Talk:Sayfo/Archive 1

message: This is a very serrious allegeation. Both sides views are not prestent. Thank you. Classifying something as "Genocide" will require serrious evidence, world-wide acceptance, else its a drag. NPov suggests both sides views/explanations are present. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accsuing a country with a massacre is not NPoV

message: Assyrian Massacres → Assyrian Genocide – The article was unilaterally moved by Coolcat who didn't even care to change the content of the article or the links accordingly. I can't move the article back to its original title due to this edit by Coolcat: . I request that the article is moved back to its original title, until a consensus for a move is archived. — Stereotek 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You moved it without a concensus what are you talking about. Number of google hits is not how we name articles. I did not violate any policy, I only violated your unquestionable authority. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Page was originaly moved without a concensus. Google hits is not how we determine the name of the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To understand how articles are named in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Eleassar777 19:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes Coolcat. The article was originally moved without any consensus by new user Yce, a few days ago. I moved it back, to it's original title (Assyrian Genocide), but then you moved it again, without any attempts to create consensus about a move from its original title. Stereotek 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The intent of this page is not to discuss CoolCat's bad faith or anything similar. Only voting and arguments. --Eleassar777 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: First of all, when I first moved the "Assyrian Genocide" to "Assyrian Massacres", I didn't know about the Wiki policies. I apologize if I did it in wrong way. Secondly, although I do not find "Armenian Genocide" page neutral and accurate enough, I aggree most of the remarks in Fadix's comments above. Assyrian page can be merged with Armenian page based on the fact that the  historical documents about the Assyrians are vague and there can not be a well established history according to google hits. --Cansın 19.27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
===Decision===
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Mr. Coolcat, exactly why did you move the article from Assyrian Genocide to Assyrian Massacres? And why did you violate Wikipedias policies by doing it unilaterally? I have requested that the article should be moved back, until you archieve a concensus for a move. Anyway, I for one strongly oppose any move of the page as the subject discussed in the article clearly is an 'Assyrian Genocide'. Another fact is that Assyrian Genocide seems to be the most widely used term for the events discussed in this article. Google give me only 115 hits on 'Assyrian Massacres' 
and no less than 956 when searching for 'Assyrian Genocide'  Stereotek 18:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You moved it without a concensus what are you talking about. Number of google hits is not how we name articles. I did not violate any policy, I only violated your unquestionable authority. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Page was originaly moved without a concensus. Google hits is not how we determine the name of the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To understand how articles are named in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Eleassar777 19:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes Coolcat. The article was originally moved without any consensus by new user Yce, a few days ago. I moved it back, to it's original title (Assyrian Genocide), but then you moved it again, without any attempts to create consensus about a move from its original title. Stereotek 20:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The intent of this page is not to discuss CoolCat's bad faith or anything similar. Only voting and arguments. --Eleassar777 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: How many countries recognise the assyrian genocide? --E.A 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many countries recognise assyrian genocide? 

message: Throw in a couple of "allegedly"s and there'd be no POV problem.--Doug O'Connell 18:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Solution

message: Since the dreadful events described in this article affected a people that have a variety of ways to call themselves (Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Suryoyo), I suggest to move the page to "Sayfo", since this is the name under which it is quite generally known among the people concerned (also Saypâ, Saypo), and to a growing extent also among people with a different background, that's at least my impression.
:There are some difficulties in terminology. Sayfo is readily understood in West Syriac communities, but I'm not sure how widespread the use of the alternative pronunciation Saypâ is among East Syriacs. The name Assyrian is difficult because it was a label used by many of those killed at the time of the massacres, and it still hasn't widespread support among their descendents. Perhaps we should take note that the Holocaust is not headed Ha-Shoah in Wikipedia. --Gareth Hughes 20:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saypa could redirect to Sayfo. The Syriac Genocide sounds awkward to me, but could be a neutral alternative.Benne 11:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or do you have a better alternative? In the end, Assyrian genocide is not acceptable. The killings were directed against people many of whom did not identify themselves as Assyrians.Benne 20:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a better alternative, but I think the change of name will be as difficult as the present one. Sometimes an article has to have an inadequate name. In such cases, the lead section can make the case clear. --Gareth Hughes 21:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you when you say that renaming the article is not easy, that's why I started this discussion. But allowing an inadequate name is in my opinion not an option. The title Assyrian genocide is not only a distortion of history, it also explicitly excludes those Syriacs who do acknowledge their Aramean ancestry. Perhaps we could have a vote on this issue.Benne 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move: Sayfo 

