Talk:Phoenicianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Information[edit]

According to Arabian/Middle-eastern consensus and history, the Canaanites broke off the South Arabians after Shaddad gained control of his father's Kingdom Ad, and waged war on them. Canaanites migrated to Syria and Palestine, where their Language (later to be known as Phoenician) was identical to south Arabian. This is where it gets a little cloudy, but we can tell that the Northern People and the Southern People of Syria grew distinct, the Northerners eventually becoming known as the Pheonicians and exporting their alphabet due to being in closer proximity to the west.

So to say "I'm Pheonician, I'm not Arab" is a lot like saying "I'm a Texan, I'm not from the United States"

It's a stupid, baseless argument. Furthermore, genetic studies conducted by Arielle Oppenheimer shows that there was a significant overlap between Lebanese, Syrians and Iraqis (These same test essentially proved that Palestinians were the Israelites as well- they are more known for this reason.)

There is also no reason to claim the Lebanese dialect of Arabic is a distinct language. It is clearly not. It sounds more like classical Arabic (if you get over the accent) than Iraqi or Yemenite Arabic does. That's got to take the cake for one of the stupidest arguments for Pheonicianism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.73.26 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Stop placing information that cannot be proven. Show me that Lebanese people have been proven to be genetically Arab.

Reading the cited article does not give any genetic proof at all instead giving hopes for a proof for a study to be done !!! So citing that isnt exactly giving any proof of any mean. And about Arab, it's not about genetically proofing, it's about a culture, it's like asking give a proof of some american origin of some white guy!!! So please stop removing this part of the article, after all, every point of view should be given otherwise this encyclopedia wont be neutral and objective --Banzoo 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's nothing neutral about that part of the article. This article is about phoenicianism, not arabness.

Why is this page so one sided? It discusses Christian militias killing Palestinians, but doesn't talk about all murdered Christians at the hands of Muslims.

The page was so one sided. Instead of presenting both sides of the argument it just constantly tried to prove phoenicianism wrong. It could link an article done by National Geographic (citation needed)proving that Lebanon has a strong Phoenician ancestry. Lebanon as well as the other Levatine nation have been influenced by many cultures, not only Arab, and that should not be denied.

Langauage and culture are irrelevant. Most Zimbabweans speak English. Does that make them Anglo-Saxons? And does anyone who likes pizza suddenyl become a descendant of the Romans? Whoever created this page is clearly confused by the obvious differences between bloodline and language/culture similarities. Also "Arabic" Lebanese and true Arabic(as spoken in Saudi Arabia) are different to the point that many speakers of one can not understand the other. This article was clearly created by a Zionist spouting the "all Middle Easterners are Arabs" lie, since the recognition of a unique Lebanese people may in turn to them having to recognise a unique Palestinian people. But if they're all "Arabs", then such recognition is not necessary.

It is a stupid article, Phoenician are Semitics so are Arabs. All of them have the same roots and the same faces!! look at King Abdullah, and Fuad Seniora Faces, Do you see any difference?! (anon.)
But, to turn to the article rather than orate on the subject, this article is intended merely as a report on published discussion of the history of the idea. Published opinions, especially when sourced, interest the Wikipedia reader more than all our personal opinions combined. Let's improve the article with some sourced quotes on the subject "Phoenicianism".--Wetman 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Feni'3i And Arabi[edit]

You can claim both, Phoenicia is the land. We are Phoenicians. Phoenician Arabs, Phoenician Assyrian, Phoenician Armenians, Phoenician French. Just like the Egyptians can be Egyptian and Arab in the same time, because Egypt is the land! and Phoenicia is our land. If you want to get technical Lebanon is the inner mountains thats the Assyrians/Arameans/Ghassanid rebel moved into (from Syria!) after Islam. The Phoenicians were always in the coasts.--Skatewalk 06:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so misguided, if you think that ethnicity depends on where you live. You obviously have no understanding of the concept of race. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:33 13 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

