Talk:Syrians/Archive 4

Nation or ethnic group?

At times, this page feels as if it covers the people of Syria in general rather than the majority ethnic group of the country. As such population estimates listed on the page (such as in Turkey and Syria) are not ethnic-based but according to citizenship. I believe it could be better to turn this page into one about the Syrian nation, because otherwise, we would need to remove a lot of information in order to be precise. In Syria, there is also the problem of the unclear line between being Arab among Christian Semitic-speaking communities. This includes Jews as well. Ayıntaplı (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

a page for the citizens of syria exist and named demographics of syria. If its only the estimates that makes this page cover all the inhabitants then this should be somehow fixed, but other than that the scope of this page is very clear and I cant see the info that needto be removed. If this turn to cover all of syria, then it would become very inaccurate. Kurds for example do not share the ethnogensis story, and the genetic studies do not cover the Armenians or Turkmen, and then these studies would have to go. Each ethnic minority in Syria has its own article and there is no justification why the majority shouldnt. This page does not claim that the Syriac speaking Christians identiy as Arab but it is inevitable to mention them in the ethnogensis section because they are a part of the historical process.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The article appears to have a specific agenda and may be written with a manipulative bias, aimed at influencing the opinions or beliefs of a particular group of readers. The language used suggests a targeted approach, which could potentially exclude or mislead certain audiences, especially those who are not familiar with Syrian culture or history." Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs. It should be noted that some members of this community reject the dominant identity of a country. This information may be relevant to consider when evaluating the potential biases or perspectives present in the article." "The essay should be written in a manner that is inclusive of all Syrians from various ethnic backgrounds, determined by language and culture. Similar to the example set by the article of Iraqis, it is important to recognize that some individuals, such as my Kurdish, Turkmen, and other friends, identify as Syrians despite their unique ethnic backgrounds. By acknowledging and representing the diversity within Syrian society, the essay can provide a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the country's rich cultural landscape." To achieve this, writers can present facts and evidence in a neutral way, without attempting to persuade the reader in any particular direction. They can also make use of multiple sources to ensure a balanced perspective, and strive to represent all viewpoints fairly. Ultimately, the goal should be to inform and educate the reader, rather than influence their opinions or beliefs in a particular direction. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I intend to revise the article to ensure that it accurately portrays Syrians as a nationality and reflects their unique characteristics as a people. Rather than presenting research and conclusions that attempt to create a notion of a Syrian ethnicity, I aim to describe the diverse and complex nature of Syrian culture and identity.Sarah SchneiderCH (talk)

The two contributers you are referring to are me and George. None of us is Aramean Syriac. Despite my username I come from a muslim family. The scope of this article is Syrian Arabs. The nationality of Syria is represented in the Demographics of Syria article. The informations are all sourced and no user interpretations are written. Thats why your arguments about this page are not correct. Syrian Kurds have an article. Syrian Armenians, Turkmen... etc all have an article. Syrian Arabs are no different and this is the article that represent them. If the word "Syrians" is what bother you then you can ask for a rename of this page to Syrian Arabs for example, but you cant decide to revise the content and scope on your own without concensus.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The definition of the word "Syrian" in dictionaries is generally that of a person or thing related to Syria. Regarding the use of the term " Syrian Arabs," "I completely refuse because it is known to most of the world that Syrians are Arabs". SO is important to recognize that while Arabic speakers may be the majority in Syria, there are also many other linguistic and cultural groups within the country. Therefore, it would be more accurate and inclusive to use the term "Syrian" to refer to all people of Syria, regardless of their linguistic and cultural background. This way, the term "Syrian" can represent the diverse population of the country as a whole.

