Talk:Syrians/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Syrians. 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

'Religious differences in Syria have historically been tolerated'!!

Really!! for sure!! the 1860 Mount Lebanon civil war, 1845, 1840, the Assyrian Genocide, the Muslim conquer of Syria... as an evidence What a nonsense!

What's funny is that one of the added sources (priest Paolo Dall'Oglio) killed by Islamists! --Moußsa (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Assyrian genocide has nothing to do with Syrians... and the Imperial Arab expansion isnt a proof... Its like saying that the expansion of the Zoroastrian Sassanid was connected to the oppression of Christians. As for 1860, Christians started that if I remember correctly. Now, what matter for this article is not those arguments that belong in blogs and facebook pages. What matter is what Academics say, and they say that Syria is generally a place of tolerance.... Ofcourse not the tolerance of modern day Canada, but compare the historic situation of religious minorities in Syria with their counterparts in other places and you will understand.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

well, anyone can publish a book, and writes nonsense! only historical books and events settle the dispute. The Muslim conquest was a religious war, it was like the crusades holy wars --Moußsa (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you are a new user, I suggest you get familiar with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. We dont use "anyone's" books. Again, compare what happened to Moslims in Spain to how the minorities lived in Syria to understand what is meant by tolerance.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Images

I will make an infobox image such as that File:Famous Dutch People.jpg

But I cant use the current images, please have an understanding, Syria isn't a platform for regime supporters or opponents, the current infobox only list people who support the regime, worse than that it includes Hafiz al-assad, one of the most controversial figures that is dividing the Syrian people, yet it doesn't include Shukri al Quatli !

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

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

and the most important thing is to put people who are not affiliated with any part of the conflict, no asala nassri or Malek jandali, and no Hafiz al-Assad and Duraid Laham

I need a consensus to be archived, I'm gonna wait a week and if nobody participated in the discussion, I'm gonna take it as a sign to make the photo on my own as I like, I won't put any controversial figures and won't include any one who declared he support or oppose the regime, please dont ignore and then Edit war, i don't like edit war games, I will immediately ask for an RfC if i saw things going to an edit war, and I don't think that any neutral editor will agree on including Hafiz and regime supporters ONLY--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, just like the example you used, we can include modern Syrians from the 1600s/1700s to present; as this signifies the end of the medieval world and the beginning of our world. Your assertion that the infobox contains "only regime supporters" is not true, in fact the first two rows include Syrians that predate the Assad regime; I'm surprised you would say that. I agree that controversial political figures that are for or against the regime should not be included, because that would only fuel future edit wars. However I think the first two rows should be kept, because they mostly predate the Assad regime. Fareed AL-Atrash died in 1974, and I believe that he is a very important and influential Syrian that is well-known, to this day, in the Arab world. I don't think I would have a lot of objections to your choices, nevertheless please list the people you're going to use before you make the infobox image, because I feel very strongly about the inclusion of Syrians who made important contributions to the Nahda or Arabic renaissance.

On an unrelated note, I know you might find this unusual, but in English grammar, the subject pronoun "I" is always capitalized no matter where it is located in the sentence. English is one of the few languages where the "I" (subject pronoun) is always capitalized. I fixed them for you in your post above. I can't wait to see this new and improved infobox image, :)! George Al-Shami (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, is there a way to show the answer to you header question without clicking on "show", because as it stands now, newbies who arrive at this page won't see the answer and they'll start new discussions on the same topic without reading the earlier ones. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, hehehehehe thanx grammar wasn't always my favorite subject :( , but about your surprise, first : i hate the regime and the opposition , although i think the regime started but the opposition turned to be as bad as the regime and i want the infobox to show Syrians at their best and not to include any controversial figures no matter how we might feel about them,,,,,,,,,,,, actually Im not gonna touch the first two rows, im saying that the current infobox include people who declared they are with the regime and doesn't include people who declared they are with the opposition, that's all, i love adonis even though he tend to stand with the regime, he is going to be kept, he is such a great Syrian even if he is not neutral, but hafiz alassad and duraid laham ... hmmm they are just too controversial and someday a che guevara (and we have many in syria) is going to start an edit war and i want to prevent that

my idea is next : we will make 5 rows, each row will have 5 persons, the first is for people born between 1750-1800,, the second 1800–1850 .... etc, any one who declared a political affiliation will be excluded, i prefer dead Syrians but we have to include some living ones like sabah fakhri and adonis, actually i was waiting your suggestions, Im waiting for Zyzzzzzzzy to participate because he is the one responsible for the current infobox, I want us to have an understanding that the infobox should be for every Syrian not just supporters or opponents, I will put a list of the people Who are going to be included before I upload the photo

I tried to find a template that doesnt close and i found it, its done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I finished, please share your suggestions, I had to exclude Sara Shamma because the picture wasnt free to use and I had to replace the photo of Mustapha akkad for the same reason..--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to have balance, most of Syrians declared an opinion, its hard to find a neutral person, so I kept Hilarion capucci, but I added wafaa sultan, I added Yasser al-Azma cause he's so much bigger name than ghassan massud in syria, I left ghada shuaa even though she is an outspoken supporter because she give syrians much needed prestige, in return I added our astronaut Muhammad fairs, we have 2 outspoken supporters and 2 outspoken opponents, and that's fair, the 4 of them contributed to the prestige of the Syrian people--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You have my blessing, I have no problem with this list.George Al-Shami (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

in case of objections that the photo is bulky, we have to include our forefathers, the ones who revived the syrian identity, the ones who fought for our independence, and the ones who took that independence and started the syrian democratic experience, they are very important to our history, as for the photo, its not different than other photos of peoples, pleas look at French people, Germans and Italians--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite nice, but if you find it a bit bulky, you can exclude the politicians.... I personally prefer the image without politicians. Thanks a lot for your efforts.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hittites

Its not enough to throw a book in the summary of your edit. You need to specify which page was it mentioned that Hittite blood run in the veins of modern Syrians. Your "source" is speaking about the Hittite expansion in Syria and that is different from racial expansion. France occupied northern africa like the Hittites occupied Syria but that doesnt mean that Northern Africans have French blood and that Syrians have Hittite blood. Your source does not support your claim.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Syro Hittite States ruled by Hittites without having hittite elites within their respective states? you're divagating here. Jan Janszoon van Salé (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Syro-Hittites are devided between a northern sphere (Anatolian Hittites) and a southern sphere (Arameans). Sadly, after the WWI, Syria lost its northern territories and we are left only with the southern sphere while the northern one is currently inhabited and ruled by Turks. Dude, listen, I would be very happy if I have Hittite blood and I would give you a huge thank if you got me any piece of Academic papers saying that Hittite blood exist in Syria. However, although Im sure that many Syrians might have it, but we have no source for it. Yes, thousands of books speak of the Hittite expansion and rule in Syria, but none speak about Hittite descendants among Syrians. So even if it is logical, we need a source to it or it will be removed by someone other than me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia Britannica they mention Hama as being a Hittite settlement, https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=WU07AAAAIAAJ&q=Hama+Hittite+settlement&dq=Hama+Hittite+settlement&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y Jan Janszoon van Salé (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thats partially right, Hama was an Amorite place first here then ruled by a Hittite dynasty, then in about 800 BC was replaced by an Aramean one here. Again, it is logical that there is Hittite blood in Syria, but the Greeks also ruled, Romans had Italian elite in Syria, Persians ruled.... etc. We cant use the fact of rule to say that Syrians have this blood or that. It would be like claiming the Tunisians as the grandchildren of the Vandals !! (Yes some Tunisians might carry those genes but without a source then it cant be mentioned). The point is (and to be short), you need a source that says clearly that Hittites contributed to the genetics of modern Syrians. Without a source then we will have a huge problem : every nation on earth (joking) occupied Syria !! Syrians cant have the blood of every one that ever occupied them; this will lead to a very huge list of ancestors.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Forget about the edit, this would go unto an infinite online research quest.. but i aknowledge your rationalism and logic :) have a great rest of journey wherever you are. Jan Janszoon van Salé (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Kurds

I am feeling that this article is not putting enough emphasis on the Kurdish inhabitants in Syria, making up around 10% of the population. Kurdish is probably the second largest language after Arabic, why is it not included in the info box? Shmayo (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Because this belong in the Demographics of Syria article. Kurds have their own article and the scope of this article doesnt include them. I might give the Assyrian people article a visit. Seems that a lot of constructive work can be done there.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Kurdish people-article or Kurds in Syria-article? Telling from the lead, as citizens of Syria, are not the Kurds in the scope as much as the other citizens?

At the top of the article you read this : This article is about Syrians as the majority group of Syria.

In the lead you read : The term also refers to the citizens of Syria, regardless of ancestry, mother tongue, ethnic identity, or culture.

So, mentioning the Kurds is just revealing that they are called Syrians if they have a Syrian citizenship just like I would be called German (officially) if I had a German citizenship

However, Kurds of Syria have their own article (Kurds in Syria) and their numbers and the total make up of people with Syrian citizenship is discussed in the Demographics of Syria article

Syrians (the arabised ones) in Latin Amercia call themselves Syrians despite having no Syrian citizenship while Kurds dont call themselves Syrians.

So no, this article doesnt include Kurds in its scope. You can see the scope from the ethnogenisis section. Kurds werent arabised and didnt descend from any ancient Semite or Arab--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why shouldn't that apply to the Assyrians as well? I don't think it's consistent. Shmayo (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It does apply to Assyrians (Assyrians in Syria). As I know, most the people who claim to be Assyrians belong the church of the East and they are not mentioned here. Only people claiming to be Arameans (Syriac orthodox church) are mentioned. (and NO, they are not Assyrians even if you were able to turn all Syriac speakers on Wikipedia to Assyrians).

Oh by the way, please keep this article clean from this (all Syriac speakers are Assyrians) discussion. The talk page of the Assyrian people article is a mess and thats enough.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a matter about who is claiming what. The two groups you're talking about both belong to this ethnic group. The article may be named "Assyrian people" because it's the WP:COMMONNAME, but as you see in the lead, and throughout the article, it's conserning all these groups. I'm Syriac Orthodox if that makes you change your way of thinking, far from all (not even a majority, especially not in these areas) Syriac Orthodox people are claiming to be Arameans. The Assyrian Democratic Organisation in Syria was founded and is still run by people belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Church, same goes for the Gozarto Protection Force. Could you name one big Aramean (with Aramean in it's name or using the Aramean flag) organisation in Syria led by people from the Syriac Orthodox Church? Off topic either way. The article for both groups you are talking about is the one I linked too. Shmayo (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You say they belong to the same ethnic group. Yet, in Aleppo for example, they say the contrary, speak Levantine Arabic, and dont consider themselves the same as Assyrians (not to mention their church leaders who produced this (The Hidden Pearl) trying to link themselves to the Arameans of the Jazira instead of the Assyrian conquerors. Anyway, The article in its ethnogensis section speak about the Arabisation of Syria and what happened to the Aramaic speakers. Its completely relevant to mention those Syriacs who came from Edessa, Mardin and other historic Aramean provinces. Since the article doesnt claim them to have the same identity as the Arabised then nothing is wrong. But they are part of the history and part of the scope being the remnants of the people who survived Arabisation.

The article you linked to is dealing with Syriacs as Assyrians. It doesnt aknowledge the ancient Arameans and claims that all Syriac speakers descend from the old Assyrians of Assur. So that article is far from representing the Syriacs in general.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant what I'm saying, that is the Wikipedia article for that ethnic group at the moment. There are so many flaws in your argument. I can also add that even people from the Aramean movement (or what is the Aramean movement today) try to distinguish themselves from Syrians. In Sweden, they made up the word "syrianer" to distinguish themselves from "syrier", which is the Swedish term form Syrians. Even the Syriac Orthodox Church changed it's name for that purpose, so that argument wouldn't work anyway. Shmayo (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I was clear that the article make a distinction between the Arabised and the Syriacs then your argument is the one that have no place.

