Talk:Syrians/Archive 1

Style

I would call for a rewrite of the Ancient Syrians section of this article. The language is more celebratory than encyclopedian. History isn't a competition and the article shouldn't read like something a Syrian highscholer would read aloud in class. I would offer one but I already feel the article's historicity might be flawed from what I've read in the other comments.195.84.66.130 (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic group

I think there shouldn't be an article called Syrian people since being a Syrian does not mean ethnically Syrian, some Syrian are of Arab descendant others are of Kurdish, Armenian or any other ethnic group.--Aziz1005 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and all are Syrian people, i.e. people native to Syria, just as all Americans, including Chinese, Irish, German, Israeli, and Syrian Americans, are Americans or American people. See this article. —Anas ^talk? 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea but it says in the article ethnic group, I think the appropriate article should be demography of Syria. Just to avoid any confusion. What do you think?--Aziz1005 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an ethnic group, a group of people united by characteristics such as language, culture, religion, etc. On the other hand, a demography is a statistical study (births, deaths, etc.). We already have one for Syria. This is about the people native to Syria, their culture, languages, and so on. I will expand it sometime in the future. —Anas ^talk? 10:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Syrian people are not united by characteristics such as language (There are Syrian Kurds,and Syrian Arabs for instance), or religion (There are Syrian christians and Muslims). Syrian people are not a distinct ethnic group,This is what I meant--Aziz1005 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Having considered the matter carefully, I have clarified that they are a collection of ethnic groups sharing some common characteristics (much like how it is in Iranian peoples). Thanks for noticing that, Aziz. —Anas ^talk? 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, Shukran ;)--Aziz1005 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To Anas: I don't agree with this change simply because every country will have an ethnic group majority and one or more groups that are a minority. All the people of Italy say are Italian citizens, but the majority ethnic group is the Italians who speak some form of italian and there are minorities in the north who speak German who are Italian citizens but not really ethnically Italian. Every country is going be like that, so it's the same for Syrians who speak speak some form of Syrian Arabic and have Kurdish and Armenian minorities. Maybe you could say that the people of the Levant are like the Iranian peoples, so that would include Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Jordanians who are practically like one people, but Syrians themselves are not really like the Iranian peoples. Please change it back, thanks. Egyegy 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradox. I think my latest edit has clarified everything. Syrian Kurds and Armenians are not ethnically Syrian. Excuse me, I'm not usually this confused, but these finals are overtaxing me. Thank you. —Anas ^talk? 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most Syrians are Arabs (whether ethnically or culturally), however some Syrians would never self-identify as "Arabs" or even "Syrians". Such are the Kurds, Armenians, Circassians, Aramaic-speaking Christians might self-identify as Syrian but not as Arab, since they predate the Arab invasion.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Syrian demographics

Or change the article completely. Modern day Syrians don't belong to a single ethnic group. Funkynusayri 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been a discussion over Iraqi people article, and finally they decided to merge it with Demography of Iraq article. I think this may apply to this article as well since Syrian is only a citizenship.--Aziz1005 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a neutral-sounding "Population of Syria" article, and let the statistics and facts speak for themselves, while leaving unverifiable, subjective, and counter-productive arguments on "ethnic groups" aside. --Slacker 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, "population of Syria" is pretty much synonymous with "demography of Syria" anyway, don't you think? Funkynusayri 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well one of the editors above was concerned that "demographics" would restrict the article to numbers and statistics, whereas "population" can take a broader scope including culture, customs, traditions, pop culture, and ideologies, for example. --Slacker 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Demographics and demography aren't synonyms, check out the articles for details. But I agree somewhat, the article should maybe exist, but not in the current form, which is very misleading. Funkynusayri 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in lead

It says in the lead "With the exception of the Armenians who fled Anatolia during the Armenian genocide, the Syrian people are the indigenous people of Syria."

This is inaccurate as there are also Turkmen, Roma, Adyghe, and Greeks who are Syrians. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you can find a reliable source for the Roma and Adyghe, then go ahead and add them. I've been careful to stick to the facts and avoid ambiguities; because if you don't source it, some editor will come and remove it quickly.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But I don't think the sentence I pointed out is sourced and other sources shows it to be inaccurate, Roma: "and becoming the ancestors of the present Gypsies of Syria", "The Gypsies have different names in the different countries of Asia — Nawar in Syria", "During the past year several Gypsies within Syria estimated their numbers to be approximately one million strong. They generally agreed that perhaps as many as a fifth of them travel outside the country. Syrian Gypsies living or traveling outside of Syria gave the writer similar population estimates. If these statistics can be verified, Syria would have the single largest Dom population of any Middle Eastern country. At this point, 250,000 to 300,000 is the best Gypsy population estimate for Syria.", Adyghe: "Approximately 100,000 Circassians, descendants of Muslim nomads who emigrated to Syria from Caucasus after its nineteenthcentury conquest by the Russians, live in Syria.". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

no mention of syrian jews?

any reason why syrian jews aren't once mentioned in the entire article?--MabdU (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)MabdU

Any reason why you haven't added mention of them? FunkMonk (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

i could, but i thought someone with more knowledge on editing articles could do it and would most likely do it better. still familiarizing myself with the site.--MabdU (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't done on purpose; if you want to add them, then by all means do so. The 3-4 other editors and myself cannot be the only contributors to the article; but when you add anything, please check the wiki guidelines and add legitimate sources. My philosophy on Wikipedia is inclusive, but there are so many editors who love to remove as much as possible from the articles. There are ample legitimate sources on Syrian Jews, and you should mention the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York; because it is very large and well known. According to my knowledge, there are only 100 Syrian Jews left in Syria, -half in Damascus and the other half in Aleppo-. There could be as much as 100 000 worldwide; again according to my knowledge about 40% live in Brooklyn, NY, 40% live in Israel and the rest are scattered around the world. Welcome to Wikipedia!George Al-Shami (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

I just found out about Steve Jobs' ancestry. Shouldn't his picture be in the famous Syrians section? Or is he ineligible because he's only half Syrian and was raised by adoptive American parents? If he is not to be disregarded, he would certainly be the most globally famous person in that section. What do you all think? 83.138.235.94 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point, unfortunately a lot of minimalist editors will come and remove Steve Jobs on the basis that he was not a Syrian citizen and did not have Syrian citizenship; unfortunately there are editors who like to abuse Wikipedia. Therefore if we add steve jobs, then we have to change the lead sentence at the beginning and if we include "people from Syrian ancestry", then this will encourage many editors to remove people on the same points you made. I suggest creating a section at the bottom called "Famous people from Syrian ancestry" and adding Steve Jobs; and if you agree I could make that edit.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you could that'd be great 83.138.235.94 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The page about Lebanese people had half-Lebanese Shakira at one point, and now it has Haifa, who is half Egyptian. I don't think anyone would protest, but let's see... FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

There are to many people in the infobox. At least 9 of them should be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we remove: Najah al-Attar, Asalah Nasri, George Wassouf, Jules Jammal, Asma al Assad, Akram al-Hawrani, Sami al-Hinnawi. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey SD, I already removed 5 and made the pics smaller. The infobox before was very large; it took up half the article page and I made it smaller. I think that with the exception of Asma Al Assad, all the names you suggested above are very important people in Syrian history. The current format by Asraf1979 is ok, however the best format is to put them altogether using Photoshop or a similar program. If you check the majority of the people articles, you'll see that the latter format is pretty much the most dominant and aesthetically pleasing. Thus, I think it would be best if you or another editor could fuse all the images into one; this could address the issue you raised.George Al-Shami (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fork