message: I have reverted to the prior state as the removal of 'supposed' and the like is not the way forward. It is not fixing the fact that people view this article as POV. -Localzuk (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made today friday 20th 

message: It's always good to be backed with as many a source as possible, but the lack or number of it don't justify the use of the word 'alleged' to a VERY known historical FACT. I agree with Chaldean with the basic meaning of the world and I do think that it make possible for someone to believe that thousands and thousands of people weren't killed by the Turks. People who are toying with words are ignoring the entire Turkish history. 201.51.3.241 11:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleged?! Alleged?! How about I put you on the phone with my Grandfather? This is ridiculus. Chaldean 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you find a neutral source that states this. I'm sorry for your grandfather, but Wikipedia has a no original research policy. --Khoikhoi 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To all the users who are removing the 'alleged' statement. Please provide a neutral source as evidence of this matter. Until such a time when this is presented, it will likely be reverted to the state which includes 'alleged'. This is in compliance with WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.-Localzuk (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing the point of our complaint with your edits. You must provide references to the changes you are making. Until such a time that you provide them, the changes will be reverted on sight - as they are not compliant with the policies and guidelines cited above. -Localzuk (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here [] is historical document; a 1920 letter by Assyro-Chaldean leader written to France begging to save his people. And in the letter it STATES that they have lost 100,000 people so far because of the massacre. Here [] is a detailed number of deaths (go to the years between 1915 - 1922) and what villages were destroyed. Here [] is a book that was written only 4 years after the geoncide by a EYEWITNESS and details the masssacre day by day. Is this good enough? Its not our fault that the rest of the world does not recongize it, our people have been well aware the rest of the world don't give a _ about us, not even the "christian/western" world. Many have been putting the genocide under the armenian geoncide, since they look at that event as a representation of the whole christians of the middle east. But even Armenian community are well aware and recongnize our own genocide [] 
And by the way, British politicians in Britian's House of Commons recently discussed the genocide []. They don't talk about fake things in the house of commons. 
Would the French government let Assyrians built a monument about the genocide of it didn't occure? []. Would Swedish political parties bring it up if it didn't occur? [] 
This is ridiculus. When you say alleged, you are letting the possibility of it never happening. Stop acting like a Turkish nationlist and let the TRUTH be published. 
Chaldean 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry that you do not understand my complaint. Changes that are made must be verifiable. Therefore, the references must be presented when these changes are made. If they are not then people, like myself, will revert as new information that is unreferenced is not admissable. However, the references you provide look perfect and I do not object to the change. I will add these references into the article itself to prevent any further complaints. -Localzuk (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could you also provide a reference to a site which isn't specifically linked with a single POV, such as an associated press article or some other international media coverage. The links you have provided do seem to be both from very biased organisations and I do not think it will hold out for very long before someone complains about the changes. -Localzuk (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For God's sake it is a EYEWITNESS account book. The letter was one of the few things that have survived despite turkey destroying evidence of the genocide for the past 80 years. What more do you want? And what do you mean baised? The source shows PICTURES of British politicans talking about the genocide. Chaldean 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stay calm. What I mean is that all the evidence you have just provided is from syriac sources. This will lead to people stating that it is a syriac conspiracy etc... As has been stated in various other places, and has lead to a lot of complaints about it on this site. Information must be verifiable from various media outlets not just ones that already are, as people will say, biased against the other side of the argument. Showing a picture of people talking is not verifiable - it is just a picture. If a reference to an agency such as the AP, BBC or CNN could be provided that would be enough to prevent any future problems. -Localzuk (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I will will find more sources and will have a detailed report about this soon, with evidence. All I asked for now is to remove the word "alleged." This is ridiculus. The event did take place, and is confirmed by many historians. Chaldean 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged Genocide?