As a Lebanese, I'd like to refer to myself as an Arabo-Phoenician, or Phoeniceo-Arab *Whatever you prefer) You have to take into account that heredity is at work here. Also Arabs are not the majority of the Lebanese all the Lebanese are Arabs because it's their native tongue, except Armenians of course, who take pride in their Armenian roots and therefore are welcome legal immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.225.40 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and we've embraced the Arab culture a long time ago, so you can say that the original Arabs conquered us culturally, and therefore we possess the Arab Culture and the minor Lebanese culture that separates us from Palestine, Syria etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.225.40 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing in common with the ancient Phoenicians except that you inhabit their former territory. There are no signs or evidence of Phoenician in the the Lebanese people. Most Lebanese Christians are more related to the Assyrian people rather than Phoenicians. After all, are you not Suryoye? — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 13:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you don't become a people after accepting their imposed culture and language. No one in his right mind would say African Americans are a Germanic people just because they speak English, which happens to be a Germanic language. You define your ethnicity after your race. Though language does tell you something about your origins and history, it is not the sole decisive factor in determining who you are. And the native tongue of the Lebanese people is Syriac, but it has been replaced by Arabic. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument goes both ways. Lebanese people don't magically develop Arab blood by adopting Arab language and culture. They do become Arabs in the cultural sense, but that says little about their ethnicity or ancestry. (And, by the way, yes there are notable signs that modern Lebanese are related to the ancient Phoenicians.) A lot of people freely and perhaps willfully confuse the two concepts:
  1. Arab Culture, which includes certain traditions, customs, and a common language.
  2. Arab Ethnicity, a dubious concept, which perhaps refers to people descended from the Arab tribes that came out of the Arab peninsula and spread Islam beginning in the 7th century AD.
I don't think anyone can deny Lebanon's Arab culture. If, however, you believe that no significant trace of the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hittites, etc. exists today, and that everybody in the Middle East is more or less of the same ethnicity, then you are quite foolish (and perhaps also a Pan-Arabist). 115.23.54.19 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as a lebanese, i see myself as Arab, not phonecian, i dont share the language, the culture, the heritage, the traditions, the religion, the customs, the identity, Phonecians ARE people that once lived in Lebanon, but they are definatly not modern day lebanese...--Arab League User (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speak with such confidence, "Arab League", but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it is possible modern-day Lebanese are related to the ancient Phoenicians. The link is worthy of consideration and further study, and to say Phoenicians are "definatly (sic) not" modern Lebanese is gratuitous. 115.23.54.19 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Article, not the soapbox[edit]

More pertinently, anyone who has read the titles on the Further reading list I've added would improve this article by adding a summary of the history of this idea. The fact that it's a mistaken idea does not account for the strength of its historical appeal c. 1920-50 nor the historical context of motivations that led to its invention, which are the two aspects of interest to the educated neutral observer. --Wetman 15:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference(dot)com[edit]

Much of this article seems to be taken word for word from the www.reference.com 70.16.19.108 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "mirror" for that very reason. By comparing the page history here you could even tell the date the information was copied. Wikipedia is not the "mirror"; instead, it keeps getting better, bit by bit. --Wetman (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps getting better, bit by bit? Then why is this "Article" included? It appears to display that people claiming descent from people who lived in the same land, spoke a closeley related language, had the same names, same customs, and even appear identical on ancient busts, coins, vases etc., are imagining the whole thing. Of course the modern-day Lebanese(the indigenous people, not more recent migrants of course) are descended from the Phoenicians. Is someone going to start an article called "Egyptianism" which attempts to mock that modern Egyptians "claim to be descended from the ancient Egyptians, with a unique history and culture"? Or an article called "Hellenism" which states that "modern Greeks claim they are the descendants of the ancient Greeks, with their own history and culture"? So why would anyone without some sort of social/political motive find it in any way unusual that modern Lebanese people believe themselves to be descended from the ancient Phoenicians? If wikipedia "keeps getting better, bit by bit", then articles such as this one should be deleted, and blocked from ever being allowed to be recreated ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.207 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posts that are signed and by editors who are logged in are generally taken more seriously. The fact that there is no cultural or linguistic connection between modern Lebanese and Phoenicians does not impede impassioned outbursts, which are in themselves a sign that "Phoenicianism" is a phenomenon that can be discussed seriously by adults quoting informed sources. --Wetman (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenicians, Canaanites, Jews, Arabs, Greeks, and Egyptians[edit]