They are mentioned only in the ethnogenesis section and they need to be mentioned because it is a historic sourced fact that they are part of the people who survived Arabisation. Its normal to mention the survivors in a section about Arabisation.

They can distiguish themselves as modern identities but cant hide the history that a common stock connect them with Syrians. The article explain what happened to the old inhabitants. Modern Syriacs are part of the old stock and thats why they are mentioned. They are not claimed as having the same identity or as feeling the same as the Arabised.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever Aram, you're not consistent. Jacobites are not more Arameans than Nestorian, and Nestorians are not more Assyrian than Jacobites. If there is no place for the Kurdish language, then Assyrian Neo-Aramaic or Turoyo shouldn't be their either. Shlome. Shmayo (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As people who called themselves Syrians and part of the ancient Syrian people (whom the Arameans constituted the majority) then Turoyo do belong. Although Assyrian neo-Aramaic do not belong. I agree and I will delete it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire purpose of this article appears to be to promote a judgemental POV supremacist perspective on the population of Syria. I do not see what other rationale or purpose this article might have, as all of the ethnic groups mentioned do have their own articles, and so has the citizenry of the state of Syria as such. In my opinion, this article should either choose a NPOV subject to present or be deleted entirely. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

start with deleting Kurds of Syria article since there is a main article for kurds. And please understand what POV and a NPOV means, they are not applicable here when it comes to Kurds cause this article have a scope. Its like saying that the article of Germans is POV cause it doesnt talk about the Kurds living in Germany.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you now solved the issue by deleting the references and claims to the modern state of Syria in this aricle, making it an article about a (pan-)ethnicity which does no longer appear to claim that those affiliated with this ethnicity are the only true owners of the modern state of Syria, to the exclusion of all other citizens. With this, the issue I had with this article (which in my opinion now changed its subject entirely) is gone. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES

@George Al-Shami: You reverted my edit. Why? Did you notice that adding such images is in direct violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES? Vanjagenije (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I self-reverted, I was protesting what I thought was an example of cherry-picking; applying a decision (that's not accepted by many) on articles with low traffic meanwhile ignoring articles with high traffic. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

All aspects of Arab supremacism deserve a place, including violations of minority human rights

This article elaborates a distinct "Levantine Semite" supremacist view on the population of the state of Syria. It does not restrain itself to presenting an idea of "Levantine Semite" identity, but it links this identity to citizenship in the state of Syria and pretty explicitly declares all ethnic other citizens of Syria "un-Syrian". Of course such an article must have a section on the consequences of this line of thinking, which has been an issue for numerous human rights organisations and for UN organisations. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually this article focus on the semitic speaking groups (you know, Syria has been mainly Semitic speaking for the last 5000 years).. just like kurds of syria have their article and armenians have their article. You wouldnt call the kurds of syria article a supremacist article cause it focus on Kurds. Thid article doesnt claim that all the Syrian citizens belong to this grouo nor does it say that they are the only Syrians. Dont shove kurds everywhere. This isnt about governments and their actions but about a people and whatever happened to kurds doesnt concern this article as it doesnt link between citizenship and ethnicity since most of the Syrians in south america dont have a Syrian citizenship. And for god sake, stop saying supremacist and racism every time you dont like a thing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This article confuses ethnic groups with citizenship of the state of Syria (I assume deliverately), and exactly that is the problem of this article. If it were an article about "semitic speaking groups", with zero reference to citizenship of the state of Syria or unrelated other groups, you would have a point. However, this article presents its topic as the concept of a "national ethnicity of the state of Syria", and as such there must be a section for the factual consequences of this concept*. If you want to avoid that, then you will have to entirely delete all references to the modern state of Syria and to other ethnicities there from the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Syrian is a nationality not an ethnicity (though promoted as such by Syrian nationalism at some point).GreyShark (dibra) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Its much more cohesive than an Ethiopian, Russian and a German claiming they are one people cause of their religion and believing they are middle easterners.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Syrians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I am still concerned about this articles and its inconsistency. It still includes ethnic minorites as Assyrians, while Kurds are not included. Shmayo (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Only in the related groups are they mentioned, and you don't see the editors of this article concerned about the Assyrians article which is a big mess and much headache can be done there if the editors of this article were as zealous as the Assyrian nationalists roaming Wikipedia.. so why are you so concerned about this article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well said Attar-Aram syria! George Al-Shami (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you stick to subject for once? No, Assyrian adherents of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic Churches are still included (me being one), and Turoyo is listed as a language spoken by the people that the article refer to. Whether you agree with it or not, this is the article about the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people on Wikipedia. The article Syria contains this: "...Syria is home to diverse ethnic and religious groups, including Syrian Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Circassians...". "Syrian Arabs" is linked to this article, which lists adherents of the mentioned churches, which is absurd. In some paragraphs this articles describes Jacobites as a part of the people, and at the same time mentioning that "Assyrians fled to Syria during the Assyrian Genocide" – those Assyrians are, for the most part, no other than those Jacobites. What makes a Jacobite living in the modern borders of Syria more "Syrian" than one living in the modern borders of Turkey? And what makes Nestorians less Syrian than Jacobites? Most adherents of the Syriac churches ended up in Syria after the Assyrian genocide (e.g. built Qamishli in the 1920s). I am suggesting a removal of the adherents of the mentioned churches, otherwise I can't really see why even Kurds could not be included. Shmayo (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, this sort of discussions brought to Wikipedia by Assyrians nationalists which turned the talk page of the Assyrians article into a joke will not find its way here. You wanna believe you are a grandson of Assubanipal (your church attach itself to Arameans), go ahead, but we wont discuss it here. Now, back to your concernes which are ofcourse out of your passion for a good encyclopedic content and not at all part of the crusade of the very helpful and dear Assyrians nationalists editors who, fortunately for us, found their way in masses into Wikipedia. You say you cant understand why Kurds arent part of this, and its simple: Syria wasnt a Kurdish speaking nation which was arabized. It was, however, an Aramaic speaking nation and thats what the Ethnogenesis section clarify. It is only normal to tell the readers what happened to those Aramaic speaking populations. Yes, some of them are the Jackobists. As for the Nestorians, they are and have always been connected to modern Iraq (thats their church, Seleucia-Ctesiphon ?). The article doesnt make the Arabized and the Jackobists one and identical. It just clarify what happened to the people of this land (yes, as much as it would hurt your assyrian pride) Hence, your suggestion will make the article less informative and we cant have this just for the sake of Assyrian nationalists feelings.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, you are not objective here, again, the discussion is not about Assyrian nationalists, so please refrain from using it as a way to justify things. Yes, I'm sure Nestorians "have always been connected" to modern Iraq, just as Jacobites and south-eastern Turkey. After the Assyrian genocide, both settled, in large numbers, in Syria; Qamishli, Hasakeh, Aleppo, Khabour valley, and so on. Both are speaking Eastern Aramaic (and so are Chaldean Catholics), which is not the case with the native Aramaic-speakers of Syria, the ones speaking Western Neo-Aramaic – who of course are part of the scope here. You know very well that Aramaic was lingua franca in the whole region, not only spoken in the Levant. Not in any way are Jacobites more eligable here than Nestorians, or Chaldeans. Once again, this article is named Assyrian people per WP:COMMONNAME. The modern Aramean identity of some Jacobites, of course described in the mentioned article, was nothing else than a reaction to the Assyrian identity (making the Jacobite church loose the power of their members). This is mentioned by scholars, and this is admitted by the ones creating this modern Arameans identity in northern Europe. My suggestion stands; either, my main suggestion, exclude Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic adherents, or include the rest of the people in Syria – which as you mentioned would not be the best idea, but at least consistent, unlike the article in its current form. Shmayo (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Again you go back to speak about Assyrian nationalism and telling me about Aramean identity (as if connecting yourself to ancient assyrians is much stronger.. what if your grandpa was just a kurdish deportee like real ancient assyrians used to do- or an Arab Syriac from the tribe of Orhai kings). Anyway, no way this will be discussed here. The matter is simple: Syria included many lands in modern turkey. Jackobists are connected to this Syria and to Antioch and the Syriac language will not make them one ethnicity with the nestorians. This article speak about the population of that old syria and what happened to them. It is important to mention their fate (Kurds and Armenians were not living in Syria back then). And again, the article doesnt portray jackobists as one and the same with the arabized, hence there is no inconsistency problem; its just a historic telling of how things came to the way they are now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sure I could have some Aramean ancestry, but I am also aware of what "Suryoye" means. I am not sure what "Arab Syriac" is though. You do not WP:OWN this article and get to decide what I am allowed to discuss. See, there is the flaw, the majority of people of the Syriac Orthodox Church that is living in Syria today, did not live there prior the Assyrian genocide. That is what I have said all the time. They descend from Northern Mesopotamia, east of the Euphrates, not the Levant. I am sure there have been some living in Syria, just as there have been Nestorians living there. The Nestorians have been named Syrians as long as the Jacobites. It is the same ethnic group. They do not originate from the old Levant as you want to portray it. Shmayo (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Source deletion

User:CaliphoShah, when you think a sentence isnt true to a source, dont delete it. Instead, edit to make it reflective to that source. Also, your edits will sometimes get revoked, dont take it personal. Deleting a source without a discussion is certainly a non constructive edit and those edits always get reverted. As for adding a tag in the lede, its really against WP style. The sources should be in the body of the article. Finally, I hope you are not here to wage forum internet battles, cause this summary of yours where you think you are "compromising" isn't encouraging.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the source is that there really isn't a good way to edit the sentence to make it closer to the source as what the source states has little to nothing to do with the sentence. I also do not like having citations in the intro but the word "Levantine Semitic" when it comes to ancestry begs a citation. While it's better not to have citations in the intro, that section usually doesn't make claims or use terms that are rarely if ever used outside of the article. CaliphoShah (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay friend, I read more in the source and I saw the following (I make many typos on talk pages, hope you ignore them): Aramaic molded ethnicities and turned them into Arameans (Syrians). Then it says that Arabic turned those Arameans (Syrians) to Arabs. So how can you say that Syrians arent mentioned ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I would argue based on historical sources of migration is that there wasn't any turning into Arameans. When Syrian was used to refer to people, Arameans were already there for a long time. They moved into what is now West Syria and established long standing Aramean kingdoms (or city states). Whether they were there first in places like Damascus (they weren't) doesn't matter because, as the article states, Syria is employed first by Greeks and Seleucids to a refer to a people. And these people were the Arameans of Syria. And at the time they done it, it was not so long after Arameans were present in that part of the country. This may seem like Original Research but it's just trying to make the wiki article consistent with itself while at the same time having sources of course. The sources are in other pages related to this article if they're not already in it. The problem I have with the source is that it didn't have the proper wording. I think it's best to rewrite it to mention Aremeans while having Syrian in parenthesis. Incluing the page number(s) of the book in the source citation would be welcomed. Also, I'd remove the sources about genetics in the same paragraph next to "Arameans and Phoenicians" as they don't claim anything about Arameans and Phoenicians. And the zindamagazine source is dead. Britannica doesn't make mention of it. I don't know about "The Templars: History & Myth" as I don't have access to it but I would like someone to further look into it since the other sources don't hold up. PS: I don't have a political or ethnic agenda bias against the claim that most Syrians today are descendants of mainly Arameans but the sources don't hold up. This last disclaimer is more for others who will read this discussion. CaliphoShah (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

By turning, its meant that the Arameans absorbed and spred their identity over the older population of Syria (just like the Arabs, cacasoids, spread their language and identity in Sudan). So, this article makes it clear that the designation "Syrian" appeared in the Greek and Roman ages to denote the inhabitants of Syria who were by then mostly Arameans and Phoenicians (whether by blood or identity). Thats why we dont need to write Arameans with (Syrians), cause its already mentioned how the latter came to designate the former.