Why was this article created 6 month ago again? It was merged with Demographics of Syria for a reason, why create this fork? Shmayo (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fork, it is a legitimate article that had to be created. The demographics article is concerned solely with the fact and figures of the country, whereas the people page delves into the history and characteristics of the Syrian people.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The definition of Syrians is "inhabitants and citizens of Syria". It is ridiculous to then talk about a historic "Syrian people", and include historic persons. Quoting user Rafy: "Claiming that Hammurabi was an Iraqi is as absurd as saying that Julius Caesar was Italian...", and the same goes for the historic people here. Most of these articles are redirected correct; Jordanian people, Afghani people, Kuwaiti, etc. Then there are these forks. "Syrians are tied together by geography, linguistic heritage, religion, and similar Eastern Mediterranean ethnicities." is pretty absurd too. There are articles about Arab people, Kurdish people, Assyrian people and Armenian people, here all called "Syrians". The main articles are Demographics of Syria, Syria and History of Syria, how is it not a fork of these articles? Just like the first articles I mentioned, this one should be merged with Demographics of Syria. Shmayo (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with your comment by virtue of the fact that there has been a people called "Syrian" for millennia as evidenced by ancient, medieval, and modern artifacts. Quoting another editor without knowing what his academic background is, just because you agree with his argument, is pretty absurd in itself. The article does not say "modern" Syrians, it says "Syrians"; thus the historic people were inhabitants of a Syria at one time, by virtue of their birth in a place called Syria by ancient historians and scholars. The fact that you willfully omit that (to back your pov), is exceptionally and positively absurd. Look at the other examples on Wikipedia, there is a "demographics of Italy" article and an "Italian people" article. On the Italian people page Volta is listed, even though he died before the creation of modern Italy. There is also a "demographics of the United States" article and an "American people" article; I wonder why you have't taken your claims to those articles, but you take them to this article. This is very telling. And then to argue that "Arabs" and "Syrians" are one and the same is not only absurd, but downright foolish. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that what he said made sence and that it was my opinion too. This article is still about the Syrians, people of the republic Syria. The people of modern day Syria is not the same as the people living in the area when it first was called "Syria". Over 90% of the population in Syria are Arabs or Kurds, that has not always been the case. The Italians an ethnic group, which Syrians aren't. This is not the first time I mention this, I have done it in a similar article, I'm not the one from Syria here, so stop talking about any form of POV. When have I ever said that the terms "Arabs" and "Syrians" are the same? I'm just saying most people in Syria are Arabs, and that there are articles dealing with Arabs and other people living in Syria, and their history in the country (e.g. Kurds in Syria). Therefore, to me, this looked like a fork. Shmayo (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not from Syria but you are Syriac, and you want to delegitimize any article that counters your Syriac nationalism. Is there such thing as an "American" ethnicity? What about a "Lebanese" or "Palestinian" ethnicity? because all these latter peoples have a Wiki people article; and it boggles me that you have not went to their talk pages and argued whether the aforementioned articles should be reverted to their demographics articles, respectively. What is an ethnicity? A people with a shared history, language, culture, and traditions? Many American speak of an "American" ethnicity. The Canadian government inserted a "Canadian" option in their census when asking their citizens what ethnicity they belonged to. I thought you were very familiar with the other eastern Mediterranean articles on Wikipedia; you haven`t seen how subjective and explosive the issue of "Arab" identity is? Just because 90% of Syrians speak Arabic, that doesn`t mean they self-identify as "Arabs". Would Americans identify themselves as "English" just because they speak English? George Al-Shami (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm Assyrian, and I don't know how this article "counters" Syriac nationalism. No, they are not, and as I said this is not the first time I bring this up. And remember that WP is full of other stuff. Also, the American people article actually do list the different ethnicities. I'm aware of that, just as many Kurds in Syria wouldn't like being labeled as a group named Syrians with same culture as Arabs in Syria. I don't see us getting anywhere here, so thank you for answering my question, George.Shmayo (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion here. The only criteria for inclusion here should be the possession of Syrian Arab nationality imho. Here is why, imagine Syria becoming a world power in the future and they are able to annex Turkey completely, Turks are gradually Arabised and in the year 2500 ethnic Turks are a tiny minority living in the mountains of Anatolia. If we follow the logic of this article then we should be able to include Suleiman the magnificent and Ataturk as example of Syrian people in the distant past. Would this make sense?--Rafy talk 12:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's say the Syriacs one day get so powerful that they conquer Syria and convert all Syrian Christians to their sect; if we follow the logic of your argument then should we be able to add the Syriac-colonized Syrians to the Syriac people article? Nothing new has been added to the discourse and the questions I have raised have not been answered.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Assyrian/Syriac is an ethnicity while Syria is a country. You can be Syrian and Assyrian at the same time if you have the Syrian citizenship which is a legal definition. What I can see from the infobox is that every person that lived in historical Syria and adjacent regions prior to the establishment of the modern republic is described as a citizen of modern Syria which is flat out ridiculous.--Rafy talk 13:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way I have no problem with this article, but it's a mere fork of demographics with its current shape. If you're interested you could model it after British people with more emphasis on cultural and identity issues among modern Syrians.--Rafy talk 13:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I understood your point, however there are many people who argue that being Syrian is also an ethnicity. Remember the factors I used to question what "ethnicity" is. Quite often when Syrians outside of Syria are asked about their ethnicity, they respond that they are Syrian ethnically. However Rafy, whenever in doubt, just take a look at what the dictionary says. This is how Merrian Webster defines the word ethnic. "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". Notice it is says "national" and then it says "or cultural origin or background".

The ancient Syrian people articles were labeled as Syrian by other editors, and this is backed by ancient and modern sources. Of course ancient Syrians are not modern citizens of Syria, but they were inhabitants of Syria. Again the name Syria and the modified adjective Syrian were employed by ancient people. Yes, I agree that this article should emphasize the cultural and, I would add, the historical aspect; that's what other editors and myself are trying to do.George Al-Shami (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria is a country with an Arab Majority and a Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian minorities, I don't think there is any person who claims to be ethnically Syrian in the modern sense on the word.

As for the "archaic" use of the word, Syria was a geographical region that stretched from Damascus to Antioch, people who inhabited this region were mostly ethnically Aramaeans and Greeks and those people were called Syrians as a denonym. "Syrian" (ܣܘܪܝܝܐ Suryaye) did come indeed to be used as an ethnic name for Syriac speaking population of Syria and Northern Mesopotamia after the Nestorian schism they were split into Eastern Syrians under the Sassanians and Western Syrians under the Romans and Byzantines. The more popular names such as Assyrians are later developments that claim (albeit rightfully imo) an older root than Syrians. The establishment of the modern Arab republic of Syria forced Syrian Christians to look for a different name to distinguis themselves which happened around ten years ago when the name of the Syrian Orthodox Church was officially changed to the "Syriac Orthodox Church". A highly recommended book on the subject of ethnic identity among Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia is "Christian political thought in greater Syria on the eve of the Arab conquest" by Philip Wood.