• A section can be created explaining briefly who are the Arabic-speaking Syrians along with other Arabic speakers.
• An article can be created about genes and I will work on it to include all Syrian groups, with a section in the article that briefly explains
• With a facilities section for Arabic-speaking Syrians.
• Remove original research.Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You completely refuse? Well, thats up to you. It doesnt have any affect on this very good written aricle. So continue refusing, but start with the articles Italians, Germans, Dutch, because they too have ethnic minortities. Change their scope and let us see the reaction and quick reversions of your edits. Just like you accept Syrian Kurds you will accept Syrian Arabs. Again, not every things needs to be inclusive. Why dont you change thr article Kurds in Syria to talk about all other groups in the country? Its just about the Arabic speakers right? They shouldnt have an article because "inclusivity". There is no original resesrch. Whether you like it or not, yes, Syrians is mostly understood to mean the Arabic speakers. Germans are an ethnic group and a nationality but I dont see you trying to erase them and turn the Germans article into something that covers German Turks. I still dont understand what you are trying to achieve here. This article is written to the highest standards and there isnt much for you to do ecxept trying to do what you, assuming bad faith of the other editors as if you are the saviour who discovered a concpiracy, accused others of doing. How dare you writing that we wrote this article to push an agenda? Learn some wiki etiquette Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You will find it very difficult to revise this article as every info is cited to a reputable academic source. AGAIN, there is no original research here for you to revise and your edits will be reverted if you decide to turn this into an article about the citizens of Syria denying that the majority Syrians are the people referred to as such in most academic sources. Hence, if you try to revise as you see fit, you will simply be reverted. Better that you use the talk page to get consensus to any change you want because it seems that it is you who is trying to write this article to serve an agenda. Your whole aggressive condescending approach, coming here and talk as if you have authority and accousing us of bad faith and with so much trust proclaiming that after "investigation" (a faild one) you found out that we are Syriac Arameans with agendas indicating that you are not good at investigations (I mean come on... its just hilarious what you wrote thay after "investigation you found out we are Syriacs with agenda- obviously investigations are not a strong point of yours) was simply a very wrong first impression which will lead to your edits being simply reverted if they go against the extremely good academic neutral sources used in this article. It is not up to you to change the scope of the article. Your ideas are simply rejected. Again, you are not gonna change or revise anything in this article because you simply have an agenda. This article is about the majority ethnic group of Syria, just like the minorities have their own article. You have no good reason to chage anything aside from that Syrian is also a nationality that includes other minorities such as the Kurds (they have an article), Armenians (they also do) ...etc. So why do you think the Syrian Arabs shouldnt have an article? Im telling you in advance, every edit you make based on your agenda will be reverted as long as you cant get a concensus for it here on the talk page and as long as you dont have better academic sources to back up whatever agenda you are trying to push. One last thing, begin with the article of Lebanses. There is nothing mentioned there aside from them being an ethnic coheret group. Again for the tenth time: the scope of this article is the ethnogensis and genetics of Syrian Arabic speakers. You will not change that because you see it fit. Just like the Kurds in Syria have their own article.-Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that you started using threatening that your response stems from anger and throws at me meaningless words. "I want to clarify that when I expressed my disapproval of the term, it was merely my opinion, and I provided reasons for it. In the article, the Armenians and Syriacs are mentioned alongside the Arabs, who are portrayed as intruders. Although the Arab presence in Syria predates Islam, it is not truly mentioned in the article (Qedarites, Palmyrene Empire (A detailed explanation of the existence of the Arabs and personalities such as Zenobia), Itureans, Osroene, Beth Arabaye). The term 'Arabization' implies that all Syrian Arabs are being Arabized, which raises the question of how to distinguish between those who are already Arabs and those who are becoming Arabized. Furthermore, the title 'Syrian Arabs' appears contradictory to the content of the article, which indicates that the Syrian population is a multi-ethnic of Armenians, Assyrians, and later Arabs.

The mother tongue of most Syrians is Levantine Arabic, which came to replace the former mother tongue, Aramaic, following the Muslim conquest of the Levant in the 7th century. (For instance, in ancient Egypt, people spoke various languages over time, including Greek, Coptic, Ioannina, and Romanian. With the emergence of Islam, the classical Arabic language evolved into an Egyptian dialect that encompasses various sub-dialects such as Saidi.) It would suggest that the Arab presence and the word Arab are from this century, especially since the majority of readers only read the led, so it is very important to list it in a better way.

Germans are the natives or inhabitants of Germany, and sometimes more broadly any people who are of German descent or native speakers of the German language) Note: Language plays a role in defining ethnicity and is essential for any ethnicity. The constitution of Germany defines a German as a German citizen.