message: I wanted to know why what I wrote was edited out? 
"These areas had also a sizeble Kurdish population as well. To get the Kurds on their side, the Ottoman government promised the kurds a future independent state in exchange. This lead the kurds being under direct control of the Ottoman army." 
Indeed this is true. You can go ask any Kurdish historian and he will likewise tell you so.
We have to remember that the kurdish community were not exactly on the same side/page with each other before WWI arrived. Chaldean 20:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it was specifically edited out but again would cite the need for references. You need to reference any addition as per WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS. Unless additions are referenced, it is highly likely that people will object, and call the article POV and it does not help wikipedia become a more reliable source. -Localzuk (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, this article, still is in need of alot of work in terms of sources, sources, sources. People plase help out :) Chaldean 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaldean, why have you re-added the information that was removed without adding a source? Also, why did you mark it as minor? The guidelines state that minor changes are only those that are small changes to text (such as spelling) and reformatting. -Localzuk (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which part are you talking about? The not recongizing part? You need a citation for assyrians not having any political power in the 20th century after the genocide? Chaldean 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have added These areas had also a sizeble Kurdish population as well. To get the Kurds on their side, the Ottoman government promised the kurds a future independent state in exchange. This lead the kurds being under direct control of the Ottoman army. This needs references for the first bit and the rest (each being a chunk) IMO. -Localzuk (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not add this part, don't know how this happend? I agreed that we would get sources first for that part. But I was talking about this "Assyrian historians claim not having any real political power throughout the 20th century is what primerly lead to the unrecognition of the genocide." Chaldean 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, my bad. Sorry -Localzuk (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited it due to lack of sources. The point is that its extremely hard to believe that an empire passes through a genocide to keep certain territories, and then after winning it would give up a big chunk of its empire so that the Kurds could be indipendent. This is a strange behaviour for an empire. For this reasons, if you want to put the text this way, there's going to be necessity of good independent sourcing. Cheers.  Aldux 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem Chaldean 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurds

message: I've protected this page from being moved. That last name, Jihad against Assyria, was not discussed and is so highly politicised that I'm amazed that anyone thought it was a good idea. This is a collaborative project: work with each other. --Gareth Hughes 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jihad against Assyria? Guys do we need to remind ourselfs that wikipedia is not a place to create new things/titles such as Syriac Genocide or Jihad against Assyria. Chaldean 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A vote is still going on to put it back to Assyrian genocide, and up to now there are 7 for, 1 against (Benne) and 1 neutral. I also object to the "Syriacs" box: "Syriac christianity" would be OK, but Benne has taken from the beginning a fanatical attitude on everything touching Assyrians, replacing everywhere "Assyrians" by "Syriacs" (like here) and pushing for the use of "Syriacs" to designate a large part of Middle Eastern Christians, including even Maronites and Melkites. Other articles will have to be cleaned up and "Assyrians" restored in place of "Syriacs". Pylambert 05:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite an exaggeration, Monsieur. I do not change everything that's called "Assyrian" here on Wikipedia. However, I do object to using "Assyrian" as an umbrella name for the Suryoye/Suryāye (who have for centuries been called "Syrians" in English and more recently "Syriacs"), simply because that name is not accepted nor appreciated by many of the people concerned. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I honestly don't have a problem with the Syriac box. Chaldean 16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The straw poll above seems to be pretty clear that we want to move this article back to Assyrian genocide. I know that Benne has voiced an objection, but does anyone else object to this move? --Gareth Hughes 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Should the second word "genocide" be capitalized? --Khoikhoi 21:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalising the G implies that it is a proper name: the genocide is called 'Syriac/Assyrian Genocide'. I do not believe this to be the case. Rather, this is about the 'genocide of Syriacs/Assyrians'. The article Armenian Genocide has the capitalisation, because this has become the name of that genocide. How many people prefer 'Sayfo' as the name? --Gareth Hughes 22:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it should be "xxxxx genocide" not "xxxx Genocide". Aldux 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Aldux. And all mentions of "Syriacs" and links towards Syriacs should accordingly be replaced in the article by Assyrians, otherwise the move back would be useless (+ all the links towards the article). And articles Syriacs, Chaldeans and even Assyro-Chaldeans could also be merged with Assyrian people. And let's not forget the misleading and inaccurate Syriacs box. I don't volunteer to do it, I rather let it to somebody less sanguinary than me ;-) --Pylambert 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  " And articles Syriacs, Chaldeans and even Assyro-Chaldeans could also be merged with Assyrian people." I agree with you on this, with the exception of the Syriac page. I will propose a vote on this as well, after we finish taking care of this issue. Chaldean 19:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protection 