Another interesting sidenote for modern Syrian Arabs, Arabs never used the terms Syria and Syrian in their writings until the late 19th century. Instead you frequently find الشام ash-Sham and شوام Shawam, Syrians سريان simply meant Syriac Christians of Syria and Iraq. Don't trust my words, go and read al-Tabari and al-Mas'udi.--Rafy talk 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rafy, you keep referring to all peoples by their language, I thought you have appreciated the problematic nature of this. You say Syria is an "Arab majority", as if implying that all Arabic-speaking people refer to themselves as "Arabs"; that is completely false and I don't understand why you keep insisting that. We say Italians, greeks, Russians, but "Arabs" is highly political, you have seen in other wiki articles that a significant percentage of Maronites reject this identity even though they speak Arabic. Again, would you call Americans "English". Moreover you ignore the political implications of the "Arab" label, when Syria achieved real independence in 1946 the official name of the country was the "republic of Syria", it's not until the days of "Arab nationalism" in the 1950s and the dissolution of the United Arab Republic, does Syria start referring to itself as the "Arab republic of Syria". What is this subjective opinion that modern Syrians don't refer to themselves as ethnic Syrians, I have personally met many Syrians who do. Then you argue "The establishment of the modern Arab republic of Syria forced Syrian Christians to look for a different name to distinguis themselves", Rafy the majority of Syrian Christians belong to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, only a minority of Syrian Christians belong to the Syriac Orthodox church (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2008/108493.htm). Yes it is true that Syrians did not start referring to themselves as "Syrian" until mid-19th century (not the late 19th century), however the same is true for many people like the French, Germans and the Italians. Modern nationalism as we know it takes shape during the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century and the subsequent french occupation of much of Europe. Syrian nationalism was born in the same era and was espoused by Christian Orthodox men from Damascus and Beirut in the 1850s; and it takes time for the Muslims to catch on to this, that is why Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims never employed the the modified adjective "Syrian" until the 1850s. Your assertion that الشام ash-Sham and شوام Shawam refers only to Syriac Christians is interesting, and I would love to take a look at those books. I do know that blaad al-sham goes back to the days of the advent of Islam, and according to some of the medieval Arabic travel books the term blaad al-sham refers to the modern concept of "Greater Syria", thereby separating the people of blaad al-sham from the rest of the Arabic-speaking world.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria was intended to e part of the Arab empire promised by the British to the Sharif of Mecca during the great Arab revolution, hence its official name "المملكة العربية السورية"، (see also [1]). I have no idea how the Greek Orthodox and Catholics in Syria identify themselves nowadays, I know from medieval Syriac sources that they were often referred to as Malkaye (Melkites) and Romaye (Romans, or Byzantines). Afaik the modern Syrian identity emerged among the western educated Christian elites of Ottoman Syria and Lebanon after the massacres of 1860, I might be wrong though. I actually meant to say that Shawam was used for inhabitants of Sham regardless of their religion.

I suggest take a look at this book as well if you're interested in this subject. Unfortunately there is no preview available of ot at Google books.--Rafy talk 15:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading some paragraphs of this article, it is apparent that this is a fair Ba'athist propaganda page, easily referenced to proper Syrian government website. How clear is that - "everyone is Syria is Syrian with an Arab culture" - a wet dream of the ruling party to impose such identity on all Syrians, however this is not really linked to the modern situation of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. It is not clear whether there will be a united Arab Syria in light of the civil war, but it is certain its unity is no more than this of Arab Iraq.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Najah Al-Attar.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Najah Al-Attar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Najah Al-Attar.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Jules jammal 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jules jammal 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jules jammal 2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should be excluded to modern Syria

According to the consensus reached at here, this article should also be excluded to include only citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic and their ancestors.--Rafy talk 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rafy, I find it very peculiar that you want to deny that there is any link between ancient and modern Syrians, and that you take these pov views, that are not based on any academic work, to the Iraqi and Syrian people articles, but not to the Syriac people page. The view that Syriacs are an ethnic group and that Syrians are not based on the fact that you said so, isn't acceptable here at all. Rafy, people can only be "ethnic" when they don't have a national homeland? Rafy please read the below definition I have cited from the Merriam Webster and try to be objective, because it would not be acceptable to use the flawed discussion (which I was not alerted about; surprise, surprise!) on the Iraqi page to be applied only on the Iraqi and Syrian people page and not applied to the Syriac people page. If we were to use that one discussion on the Iraqi peoples page to apply to all Wiki people articles, then this decision should be consistent throughout the board with no exceptions at all, including the Syriac people page. In our last discussion I thought I made reasonable points to show the subjective manner of what constitutes an ethnicity and the different characteristics of any ethnicity. I even provided you with an example of this, by referring to the Canadian government's listing of "Canadian" as an ethnicity on its official government census.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was reached unanimously, so I don't think your participation would have changed much. Back to our subject, modern Syrians are defined as nationals of the Syria Arab Republic, which is, just like most other post-colonial states, a multi-ethnic state and not a Nation state, this is similar to say: Nigeria, India etc. The vast majority of the Syrians identify with the Arab pan-ethnicity, there are also other sizeable ethnic minorities. I'm sure a simple google search will provide you with ample academic references to these facts.

Some people who historically identified as ethnically Syrians were Syriacs/Assyrians,([2][3][4][5][6]), other peoples identified as "Syrians" in a religious sense, i.e. Saint Thomas Christians.[7][8][9] It is thus ridiculous to claim that historical Syrians and modern Syrians, who only gained this name in the late 19th century[10] are the same people.

If you want this article to cover all those who were called Syrians throughout history then convert it to a DAB. Otherwise I believe that merging it with the demographics section as Funkmonk suggested makes more sense.--Rafy talk 17:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you knew what my view on this was so you intentionely not told me about and had I participated the decision would not have been unanimous and you know that. The assertion that Syria is not a nation state and that the majority suscribe to Arab nationalism is again, your pov that is not based on research.George Al-Shami (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, articles about non-ethnic groups such as this should be merged with the "demographics of" articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, check out the definition of "ethnic" according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". Notice it says "national".George Al-Shami (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How does that proves your point? Syrians belong to several ethnic, religious, tribal, linguistic groups. Last time I checked those groups were engaged in a civil war.--Rafy talk 17:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well if you read it once, slowly you might understand that their definition of "ethnic" relates to the nationals of a particular country; thus an ethnic group can be comprised of citizens of a country. Your second assertion demonstrates your scant knowledge of the recent events taking place in the Syrian Civil War. The war in Syria is not primarily or secondarily ethnic or religious in nature it is primarily political. You have Syrians from all walks of life fighting hand in hand against the forces of authoritarianism and vice-versa. I read a BBC article that quotes an FSA commander who maintains that if their struggle were sectarian they would have committed unspeakable crimes against people from the Alwaite community, but they haven't. The article even points out that Syrian Christians are helping the FSA.George Al-Shami (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, a long as we have this: Americans, it's hard to argue against this particular article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Imo Americans share a strong sense of common cultural identity consolidated by state and media support throughout hundreds of years. In Syria and most other ME Arab states on the other hand, states sought to imposed unity through uniform identification with Arab nationalism. Minorities usually vehemently embraced Arabness fearing an Ottoman-like Sunni domination.[11] Anyway, this is another subject, I don't mind keeping this articles unmerged for the time being.--Rafy talk 18:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Rafy, you think you own this article? I don't think you are capable of making a good-faith edit to this article. You haven't added anything of substance to this discussion and you ignore examples that I bring up because they counter your pov. You say that states sought to impose unity or nationalism on its citizens, well what do you have to say to the thousands of Syrians who fought against the Ottoman occupation during the first 2 decades of the 20th century? There was no Syrian government to speak of, which in your words sought to "impose unity". What about the 7 Syrian nationalists who were executed on May 6, 1916? What about the Great Syrian Revolt of 1925 that lasted until 1927, and was the longest armed revolt in any French occupied country? There was no Syrian government at the time which united Syrians from different religious backgrounds?From the very beginning, no matter what argument or examples I bring up, you are committed to spreading your pov, which contains doses of syriac nationalism, unfounded views of what constitutes an ethnicity and a unbending desire to twist the facts. For instance you keep arguing over and over that the majority of Syrians are "Pan-Arabists" by virtue of the fact that they speak Arabic, even though not one academic source has substantiated that. Would you say that Americans who speak English are ethnically English, by virtue of the fact that they speak English? How come you only take your unsourced views on ethnicity to the Iraqi and Syrian people pages? It seems that you wouldn't dare take these views to the other wiki articles, like the German people, Italian people, or Lebanese people articles, because you know that there are committed editors for those articles who won't bend to your pov.George Al-Shami (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Which of the references I provided contain "doses of Syriac nationalism"? There is a difference between Syria as a geographical location and Syrians as an ethnic group. I have provided tens of sources to support my claims, and would be glad if you rather check the sources written by academic experts and try come up with similar well references counter arguments instead of throwing accusations. The Germans and Italians articles describe well defined ethnic groups, and not per se the inhabitants of modern Germany and Italy, Syrians, Iraqis on the other hand are the opposite. A consensus have been reached regarding on Iraqi people and if you want to turn things around You may want to go back to WP:ANRFC again. P.S. you're right regarding Lebanese people.--Rafy talk 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's not that I have anything against Syrian nationalism or deny a Syrian identity, it just isn't ethnically defined. There is a common genetic heritage for many Syrians, but not all. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Extremely disappointed in Rafy and Funkmonk.. two editors I'd always had favourable views of. Shared sympathies with George.