The term "Eastern Mediterranean" is not commonly used to describe an ethnic group, and ethnos are often defined in terms of shared culture, language, and other characteristics. In this article, the group is described as sharing "Levantine Semitic roots," which is an outdated term. I am not against Syrians having an article, but not in this manner. I see it possible to combine nationality and one group. like French people (Modern French society is a melting pot. From the middle of the 19th century, it experienced a high rate of inward migration, mainly consisting of Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Arab-Berbers, Jews, Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese... Keep the article as it is, with some changes that I will refer to later, and try to focus on the presence of the Aramean, Assyrian and the Arab in a fair way). Finally, try to be calm in the discussion without emotion until we reach a conclusion.Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I am calm. I just believe in suitable reaction to an action. You began your whole discussion in an ill manner: "The article appears to have a specific agenda and may be written with a manipulative bias" + "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs". Where did you get this from? You began by attacking me personally without reading the article apparently (only the lead).

Now, Ill start over, and will assume a good faith on your side. No one rejects the current identity of the country which is Arab. However, any blind person realize that a Syrian Arab and a Yemeni Arab are not the same. Also, as someone with double nationalities, I am Dutch, but specifically Syrian. You cannot go to the Dutch people article and include the history of the Syrians just because Im part of the Dutch. The best you can do is having a section to cover the meaning of the legal term: Dutch (i.e. what is Dutch based on the constitution = all citizens).

Now: Arabs are not portraited as intruders, but as an ethnic group whose origin was researched by specialists and the results of this research is in the article. Go to the section "History" and read in the second paragraph: The presence of Arabs in Syria is recorded since the 9th century BC. What follows is a long discussion of the different scholarly opinions and theories regarding the urheimat of the Arabs which could have been in natural Syria (Bilad al Sham). So how exactly are the Arabs portrayed as intruders? Should I go against what academia say?

Another point, Assyrians are not even mentioned here. If the word Arabization antagonize you, then thats unfortunate but inevitable. Before the Abbasids, the historic epigraphical evidence show Greek and Aramaic. You seem to think the Palmyrenes were Arabs, but here you are straying from the latest research which you can read in the article of ethnicity of Palmyra. So, Arabization is used in this article to indicate a linguistic shift, not that Syrians became Arabs after the 7th century. In reality, some Syrians were Arabs since the 7th century BC and this article make that clear. However, the majority of Syrians became Arabs (in language and identity) after the 8th century AD, which is what the academic consensus indicate. And, no, you cant distinguish between who was Arab before the Islamic conquest and after, just like you cant distinguish between who was German before the German expansion to the east in the middle ages and who was Slav.

The way I see it, you are not really aware of all this research and maybe a bit emotional regarding the changes you want to make. I will again say this: this article has a scope which is the majority ethnic group of the country Syria. This group lives in the eastern mediterranean (a geographic designation, nothing wrong with that right?) and speak Arabic. This group has a history and came to exist as a result of different populations that merged together. This article make this very clear. I will assume that you are aware of that (that all ethnicities are a result of a mergence between different populations and Syrian Arabs are not really a pure stock of Peninsular tribes--- However, reading what you wrote, I get the impression that you dont. It seems that it bother you that Syrian Arabs are not a pure tribe of Arabs from Arabia. Plus point is: you wrote that language is important for ethnicities, which is what the Levantine Arabic do for the Arabs of syria who are a mix of different populations as history shows) If you want to talk about the legal term of what it is to be a Syrian, then this article Demographics of Syria is the place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I saw your words a while ago, but I did not answer, because when I saw your words, it was unscientific or logical, and it was just speculation. My topic from the beginning was about the inclusion of all ethnic groups in Syria, and that this name describes those who were born in Syria, but I will answer your question about "resemblance". I am not bothered by his Arabization at all, but the article wants to send a specific message to the reader. The Arabs themselves are Arabized. They are called Arabized Arabs by Ishmael, the father of Arabs. You should know that I am of Levantine origin and I know its people very well, I know how the Shami (They have very white skin) and Halabi. Two Syrian girls and take a look at the Syrian refugees who are supposed to come from all regions of Syria, when you say that the Syrians are different from the Arabs of the Peninsula. You say it between you and friends, its place is not here or with science. There is no pure people at all, whether it is a Syrian race, an Arab race, or any other race, this thing has been outdated by time. The Arabs of the Gulf themselves are completely different from each other, even the Saudis themselves and the Yemenis.

I noticed that you deal with articles related to Syria like the S.W.A.T. Words are directed that if any modification occurs, it will be retrieved, and this is completely consistent with Wikipedia's policy. Therefore, I will return to the article as it was before your additions and take updates from the current version in accordance with the definition of "Syrian" AND to avoid edit warring

• A proposal will be created for the rest of the Wikipedia community to vote on.
• This conversation will be archived, but it will definitely be put in the proposal box for others to see.
• It will be presented to the dispute resolution requests.

Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Ishmael" and science? Did you just use these two words together? Are you sure science is your playground? Unlike you, I am actually an academic in history which is what this article largely is about. Do what you want as long as you have academic sources that support anything you wanna add or contradict anything you wanna remove. (Ofcourse your sources need to be of higher quality). Btw, Wiki is not a democracy. You first need to exhaust all ways of consensus building on the talk page before going to a dispute resolution or you will be shown the door out very quickly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, please let us pause here and let other editors judge, and I will need some time because I am busy but I will try to make it a compatible article. Greetings Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you do, the mjority Arabic speaking group of Syria will need its own article just like the Kurds and Turkmen and Armenians. If you add all these to this article, we will simply create another article called Syrian Arabs with the info from this article which simply document the history and genetics of Syrian Arabs. What you want to achieve here is already covered in the Demographics of Syria article. And yes, greetings. Would have been nice if you made your entrance to this talk page with this spirit instead of: "after investigation it turned out the contributors are Aramean Syriacs with agenda".Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I owe you an apology but you've attacked me enough. Arabic-speaking Syrians will be sufficiently mentioned, with an explanation of the "Syrian" term :). Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I apologize as well. Being mentioned isnt enoguh though. They will have their own article like the rest or this article will be simply renamed to become Syrian Arabs. Anyway, we will see your suggestions and if they are applicable (just like everything work in Wiki = consensus with the backup of reliable sources).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Priority changes

I have made these initial edits in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, as described in the description. I have focused on making basic changes to narrow down the scope, as there will be additional edits in the future. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You've done good. Changing the scope (if it is your plan) will require prior discussion though. You've added language among Kurds, and added Armenian...etc This means you want to change the scope. How is this article different from that of the Lebanese people? There, the scope is the Lebanese Arabs (though many of them think he is Phoenician ...etc) despite "Lebanese" not being an ethnicity and generally referring to the Arabic speakers. "Syrian" is no different, and again, all the ethnic minorities in Syria have their own articles. I cant see how it is justified to change the scope of this article (maybe first change the article on the Lebanese as this article is based on it). I removed the languages of the minorities until a consensus is reached here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You should not talk to me on the basis that I have Lebanese roots or start comparing this and that. Well, Lebanese in general speak Arabic for example those in the diaspora are all considered Arabs because Lebanon is not linguistically diverse, Armenians (156,000), they have a country of origin and their own culture. There is no proof in their article that they are ethnic but citizens with their religions and reli sects. There is no Phoenician language, Phoenician culture, or any link present so this is not taken into consideration.

Infobox: The sources refers to all Syrians, even in news and others. They refer to all Syrians from all their cultural backgrounds, Eg: People fled Syria towards Europe. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sarah , I do not want to antagonize you. I did not mention Lebanon because you have Lebanese origins but because this article is based originally on how I found the Lebanese people article. Anyway, its time that we only let academic sources decide. This article cannot be expanded to include all minorities because "Syrian" is mainly for the Arabic speakers and only in a legal sense doe it include the Armenians and Kurds ....etc just like Dutch includes me (Im a Dutch citizen). Therefore, I did what Ive been postponing for a long time, and brought the necessary research that explains what Syrian mean, and what the origins of the usage of this designation are. It was created in the Levant, by the Arabic speakers, for the Arabic speakers. It is the national name of the modern Arabic speakers of Syria and it is a result of a long cultural and political process. If you have any academic sources to suggest otherwise, I'll be happy to inspect them. First though, please check the fully annotated new paragraph explaining why "Syrian" is synonymous with the Arabic speakers. As for your sources, sure, but again, they are using the term in its legal sense, which is the only occasion where Kurds and Armenians and other minorities are "Syrians". If a war happen in the Netherlands, I will be reported as a Dutch refugee regardless of my ethnic origins. We will not change the article of the Dutch to reflect that Arabic, Turkish and Kurdish are all widely spoken by sizeable minorities. I think, judging by the numbers of Syrians in modern journalism which does not differentiate ethnic origins, we can simply say that we have no clear idea about the numbers of Syrian Arabs, just Syrian nationals. This however does not justify diluting the Syrian Arabs article to include everyone. That is why we have the Demographics of Syria article for.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"I included the Kurds and other groups in the 'languages' section to ensure that the numbers reflect the entire population of Syria and beyond. However, it's important to note that the figures encompass all the different peoples who live in Syria and out. Perhaps a note could be added to clarify this point."

"I am working on neutralizing articles that refer to different ethnic and cultural groups, with a focus on avoiding conflating historical civilizations with contemporary societies. I am striving to ensure that these articles are written in a way that accurately reflects the distinctiveness of each group. See Talk:Danes#North_Germanic_? (C.R), Talk:Italians#Images "I will move on to other articles and start a discussion, but as I have limited time and can only focus on one topic at a time, I would like to conclude this discussion first. Please note that my intention is not to oppose the Syrians or their right to have an article, the article should be Syrians are Syrians with a slight mention of the dynasties and powers that ruled their country." Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and I assumed your good intention since the beginning. This article was problematic. The list you deleted was never added by me, I hated it, its anachronistic. The word "ethnic group" was also not added by me. I do not consider the Syrians to be an ethnic group (yet). For that, they need to develop a stronger identity. Also, you were justified to attempt to include other ethnicities here because the application of the term "Syrian" today was not made clear. I was too lazy to do it, and no other editor attempted. However, right now, I think it can be concluded that "Syrian" is the name for the Levantine Arabic speakers and therefore, the scope of this article is them as made clear by the sources. As for Kurds and Armenians and other ethnicities, this is simply not their article. It is not their national name. Since the sources about the numbers of Syrians include everyone, then this should be noted but it doesn't justify changing the scope of this article which safely rest on high quality academic sources. I would just delete all the numbers of the diaspora tbh if their inclusion means that Armenians and Kurds should share this page while having also their own pages and while not sharing this ethnic name which was not created for them. Thanks for this discussion and sorry that it began so bad and hostile.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you think that a paragraph is summarized and replaced with

The terms "Syrian" and "Assyrian" were used interchangeably by the Greeks to refer to the indigenous Arameans, Assyrians, and other inhabitants of the Levant and Mesopotamia. The Seleucid Empire referred to their ruler as the King of Syria or King of the Syrians, and designated the districts of Seleucis and Coele-Syria as Syria, ruling the Syrians as indigenous populations residing west of the Euphrates. The Romans imposed the term "Syrian" upon the Arameans of the modern Levant, creating the province of Syria, which included modern-day Lebanon and Syria west of the Euphrates. The Arabs referred to the Greater Syria region as al-Sham, and the name "Syria" returned in 1864 when Ottoman Syria was reorganized. The use of the designation "Syrian" has its origin in the tense relationship between Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians of the Levant, where Christians wanted to distance themselves from the Muslims. The spread of the Syrian "idea" among Muslims can be traced to the efforts of Rashid Rida, who advocated the idea of a Syrian state. In the end, Syria became a separate state under Faisal in 1920, igniting the Syrian national conscious. Syrians considered themselves Syrians first and Arabs second, and slogans such as "Syria for Syrians" appeared in newspapers. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk)

I mean its a good summary, but why summarize it? As it is now, it is a good explanation of the relation between the Arabic speakers and the term Syrian. Summarizing it would lead to a lowering in the quality of this article and will open the space for another discussion about whether the term Syrian should be understood as a mere legal nationality (citizenship). You deleted the identity section because it had no references. Im planning to write a new expanded one and the paragraph I just wrote today is a beginning.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Applications of the name" it was better

Too long and most will not read or complete it.