message: I strongly object to the very idea of straw polls on Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a democracy.
And that's not because I apparently represent a minority in this issue, but because I believe consensus should be reached in order to present a neutral point of view, rather than ignoring minorities by simple voting.
On this page, I stated earlier that I do not fancy the title "Syriac genocide" that much, but that I moved the article because I object to the title "Assyrian genocide", because the adjective "Assyrian"
# does not represent a neutral POV;
# has become politicised;
# is disputed by scholars (as stated in the Assyrian people article);
# is rejected and resented by a considerable part of the Suryoye/Suryāye.
Personally, I strongly favour the name Sayfo. The only objections I've heard so far came from Garzo (because of varying spellings), and Chaldean, who said that the name Sayfo has never been used before, a statement that is provably untrue.
I would like to urge the administrators not to move the page just yet on the basis of fewer than ten votes, but rather try to establish a consensus on this issue. Once again I'd like to stress that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Neutrality can not be reached by numbers. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All true, but we are consensus driven. There is a problem with the word sayfo being a transcription of the western pronunciation, when many of those who died in this awful event used the eastern pronunciation. Official sources within the Syriac Orthodox Church always use Sayfo (which is translated sword), and I believe that the Assyrian Church of the East officially refers to the genocide as Qatel d'Ama Aturaya (which is translated Assyrian genocide). So, the official, church sources use different names. Technically, anything other than these is a new coinage. Such a coinage might be prefereble if it results in compromise, but there seems to be dissatisfaction over the name Syriac genocide. Can anyone find a better way through this confusion? --Gareth Hughes 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a more general article over ethnic and religious cleansing, massacres and genocides in the late Ottoman Empire, including Armenians, Pontic Greeks and the various Neo-Aramaic Christian speakers, but also Yazidis and some others. Anyway, there are historical and legal definitions of what can be called a genocide and we're dealing here with a mix of ethnic and religious cleansing, massacres and genocides. The article should also include more about the instrumentation of the various minorities in the Ottoman Empire by the Great Powers of the time, who are ultimately not quite innocent in these matters: Russia and the UK ("Assyrian levies"), but also France ("bataillon assyro-chaldéen" created in 1921 in the French Mandate in Syria) used all these people like France did in Algeria with Harkis or Israel with the the South Lebanon Liberation Army, or the USA with the Montagnards/Hmongs in Indochina. --Pylambert 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Armenian Genocide rightly has its own article, due to the magnitude of the slaughter. I think it would be interesting to write an article on the combined experience of communities in Turkey at the end of the Ottoman Empire, but I would not for one moment suggest that the fearful experiences of Aramaic-speaking Christians in eastern Turkey should go without an article. I beleive there is certainly enough to say about this to warrant an article. --Gareth Hughes 17:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont understand what is the problem. Since when does Wikipedia create new terms just so that one person does not feel offended? My God, why can't we just state what the world has stated since the event - Assyrian genocide. "Personally, I strongly favour the name Sayfo." But people dont know the event as "Sayfo"! When a person wants to search this topic, his not going to type in "Sayfo," he is going to type Assyrian genocide. Chaldean 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not move, consensus has ''not'' been reached 