The idea that all Arabic-speaking peoples from Mauritania to Oman are a single ethnic group with a solely Arabian descent and identity is incorrect and fascistic. Who decided that?

Italians are no more of an ethnic group than Iraqis; they're a mix of Lombards, Venetians, Tuscuns, Romans, Friulans, Neopolitans, Sardinians, Sicilians, and other subgroups, and the state of Italy is only 59 years older than the state of Iraq.

How come modern Syriac-speakers can include Akkadian-speakers in their ethnicity, but modern Iraqi Arabic-speakers can't include Akkadian or Aramaic-speakers in their ethnicity? despite the fact that historical Aramaic-speakers living in Arab Iraq or Babylonia referred to themselves as Iraqi in medieval literature?

How come Greeks can include Alexander of Macedon, a Macedonian-speaker, in their ethnicity? How come Italians can include Marco Polo, a 13th century Venetian, in their ethnicity? How come Persians can include Parthian-speakers in their ethnicity? How come Arabic-speaking Egyptians can be associated with extinct Egyptian-speaking Egyptians?

The double standards and ignorance here is absurd. The name 'Iraq' goes back to early Christian times and was used synonymously with 'Babil' (Babylon) throughout the medieval period. It precedes the Arabization of the region.

To restrict the 'Syrian people' article to covering only the citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic would be absolutely absurd, and there would be no point in having such an article. The same for restricting the 'Iraqi people' article to citizens of Iraq. It has nothing to do with citizenship. I do not have Iraqi citizenship and don't want it. So am I not Iraqi despite half my ancestry being from there?

You cannot force Arab identity on Iraqis and Syrians who have older identities.

I wasn't around when that spurious RfC took place. The handful of commenters haven't got a clue on the subject matter. Shocked at Rafy, whom I knew as an intelligent and mature person, to have acted like this. Adel (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Adel, To understand how ethnicities were "created" in the ME we should look at the political situation of the previous century. Ottoman society was composed of several Millets, the most powerful of those were obviously the Muslim (Sunni to be more precise). As the central state started to crumble, nationalism styled after those of Europe gained popularity and seek independence. The most influential of those nationalist movements in the ME was Arab nationalism, which sought to create an ethnic Arab state in the Hijaz, Syria and Iraq (see Arab Revolt). Despite failing in their ultimate goal of unifying the region, Arab nationalists were able to hold power in most of the kingdoms created with French and British support (Iraq, Syria, Jordan). Since then, most Arab speaking governments encouraged a policy advocating Arab nationalism and identification with a single Arab nation. This policy continued uninterrupted for almost 80 years in the case of Iraq (Qasim's 5 years rule did restrain certain Arab nationalist movements but he didn't necessarily seek to create an opposing ethnic identity). If you had attended any any publisc school in Baathist Iraq or Syria as I did you'll be very familiar with the concept "أمة عربية واحدة ذات رسالة خالدة" which you had to shout every single morning at school :).

Of course we have some "local" nationalist parties, most notably the SSNP. Their effect and role were however marginal at best.

The same story of state nationalism goes for Germans and Italy. They unlike the "Arabs" managed to create a unified state.

It is indeed problematic to include Ancient Assyrians figures in the Assyrians article for the reasons you mentioned. I am generally agnostic in their inclusion since their continuity is debatable. On the other hand I disagree with Alexander and Marco Polo. They spoke Macedonian and Venetian which are considered Hellenic and Italian languages respectively. Also, Persians include speakers of Parthians because there is a clear cultural continuity between the two.

You might not be a citizen of Iraq now but you certainly are the son of one :). The Arabs of Iran for example have close tribal ties to Iraqis but still don't consider themselves "ethnic Iraqis", same goes to Arabs in southern Turkey and Syrians.--Rafy talk 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Adel, no one in their right mind is suggesting that the alternative to local nationalisms, Arabism, is any way more "correct". I think it is less correct, but ethnicity works by self-identification as much as anything else. Some Iraqi and Syrian nationalists did base their ideas on shared ancient local heritage, but most Sunni Arabs at least don't really seemto care. I think a brief mention of pre-state history of these countries could be mentioned, but not too much. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rafy, I understand why you described some of the background to Arab 'ethnic' nationalism, but it's no different with most European 'ethnicities' in that they too had a relatively recent process of creation. So how come Italians are an 'ethnic group' despite being a mix of peoples who've only shared a country since 1861? How come Germans are an 'ethnic group' despite being a mix of peoples (Low Saxons, Bavarians, Swabians, Austrians, etc.) with a relatively short and plural state background?

Rafy, your understanding of Italy and Germany isn't correct. The 'Italians' didn't "manage to create" a unified state - there were no 'Italians' before Italy's genesis. What became Italy in 1861 consisted of several distinct groups speaking different languages (and still do today). These languages may have been within the 'Italic group' of languages (which is equivalent to other 'related groups' such as the Semitic group in AA or the Slavic group in IE) but they didn't constitute a single 'Italian language'. What became the 'Italian language' was just a regional dialect before Italy's founding.

The 'Germans' consisted of (and still do to some extent) different peoples with regional languages which are only, 'related languages', in the Germanic group. Their state history is relatively short and plural.

The 'Spaniards' are not an ethnic group. They consist of several distinct groups speaking different languages (Asturian, Galician, Castillian, Catalonian, Valencian, Andalucian, Basque), only related (excluding Basque) at the level that languages in the Semitic group (Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian) are.

The same thing is found in most medium-to-large sized European countries.

'Continuity' is debatable (and subjective) anywhere. You can't say Arabic-speaking Iraqis have no continuity with their related pre-Caliphate Aramaic-speaking Iraqis. The same for Arabic-speaking Syrians. You can't say they have no continuity with their related pre-Caliphate Aramaic-speaking Syrians. In Iraq and Syria, the majority of the population is descended from these Aramaic-speaking Iraqis and Syrians. This is not denied by anyone and is proven by genetic studies. Iraq and Syria were never depopulated by the Arabs and then colonized. Rather the Arabic language, as the official language during the Caliphate, marginalized Aramaic among the Muslim population, and in Syria some of Christian population too (and in Egypt all of the Christian population).

National ethnic identities do exist in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and other Arabic-speaking countries, and they long predate the formation of these states. It cannot be denied that this is the truth. Even Baathists had to accommodate these national/regional ethnic sentiments.

The majority of Arabic-speaking Iraqis do not just have an Arab ethnic identity, they have an ethnic identity which is Mesopotamian as well. The post-Sumerian Iraqis all spoke closely related Semitic languages (and the Sumerians were Semitized). Iraqi Arabic is related to Aramaic and Akkadian and Iraqis are descended from these people.

At least 80% of Arabic-speaking Iraqis are Shi'ah Muslims. A form of Islam which was born in Iraq in the earliest days of Islam. The Shi'ah region of Iraq is basically Babylonia. It corresponds with Babylonia or Sumer. As you'll know, Shi'ah Muslims are a minority in the Arab world, and thus Arab nationalism is antagonistic to Shi'ah Arabs.

The ethnic identity of Shi'ah Iraqis is distinct from Arab ethnic identity. People from Babylon Province and the other Shi'ah provinces call themselves Babylonians or Sumerians, often in an ethnic sense. Iraqi people have their own identity which has evolved since Babylonian times. I don't see why this should be suppressed on here. It's always Iraqis that get picked on of course. People are usually jealous of Iraqi heritage and seek to impose a false dichotomy between 'Iraq' and 'Mesopotamia' which doesn't exist.

As I said here, Iraqis are not either 'citizens of Iraq' or 'ethnic Arabs'. There is an ethnic side to Iraqi identity, and it has as much right to be presented as any other people.

Rafy, the Ancient Macedonian language, as spoken by Alexander of Macedon, was not Greek. Its classification is disputed but it is no more related to the Greek language than Aramaic is related to Iraqi Arabic. The Hellenic group of IE languages is equivalent to the Semitic group of AA languages.

Venetian, the language of Marco Polo, is neither Italian nor Latin. It is merely a related language in the 'Italic group' of IE languages - equivalent to the 'Semitic group' of AA languages.

I don't understand why you say there is "a clear cultural continuity" between ethnic Parthians and ethnic Persians which justifies Persians including Parthians in their ethnicity. They were rivals for one, and it's very dubious to say they had a "clear cultural continuity" (Parthians were Hellenicized unlike Persians). It's also very subjective to make that claim while ignoring the continuity between Arabic-speaking Iraqis and Aramaic-speaking Iraqis.

If the Arabic-speakers of the Karun valley and lowlands (Khuzestan) don't consider themselves Iraqis it's precisely because that region was historically Elam, and not Babylonia or Iraq. Adel (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, at least 80% of Arabic-speaking Iraqis are Shi'ah Muslims. The Sunni Arabs are a 15-20% minority in Iraq. As for their (mainly) Assyrian heritage, you are right that they "don't really seem to care", and are very much Arabized. But this isn't the case with the Shi'ah majority. It's just that foreign powers have always helped the Sunni Arabs to dominate Iraq, until recently.

Arab nationalism means little to Shi'ah Iraqis. Trust me. And I don't think it's just an accident that the region of Babylonia is Shi'ah. Especially considering that Shi'ism was born and nurtured in the cities surrounding Babylon (Hillah, Karbala, Najaf, Kufa) in the 7th century when the region was still mainly Aramaic-speaking or bilingual. Adel (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Adel you have raised too many excellent points, it is sad that despite the numerous examples that you provide the said editor is employing an illegitimate and non-substantive discussion to push his pov in the Syrian and Iraqi people pages. I strongly agree with your substantiated contentions and congratulate you in eloquently articulating this wicked form of hypocrisy that rears its head from one article to another in Wikipedia. None of Rafy's sources show or maintain that Iraqis or Syrians are any less of an ethnic group than Syriacs, Italians, or Germans are. What is very telling is Rafy's edits on the Syriac/chaldean people page. Before I added the ancient Syrians to this article there were no ancient Syriacs in the Syriac people page; if you look at the chronological edits of the Syrian and Syriac peoples pages you will see that Rafy copies the format for the Syriac infobox from another editor (Aziz1979) and then after viewing my edits on the Syrian people page he enthusiastically adds the ancient Syriacs to the Syriac article. I don't respect this type of behavior. When I have more time I will look into the rules concerning consensuses and see first if it can be used for other articles and whether it is legitimate. If this consensus holds than it has to apply to all people pages, and not just the ones that Syriac nationalist editors don't like. I'm starting to think that the said editor has some sort of hate towards the nations of Syria and Iraq and that this hate is coloring his academic judgment and preventing him from acknowledging the many similarities all ethnicities share. My voice has not been muted on this subject and I will continue to probe it further.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I am Iraqi and I feel close affinity with other Iraqis. The fact that I disagree of Iraqis (Or Syrians, Jordanians...) being an ethnicity doesn't mean that I hate them. Please lets stick to the subject and refrain from such personal attacks.--Rafy talk 09:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern nationalism in Europe and the ME didn't appear until the last two centuries, so if Venetians decided not to identify with Italians then we would've had a Venetian people page. Ahwaz Arabs and Shia Iraqis are actually the same people who speak the same dialect and belong to the same Arab tribes, they happen to live in the eastern site of Shatt al-Arab which was annexed by Iran. It would thus be absurd to suggest that those in Iran are Elamites while the Iraqis are Babylonians. Same Goes for Sunni tribes in the Syrian desert who are simply an extension of larger tribes in Arabia (Shammar, Jubur, etc.).

I guess that the best approach to solve this dispute is to resort to reliable references. I guess almost all of them show that around of Iraqis 75-80% are ethnically Arabs.[12][13][14][15][16] Same goes for Syria.[17]--Rafy talk 10:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Philip and the Arab and Zenobia.....

I feel these two should be in the mosaic, Philip the Arab, a native Syrian Arab who became Rome's emperor and then you have Zenobia, another Syrian of Arab-European origin. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I agree with you. George Al-Shami (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No because article covers modern usage.--Kathovo talk 15:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Give me a link to this "discussion" about ancient Arameans of Syria, or those of non-Arab heritage?12.180.225.130 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Previous section.--Kathovo talk 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If we assume that Kathovo is right, then the infobox of the Lebanese people article should be revised as well. For me, the term Syrian should not limited to the current Syrian state or the Arabs. The term Syria exists before the Arab invasion of the region. Even, many Syrian Muslims prefer to be labeled as Syrians rather than Arab Syrians.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OMG, the infobox of the Egyptians includes a dozen of ancient Egyptian rulers!!! Why the concept of "modern usage" should be applied only on the article of the Syrian people?--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PacificWarrior, George Al-Shami, & Zyzzzzzy, in the above comments that historical figures should be included in the Syrian infobox. I would urge caution however, from personal experience the suggestion of adding historical figures started a huge debate on the Palestinians article in the past when christian historical figures such as Jesus Christ, St. George, and others were proposed. Even if you have countless reliable sources you must be able to come to a consensus and there are many editors who would not like to include historical figures in certain articles on the basis of only using a "modern usage". Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The same reason why Prophet Muhammad isn't (and shouldn't) be considered Saudi so those people who inhabited the levant can't be called Syrian Jordanian, or Israeli, etc.

As a said earlier, imagine Syria grew powerful and annexed Turkey, should we start classifying Ottoman sultans as Syrians because they lived in what later became Syria?

Sure modern Egyptians have little or no continuity with the ancient ones, just as modern Italians have little continuity with Romans and Goths.--Kathovo talk 08:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Egyptians are unique because they had a large genetic influx & population turnover from the Levant/West Asia since the times of Ancient Egypt. Modern Italians do have ancestry from the ancient roman inhabitants, just as most ethnic groups have a significant amount of ancestry from their historic populations. Syrians are no different, like many people commonly called Arabs today, they are Arab by culture & linguistics, ethnically they may have highly variable degrees of actual Arabian ancestry, they predominately descend from the indigenous peoples of Syria who have absorbed different populations throughout history. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Zyzzzzzy, please don't change the infobox. The long-time consensus has been referring to Syrian people as those carrying modern Syrian citizenship, perhaps expanded to those of Mandatory Syrian period under French rule. Ottoman subjects doubtfully can be added here, and you are welcome to add them to Demographics of the Ottoman Empire or to Demographics of Ottoman Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

i think that the infobox is a mess for many reasons, first: the Syrian people wasn't born with the republic of Syria, yet its wrong to include Syrians of the antiquity, therefore the infobox can include persons who lived during the genesis of modern Syrian identity in the 19th century even if they didn't have a Syrian citizenship

second: Syria is going through a semi-civil war, this article is for all Syrians not the regime supporters or opponents, therefor the infobox shouldn't include Controversial figures like hafiz al-assad or asala nasri

the best approach is to include uncontroversial figures belonging to any era since the ideas of Syrian nationality started to appear whether they were ottoman or Syrian citizenship holders--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

new

Hello i have made a lot of edits which were referenced i put genetic studies and reliable books, i dont know if their is really a need for discussion, no one own the page, and when we have cited information's (specially genetic studies) we should put them, any way i appreciate any constructive contribution if its not based on nationalistic dreams and POV's--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, this page needs archiving. FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're putting too much weight on genetic studies, these were never a factor on how identities were formed, certainly not in the case of Syria which has been historically one of the most diverse places in the world. Anyway the references ([18][19]) you provide say nothing specific about the identity of the Syrians, even worse, it compares them to other modern states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the latter obviously claim no unique Jordanian or Saudi national identities. The root of the modern Syrian identity, as I mentioned earlier, is mainly a product of late 19th century western educated intelligentsia of Ottoman Syria. Again refer to this book for more insights.--Kathovo talk 10:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

long history isn't enough for you, historical facts isnt enough for you , and even genetic studies isnt enough for you !!! all what you want is to deny any relationship between current and old syrians, you claim syrians to be arabs but genetic studies prove that only 33 % are ethnically arab, i dont know what are you trying to do, you just want the world to believe that current levantine are not indigenous, any way do you suggest that we delet my edits ?? are they not true ??? i gave you 10 books and you gave me a book written by conspiracy theory believer, any way i didnt mention anything about the making of ethnicity, i only described how did the current syrian population born, and presented the genetic makeup, and a prove that current Syrians are connected to both arab and arameans not only arabs as you wish them to be, as for citation 19 : it give you the percentages of every haplogroup, read it carefully--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

the reference 18 clearly says the modern levantine are connected to older ones and that despite all the conquest, an older genetic marks were maintained, the genetics section doesnt have anything to do with identity, i didnt focus on the identity i only offered historical and genetic facts so that an outsider reader will understand the ethnogenises of syrian people, i clearly indicated the most syrian consider themselves arabs, the book you gave me is not the holy book of syrian identity--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

and again you are discussing something i didnt mention, i didnt declare a syrian ethnicity , i just gave a historical telling of the way modern syrians emerged and their genetic make up--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

and whats your problem with syrian identity?? whether its old or new, it exist and thats all whats matter ,i went to spain and they are different peoples who feels that every province is different yet their is a Spanish identity, any way , again i didnt mention the syrian identity, i explicitly mentioned that syrians are split in between aramean and arabic identity--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

ref 18 by Yana is a self published reference by a non-academic, I personally found many fake attributes in it. The whole identity section is filled with genetic analysis with no mention of the formation of the modern identity itself. Please don't take this personally, I appreciate your contributions to other articles and I have nothing personal against you or against Syrian people.--Kathovo talk 11:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

i wasnt talking about ref 18, i was talking about [20] which was posted by you on this page as 18, the ref ref 18 is about assyrians not being genetically arameans which is mentioned clearly in the assyrian article--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

i only used this work by YANA as a reference for genetic difference between arameans and assyrians which you obviously know since you are very active on assyrian topics, the rest of genetic studies are all academic, any way please tell me what do you disagree with because i didnt claim a syrian ethnicity which seems to upset you--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

and again i didnt mention the new modern syrian identity, i declared clearly that most syrians consider themselves arabs, the identity section is only two lines and mention nothing about the modern syrian identity--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

i have to go now, i hope none of my edits to be deleted without a discussion because i presented reliable sources to every thing, again i didnt make any false or ridicules claims, i didnt mention a syrian identity or modern ethnicity, although in the future im gonna do a section about the modern identity and how was it born after consulting with editor of the page for sure, as for my recent edits, they are all clear NPOV , they are referenced and doesn't suggest anything that isn't proven by science when it concerns with ethnicity ((and the ridicules claim that 90% of syrians are ETHNICALLY arabs or that modern so called arabs have nothing to do with older syrians)), or historic facts when its concerned with how the modern Syrian people was born, please dont delete without a discussion and unless you have a more reliable sources than the ones i presented or it will be counted as vandalism to delete a referenced fact, i will be back today maybe at midnight if any one is interested with further discussion--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rafy/Katahvo I find it very telling that you object to the genetic studies section on this article, however you don't make these objections on the Lebanese people article. I just checked your recent edits on the aforementioned article, and I saw that you made two edits that had nothing to do with the genetics section and you in fact made no objections in any shape or form to the said genetics section. To appear impartial, one who believes a certain viewpoint would make their argument across the board and not single out certain articles (This article and the Iraqi people article) that are inconvenient truths for their POV (in your case, assyrian nationalism). You can continue to claim that you have nothing against the Syrian or Iraqi people and that you are Iraqi yourself, however your edits speak louder than your words. Forgive me for talking about your character or your true intentions for the article, but an obvious pattern (your edits) has been drawn by you over the years.George Al-Shami (talk)

genetic studies speak the loudest about ethnicity, genes has nothing to do with identity, but they do when it comes to ethnicity, the genetic section debunk all the dreams some nationalists have that the syrian people are foreigners arabs who invaded the levant, therefore the section genetic is very important in the face of the the claim that 90% of the syrian people are ethnic arabs while genes proves that the percentage is only 33% in general, + every people article includes genetic studies if they exist and the syrian article is not going to be an exception--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:ADHOM, let's keep the discussion focused on the article's subject and not my editing behaviour. starting from the first sentenceof the recently added ethogenisis section: "The modern Syrian people is linked to the ancient Semitic people of antiquity in modern day Syria mainly the Arameans and Phoenicians", how is this supported by the attributed source? Where in the second reference is there a mention of: " the majority of the Syrian people who refer to themselves as Arabs are the result of mixing between the indigenous tribes and the Arabs who entered Syria in the Classical antiquity"? The rest just follows suit. I'm not contesting the accuracy of these statements, but each claim should be based of facts, and not WP:SYNTH if good faith assumed.--Kathovo talk 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

for attributed source i quote from this source : ((while each population shows evidence of connections with expansions that now define the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, many of the populations in the Middle East show distinctive mtDNA and Y-haplogroup characteristics that indicate long standing settlement with relatively little impact from and movement into other populations.))