As for the sources: they inspected before judging them cause they do hold up strongly with focused reading. The john joseph refrence already have the page mentioned, page 30.

The Britanica, in the section "People", sub-section "Ethnic and linguistic groups" of the article "Syria", mention this: The Syrian people evolved from several origins over a long period of time. The Greek and Roman ethnic influence was negligible in comparison with that of the Semitic peoples of Arabia and Mesopotamia—Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Canaanites. Later the Turks, like the Greeks and Romans before them, influenced political and economic structures but failed to produce any noticeable change in the dominant Arab character of the Syrian people.

The genetic studis, the first one speaks about the continued connection between modern and older populations (before the arab conquest) and the second has this: "Signatures of the genetic legacy of the Phoenician expansion and the Diaspora (Aubet, 1993; Zalloua et al., 2008a), and traces of the Muslim expansion and the Crusaders (Lamb, 1930; Zalloua et al., 2008b) have been identified" and continue to show how you cant ascribe Syrians to one group as many affected the genetic pool.

I will try to find another link for zinda. The hagg source is just like the britannica and john joseph sources, true to whats written as I do have access to it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems there isn't much data on the time of the Arameans (Bronze and Iron age) to be able to discern identity of the non-Aramean population if there even was one by the time Arameans migrated. Identity is still a tricky subject for historians and there can be many sources of historians stating "We do not know so and so". I'd have to look further to bring those sources up but this applies to many other wiki pages relating to ancient peoples.

There is no evidence of DNA from Aramean fossil, maybe from Phoenician/Canaanite so that may point to your second source. From a genetics perspective, it is impossible to know if people are related to so and so groups without DNA comparison. Genetic studies would never make such a claim, so the first genetics source can't be used. Britanica doesn't just say mainly Aramean and Caananite, it also says people of Arabia and the Chaldeans.

The genetic study mentioning history is not specifically talking about Arameans and Phoenicians. Scientific articles would be specific if they talked about A or B population.

So in short, the genetic source should be removed except for the one strictly mentioning Phoenician. And the sentence should be reworded to include Chaldeans and Arabs. Also just keeping Britannica as the non genetic source wouldn't hurt. The sentence doesn't need more than 3 sources.CaliphoShah (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixing the wording of the article

The ethnogenesis section seems to be redundant. Here is a fix (strikethrough is what is removed): "Many Christians ~~lost their identity and~~ adopted an Arab racial identity becoming indistinguishable from the Arab Christians of pre-conquest era, while those who kept their racial ~~characteristics maintained the Syrian~~ identity and are mainly divided between two groups"

The first one seems fairly obvious. Adopting another identity implies losing the previous identity. You can't be two races at once. Even if people claim a mix (which isn't claimed anything in the next words), that mix is not the same as the previous identity. The last deletion is simply that racial characteristics (whatever they are since the article and the source doesn't mention them) ,if real, cannot be lost. A race identity is different than its characteristics. Identity already implies that it's subjective in thought. Identity is what people feel like taking up. CaliphoShah (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi CaliphoShah, I understand your argument about redundancy, however I fear that your deletion takes away from the sentence's neutrality, in that by removing reference to the loss of their Byzantine/Syriac identity (and I disagree with your other pronouncement, that Syriac is just a language with no religious and cultural attachments. Syriac is most definitely Aramean with a Syrian dialect, however for the ancient Syrian Christians, Syriac was much more than simply a language with no religious and cultural attachments, Syriac was their liturgical language, and this attachment to Syriac stays even when Arabic becomes the lingua franca -due to commerce- (before the Arab Muslim invasion and subsequent conquest of Damascus in 634 AD.) you are emphasizing their adoption of an Arab racial identity. By keeping both, although it might seem redundant, one is not under emphasizing or overemphasizing both concepts, thereby keeping it neutral.

About the second point, I propose the following "those who kept their Byzantine/Syriac identity, subsequently got divided into two main groups, due to theological differences and different political spheres of influence." George Al-Shami (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with neutrality. It's simply about coherence. Syriac is religion and language, it's not racial by any stretch of the imagination. The racial identity is Aramaean, not Syriac. Syriac was never attested as a racial identity. And the Aramean racial identity was lost when Arab racial identity was adopted. Just saying "adopted the Arab racial identity" is enough as it implies loss of identity. the rest of the article already puts a focus on Aramean origins.

I oppose the second proposal on the basis that religion has nothing to do with anything racial. And Byzantine was not an identity of the inhabitants of Syria. In fact there was only a Roman identity and it was adopted by the Greeks outside of Syria. Furthermore the focus on Roman identity would go into contradiction with the rest of the article that puts emphasis on Semitic identity.CaliphoShah (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I never mentioned that Syriac/Byzantine is racial, but an identity that manifested itself and still manifests itself in the liturgies, hymns, flags, religious attire, artisanal designs, and architecture of Byzantine Orthodox and Catholic churches in Syria. Race and identity could be the same for some peoples and for others it could be two separate things. (An American is an Anglophone by virtue of the language they speak, however that does not mean they are from English ancestry. Also individuals in our contemporary world have all sorts of overlapping identities) To this day flags with symbols of the double-headed Byzantine eagle are hung in the the aforementioned churches in and outside of Syria. Byzantine art is even on display outside of churches in Syria, most prominently on the Dome of the Treasury in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The Dome and its artwork was completed in 789 AD, 155 years after the Arab Muslim conquest of Damascus. Moreover for the past century and half historians have rightly employed the name Byzantine to distinguish it between the Roman empire West which had significant differences, in language, religion, traditions, etc.

I've always been an inclusionist on WP and if you put neutrality to the side, keeping the original wording and adding the adjective Aramean benefits (so as not to confuse) the reader by providing more context. If you don't want to to introduce non-racial identity, then how about the Aramean racial identity was lost when Arab racial identity was adopted. As to your point on the emphasis on Arameans, I've been editing and tweaking this article for years, and I cannot say the same.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The article says the word "racial" multiple times. That's the issue. The matter isn't how you see it but how the article presents itself and how it corroborates with the sources. "Racial" is a very strong word also and has its own pandora box of implications, ignoring the political ones. Your opinion of what "racial" means is not relevant to this discussion. What matters is what the reliable sources claim. The distinction between Byzantine and Rome is known by most people and it's not relevant to this topic. Again, identity is imagined. Characteristics are objective. One can adopt an "identity" but they cannot lose their characteristics. I propose the same thing I proposed in the beginning of the section: "Many adopted an Arab racial identity...". Introducing Aramean as a racial identity is problematic because it is unknown what precisely where the non-Arab people of Syria's identity right before the conquest. One can't assume that because there was an Aramean identity in the iron age it wasn't lost until the 7th century. It would be better to assume they had a non-Arab identity, unless there is a set of sources that can support the specification of an identity at the 7th or late antiquity century. I checked the source and it does not say anything about "Aramean" nor does it mention anything about race.CaliphoShah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In the name of neutrality and context, I disagree; it looks like we need other editors to weigh in. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, CaliphoShah have an agressive style. He claims to read sources and find no information then delete them so I had to point the info in the sources for him (like I did in John Joseph and britanica). The rationale of George is much more clearer than CaliphoShah who is adding his own ideas and concepts.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What style are you talking about? Making sure a source says what's in the text is literally the basics in Wikipedia. You're also trying to make arguments outside the talk page. That's not how things work. And I think you're having some reading problems This is what Brittanica says I quote : "" The Greek and Roman ethnic influence was negligible in comparison with that of the Semitic peoples of Arabia and Mesopotamia—Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Canaanites. ""

In the name of neutrality and context, I stand by what I said last time. You can call other editors, hopefully some who aren't Syrians. It is weird that other editors have to be called for when it comes to the topic of sources having to abide by what's in the text and vice verca CaliphoShah (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Shall I remind you that until I draw your attention at the section in britabica where that sentence is written, you claimed that britanica didnt speak about the ethnogenesis at all ???? You say you read the source but you actually dont cause I had to show you where Aramean and Syrian are mentioned in John Joseph's book after you claimed they are not mentioned.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I literally quoted the text. It's as clear as day. If you have an issue reading it, then there is nothing I can do to help you. But it does mean you shouldn't be have the final say in this site. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes dear, I know you did that, but I was talking about the first discussions that happened few days ago when you said Brittanica didnt mention anything about the ethnogenesis until I told you where to find it. If you have trouble remembering your words, then there is nothing I can do to help you. No one have a final say by the way (includes you ofcourse).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You're nitpicking and taking a claim out of context. I said about Britannica that it doesn't say anything explicitly about genetics when it comes to Arameans or Phoenicians, as in DNA makeup. It talks about linguist and ethnic origins but that's not necessarily genetic. Go ahead and find a mention of DNA, ethnogenesis or anything explicit like those words when Phoenician or Aramean are talked about in the article. Like I said, there's not much I can do to help your lack of understanding.CaliphoShah (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Those are your words: " Also, I'd remove the sources about genetics in the same paragraph next to "Arameans and Phoenicians" as they don't claim anything about Arameans and Phoenicians. And the zindamagazine source is dead. Britannica doesn't make mention of it". So we have to options: 1- your memory is weak. 2- you have a problem delivering what you mean and assume that people are prophets who will see whats going on inside your head. I cant help with that. Now, is this cockfight going to last longer ? I retreat in any case.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I shouldn't have to repeat myself. You're taking the claim out of context. Read the entire comment, not just one sentence. The issue raised was about explicitly mentioning DNA or genetics when it comes to Arameans or Phoenicians. You have a hard time reading claims without context. This is probably because you're too emotional or lack the synapses needed to connect the dots. Go ahead and run away, you didn't add anything constructive or informative to make this article better, only gibberish. And regarding your last edit: It's good you conceded that my edit was right. I kept "pre conquest Arabs" because it seemed you wanted to keep it in, not because I thought the wording was appropriate.CaliphoShah (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ehmm cant see anything worthy of a reply, forum blabbering thats better not be fed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet you're replying. Didn't you say you were "retreating"? Before projecting weak memory, make sure you're not writing in a site where conversations are kept and recorded. Also here's another piece of advice: If you don't want to lose in a game of personal attacks, don't start one.CaliphoShah (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Gosh you are really thick. I stopped this cause its boring and will make me look like a child (Im 90% sure you are still a teen). Now, you can have the last word if it will make you able to sleep at night, but dont include anymore insults if you dont want them reported (yeah, its not like highschool where reporting is made fun of.. here its just for the peace of mind).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You should look up the definition of stop or perhaps get a basic education in the English language. You should also look up what a projection is since that word perfectly describes your nonsensical behavior. I don't care if "insults" are reported, since any admin or moderator who takes a look at this page can easily see that not only you started with insults but you keep regurgitating them. Your defense mechanism got too easily triggered because of a few edits you ended up conceding to anyway. I said that your comments in the talk page aren't informative but at least now you're beginning to explain your current highshchool life. However, wikipedia is not your personal blog to talk about either your supposed university degree or your current teenage shenanigans.CaliphoShah (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you are the kind of internet warriors who need to be blocked. Your bratty butt really doesnt belong here, for many reason but mainly is because you are an ignorent guy trying to make a mess. First you werent able to defend your stupid edits regarding Britannica so you claimed that you meant something else, then you moved on to show that you have a strong tongue (fingers in this case) and you did nothing but to make this talk page hard to navigate with your endless comments that had zero importance or information in them. You claimed to have read the sources and didnt see the information in them (like the john joseph source) then you talk about english !!!! you need new eyes and brain to be honest. Stopping doesnt mean not replying to stupidity but it means stopping with the cockfighting which is what I tried to do until I noticed that its hopeless with you. All you disruptive edits will be reverted from now on. This article have consensus and long established.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your tone and attitude is very aggressive. I advise you to calm down. You are not helping your case by acting that way. My edits were successfully defended and it's why you have conceded to them. There is no shame in admitting to that. Focus on the argument and not the person. Ad Hominem are not acceptable. The only stupidity so far is only found in your posts. I am not insulting you as a person now but only criticizing your statements. You don't get to set consensus on your own.CaliphoShah (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not in a position to advice. Your edits were not conceded to, they were tolerated for the sake of not having to deal with you. The consensus has been set in many former discussions and since George seems to be on board with me, then its already set. The only stupidity is you reading a source and not finding the info (like you did with john joseph).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And you are not in a position to tell anyone to give advice or not. "Tolerating" is a ridiculous way of describing a barrage of insults. What I requested to change didn't go against consensus much. You're only bringing consensus because it's the only card you have left. It wasn't up to me to find info of a dead link, I could remove it so I did. There is no stupidity there. And I clearly did read the source, the lack of cognition lies with the one who wasn't able to keep up by ignoring the context of a conversation. But you've already conceded that and the many changes I've made to the article. You have nothing left to argue. You already agree with everything and you've turned what was an informative respectful conversation into a very agressive and personal one. Heck, you're even doing personal attacks in the history page of a talk page. That's a great violation of Wikipedia policy, one that won't be hidden.CaliphoShah (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh great, another worthless novel from mister "Im right and it makes me sleep at night". Again, tolerating is the policy we use with impulsive new editors cause we know they will either calm down or leave or get blocked and that why we try to avoid the likes of you. And yes, you wrote so much things unrelated to the article that it became important to ignore them and just wait for you to finish. Weird thing is, when I retreated and decided to give you the last word, you decided to take advantage of it and continue with a stupid cockfight that I would have rather to spend my time on something more important (like going to the toilet) than doing it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean I know you projected about reading problems but I didn't know you also thought anything longer than a sentence is a novel. This is making things more clear about you. Also why are you obsessing about sleeping at night? Not everyone lives in the same timezone as you. And enough about claims of "tolerance", you haven't shown any. Furthermore (and more importantly), showing off that you've been using the site for longer is not an argument nor a witty remark. You're not immune to a ban for your incessant toxic behavior. And saying "we" doesn't make your statements look legit, it just make you look like you're trying too hard to be relevant. You don't get to decide who has the last word, especially not when you did so with a bunch of immature insults. Being passive agressive is not how a person, who expects respect, should act. I've repeated it many times: No one is forcing you to initiate insults or to continue replying. CaliphoShah (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously you dont understand sarcasm then (add it to your talents). I dont expect respect, I know how to deal with people who dont show it. As for sleeping, again, thats part of the concept called sarcasm. Since you indicated in a former not so important conv that I dont have the right to have the last word, it became obvious that it means so much to you. Using "we" is meant to indicate normal editors who have to deal with people like you, and it does not indicate relevance... you dont get it on internet (but it seems its the only one you get at least).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I got that it was sarcasm, I just don't respect it as it's the lowest form of humor. And you're pretty bad at it anyway, so I couldn't resist showing you how easy your poor attempt at sarcasm could be used against you. You don't expect respect because you don't show it to others. However you then proceed to play the victim when you're giving a taste of your own medicine. And the sleeping claim was not sarcasm, you should look up on what it means. Also, you're so bad at trying to offend people. You're trying too hard and you're way too repetitive. "we" doesn't work when it comes to referring to normal editors as you're clearly not one. The average normal editor (I know it's redundant but you don't get it anyway) doesn't act like a special snowflake. And again, you're the only one acting like you're relevant since you're showing off that you're not new. No one cares about your internet achievements. It's very cringy to see someone show off how long they've made elementary edits in wikipedia.