message: Its been 10 days since the poll began, Garzo don't you agree that we should move the page now? Chaldean 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be changed and all references to "Syriacs" replaced by "Assyrians", with an introductory note saying that the term Assyrians here includes all Neo-Aramaic speaking Christians, regardless of their church denominations. And the page should be protected just afterwards against any new attempt to move/rename it, and against its modification by not-registered (IP) users. After that, it'll be time to merge the Syriacs, Chaldeans, Assyro-Chaldeans and Assyrian people articles in one same article Assyrian people with the same introductory note, and protect all four pages against attempt to move/rename them (or recreate them under "Syriac people", "Chaldean people" or "Assyro-Chaldean peopl", "Chaldeo-Assyrian people" or "Chaldoassyrian people"). A third step will be to suppress the Syriacs box, there's already a category:Assyrians, that's enough. We need to move on, it is not a question of democracy, but of accuracy and of respect towards the students and other lay users of wikipedia, who are presently deceived by all these erroneous articles. --Pylambert 10:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not use Cut And Paste to rename a page: it destroys the page history. If you want to move a page, use the Move button. If it tells you can't move the page, because the target already exists (as in this case), you have to ask an admin to do it. Please don't Cut And Paste. — Gareth Hughes 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Time Has Come to Move the Page

message: I think that this article needs a LOT of improvement in the way it's written. I quickly went through it yesterday and today, and tried to remove the most obvious ones. There's still a lot of language mistakes, spelling mistakes, etc. There also is a lot of repetition (e.g. it gives some background info, and then says that the people were massacred over and over and over again). For example, the Holocaust article doesn't tell the 10 000 different incidents, but just the general info. I think that it's enough if just the general info is told, and not a story of every time 60+ people were killed. Even after reading the article, I don't really get what happened. The article just doesn't tell the big picture of things. It's like... it's the same if in World War II there were  descriptions of each battle, but no text of the big picture, like "Operation Barbarossa", "D-day", "Pacific theater", etc. Also, there's way too many long quotes. We need to write this article in our own words and summarise the quotes. I think that 400 word+ quotes are a bit too much.--HJV 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on many of your points. The thing you have to understand is that, this is a very old event that is not as well documented as other events we know about..so we only only bits and pieces like some of the events I mentioned here and there. I mean, there was no big "D-day"-event. The genocide was bits by bits, little bit here and there, village by village. So, we have only stated the stories we know. I kind of didn't like how undetailed the Armenian genocide page was. I mean, you want good details of events, so that the reader can almost feel the event. Chaldean 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language of the article

message: This genocide is a lie.--Simon Bolivar1994 07:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is a hoax 

message: I cleaned up some errors of language and punctuation. I tried to organize it more logically, but you may not agree with what I've done.
The article in not complete. Some parts need to be filled in. More references are needed.    KarenAnn 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Syriac? If you can't, then you need to download Syriac fonts. If you're talking about the Latin special characters, I can't see all of them either. --334 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit of article 

message: The genocide took place in TurAbdin mostly, not hakkari and urmia, well there too but mostly TurAbdin id like to see it written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.185.79 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 September 2006.
:It was not in one small area? Do you have any idea how small Tur Abdin is? This was a MASS event that stretched from Urmia to Smyrna. Chaldean 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The genocide