this is obviously a statement clarifying that modern levantine are older levantines who got mixed, and since the majority of the inhabitants of syria were aramean and Phoenician then i wrote nothing wrong

next you have the 33% j1 (which is the arabic gene specially the j1e) and that's mean that the syrians are not ethnically arabs and since they didnt fall from the sky then they most be related to older syrians

as for second reference, since its clear that only 33% hold the j1 then its obvious that the modern syria who call themselves arabs are the result of mixing unless you think that the syrians are the same as Yemenis!! and i used this source to prove that the ancient levantine population was affected by arabs, which is suitable for your views that the modern syrian are not the same as the older ones, i used this source to support arabian gene influx into syria not to prove that syrians are connected to arameans, the connection thing is cited by another sources

are you ever going to stop from trying to deny the connection between modern and ancient syrians ??? face it not only assyrians are indigenous--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

in previous discussion you shuted up every one when you said that the conflict will be resolved by refrences, now when we have refrences and genetic studies you try to doubt them , what are you trying to do, is it your goal to make outsider readers believe that modern syrians have nothing to do with the past and they all came from the arabian desert !! its time to stop this behavior, in the past you objected on the term ethnicity and identity and now when we didnt even mention old ethnicity and identity you still try to argue

what is your argument , what do you want?? you want the article to be only about cuisine language and religion, you dont want any one to know how the modern syrians were born, why.. please lets not take months on this discussion, tell us what you want --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

and since (according to you) each claim should be based of facts, and not WP:SYNTH if good faith assumed, then i can delete aramean and Phoenicians and replace them with the phrase : old levantines but then people will think that those old peoples includes the amorites and luwians and hurrians .... etc which will give the syrian people much more ancient prestige which will make you upset , and what about the books i putted as references in the ethnogenesis section , they mention that the old population (the aramean one) was arabised and islamised (and is their other indigenous people who formed the majority beside the arameans before the islamic conquest?? please if their is i would like to know).. so you see in the end , the mentioning of arameans isn't just a WP:SYNTH because even though the word aramean isnt mention in the genetic analysis , it is mentioned in the historical books that i cited--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

by the way : two references are added next to the word arameans , the second one Structure of the Y-chromosomal specifically mention the arameans as the people who lived in syria and i quote from it : ((The haplogroup frequency for J1 peaked in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen, UAE, and Kuwait) and decreased beyond the Middle-East and North Africa (Fig. 2A). J1 frequencies in Syria, Akka and Jordan were more comparable to Lebanon than to the remaining Arabic countries (58.3% in Qatar and 72.5% in Yemen; Fig. 2G).)) and the same article mention that modern lebaneses are connected to older lebanese and the same goes to syrians who were explicitly mentioned in the quotation as being close to lebanese not yemenies,,,, any way if you are not convinced just read the historical books that mentions that the original population was aramean and they were arabised and islamised and mixed with arabs, i offered a lot of books that you can read they are available for free and i even indicated the pages number,, why all of us must convince you ???? please bring us refrences to support your claims whatever they are or stop doubting historical facts and genetic studies--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

any way to stop all this, i added three new sources that explicitly mentions the arameans as the population of syria when the arabs came and declare that they have been arabised, islamised and assimilated, and that the modern population of syria is descendent of the old one, i hope you can move to other point of doubting and questioning--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

this book by Margaret K. Nydell (a visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University) mention clearly that the modern population of syria is descendent of the old one http://books.google.nl/books?id=i46Brt0bFucC&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q&f=false

this one by michael haag (writer and historian His books are published by Yale University Press, Profile Books, Harper Collins, The American University in Cairo Press) and mention (in page 65) that the arab found the Aramaic civilization in syria when they conquered it + that those indigenous were arabised and islamised (in page 58) http://books.google.nl/books?id=oIdK623wy0UC&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false

this book by John Joseph (academic) ( Assyrian-American educator and historian, taught history of the Middle East in Franklin & Marshall College (F&M) in Lancaster, Pennsylvania from 1961 to 1988. it mentions that the arameans were arabised and melted with arabs http://books.google.nl/books?id=79wj2hj4wKUC&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

this link is a link to the university website that confirm DR john Joseph is an academic and professor http://www.fandm.edu/josephcenter

the last thing : those sources agrees with the results of genetic studies (that connect modern syrians to both arabs and old syrians) therefore this discussion should be put to an end--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You still read too much into these sources. You are basically saying that Syrians constitute a unified ethno-cultural group that traces its origin to ancient Arameans and Phoenicians. OK, what makes Sunni Arabs from Daraa intrinsically different from Jordanian of Irbid? Why do the Alawites of Latakia share a stronger common genetic link with Sunni Arabs from Homs than with their co-religionists in Antakia? Back to references, This one is self-published introductory level popularised history of the Arab world, it still talks of "leventines" and not Syrians. Haag mentions that the lingua franca changed from Aramaic to Arabic, why don't you go a step back and claim that Syrians are Hittites since that language was the lingua franca of 10 century B.C. Syria? people change identity all the time. In fact John Joseph states nicely that the Arabisation and Islamisation of the Arameans caused them to "disappear".--Kathovo talk 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

disappear by arabisarion and islamisation means what to you ?? did they evaporate ??? i think arabisation is an understood concept and doesnt need citations, since i didnt mention in the article that syrians constitute an ethnicity and only mentioned exactly what the sources confirm then we have nothing to talk about, the sources confirm that they are connected to older populations including arameans , this is what you asked me to reference, now do you have other points because i want to start a section about modern Syrian identity and i cant do that before ending up this conversation--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

and stop doubting every thing This one is made by an academic professor she knows better than you, i quote her : the levantine people in lebanon syria and palestine... what do you think she means by levantine, she is definitly not talking about chinese people, as for haag , an aramaic civilization that the arabs found means exactly arameans, again you have nothing but questioning you are getting desperate , a lot of sourced clarify that syrians are connected to arameans and arabs not just the arab , i cited every thing so for the last time what do you want and do you have proof to get it??--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve this conflict alone, if you don't mind I'll WP:RFC on this section.--Kathovo talk 11:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

what do you want ??? you want to deny any relation between syrians and older ones, ok lets say you got that , what do you want to delete??--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

what would be your question on WP:RFC, every thing i mentioned is referenced, what would be your arguments?? the article doesnt mention any syrian ethnicity so what will you ask for? --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

fine lets do WP:RFC --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

genetics

You are a making a mess of the page. Again, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal; there is absolutely no need for all this genetic information you are adding to the article. It does not improve the article and is only making it messier and less attractive. Identity is also not formed by genetics -- it is a sociological concept. Perhaps a few sentences on genetics that you added would suffice. All the other stuff is fluff and unnecessary. I'd recommend someone clean up this article ASAP.