And of course you don't have a right to have the last word. No one does. I don't really care if you get it or not, it's not important to me. But yet again, you are projecting. You claimed to be "retreating" and that you weren't going to reply multiple times. Why are you being so emotional over an internet conversation? I mean, if it was going to hurt you so much, maybe next time don't try to start fights you can't win. As for me, I'm having fun seeing how bad your attempt at getting me flustered keeps getting. But keep entertaining me. Go ahead, give your best shot.CaliphoShah (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are highly sophisticated your highness. Thanks for your jugement (since you, being the center of my sarcasm, are the best judge) I am not a victim whatsoever, I just try to keep my peace of mind by avoiding the likes of you as much as possible. AS for sleeping, focuse god dammit, you were the first to mention habing the last word so obviously it makes u sleep at night (as a general statement, maybe you live in the the far north where it is day for half a year, apologies your majesty). As for offending, Im not trying.. I already did, and thats why you cant shut it. As for "normal editors", I think I dont need your worthless opinion here, many other normal editors already gave theirs. I have no internet achievments.. didnt talk about them, and dont know where you read this (but can understand considering your not so fast wett. The only cringy thing is arguying with you, and reading your "issues". I was retreating, but couldnt anymore when I saw that it will allow someone like you to go far with internet heroism. Hurting is one thing (which, seeing how you started to get nasty when I told u im retreating, show how wounded you are), and just shutting a bratt is another thing. I will always be entertained when remembering that you requested tha page number of john joseph's book when it was in the citation itself...... but, yeah, I think I will be more entertained soon. Oh, and about winning, wow, you think you can win on internet.... amazing--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Referring to your poor attempt to be witty as "sacarsm" makes even the poorest attempt look good. And no, I was did not bring up having the last word. You did. Here I'll quote you since you have such a hard time remembering: "Now, is this cockfight going to last longer ? I retreat in any case" You're making a lot of typos, this isn't showing that you have a peace of mind. It's more like you're getting increasingly flustered. This brings me back to the question you keep ignoring: Why are you being so emotional and aggressive?

Oh I disgress. You are trying very hard to offend and it's showing. In fact you're trying so hard right now you have to argue otherwise. And instead of ignoring, you keep making up excuses about replying. That doesn't look like someone not being able to handle mean words that you first started throwing. Also stop saying you haven't done this or that. Anyone can read your previous comments. You were clearly showing off by claiming you were here longer. It's a card you failed to play and now you're sticking to the claim that you have many "normal" internet friends. And that's another card that will fail you. Again, retreating with insults is not a respectful way to retreat. Do I have to keep educating you about basic manners? And yes you can win or lose arguments in the internet. But of course you wouldn't get it since the entire concept of a debate is foreign to you. Everything you've been doing is I subscribe to Wikipedia's policy that winning here means agreeing and building consensus. Something you started doing but got very flustered when I innocently pointed out you've made concessions. CaliphoShah (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You are really getting slow, here: But it does mean you shouldn't be have the final say in this site. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC). So, obviously, having the final say has been going in your mind since the beginning... childish, but maybe thats all you are. Again, the center of my sarcasm is naturally to believe its weak, defence mechanism. Typos are my thing, I make them all the time, I dont focus much on talk pages, specially when dealing with the likes of you, and its not about being emotional, its just about continuing what Im doing. You refused to end the cockfight, so I will go on and on with it. Again, I have already offended :) and your dissagreeing is, well, nothing (just like your issues and your whole stay here). Yes, Im here longer, thats not a show off, its just a fact to show that Im used to people like you and that I have developed ways to avoid you, which is ignoring as long as possible (focus). I did not mention friends, in wikipedia there are editors, some of them seems suitable for friendships in real life but the website is annonymous and we evaluate each others based on contributions not friendships (but you seems to have internet and friends mixed, maybe based on your real "life"?). "innocently " ! come on. You cant win an internet argument, not like this argument which is based w=on who have the biggest ego.. debate is between inttelectuals (p.s not you) and I dont know what will I debate with you !!!! obviously you are not a guy who is here for debates, rather to be a smart...thing. (which failed).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You're really that bad at reading. I mean if you want to have someone help with your poor English skills, you could just ask. The statement about not having the final say in the article is not in the literal sense to mean being the last one to respond. Rather it means being the one who gets to decide what gets to stay or removed in the article. You're getting very desperate at twisting words. I can already see you rushing to the keyboard accusing me of not being clear. Yes, I realize that sentence had a typo but even with that flaw, a child could understand it. It wasn't your plan all along to have me believe your sarcasm was weak. That excuse isn't working. You screwed up and you're now doing damage control as is your deflection of claims regarding your defense mechanism. You're focusing a lot on this talk page and it's evident that I struck a nerve. I'm sure there's plenty of wikipedia material on how to deal with a rise of cortisol. One would think someone who boasts about being on this site for years would at least have gotten a thicker skin.

Oh so before you were "retreating" multiple times but now you want to continue being insolent! That's not an improvement on your character. It doesn't help you that you went and called for an admin to check this page. Ignoring? You're not really doing that now though. So much for all the experience at doing nothing. And yes, I have already won the argument since you conceded to my edits prior to the "little" tantrum you've been throwing in the last hours. When it comes to intelligence, you have no concept of it, nor can you grasp it. In fact, an "intellectual" wouldn't cry about people not getting sarcasm and then also not get sarcasm (mention of friends). But hey, maybe I was trying to act amicable to suggest you could be capable of being friends with people. Then again, that's an unwarranted expectation.CaliphoShah (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Damn, you are the most missunderstood genius in the world. Your words always mean something else. Maybe its not English that it the problem, its probably your IQ. (Rather it means being the one who gets to decide what gets to stay or removed in the article): thats part of the final word darling.. yeah, its a complicated concept for you, I know. Dont be ashamed. Thicker skin is for the likes of you who spend it on internet fighting and arguying. I spend most of my time here writing articles, or finding sources, or sometimes traveling to another city that have a uni library that contain a source I need. Hence, I dont have a thick skin but its not required now, as I said before, Im just continuing cause you dont wanna stop, it has became like an automatic function. Do you have a fetish for the word "retreating" ? Yes, Again smart boy, I said retreating and giving you the last word, sentence, whatever, but instead of you taking the chance to end this childish thing we have here, you decided to burst your frustration and be a smart...you know what. So, it showed me that its not a wise idea to retreat cause the likes of you dont know when to stop. I also said that I ignore until its not possible to do it, and you made it not possible. As for winning, okay, whatever makes you sleep (at night or day). But no, you dont win those "polandball" kind of arguments... you only end up looking stupid (and sadly this includes me... I allowed you to drag me down to your level, pffff) So, a guy who ask for the number of the page when the source already have it, a guy who dont actually have the capability of reading the source, and who say stupid things then when being called on them, say that they were not understood like he meant, this guy is talking about intellegence ... smh Now, friends are an important thing in life and you have them by not being a bratt, so try to work on yourself in order that you someday get some friends (since they seem to be an open wound for you, since you mentioned them first).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you you're below average in intelligence (as in you have a double digit IQ), it's normal for you to claim others are genius in comparison, even by doing sarcasm (not that there aren't sprinkles of honesty in sarcastic comments!) My statements only appear to mean something else to those who are uninformed. Here, let me help you: [1]. Take a long time reading it to make sure you finally get it. When it's talked about ypi having the final word in the context in this article, it was about how you wanted to have the last reply (as in no one replies after you). You brought up retreating anyway so it's clear you're unable to just let go.

And yes I do spend a lot of time on the internet arguing. It's usually really fun. You're kinda boring me though. And again, no one cares about your lifestyle. If it's real, it's not impressive. If it's imaginary, then it's quite sad you're resorting to lying about something so mundane. And yes I do like the word retreating because it describes what have been trying to do to criticism and different opinions you couldn't handle. Why are you so afraid of finishing the sentence after writing "a smart"? There's nothing more pathetic than trying to act tough on the internet and then backing down. Why should others respect you when you don't respect yourself and you don't show others respect?