I summarized the "Arabization" and merging it with history (Is completely copied from the article Arabization). Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"The languages historically spoken in Syria, such as Eastern Aramaic Syriac and Western Neo-Aramaic, should not be conflated with the contemporary population. It would be more appropriate to categorize these languages separately in the 'Languages of Syria' article, rather than intermingling them." Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote it and the article Arabization copied it from here. I explained in my summary and will explain here. The two Aramean languages are a result of the historic process. They show the continuity of the people and explain to the readers how things today came to exist. So they are not confused with the current population which is descended from the population who spoke Aramaic. The article doesnt stat that Arabs speak those languages but that the current population is the result of a long historic process that led to the current situation. It is normal when you write a history section to go into such details and give context and this doesnt mean that you are claiming any ethnic nonesense. This text is a result of consensus and has been rigoursly researched. If you want to remove and summarise it, a consensus needs to be reached here, but I cant see good arguments for it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It can be quite challenging to discuss a topic in an article, particularly when it involves a user who is directly affected by it. I will resume the discussion tomorrow. It seems like this topic, alongside other related articles, may spark a heated debate. Best regards." Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You are back at this behavior of personalizing. How does this topic affect me? It is indeed difficult to discuss a topic in an article when the pride of an editor is involved. I have no idea what are you discussing by now. You wanted to change the scope of the article, based on a lack of knowledge, and now this cant be done anymore because Wiki is based on reliable high quality sources and these sources makes the scope and the actual general meaning of "Syrian" very clear. Now you move to try to butcher this article and remove sourced content! None of this content is redundant or out the scope and the article isnt big beyond what is considered acceptable here. The history section starts with a region that speak Aramaic and ends with a one that speak Arabic and it is normal to give the readers actual conclusions of what happened to Aramaic. The example of Al-Sarkha (Bakhah) in the "The Western Neo-Aramaic-speaking group" gives a direct example of how linguistic Arabization happen and not as you said, conflating a modern population with an ancient one (as if you are denying the connection between the two?). Every sentence is a part in a whole and serves a propose. Its your judgement against mine and I am much more experienced at creating Wiki content and doing the research. What actually matter is that the high quality academic sources are on my side of the argument while you still have only your opinions. This is becoming a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. I have no idea what discussion you want to continue today? Do you have better quality sources to make a change? Do you have a justification to remove high quality sourced content?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a brief answer without lecturing on how to use Wikipedia. It's evident that there are ideological tendencies at play, and I have good intentions, but I have proof that the article has been re-contextualized, potentially influenced by those tendencies. The article seems to focus on ethnic (Netherlands IP) backgrounds like Armenians, which contradicts the dominant identity of Arabic-speaking Syrians who predominantly identify as Arab. However, there is a lack of comprehensive description explicitly stating their Arab identity. In an attempt to promote neutrality, The article should have been reflect Syrians as Syrians, acknowledging the various peoples and dynasties that have ruled Syria throughout history NOT ONLY Arameans but also Sumerians, Mitannians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Amorites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Ottomans who have inhabited Syria. However, the article seems to have a persistent emphasis on Aramaic and Syriac.

Even the way genetics section is not in a way that explains well. (There is no Levantine or Arabian gene, there is only a geographical gene). It should be explained how many people participated, from where, according to whom, etc...

The Arabic-speaking Syrians are just like the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Jordanians. See how the explanation is done (Palestinians#DNA_and_genetic_studies A lot of editors have been involved in this section and it had to be skirmishes to get what it is now) Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I retract what I said about your good will. After "investigation" of your edits, it is clear to me that what you do is Psychological projection. What you accuse others of doing is what you yourself do. You are clearly someone with ideological motives. Your obsession with Arabs is clear. You dont want Syrians to be conflated with historic population yet you have in your sandbox an article about Arabs connecting them to ancient Arabs from 2000 years ago (be careful of portraying Palmyrenes as pure Arabs, so that I dont have to correct you with academic sources).

Now to answer you. No, Arameans are not the focus. Its just that the Aramaic language was the last language to dominate the region before the Arabic one so it is natural to have a section explaining the HISTORIC process. As for the Genetics section: keep your opinion for yourself. It is written exactly how it is in the sources. Yes the Arabic speaking Syrians are just like the Palestinians etc and their Arab identity is now made clearer with the new paragraph I added about the emergence of the ethnonym "Syrian" in the 19th century. I will further expand on the identity and explain how Syrians adhere mostly to their Arab identity once Im done with your endless discussions that never improve an article.

Note, I will delete your tag in a while if you fail to prove your claims that there is POV pushing with clear examples from the text.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Here it is, sir I think this article should be written by other editors without us, and if the matter is on the sources, I can bring you hundreds of sources saying that the Arabic-speaking Syrians are Arabs, but it will seem that it is from one side and biased. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please dont think. Im an experienced editor with a dozen featured articles. Its because I know how to do research and write none pov content. So I dont understand what you proved by this link? Yes, I wrote most of the text. If you can prove bias with actual examples, be my guest. As for your sources, sure, bring them on, and lets analyze them. Do I need to teach you about the hierarchy of sources? (Academic about history are higher than journalistic. Written by specialists are higher than those by amateur historians. Published by respected academic publishing houses are higher than self-published etc). Plus, what are you arguing about? I agree with you: SYRIANS ARE ARABS. This isnt denied in the article!!!!--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

-You dont want Syrians to be conflated with historic population.