I disagree penguin53, expanding the article to explain the Syrian people's origins is beneficial for the reader and does not in any way constitute "making a mess".George Al-Shami (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

i suppose you are penguin, have you seen this article before? it wasn't messy it only spoke about cuisine and language and the syrian people is more than food and music !!! any way, please read all other articles about peoples such as the french people, the lebanese people and even the iraqi people, it all have genetics and much more in size than this article,, genetic section is of extra importance for this page, its the only way to prove that the modern syrians are not just ethnic arabs and are in fact connected to old syrians and arabs not just arabs, its well cited with academic works so it must stay--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

George: not only is the information based on assumptions and inferences from sources, but the grammar is so wrong to the point of making the article unreadable. In some cases, there are glaring mistakes, such as the focus on genetics in an article that should be primarily focused on culture, not genetics, of the modern-day, majority Syrian Arabs. Attar: This page should have no more than a paragraph on genetics. The studies you are citing are also solely from one POV. The Syrian people are mostly Arabs, with Kurdish, Armenian, and Assyrian minority groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

your words are your POV you cant contradict genetic studies please read them carefully , they are done and published by genetic researchers not by normal people, the ethnic arabs of syria is only your POV and genetic studies debunk that you said the the studies are solely from one POV !!! what POV in science ??? ornella semino is an Italian professor and she discovered that 33% of syrians are ethnic arabs , their is no POV in science, on other hand : if you think the grammar is bad feel free to fix it without deleting sourced information and their was no assumption in the information, every thing is referenced just take a little time and read the references--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Penguins53 if there are grammar mistakes, then please point them out so I could correct them or please correct them yourself. We have already discussed this 90% Arab ethnicity business and I have already pointed out the folly of naming or referring to a people's ethnicity solely on the language they speak. The language the people speak does not give you the full picture with regards to their ethnic and historical origins. For instance would you call Americans "English" by virtue of the language they speak. Are indigenous Bolivians Spanish because of the language they speak? Also please check the earlier comments I made on the political nature of the "Arab" designation and please check out the article on Arab nationalism.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

George, it comes down to what people identify themselves as. Most citizens of Syria identify themselves as Arabs -- is this not true? Then there are the minority groups, of which are mostly Kurdish, Armenian, and Assyrian/Syriac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

thats true , most syrians identify as arabs and i mentioned that clearly in the identity section, but what if syrians identified themselves as pure ethnic arameans ,does it make sense to call them arameans ?? for sure no--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this "Aramean" thing. Sure, they, along with the Phoenicians, were ancient peoples who lived in Syria, but to say that the majority modern day "Syrians" are Arameans or Phoenicians is ludicrous. Just because modern-day "Syrians" descend from a bunch of indigienous peoples doesn't mean they ARE those people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

penguin read my words, i said exactly what you said, for sure the modern syrian people are not pure arameans or Phoenicians--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Penguins53 we've already discussed this before, there is no reliable scholarly reference that maintains that the majority of Syrians identify themselves as "Arab". A while ago you accused another editor of making inferences, but by stating the majority of Syrians identify as "Arabs", aren't you making inferences yourself? How do you know that the majority of Syrian citizens identify as "Arabs"?. Identity and ethnicity are not necessarily one and the same, they could be diametrically at odds with each other. In his seminal work, the Lebanese scholar Philip Hitti, maintains that Damascenes are mostly from two main ethnic groups, Canaanites and Phoenicians. With regards to your assertion that there is absolutely no connection between ancient Syrians and modern Syrians, have you forgotten that the Arabic colloquial language in Syria is saturated with Aramean and Phoenician words. More than half the names of the months in Syria are definitely not Arabic. The name for September -أيلول- is definitely not Arabic. The formal Arabic word for garden is حديقة , however Syrians use the colloquial word جنينه , when they're not in a formal setting. The large number of Phoenician and Aramean words used by Syrians today is a living connection to ancient Syria. Lastly please sign your comments by adding 4 tildes ~. George Al-Shami (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Which Syrians, other than Kurds, Syriacs, Armenians, etc. identify as other than Arab? I can only think of some SSNP types that would identify with pre-Islamic Levantines. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

i do but forget about me, our topic isnt about identity, the identity section is only 2 lines and mentions clearly that modern syrians identify as arabs, the ethnogenesis and genetic sections doesnt mention anything about identity, they only tell the way modern syrians emerged and give the genetic make up of those syrians --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

two questions :

1- modern genetic studies proved that the modern syrian people isnt ethnically arab and is connected to older populations of syria therefore should their be a section that explain how did this people emerged or not

2- its known that syria was inhabited by arameans before the arab conquest, should the arameans be mentioned as one of the people connected to modern syrian people--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, in the light of new genetic studies and historic facts about the arabisation of the old people of Syria, i added a section called Ethnogenesis that doesn't claim a Syrian ethnicity, it is simply a historic telling of the proses, its all referenced with reliable sources (more than ten), however an editor doesn't agree yet he didn't present any proofs to contradict the section, please help us find an understanding, are we going to throw all the genetic studies and the books written by historians, is it really appropriate to ignore reliable references ?? and if someone wanted to know how did the modern Syrian people emerged since they are not ethnically pure Arabs, shouldn't he/she find the answer here?? i ask for this page to be like the Lebanese people page nothing more since the genetic studies declared that the Lebanese and Syrian people are closest to each others, my opinion can be found here #new , sources to support my claims: old levantine, arameans arabisation, only 33% of Syrians hold the Arabic gene J1 --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't contest the fact that some Syrians are descendants of arabised Arameans, those in turn were aramised Hettites, etc... You can see where this is going.

What I contest is the WP:SYNTH present in many sources. Other sources like Yana's are self-published by non-academics.--Kathovo talk 12:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

the yana thing can be deleted , but the Assyrian people article clarify the ethnic difference between arameans and assyrians, can you please share with us the sentences that you want to change--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the Assyrians people article is really messed up, I wanted to clean it up a long time ago but I didn't know how to start. Anyway I see much was changed since last night, perhaps not the most adequate references has been used. I will propose some moderate changes.--Kathovo talk 13:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

well why couldn't you be nicer and ask for specific stuffs instead of going in the endless debate about ethnicity which wasn't mentioned, i think you know that the syrian people isnt just arabic and should have an article that explain how was it formed, the article shouldn't only be about cuisine and religion, can we cooperate ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, isn't that what Wikipedia is about. BTW don't take criticism too personally, it certainly wasn't meant that way.--Kathovo talk 13:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• What is the point here? "1" is wrong, because there are many Syrians with actual Arab ancestry, including Christian descendants of the Ghassanids, not to mention the many Syrian Bedouins and their sedentary descendants, who are pretty much just Arab. Others have at least some Arab ancestry. "2" Yes, Syrians are an amalgam of different ancient peoples, but no one self identify as these anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

for (1) whats wrong? , we cant refute genetic studies, they do show that syrians have arab genes and non arab genes, the arab admixture of Syrians is not denied at all, but the question is : should their be an explanation of how exactly the modern Syrian population emerged?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

1 is wrong because you did not mention Arab ancestry, as well as many descendants of (pre-Islamic) Arabs in South and Eastern Syria. You can write that there is genetic proof of Syrians being of mainly Levantine, and not South Arabian origin, but that is pretty much all. Mixing genetics with ethnic labels doesn't work here, because there are no uniquely Phoenician, Hittite, Aramean, etc., genes. "Arab" in this context pretty much just refers to people from the peninsula, not one ethnicity, certainly not the modern one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

actually the article focus a lot on arab ancestry and explain all about the pre conquest and post conquest mixing with arab, it also clarify that muslims have more arabic gene influx than christians, the arabic gene is known, its j1e, and 33% of syrians have it, the ethnogenesis section speaks a lot about arabs and their effect--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Arab gene" makes little sense when we talk about ethnicity. The ancient people with these genes would hardly identify as what we today call "Arabs". It is more of a geographic designation, referring to the population of the Southern Arabian peninsula. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

this gene is mentioned to stop the claims that syrians are modern arabs in the new sense of the word, should the article explain the formation of the current inhabitants of syria or just leave it to guess?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article should only state what the scientific sources specifically state, nothing more. No one knows exactly how their present genetic make up was "formed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

yes the genetic section only mention what scientific sources specifically state, but the question is about the section ethnogenesis which is a historical telling of the Arabian conquest and the arabisation process supported by books written by academic historians, is that section ok ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.