And I just had to look up "polandball". Wow, you really are a kid. That explains the projection about everything. I've clearly read the source and you agree with that. You're beating a dead horse (go ahead, google what that means). And repeating "you stupid" shows an infantile. Resorting to the kindergarten reply of "you said it first so that means it hurts you" shows you're obsessing about the whole friends gist. Again, it's impossible to be offended by you. Your hands are reaching farther than they can grasp and you don't have the sense to know any better.CaliphoShah (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you are really not bright arent you. From your link: "the final point (in an argument); the final decision (in some matter)".... This agrees with me not you... but its hard for someone with your small brain capacity to understand. (And yes I do spend a lot of time on the internet arguing) hahahha you dont say. As for finishing the sentence, its because we cant use those words here. As for polandball... hahhahaha omg, come on, you claiming not knowing it wont fool a child (who is naturally smarter than you). "Tough on internet"... damn, Im speechless. Its actually an insult to be tough on internet (like what will we do? punch the screen), but since it seems to be the only life you have, then whatever. And no, you dont read and its so clear that reading isnt your thing. I wouldnt agree on anything with you, so stop imagining; I merely wait for you to find a new passion.. reddit or somethimg. And again, the burn is so deep on you to the point of making me a little sad for you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Earth to Attar, Earth to Attar; Saying your reply is going to be your last after a barrage of insults is not having a final point in argument nor is it a final decision when you've been reverting that decision multiple times. And again, you haven't made a single argument so far. Not only are you incapable of doing basic reading but you're able incapable of understanding simple logic. Never mind about small brain capacity, you have no capacity to learn or comprehend anything. You are outmatched by infants, outwitted by vermin, outpaced by even the simplest of life forms. And for someone who lacks synapses in analysis, you don't even make up for having brain connections when it comes to emotions. Oh and by "spending time in the internet arguing" I wasn't talking about you. Arguing implies the thing I'm talking to has the ability to make an argument. But that's not what's happening here. I'm here mocking and abusing you because that's as close to love an attention you've ever gotten in your life since your perplexed childhood. And no kiddo, Daddy doesn't know about the childish things you're into like "polandball" nor does do I get your teenage responses like "burn", I'm not preoccupied with your weird interests. But don't do anything too naughty or I'll have to discipline you more harshly.CaliphoShah (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And now, I just saw that you made 3 edits because you were so stressed out you forgot to include all your poor insults. I actually feel pity for you now. I don't condone cyberbullying but it does feel good I've had such an impact on you.CaliphoShah (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hahahahah omg, again with the retreating. Boy, try to read this: I retreat if you shut it but you didnt and went far so you had it coming. And about the final word, yes, I was gonna let you have it in this section to make you feel better, but you went to be a smart... and made me come back. As for arguments, wth ?!!!!! we are not in an argument, this is just stupidity but you seems to enjoy it and I wont deny you the pleasure. Again, I cant argue with someone your kind..... As for seeing 3 edits, you will see more, thats just how I edit, cause its like a river and you gave me such a funny material being so dumb. Now, the capacity to understand logic is one thing, and being confronted with no logic whatsoever (like the no logic you have) is another. No one can understand you, you dont even understand yourself. " You are outmatched by infants, outwitted by vermin, outpaced by even the simplest of life forms" I laughed so hard here, tenth grade ? ninth ? "spending time in the internet arguing", yes I know you were talking about yourself, you made it clear, but the small IQ probably made you forgot. "Daddy", "harshly", "discipline "... oh, you seems to have a passion, pornhub (the closest a guy like you can get to intimacy). "Arguing implies the thing I'm talking to has the ability" damn that sentence was dumb PS, normal people dont argue with things, but thats for normal people, not you. Now, Im just gonna enjoy wait for the following blabbering which you see as an abuse and I see as a desperate attempt to have some human contact which seems lacking from your life.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would I want you to retreat? I'm affecting you in such a way you'll be permanently traumatized. Even those with bad memory (you) suffer from this. I am mentioning your claims of retreating to point how the massive cognitive dissonance you're having. Again, Daddy doesn't care about your weird interests but I do worry about your mental sate. I know you need someone to explain your fears and mental problems to so that's okay. Daddy is here for you. But like I said, don't be naughty boy! Make your whining a coherent if you want to be taken seriously. For example, as I'm glad you admitted you never had any argument, at the same time you also claim to know logic. The reason why you can't argue is because you can't understand logic. The reason why you can't understand me (hence why you assumed I had an agenda) is because I'm far more intelligent than you could ever imagine. It's why you have all these misconceptions, that, at the end of the day, are the product of your own incompetence. Yes, you laughed at your description because it was done to you in since you were in 9th or 10th grade. Live with it. And your "comeback" as kids like you say is indicative of your inability to think. When I'm talking about "spending time on the internet arguing" it implies with other people, it couldn't possibly mean arguing with myself (albeit I know it's something you do as only a fool can match a fool in lack of arguments). You're flustered because you didn't get any attention. I'm your daddy because you want that attention and it's a figurative talk. Your appeal to pedophilia and incest however is very sickening. The fact that you're re-bringing the statement about arguing shows it really damaged you. "Normal people don't with things" is a seen as a strong claim in the mind of an imbecile that doesn't know a thing includes a person. And despite your sickening fantasy, I'm still your Daddy here.CaliphoShah (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Its time to end this stupidity. I declare my self defeated, CaliphoShah Won hahahhahaha. have better things to do now. Ciao.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It was all fun and play. I look forward to positive contributions.CaliphoShah (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

How about WP:DRN? Administrators don't deal with content disputes. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Arab conquest

It hasnt been a pleasure to spend a lot of time on those small details and writing endless arguments, but to avoid edit wars, it should be noted that the sentence "pre-coquest" is important to indicate that the Arabs didnt come in the seventh century as some close minded people like to imagine that the Arabs as an ethnicity came to Syria only with Islam.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:CaliphoShah, what are you doing here ? You want us to get into endless edit wars for some silly edit ???? You deleted the zinda source because the link was dead but who told you you can do this!, a dead link isnt a reason to delete a source and the policy is to keep the thing in and note it as dead so it can be fixed. I added another link yet you reverted again ! And as for your assumption that using "syrian" in place of "Aramean" is a synthesis, you are dead wrong since the source clearly say that they are the same and hence we are free to use both and this article has been using the designation "Syrians" for years which give it priority over your reasoning that we should be using just Aramean. I hope you read this time and pay more attention to mutual working on articles (even though I have no idea what you are trying to do in this article !).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Attar-Aram syria Antiquity implies pre conquest. When the conquest happens is when Antiquity ends. I don't agree with treating readers as idiots. They can read in the next line, in the intro that there was a conquest.

Zinda is a dead source. It should be removed. Rules allow people to remove dead sources. Furthermore it's not even a reliable source. It doesn't matter if one source says Syrian is Aramean. What matters is that the other sources don't. So it's pretty to appeal to the common denominator and just say Aramean. If you're assuming I have an agenda, you're wrong. I'm trying to remove unneeded sources, make the article coherent and consistent. I'll be reverting. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:CaliphoShah, Antiquity ends by the ninth century or so and this isnt our problem. The problem is that people associate Arabs with the conquest so its important to note that they came before and after it. Dead links are not dead sources. The article of Jules elias is the source not zinde and we are not obligated to provide any links btw. So, whether a link is dead or not, the source stays and I provided a link anyways. As for Aramean and Syrian, I can bring tens of sources that will confirm they are synonymous but you will remove them as excessive. As for reverting, you first reach a consensus instead of shoving your edits against other editors, especially in an stable article where your edits are the controversial. So, I would advice you not to revert.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Antiquity ends at the beginning of Islamic conquest. This source agrees: https://books.google.ca/books?id=1U4rUaLdYnQC&dq=Howard-Johnston,+East+Rome,+Sasanian+Persia+and+the+End+of+Antiquity&redir_esc=y&hl=en I reverted to say pre conquest Arabs. Removing conquest ARabs as they are not part of the antiquity. You are obliged to provide a link when the source points to it. It was put as a web link. And if it's pointing to one guy, you'd have to mention him anyway. When it comes to your claim about reverting: It goes both ways. Don't think that just because you've been using this site for a little longer that it grants you the right not to discuss things. The discussion was dead and you ignored it. That's not my problem. As a whole, my edits are not controversial, in fact you ended up agreeing with them as you didn't revert most. I think the problem lies is that you and George assume others who edit are trying to push an agenda.CaliphoShah (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah and this source have antiquity ending in mid eighth century, a hundred year after the conquest. One guy is a thing, and scholars are another. Its not about being here longer, but its about that those articles (ethnicities) draw the attention of ethnic warriors. This article tried to have balance between Arabs, Arameans...etc cause all of them had an input in the gene pool, not just arabs as Naserists wish, and not just ancient Syrians as some Assyrian nationalists believe. As for source, again, I dont have to put links at all cause its an article im citing. So, a name of the scholar, the year of his article, and the title of that article constitute the citation. Now, you can take a tour in Wiki and see what we do with dead links. We tag them so someone can find the the source at the web archive. Your edits generated three pages of discussion.. they are contreversial and I didnt revert most of them cause I simply have no stomach for this and I simply dont have the will or time to go into edit wars as my time is limited between uni and personal life and I try to use the free time I have to write article more important than an ethnic circus (any article about an group of people is a circus).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The source you just brought up makes only the statement that it's according to one person. In fact if you bothered to read the source you provided instead of quickly copy+pasting what you find in Google, you'd realize the page you showed claims that there are different statements about the end of antiquity. We can have a debate about this and I'll be right at the end of the day that the consensus of historians tilts toward putting the end of antiquity in the Near East at the beginning of Islamic conquests. I don't care about your political agenda. I've had similar discussions with other users in other talk pages. For you folks, you are obsessed with your political agenda and thus go against Wikipedia's core policy of being neutral. And no I don't have an agenda. I have no issue claiming that the first Syrians (in the sense of how Greeks and Romans claimed) are Arameans or that Arabs have been a big part of Syria's history. That is not my issue. The issue I have with this article is that some parts of it have extremely weird wording and have sources attach to it that need to be removed for the reasons stated before. The fact that you're bringing ethnic nationalism into this discussion isn't making me help your case. I was willing to do some concessions but now that you are exposing your position to have a political agenda, then you're showing this article needs much more involvement from outside. Wikipedia is not your propaganda piece. CaliphoShah (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I bothered, after all, its my major in university, so Google wont be my source, but maybe its yours. Now, mister you will be right in the end, this source show you that you have many definitions for the end of antiquity. Lets move on. As for Agenda, I said that those pages attract people with agenda (you, cause I see that until now, most of your edits are in ethnic pages), not that I have agenda and its not like I have wrote about my agenda to see if you care or not. Again, what is it exactly that you need here ? (your "issues" are ... lets say un-based).

One last thing: "I was willing to do some concessions".. dont use this tone, you will be blocked so fast if you turn this into a fighting arena.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow a major in university? Well congratulations for achieving something so unimportant! You're neither a graduate student nor a scholar, so put down that tiny stick you're waving. Regarding the claim of antiquity, the point is that what you're trying to push is held by a minority. That minority can be "many" in your eyes, but it's still a minority. Heck, the source you brought up only claims one person.

So instead of seeing what someone's edits were or entailed, you reacted very irrationally and assumed the person had an agenda? It's your choice, you either have an agenda yourself (projecting) or you're incompetent. Either way, you have no business making any edits as you'll just end up violating Wikipedia's core policy. I already mentioned my issues about the article. Maybe you have a bad memory or you lack cognition. But again, that's not my problem. That's yours. And the tone? Oh spare others the hypocrisy. You first brought up an aggressive and condescending tone. Don't expect others to bow down to you. There is nothing aggressive about saying "I was willing to do some concessions". But maybe the truth hurts for some... CaliphoShah (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You really need to stop talking now. Now, try to make problems and you will see how this place isnt a facebook page style of websites.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Take your own advice. No one is forcing you to reply or to attack others. Again, don't be surprised when people lash back at your aggression.CaliphoShah (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, this needs some help or it will turn into a very stupid argument. Can you please see what happening.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't just say that after ramping up the personal attacks... But I welcome an administrator checking out this recent fiasco.CaliphoShah (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Notables

This section was suddenly inflated with many names that cant be described as Syrian. Saladin ?!! But the actual problem is that it became a copy of another article. Most articles about population groups do not have such lists in it. This list should be deleted and a link to the page "List of Syrians" be kept. Any thought ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps those who aren't from historical Syria, should be removed. In the Germans article, there isn't a list, however there are photo galleries of influential Germans by discipline. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we restore the list as it was before this inflation.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no queries with that. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed Saladin. He was Syrian neither by birth nor by parentage. But the other main figures, including popes and emperors were effectively of Syrian parentage. If a Syrian becomes the Catholic pope, he is still a Syrian. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why do we have an article title List of Syrians ? it was practically copied and pasted here. The lists here should be shortened to avoid turning this article into a second version of the list one. The policy is clear on this : a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Genetics.

~~"The Syrian people cluster the closest with the Lebanese, then the Palestinians, Jews and then the Jordanians".~~

~~this statement isn't sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacirian (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~ <--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

It is. right at the end of the sentence.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

the source doesn't mention such a thing, the only cluster information among those sources is that of the Genome-Wide plosone article, that shows syrians closer to Palestinians, and Jordanians. Nacirian (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Please see Genome-Wide plosone: Figure 2. Populations comparison based on mtDNA haplogroups.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~i've seen the whole of that genetic tests, it always seems to split the Syrians from the Lebanese, please quote what you're seeing. Nacirian (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

I cant qoute a photo. Its in the article. You will see how the populations cluster.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054616.g002 Here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Lebanese Christians and all Druze cluster together, and Lebanese Muslims are extended towards Syrians, Palestinians, and Jordanians, which are close to Saudis and Bedouins. Ashkenazi Jews are drawn towards the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, reflecting historical admixture events with Europeans, while Sephardi Jews cluster tightly with the Levantine groups. These results are consistent with previous studies reporting higher European genome-wide admixture in Ashkenazi Jews compared with other Jews and higher Y-chromosomal gene flow to Lebanese Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula compared with other Lebanese".

~~(Inferences of population relations from haplotypes)~~
"The population tree (Figure 3A) splits Levantine populations in two branches: one leading to Europeans and Central Asians that includes Lebanese, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze and Jews, as well as Turks, Iranians and Caucasian populations; and a second branch composed of Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, as well as North Africans, Ethiopians, Saudis, and Bedouins. The tree shows a correlation between religion and the population structures in the Levant: all Jews (Sephardi and Ashkenazi) cluster in one branch; Druze from Mount Lebanon and Druze from Mount Carmel are depicted on a private branch; and Lebanese Christians form a private branch with the Christian populations of Armenia and Cyprus placing the Lebanese Muslims as an outer group. The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen".

~~this is all i am seeing. Nacirian (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Did you open the link I provided?. What you copied means that the source do support that Lebanese cluster with Syrians, just that Christians are kind of special. Anyway, this is another, and I will qoute: Using genetic distances, correspondence analysis and NJ trees, we showed earlier (61, 62) and in this study that Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians are closely related to each other.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~that's clearly not what the article says, your second article doesn't splits them by religion like the first article does. Nacirian (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

if Lebanese Christians who are half of the Lebanese population cluster differently than there Muslims counterparts than how are Syrians closer to them? most Syrians are Muslims and as such would cluster with Palestinians and Jordanians. who are mostly Muslim. Nacirian (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~also, the figure 3 clearly splits the whole of the lebanese population from the syrians. Nacirian (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

It clearly does, amd the second article and many others I can get will always lead to the same result. Would it make you more relaxed if the article would indicate that Christians (who are like 30% or 40% of Lebanon these days) are a bit different? This belongs in the article about the Lebanese then, cause here is about the Syrians and mentioning other groups should be general and not go into details about the Lebanese Christians. The sources are clear, most studies are showing close affinities between Lebanese and Syrians.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

clearly not, the Genome-Wide plosone always splits them, the only lebanese group that clusters with syrians are the muslims, syrians are almost entirely muslim, do you know who are also almost entirely muslim?, Palestinians and Jordanians. Nacirian (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

What is this about? generally Lebanese and Syrians cluster. There are differences in special cases (like certain sects) but the general rule stands. Thanks for telling me who are moslims and who are christians.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~please explain the figure 3A. Nacirian (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Please explain the figure 2. and the second study I brought. As I said, generally they cluster, study deeper and you find some differences. This article is about generalities.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~i will repeat what the article says.~~

"matrix shows strong stratification in Lebanon by religion, with separate clusters for Christians, Muslims, and Druze, irrespective of their geographic origin (Figure 1)".

"The plots reveal a Levantine structure not reported previously: Lebanese Christians and all Druze cluster together, and Lebanese Muslims are extended towards Syrians, Palestinians, and Jordanians, which are close to Saudis and Bedouins".

"(Figure 3A) splits Levantine populations in two branches: one leading to Europeans and Central Asians that includes Lebanese, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze and Jews, as well as Turks, Iranians and Caucasian populations; and a second branch composed of Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, as well as North Africans, Ethiopians, Saudis, and Bedouins".

"The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen".

"(Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines".

point is, the article always splits the Lebanese as a whole from the Syrians, while it doesn't with Palestinians and Jordanians.

this is supported by the fact that Syrians are predominately J1 (33%), while Lebanese are predominately J2 (30%).

the J2 among Syrians (17) is the same percentage to the J1 of the Lebanese (17%).

~~the correct order should be that Syrians cluster with Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese Muslims etc. Nacirian (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

and the second study you brought is a sample of the whole levantines, druze, christians, muslims etc. it doesn't split them based on religion, like the first study does, which is important as it's clear that they are not the same. Nacirian (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Yes, but you dont need to repeat, the studies show general affinity, and thats what this article is stating. From this source: Christians and Muslim Arabs in Lebanon overwhelmingly share a common heritage. So, do we have a contradiction in sources? or do we have a general rule that those two people are simillar? You can start an RFC if you like.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~i don't think we have contradictions, the first article splits them based on religion, as they are widely different. so it's not the same as the second one.~~

my point is that Syrians cluster more closely as a whole, with Palestinians and Jordanians. what is an RFC?, anyway. this is the point that i am trying to make, i have nothing else at this moment. Nacirian (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

But this show that Moslims and Christians of Lebanon overwhelmingly share a common heritage. So, if Syrians cluster with the Lebanese moslims, then they are also close to the Christians. Thats why going into details is not in the scope of this article. There are articles about the genetics of the Near East that might be a better place for those details. An rfc is when two editors have a problem that is not bein solved on the talk page. Thats when you ask other editors to give their opinions and reach a consensus. This link will tell more: Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~that bbc article is about the Lebanese, your interpretation of it is one of many, lol.~~

~~or we can say that Lebanese Christians who don't cluster closely with Syrians are the same as Lebanese Muslims, meaning that Lebanese as a whole don't cluster firstly with Syrians.~~

~~i agree, lets have an RFC. Nacirian (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Well, since you are proving that the moslims of lebanon cluster with Syrians, then your intrepretation is wrong and the lol is mine. Start an rfc, but I must warn you, ethno-religious biased people dont get a lot of support around here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~it's *Muslims, and no. it's really far from that, lol indeed.~~

you're saying that Lebanese cluster with Syrians because Syrians cluster with Lebanese Muslims, and all Lebanese are the same.

i can interpret it in another way by saying that Lebanese Christians, druze (who are closer to Cypriots and are split from Syrians) are the same as Lebanese Muslims, which mean that they don't cluster firstly with Syrians, it's really simple.

"ethno-religious biased people dont get a lot of support around here".

~~ironic, lets hope the other editors are not biased. Nacirian (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Dont cockfight around here. (Moslim and Muslim ? seriously?) Stop lolling, this isnt facebook and I hope you are not 12. I dont think there is any point of further argument.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~everyone knows that it's Muslims and not moslims, even 12 year olds.~~

~~so it's annoying that you're saying it in the wrong way, jeez.~~

~~calm down and lets get done with this. Nacirian (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Again with moslims.... wierd. Anyway, as I said, this isnt like facebook.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~grammar Nazis are everywhere, lets start the RFC and get done with this. Nacirian (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Nacirian genetic studies provide only one side of the coin, history provides you with another side, and don't forget we're just learning about genetics, it's still a field in its infancy.

One could make genetic arguments based on religious divergences, but on the other hand you cannot put too much stock in that. Historical Syria (before getting split up and divided by Western Mandatory powers) was over 95% Christian before the Arab Muslim invasion of 634 AD. Almost all the Muslims in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine were at one point Christian in Syria.

Another example, the Christian Maronites were originally from North-Western modern Syria, close to the Aleppo region; they left the Aleppo region 800 years ago to settle in the relative safety of the mountains. How could a people that moved 800 years ago be of radically different genetics or blood after moving only 800 years ago to a place that is only 400 kilometers away! Moreover starting in the early 1900s these Maronites started descending the mountains and began mixing with the Beirutis and some of these Beirutis are descendants of Damascene Christians who fled to Beirut during the Massacre of Christians in Damascus in 1860.

Syrians in Historical Syria were moving from one Syrian city to another and intermixing with each other. George Al-Shami (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

~~well, the first genetic study of Pierre Zalloa disagrees with you. Nacirian (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

also, attar you're genetic studies that you keep Pumping into the article won't help out your point. you still can't provide a genetic study where it puts Syrians in a cluster order as that of your liking. Nacirian (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

There is a major genetics study under way, by groups (Alawis, Druze, Costal Sunnis, Eastern Syria, Syrian Kurds). Just to let you know it should come out in September.PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

~~good. Nacirian (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~so we are gonna have the RFC or what?. Nacirian (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~54 Days latter, and a consensus have not been reached/ignored. a removal of of original search, unreliable, useless opinions and sources will be met. Nacirian (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

your edits were reverted. Its you who have to initiate an rfc not us. Do not delete at will, or it is a desruptive editing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

~~@Doug Weller: @Jbhunley: @Kansas Bear:.~~

~~sorry to bother you, but i would love to have your opinion on this matter.~~

~~these 5 edits are mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrians&action=history Nacirian (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~did i get the mention thing correctly? or did they just ignored me?~~

~~anyway, it's seems that i am unable to initiate an rfc.~~

~~so, do you wanna continue this argument or will you try to initiate an rfc?. Nacirian (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

I'm struggling a bit understanding this, but statements must be directly sourced, we can't interpret the source ourselves. That goes for charts, maps, etc. For genetics we should normally stick to the conclusions at the end (and not the abstract which isn't always written by the authors). Doug Weller talk 12:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but his objections were handled. He mainly objected the genetic relation between Syrians and Lebanese, and said that Lebanese Christians are distant from Syrians. So any refrence to Lebanese in general, christians or moslims, was deleted from the article. What went wrong is the editor deleting as he wished claiming that it is unsourced or the sources unreliable or do not mention the stated infor...etc with out a disussion. I will now add direct quotes from the sources to the citations to avoid such behavior--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I am re-writing the article. All sources will be checked, direct quotes will be provided, and general statements will be detailed. After that, if someone still have notes, then by all means, the talk page is open.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Good job with the edits Attar-Aram syria, I like the fact that you employed direct quotes from the sources, these would be hard to challenge. George Al-Shami (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~I've also added direct quotes that went either "unnoticed", or just "avoided".~~

~~i hope you would like that as well. Nacirian (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Info about the Lebanese, Arabians and about the Druze population in general were deleted as they are out of the scope of this article; those populations should be mentioned in the article only in relation to the Syrians. weasel sentences aimed at implying a POV and low quality sources such as the ones saying that 70% of Syrians belong to tribes were deleted. Those sources are not actual sources as they do not count on scholarly research, not peer reviewed, and not written by specialists. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. However, a new paragraph was added to explain how Islam led to closeness between Levantine Moslims and other populations. The sentence about the percenteges of J1 in cities was deleted because it is not sourced.

Also, direct quotes should be provided instead of pasting a bare link, just like I did with every sentence written by me in the article. And please avoid SYNTH. For example, this sentence: The paternal Y-DNA haplogroups J1, which reaches it highest frequencies in Yemen 72.6% and Qatar 58.3%, accounted for 33.6% of Syrians, is directly taken from the source. While this weasel sentence (added by Nacirian): making up between 17-20% among Syrians, similar to the percentages of the majority Muslim Levantine and Gulf Arab populations, is not and worse, sourced to Eupedia !.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~::no they weren't, the source must be mentioned correctly and not just taking out of context.~~

the source about syrians being of tribal backround is a government consensus puplished by notable news sites.

i was wrong in putting back info's such as the cities J1 percentages as i thought it was already sourced.

~~i agree with putting back the yemen and qatar percentages, but the rest is fine and directly quoted and sourced. Nacirian (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

You seem to not follow the policies I explained to you. Those about tribes are not by the government which does not publish such statistics. They were stated by a journalist. Please use Academic sources based on official data and actual research not statments of journalists and activists and refere to the official statistics if they are real. As for the "context", you are totally taking them off context when you write extensively about other populations. You did not provide direct quotes for claims about Syrians, just bare links that might indicate you making up a SYNTH. The Lebanese's position on the route belongs in the article about the Lebanese and the Arabs of the Gulf haveing Levantine component belong in their article. You went way out of the scope of this article with long paragraphs about the study on the Druze population of the entire Levant. From genetic studies, you need only parts related to Sryians, in this article about Syrians. As for your note about modern Assyrians, I dont know why it was added, since it was not claimed that they are related to Syrians. Oh, and your edits to the lede are up for discussion first, since it is the long established version. I advice you to first discuss your edits here, to get a consensus.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow policies put by other users, I only follow the policies of Wikipedia. now with that said, you have reworded the article without gaining a consensus, and that was fine by me as you've kind of sourced it. I did the same, except i added a more matching description of the quoted sources. along side more sourced materials. and to remove sourced materials you need to gain a consensus, i didn't remove any of your sourced materials, so don't do that to my additions. concerning the reliability of source mentioning the tribal background of the Syrian population, lets leave it to Doug Weller to decide. and if you have a problem with my other sourced additions then lets also ask the opinion of Doug. I completely provided direct quotes about Syrians, the Lebanese article clearly mentions the Syrians, the Druze are also Syrians, the gulf article mentions the Levant and "A levantine Sample" which the Syrians are a Part of, and I've also just added a more direct source.

if you haven't noticed, Syrians are Arabs, and as such, mentioning there relations with the other Arab populations is needed. you don't seem to have a problem with slapping "Levantine this and Levantine that" all over the article?!, Syrians are not just "levantine Semites", they are Semitic and Arab as well. about The Assyrian Genetics test, it is a common knowledge that Assyrians and Syrians are mistaken for one another, and some think that Assyrians are syrians etc. plus, The Assyrians are a Semitic population, meaning That they have a relation with Syrians, and mentioning there relation is also needed. "Syrians" are also directly mentioned in that genetics test.

~~PS: Your "watered down" version of the Genome-Wide plosone article to "fit your liking" will never be accepted by me. Nacirian (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

The policies of scope, reliability and SYNTH are not put by me. User George agreed with me, so I did have a consensus. As for your edits, you included obvious SYNTH, such as writing that Muslims are closer to Saudis than to Christians, while the source said that Muslims are closer to Saudis than Christians are closer to Saudis. The study did not say that Muslims have more in common with Saudis than with their Christian brothers. And in any case, that statement was about the Lebanese Muslims. Not to mention the out of scope edits talking about the Lebanese and Arabs of the gulf in an article about Syrians. If Gulf Arabs have Levantine in them, then this should be mentioned in their article, not here. As for the relation to Arabs, a full paragraph was added to the end of the Genetic section. This relation is not denied at all. As for the Assyrians, fine, I dont see it very contrevesial, though utterly unimportant. As for your acceptance, sure, not everyone will accept everything. But consensus is important (its against you now- Me and George) and sticking to the scope of the article is also very important--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

both of you and George are on the same page, I am not surprised that he would do that. me and you are the ones who are having this discussion, and we only asked the opinion of Doug, not the other POV "Levantine Nationalists". you did not gain my consensus to reword the article.

and it is more than clear that the article says that the Muslims are closer to Saudis than they are to the Christians, the Muslims cluster away from them and are put in the same cluster box as that of Saudis and Bedouins. i am not gonna take an opinion about genetics form someone who thinks only "33% of syrians are ethnically arab" because of the J1 percentage.

~~you clearly don't have any knowledge in the field of genetics.~~

~~again, the Lebanese and Gulf Arabs article clearly mentions "Syrians", so what's the problem?. Nacirian (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

It doesnt go like this. Each editor is his own and have his own opinion. A consensus isnt between you and me alone, but between all the editors interested in this page. As for J1, its not an Arab thing. Ethnicities are not about Y-Chromosomes. Syrians are Arabs just like the Lebanese, because its an identity and thats what ethnicities are. How is the Lebanese position on the route relate to Syrians? This has to do with the Lebanese, so take to their page. Refrain from personal attacks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

And @George Al-Shami, Are you a POV Levantine nationalist?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~i didn't say it's an "Arab thing".~~

an intelligent, non-ethno-religiously biased, non-POV editor said that in 2014.^[1]

he has a PHD in genetics.

and this article has been under his editorial provision since 2014... Awesome!.

and people have the guts to say that Wikipedia is an unreliable project...

Syrians are Arabs, just Like the Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese Muslims, Saudis etc.

the Lebanese article clearly mentions the Syrians, "most of the Lebanese (45%) were localised along a trajectory parallel to the Incense Route leading from South Arabia to the Mediterranean (Fig. 3[D1]). Excluding Syrians, their closest population, supported a primarily Arabian root for the Lebanese and secondarily Syrian (Fig. 3[D2])." Nacirian (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Again with personal insults. Yes, you develop and your knowledge expands as you grow. This happened to me, and what I formerly believed in, has changed as my knowledge has increased. As for Arabness, you forgot the Lebanese Christians, after all, they had a huge part in creating Arab nationalism, and most of them still carry this identity. The last thing you wrote is again related to the Lebanese and their roots, not to Syrians who were not the focus of this sentence. Now, the last paragraph of the Genetic section say that Muslims intermarried and show genetic similarities with people from Yemen and Morocco while Christians became a genetic isolate. Isnt that enough for you to emphasize how special Christians are?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~I didn't point any fingers tho...~~

and i am Syrian Arab Muslim, i care about my own people, i am not really interested in the Lebanese Christians. they mostly don't view themselves as Arabs. i think you mean the "Syrian, Palestinian" Arab Christians. cause those are the ones who had a huge part in Arab nationalism, while the Lebanese Christian are known for creating Nationalist ideologies, such as "Syrian Nationalism" and "Phoenicianism" that go against the Arab identity.

I think were gonna be here for a while, i just wanna get this discussion done so we can reach consensus and then both go on there way.

this is my last addition on Wikipedia. so lets just argue the additions and get done with this.

anyway, the Lebanese article is for now removed, but i still won't accept any version of the Genome-Wide plosone article, my version is directly sourced and also quoted. Nacirian (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Syrians are Arabs by identity. Arab is a pan Ethnicity created through a complicated process that took two thousands years, before Islam even. The Genome-Wide plosone is being reflected faithefully in the current version. All parts of it emphasizing the relation between different Muslim people who speak Arabic are in the citation. 3 quotes to be precise. Please tell me how this: The expansion of Islam did leave an impact on the Levant however; religion drove Levantine Muslims to mix with other Muslim populations, who were close culturally despite the geographic distance, and this produced genetic similarities between the Levantine Muslims and populations such as the Moroccans and Yemenis. Christians and Druze became a genetic isolate in the predominantly Islamic world is fundementally different from your version (and please read citation number 65 because in it you will see all the quotes). After that, maybe you can post your version here and we discuss it in a civil manner instead of mocking each other.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~syrians are arabs by both, identity and ethnicity. again, anyone who sees my version will tell you that it's a more *faithfully reflected version.~~

~~i don't understand what's your problem with my version... Nacirian (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Ethnicities are identities. My family are Nasirists, but we dont know what runs in our veins. We could have African or Mongol blood, but we know what we are now. Your version of Genome-Wide is similar to mine, only that yours is too literally copied and include a long quote from the study within the main paragraph which is discouraged to avoid copyrights violations.

This is yours: The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese and Jordanians are genetically closer to Saudis and Bedouins than to there Christian and Druze compatriots, having a much higher Y-chromosomal gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula.[60] and would cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen

This is mine:The expansion of Islam did leave an impact on the Levant however; religion drove Levantine Muslims to mix with other Muslim populations, who were close culturally despite the geographic distance, and this produced genetic similarities between the Levantine Muslims and populations such as the Moroccans and Yemenis. Christians and Druze became a genetic isolate in the predominantly Islamic world

From yours: marking that the Arab expansion in the Middle East impacted the Levant region both Genetically and Culturally. This is not written in the study, which focus on Islamic and not Arab expansion. The study say: and higher Y-chromosomal gene flow to Lebanese Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula compared with other Lebanese. This is about the Lebanese, we cant use it for Syrians.

Anyway, lets find a middle way, what is the addition you see important? Just paste it here and lets discuss it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~so you're a christian?, no offence, but i am really not surprised.~~

this is just observational of course. as few months ago i argued with someone who said that you were an arab Muslim.

anyway, i have to disagree with you, anyone with a functioning eye who sees our two versions will definitely tell you that it's not the same.

my version gives justice to the genetic Arab impact, while the modern one, and again no offense, is a Levantine nationalist garbage.

"This is not written in the study, which focus on Islamic and not Arab expansion."......

~~who do you think made the expansion?. Nacirian (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

I said Nasirists, not Christians. But in anyway, I come from an Islamic background. Obviously, the Arabs of the peninsula made the expansion, but Islam created a nation and an open borders state that allowed different Islamic populations to emigrate freely. Hence, the similarities can not be attributed just to the Peninuslar Arabs, but to any other Muslim population. The study makes it clearer when it mention:and higher Y-chromosomal gene flow to Lebanese Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula compared with other Lebanese. But, using this for Syrians will be a SYNTH. Thats why we need a direct study mentioning the Peninsular gene flow into Syrians in particular. Otherwise, anyone can revert the edit saying that the source do not mention it litterally. (And you argued about me with someone months ago?!).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Doesnt this: the Middle Eastern (Arabian Peninsula/East African) component represents around 25% of Syrian genetic make-up do justice to the Peninsular gene flow?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if your being sarcastic or not. but lets just forget about it and focus on the discussion. (and yeah i argued with someone months ago on you tube who made a mention to this article and i told him, and excuse my language, that "it's a garbage article run by Levantine Christian Aramean nationalist C*nts", and it's partly why i am here, lol...) anyway, the article clearly mentions genetic links to Arabs, and not Turks for instance. it's a common fact that people don't refer to the Islamic expansion in the Middle east as "An Arab Expansion". and there is only one Islamic expansion. and i am not using this for Syrians only, I've mentioned the whole Levantine Muslim population who are genetically the same as the Lebanese Muslims. why would you think they are in the same cluster box and are different than there Christian and Druze compatriots??, because of "having a much higher Y-chromosomal gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula."

~~"Doesnt this: the Middle Eastern (Arabian Peninsula/East African) component represents around 25% of Syrian genetic make-up do justice to the Peninsular gene flow?".~~

~~no... it's actually the opposite.~~

~~remember, your the one who added that information, and i don't think you've added it to "do justice to the Peninsular gene flow"... Nacirian (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

No, Im not sarcastic. The personal info I told you are real. As for the components, well, I added it as it is, I cant change its result. If you think the Peninsular component is higher, then we need a study for this. As for the rest (regarding who made the expansion not me being a c..nt), yes, you are right, but also making a SYNTH. We cant use our own logic (even if it is actually logical) here. We need direct quotes. Maybe we should ask User:Doug Weller to decide if this: and higher Y-chromosomal gene flow to Lebanese Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula compared with other Lebanese can be applied to Syrians and sourced to that study and if it does not constitute a SYNTH.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~alright then. Nacirian (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Nacirian, how about this: The genetic closeness of the Lebanese Muslims to the Syrians indicates the genetic flow from Arabia which is higher in them than their felow Christians

Obviously this is out of the scope of the article as it is talking about the Lebanese but if this formula, which avoid SYNTH, can end this conflict then Im fine. Is it good for you?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~but i am not only mentioning the Syrians in my version, i am mentioning the Levantine Muslim population.~~

~~i don't find that much a difference between this formula and mine. and if you asked me i would think mine avoids SYNTH better than this one.~~

~~because yours mentions the Syrians while quoting a source that doesn't mention them. Nacirian (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

From the study: Lebanese Christians and all Druze cluster together, and Lebanese Muslims are extended towards Syrians, Palestinians, and Jordanians, which are close to Saudis and Bedouins. Ashkenazi Jews are drawn towards the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, reflecting historical admixture events with Europeans, while Sephardi Jews cluster tightly with the Levantine groups. These results are consistent with previous studies reporting higher European genome-wide admixture in Ashkenazi Jews compared with other Jews [11] and higher Y-chromosomal gene flow to Lebanese Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula compared with other Lebanese

So, the paragraph in its entirety mention the Lebanese Muslims relation to Syrians and attribute it to the Arab Peninsula Genes. If we will stay as much as possible in the scope of the article, then its enough to mention Syrians and Lebanese Muslims alone. What do you think?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~so what's the problem with my version?~~

my version:"The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese and Jordanians are genetically closer to Saudis and Bedouins than to there Christian and Druze compatriots, having a much higher Y-chromosomal gene flow from the Arabian Peninsula.

what the source says:"Lebanese Christians and all Druze cluster together, and Lebanese Muslims are extended towards Syrians, Palestinians, and Jordanians, which are close to Saudis and Bedouins."

2-"These results are consistent with previous studies reporting higher European genome-wide admixture in Ashkenazi Jews compared with other Jews [11] and higher Y-chromosomal gene flow to Lebanese Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula compared with other Lebanese [5]."

excuse my ignorance on the Policies of Wikipedia, but i tried my best to make the added material similar but not identical to the quoted source, as you said, "to avoid copyrights violations." so i should make this identical to the source?, because i don't know exactly what a "SYNTH" is. Nacirian (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

The problem is that you apply the results of Lebanese Christians on Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian Christians. The source is talking about the Lebanese Muslims having closer relation to their Muslim neighbours than Christian Lebanese. Your version make it sound as if the Syrian Muslims are also different from Syrian Christians, which needs its own study. That is where the SYNTH lies. My version can avoid all this, indicate the Arab gene flow, and send both you and me to rest--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~"We show that religious affiliation had a strong impact on the genomes of the Levantines."~~

~~I don't think it's only talking about Lebanese Christians... Nacirian (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~we can complete this argument tomorrow if you want, cause i am also getting tired and i don't think we can reach a consensus today. Nacirian (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

The section you just wrote is reflected very clearly in my version. But when you use the paragraph about the Lebanese Muslims, and apply it to the relation between Muslim and Christian Syrians, then its a SYNTH (which means combining sources and quotes that result in a new info not mentioned by the original source). Since you dont like this compromise, we can wait for the admin to decide. Get your rest man, I sure need mine. Cheers :) --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

~~tomorrow it is then. Nacirian (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Nacirian don't start with your accusations of POV, the editors on this site are determined to keep all articles as professional and NPOV as possible. Your personal opinion that states that Syrians are 100% Arab is based on personal identity; this article is not about personal identity, it is about well-sourced scholarly work, by people like Philip Hitti, who was fluent in the other Semitic languages. (If you're interested, the following is a good interview and will provide information on his remarkable credentials, if you weren't familiar with him. url: http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/197104/a.talk.with.philip.hitti.htm) Genetics aside, articles such as Britannica Encyclopedia, and CIA fact sheets are helpful, but for information about ethnicity, they are clearly limited. We need sources from strong authorities on this subject. Check out Hitti's description of Syrians at the bottom of page 77 that starts with " The modern Syrians are the remnant of" (https://books.google.ca/books?id=YfZHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77&dq=philip+hitti+syria+ethnicity&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiomOvFufjcAhUNj1kKHTnLAUoQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=philip%20hitti%20syria%20ethnicity&f=false). In history, before the Arab Muslim invasion of Syria in 634 AD, the only Arabs in the world were confined to the Arabian peninsula. Almost three centuries after the invasion, only a small percentage of Arabs started mixing with some of the old-stock indigenous Syrians who converted to Islam. Neither Attar, nor myself, is maintaining that Syrians don't have some Arab ancestry, however according to scholars, such as Hitti, Syrians also have the old-stock indigenous ancestry; which doesn't get erased after an invasion by another people. (And this applies to other peoples, as well) Please don't conflate the pan-Arabist movement (personal/political identity) that peaked in the 1950s with ethnicity; these are two different topics. (By the way, before the ill-fated union with Egypt in 1958, the official name of the country was the "Syrian Republic".) George Al-Shami (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You clearly a POV Levantine nationalist, your editorial behaviors, siding with other Levantine nationalists, and last but not least, intervening in this discussion and also on Doug Weller page, where no one asked your opinion. your username also proves my point.

"the editors on this site are determined to keep all articles as professional and NPOV as possible."

Welp, clearly the editors on this article failed to do so, as this is just another levantine nationalists garbage of an article, filled with levantine nationalists agenda, and completely far from the truth, along side being obviously biased against Arabs.

Pushing a non-existent "Levantine" identity on a whole demographic of people that the complete majority of them don't see themselves as such.

"Your personal opinion that states that Syrians are 100% Arab is based on personal identity".

I have never said that, don't put words in my mouth, being an arab is an ethnolinguistic identity, and Syria and Syrians are part of it, Making the majority of Syrians Arabs, as they originate from an Arabic speaking country that is part of the arab World/league. this is a known fact, and were not currently discussing the arab identity. but rather Genetics.

"this article is not about personal identity, it is about well-sourced scholarly work."

No, this is a biased levantine nationalist crap, using a Distorted description of sources.

"by people like Philip Hitti"... a Lebanese Maronite Christian??, no wonder.

And Hitti's description of Syrians doesn't matter, he's not a geneticist.

Check out Irfan Shahid, he's way better.

"before the Arab Muslim invasion of Syria in 634 AD, the only Arabs in the world were confined to the Arabian peninsula."

Gosh... i am not even gonna waste my time arguing this horseshit opinion, but nevertheless, thanks for proving my point.

I am not denying the existence of "some of the old-stock indigenous Syrians" among the Syrian population.

~~I am trying to balance out the article, so that it represents both, the Arabian and "Indigenous" ancestry of the Syrian Population. Nacirian (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~Sup Attar, long time no see.~~

~~shall we complete?, or postpone it to tomorrow?, both is fine by me. Nacirian (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

I think its better to wait for an admin. The edit you want is a clear SYNTH in my view (applying the results of Lebanese muslims on Syrians in a way the source did not). Hence, we reached a dead end. SYNTH is forbidden and consensus between editors is not enough for it to pass.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

~~i told that the lebanese article is for now removed.~~

~~my version of the gnome article is where we have our differences, but that we can request the opinion of an admin.~~

~~i wanna discuss the other edits, for instance, lets start with an easier one, like my edits outside the section of genetics. Nacirian (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Using the part of gnome article where it attributes the closeness of Lebanese muslims to Syrians to the Arabian gene flow into Lebanese to say that this gene flow is the same in Syrians and other Levantines and that they share the same distance from their fellow christians as the Lebanese do from their fellow Lebanese christians is the SYNTH here.

As for the edits outside the genetic section, I believe they are two: the 70% Arab tribal percentage and replacing the ancient peoples mentioned in Britannica with general terms such as Mesopotamians...etc

For the tribal percentage, non of the sources you presented is academically proven or count on official data, hence, it can not be accepted according to Wiki rules. I refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As for the other edit, there is no reason to replace what Britannica (the source) said with general statements.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

~~I already told you that the article doesn't only talk about Lebanese Christians.~~

"We show that religious affiliation had a strong impact on the genomes of the Levantines."

the tribal percentage is for Doug to decide.

my version of the inhabitants of Syria is following the quoted source.

"The Greek and Roman ethnic influence was negligible in comparison with that of the Semitic peoples of Arabia (Arabians) and Mesopotamia (Mesopotamians)—Aramaeans, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Canaanites. (Levantines)." Nacirian (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

The sentence: "We show that religious affiliation had a strong impact on the genomes of the Levantines." is represented in the article with: "The expansion of Islam did leave an impact on the Levant however; religion drove Levantine Muslims to mix with other Muslim populations, who were close culturally despite the geographic distance, and this produced genetic similarities between the Levantine Muslims and populations such as the Moroccans and Yemenis." so whats the problem? As for the Brittanice, whats the problem with mentioning the peoples instead of the regions like the source does?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

~~I told you that your watered down version of it will never be accepted by me.~~

~~and as for Britannica, fine.~~

Please change it to "The inhabitants of Syria descend from the ancient Semitic peoples of antiquity, mainly the populations from Arabia, Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Canaanites. Nacirian (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

Its not watered down, its true to the source. You want to replace "religion" with "Arab", and this will never be accepted by wiki rules, regardless of you and me. As for the Brittanica, so you want Arabian to be mentioned first? If it means so much to you, then fine, since the source have this order.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

~~also, please remove "The inhabitants of Syria descend from the ancient Semitic peoples of antiquity", so we can avoid SYNTH. Nacirian (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

~~it is obviously watered down, the whole article talks about genetic relations with Arab populations and makes no mention of other non-Arab Muslim populations.~~

~~and it isn't about me, i am trying to get this article to match the quoted sources, as the modern version of it is clearly distorted. Nacirian (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

The paragraph you are using is saying: religion. You cant replace it with Arab if you want it to match the source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

it is already attached to a paragraph that mentions the reason for the closeness of the Lebanese Muslim population to Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians, Saudis, Bedouins, and clustering away from there christian compatriots is because of having a higher Arabian genetic influx.

at this moment, your clearly just persuading and wasting time.

BTW, why did you remove "mainly" from the article??.

phew... that previous version was a SYNTH landmine.

~~good thing we have "editors on this site who are determined to keep all articles as professional and NPOV as possible." Nacirian (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

So you insist on being aggressive. Read it again, I was still thinking about avoiding copy right violations. Consensus is against you. You have given several indications that you are Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. I think this discussion is done. Please do not insert any SYNTH and any low quality sources. If you decide to continue with this behavior, then blocking you at the admins notice board wont be hard.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

~~"So you insist on being aggressive", how?~~

Pointing out obvious things is "aggressive"??.

well them, i am probably am "aggressive".

I am not inserting any SYNTH, the only "SYNTH" is the version of the article before i started this discussion in the talk page.

you have no right to dectite what this article is gonna be or look like, my version is directly sourced and every single statment is mentioned in the source.

~~If you have a problem with that, then an admin can decide. Nacirian (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

We will meet in the admins notice board.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

~~then by all means, show the way. Nacirian (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)~~<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

This is an archive of past discussions about Syrians. 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.

^ Talk:Syrians/Archive 1#genetics

[1] Talk:Syrians/Archive 1#genetics

[1]