Who claimed that they did not mix???

Do you think that the current peoples are the same as the ancient peoples, whether the Arabs, the French, the Germans and others? They are all mixed.

There are words that I do not want to respond to because it will make it like a forum. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming (جدل بيزنطي). You are Levantine and Arab, I think you know the meaning of what I wrote. Yes, I know they are mixed. It is you refusing this not me (commenting that mentioning the fate of Aramaic in the Arabisation section is conflating Syrians with historic populations.. what a logic). Anyway, are your concerns addressed now in the lead? Did I state enough that Syrians are Arabs? or is it still POV pushing?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Before was better [1] Like if to the led article of Syria... is a Western Asian country located in the Levant, its religion was Christianity, and after the Islamic conquests it became Islamic. Also no need to explain being an Arab and being a Syrian as the Syrian Arab.

Arabization can be combined with history, and with regard to languages, I also see that there is no objection to mentioning them, but in a summary form and aside other languages that passed through Syria. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead is good as it is. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Your version did not satisfy those conditions and strayed from the scope of this article (plus, a new identity section is coming and the lead needs to summarize it, so the current formula is the least we can write and will probably be expanded after new material is added). As for the Arabization, it is already in history, but it is a sub-suction for a very good reason: its fundamental importance for current Syrians. It is this event that created the modern identity, so it deserve a spotlight. As for languages: again, part of the historical process. They explain Arabization and they didn't pass through Syria, they are still spoken. Summarizing them will hurt the quality and context (specially the case of Bakh'a which gives the reader an actual modern example of the process of Arabization).

I think we are done here dont you? Now, I will pay the Arabs article a visit. A lot of crap is there. Zenobia is mentioned in the lead as an Arab queen using misinterpreted sources (this is the problem with amateurs. They read their keyword and are happy to find what support their views. They dont understand historic research papers). Also, you should grace the Lebanese people article with your presence. Their Arab identity is not mentioned so clearly as here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We are not finished, you did not answer the addition of other languages that were spoken in Syria other than Aramaic and Arabic and I think the edits you made were good, but there are still things that must be clarified. Regarding the Arabs, the Zenobia, and the Lebanese. As I said earlier you should not talk to me on the basis that I have Lebanese roots. It has become like we are fighting, right?

Like you came to my articles now it's my turn. Although the Lebanese identity is Lebanese, because the Lebanese are universally defined as being Arab. However, I will add the Arab identity and the sectarian religious identity I think her article mentions that she had Arab origin or ? Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Other languages have no importance. Its all about the context and scope. Why do you wanna add dead languages like Hittite? Phoenician? I dont get it! These languages play no part in today's Syria. You always want to summarize, but adding every single language ever spoken in Syria would just be too much and out of context. Do you want to add Hurrian, Luwian, Ugartitic ....etc? I mean you can do that in the beginning of the history section, but I think it is indicated in the first sentence: "Syrians are of diverse origins; the main influence came from ancient Semitic peoples of the Levant such as the Arameans, as well as populations from Mesopotamia and modern-day Arabia, with additional Greco-Roman influence". Just bring sources. This article is about the history of the people not the country itself, thats why the Sumerians arent mentioned (no evidence for their migration to current Syria). As for Zenobia, I wrote her article, as well as that of Palmyra and Odaenathus. Its a long discussion, but the short answer is: she was Palmyrene (yes, thats an ethnicity according to specialists) and as such, she had Arab, Arameans and Amorite roots (the three groups Palmyrene tribes trace their ancestry to).

What do you think needs to be clarified?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring from attar

There is a serious problem with users like her. Wikipedia is free to edit for anyone, yet users that have a long history of editing a certain page or series of pages tend to act as if they have full control. They revert edits willy nilly but as soon as you do the same thing once, they threaten to get their admin buddies involved. Very odd Maxwatermelon (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The thing is: wiki is not a play ground and the fact that everyone can edit doesnt mean that everyone can add what they want based on their "reasoning". You want to describe Syrians as an ethnic group? okay cool, bring reliable sources that does that and show that this is the general perception of Syrians amongst scholars and the Syrians themselves. As for removing the identity part: ITS LITTERALLY SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE SOURCES. A lead summarize whats in the article, so the paragraph about identity that you are deleting is a summary of what is reliably sourced in the article itself. Begin your research process, and come back when you have more than your "reasoning" to support your edits.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)