This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |