from searches on Google Scholar and Google Books, regarding the Seyfo/Sayfo Genocide: As noted by some previous editors, recent decision of administrator to remove the term "genocide" from the title of this article was done unilaterally, without any real discussion or consensus on that very sensitive issue. Sorabino (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar Search for the "Sayfo Genocide"
 * Google Scholar Search for the "Seyfo Genocide"
 * Google Books Search for the "Sayfo Genocide"
 * Google Books Search for the "Seyfo Genocide"
 * If you're suggesting a move to "Seyfo/Sayfo Genocide" I couldn't support that as it's not commonly used in reliable sources per NGRAMS. Your search shows only a few results. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, get serious, you are an administrator. It is obvious that I was not suggesting move to any composite title. As I stated above, term "genocide" should be returned to the title of this article, and proper title would thus be "Seyfo Genocide" or "Sayfo Genocide". Sorabino (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For absolute clarity, I was referring to either "Seyfo Genocide" or "Sayfo Genocide", neither term is used by more than a handful of sources. BTW I am not an administrator. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not an administrator, why did you categorize yourself among administrators, on your user page? Regardless of that, can you provide any explanation for the removal of the term "genocide" from the title of this article? Sorabino (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like one of my userboxes incorrectly includes an administrator category that transcludes onto my userpage, can't be bothered to figure out which. Articles about genocide aren't required to have the word "genocide" in the article title, otherwise we would have to move The Holocaust to Holocaust Genocide. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How can you, in good faith, play word-games on such serious subjects? There was no justification for your removal of the term "genocide" from the title of this article. Terms like "Seyfo Genocide" or "Sayfo Genocide" are used by prominent scholars in order to emphasize that Sayfo/Seyfo was a genocide, and not just any type of persecution. Are you aware that removal of the term "genocide" from the title of this article can be viewed by genocide denialists as a support for their claim that Sayfo/Seyfo was not a genocide? Sorabino (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Article titles are chosen based on article titles policy rather than based on whether they support or oppose recognition or denial of genocides. The word "genocide" is included in Armenian genocide and Rwandan genocide article titles because it is part of the common name, but excluded from the Holocaust or Srebrenica massacre‎, not because they aren't genocides (we report that reliable sources say they are), but because the word "genocide" isn't part of the common name of these events. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, you are claiming that terms like "Seyfo Genocide" and "Sayfo Genocide" are not common names? Those terms are well attested in scholarly literature, related to the subject in question. Common names on such complex issues should not be determined by artificially generated results of one-word searches, that would always be numerically superior to search results on any given phrase. One-word searches are notoriously deceptive, as can be seen by these simple analyses:
 * Google Scholar Search for the "Sayfo"
 * Google Scholar Search for the "Seyfo"
 * Google Books Search for the "Sayfo"
 * Google Books Search for the "Seyfo"
 * Community should be given a chance to make a decision on the question of restoring the term "genocide" to the title of this article, since that term had its proper place in all variants of title, from 2006 to 2020. Sorabino (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on WP:COMMONNAME above. I am suggesting a move back to Assyrian genocide per WP:COMMONNAME. "As I stated above, term "genocide" should be returned to the title of this article, and proper title would thus be "Seyfo Genocide" or "Sayfo Genocide"." How do you come to that conclusion? Shmayo (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on the current title (Seyfo), that lacks the term genocide. When the title of this article was previously moved, two serious mistakes were made: the move was made without discussion or consensus, and the term "genocide" was removed from the title. Whatever the title of this important article would be, it should always contain the deffinig term: genocide. Sorabino (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to restore this, because of the following reasons: Shmayo (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Conclusion on WP:COMMONNAME was wrong; see above.
 * This move was made without the right procedure.
 * A terminology section exist.

Name controversy
I'm concerned about the one-sided edits of user:Buidhe removing the term Syriac-Aramean Genocide and several monuments of the seyfo showing Aramean monuments. This page needs to be worked on and neutralized. Reldex (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The name "Syriac-Aramean Genocide" is not used in a significant number of reliable sources, therefore it does not belong in the lead per MOS:ALTNAME. Image galleries are discouraged due to the lack of encyclopedic value for putting an image of every single monument on this page, although two would be acceptable; feel free to create a List of monuments to the Sayfo if you like. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The combination Syriac-Aramean Genocide may not me significantally used, BUT governments do recognize the Aramean Genocide apart of the Assyrian Genocide. So both should be named here on Wikipedia as well. The addition of Syriac was so that Aramean would not be confused with Armenian. I re-edited again and hope for your understanding. Reldex (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * :: Buidhe, As I stated many times before both titles are used! Several books and documentaries are written about the Aramean Genocide. Here are some examples that ALL can be found on Google Scholar: [], [], [], [], [], []. And also I have provided many more links of different offical government documents that recognize the Aramean Genocide as an apart Genocide. For example, The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden etc. but also recently Joe Biden recognized the Aramean Genocide explicitly, Thats the reason I will once again revert your edit. Reldex (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, none of these sources uses the name "Aramaean genocide". Neither do any of the recognitions you cite. Do we really need to have a RfC on this? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) <b style="color: #fffb00">Zoozaz1</b> <b style="color: #fffb00">talk</b>  18:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Seyfo → Assyrian genocide – This page was moved in November, without a proper move request, after the conclusion that Seyfo was the WP:COMMONNAME (see entry on talk page here). As i concluded here, after the move, the search results included non-English results; Assyrian genocide is the WP:COMMONNAME in English (see previous link for search results). The user that performed the move to the current name realized that Assyrian genocide is the common name (see here), but pointed out that a section on the terminology is vital for the article if moved back, which do exist. I summarized the reasons for moving back here a month ago, without an answer. This will serve as the formal move request. Shmayo (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose As you can tell from Google Scholar searches, adding up the spellings of "Seyfo" and "Sayfo" (two transliterations of the same word) with the keyword "genocide" to filter out extraneous and non-English results outnumbers "Assyrian genocide". Google NGRAMS (English only) also shows that "Sayfo" and "Seyfo" are both (separately) more common than "Assyrian genocide" in its corpus. (The spelling "Sayfo" is somewhat more common, so I would support a move to "Sayfo".)
 * Furthermore, the term "Assyrian genocide" is inherently biased as it is non-neutral term, as pointed out in previous discussions by Reldex, as well as scholar Sarah Bakker Kellogg: My default use of Suryoyo (pl. Suryoye), which I render in English as Syriac, rather than Assyrian, Aramean, or even Assyrian/Syriac, is inevitably fraught with controversy. No neutral choice is available (emph added). In contrast, the terminology Sayfo/Seyfo is accepted by all factions of the ethnic group variously known as Assyrians, Arameans, Syriacs, etc. "Assyrian genocide" cannot be used per WP:POVNAME as it isn't used in a significant majority of English-language sources as required.
 * Recent scholarly books have used Seyfo/Sayfo instead and more inclusive language: Sayfo 1915: An Anthology of Essays on the Genocide of Assyrians/Arameans During the First World War (2018) and Let Them Not Return: Sayfo – The Genocide Against the Assyrian, Syriac, and Chaldean Christians in the Ottoman Empire (2017). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I fully agree with the arguments given by the user above me! A move to Sayfo would be OK. Reldex (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Map of southeastern Anatolia printed in The cradle of mankind; life in eastern Kurdistan (1922) (14576929017).jpg

Comment re: line in Sayfo referring to Mar Benyamin Shimun “orchestrating” murder of his cousin Nimrud. This is pure speculation and has no hard evidence to back up this assertion.
Add “possibly” to “orchestrated”, or some acknowledgement that this is hypothetical and speculative. An argument could very easily be made that the murderers operated independently of Mar Shimun. 174.251.169.201 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
Add “possibly”, or “is rumored to have” before the word “orchestrated” in reference to Mar Benyamin Shumun’s having supposedly called for the murder of his cousin Nimrud. Or, say “It has been speculated that. . .” before. 174.251.169.201 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The content is supported by a reliable source. You would need a reliable source that contradicts the account of this murder to change the Wikipedia article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I can provide multiple reliable sources that to show that Gaunt is overstepping himself when making such a reckless assertion without inserting any qualifying words like “rumored,” “possibly,” or “it is speculated that. . .” which would make it accurate.

1.) Marshimun.com and researchers associated with that site, including family members.

2.) “The History of the Patriarchals Succession,” by Theodore d’Mar Shimun.

3.) My own private email correspondence on this subject with Mr. Gaunt in 2019.

4.) Eye-witness accounts added to (currently restricted) Patriarchal Timelines on MarShimun.com from interviews.

Do you need more to make this simple change for the sake of historical accuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.251.169.201 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)