I (a Jew) happen to be interested in determining the relationships between all of those peoples, who, after all, inhabited the ancient eastern Mediterranean Sea (and one might as well throw in "Israelites", "Hebrews", and "Samaritans" for good measure). As I understand history, Phoenicians were essentially (northern) Canaanites who happened to take to the seas and found various colonies. Jews, as I understand history, somehow emerged from the vicinity (well, the southern Levant) and are related to Hebrews and Israelites (and may be practically the same people), and Samaritans were interlopers. I find it impossible to believe that the peoples involved would remain completely separate without some degree of mixing, trading, intermarrying, etc., etc. Thus, it stands to reason that there are numerous people today of mixed Phoenician/Canaanite/Jewish descent, as well as Jewish/Egyptian, Jewish/Greek, Canaanite/Greek, and so on and so forth, with some Western European as well (after all, there were the Crusades). Have there been any studies into the relationships between the Phoenicians, the Canaanites (if they were, indeed, a separate people), and the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Documents[edit]

It seems that there are many Youtube references to the language, with adaptations to the famous passage in Plautus. Is Youtube acceptable for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.48.89 (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly ever. Some exceptions, the official YouTube page of a linguist might be, or a really good documentary on the page of the television company. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland and Britain[edit]

Irish and British interest in Phoenicians should be treated in appropriate articles for their cultural history, not here. Material was deleted.--Parkwells (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Murr Nehme? Seriously?[edit]

I had never heard of this... eminent scholar but per her obviously self-created Wikipedia bio she's known for such groundbreaking theories as "the Roman temple complex at Heliopolis was really built by the Phonecians" and for various religious polemics and "bible prophecy" works. She appears to have a degree in fine art or art history and her professional university work is entirely in art history. Her "expertise" on such issues as "Islamic terrorism" stems from personal researches into "falsified mainstream history" prompted by anger over the Lebanese Civil War.

I do not think this person should be cited at all for any purpose and certainly not for puffed up claims about what "historians have noted," etc. TiC (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we shouldn't use her. See User talk:Demossoft and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara de Baalbek for evidence of COI, although it might not be her. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry to burst your history bubble but the substructure of the Temple of Jupiter in the Heliopolis complex is composed of monolithic limestone from local quarries and was in fact built by the Phoenicians. The Corinthian columns were made from porphyry stone and were erected by the Romans but the base of the temple is Phoenician stonework. I am not a historian, but if Kamal Salibi (fiction writer) gets to have a whole section in this article dedicated to his fabrications, then Lina Murr Nehme or any other person with an opinion on the subject of Phoecianism should also be considered a valid reference. Cheers.2601:249:8280:CF70:758A:F775:D12F:43A5 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phoenicianism. Please take a moment to review https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenicianism&action=editmy 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why, exactly, are you requesting a citation for the claim that lebanon was christian before the muslim conquest?[edit]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.102.146 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Phoenicianism[edit]

Although rejected by academics, its a popular belief in Malta that their language is not of Arabic origin but descended from ancient Punic. See: https://culturemalta.org/phoenicianpunic-malta/, https://phoenicia.org/maltese.html. This article debunks the idea that the Maltese are Phoenician but it attests to the widespread belief in the idea: https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/67128/where_do_the_maltese_come_from. Given that this form of Phoenicianism is a part of Maltese nationalism and popular belief, what do people think about adding a section to this article currently limited to a Lebanese political phenomena? Xophe84 (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the likes of Kamal Salibi[edit]

Criticism section should consider valid references. The article cites Kamal Salibi whose works are merely fiction writings (The Bible Came from Arabia (1985) comes to mind).2601:246:A01:B2F0:DD24:CB0D:C5DD:7946 (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casual propaganda in the article[edit]

Doug Weller reverted some edits because he confused A House of Many Mansions (by Kamal Salibi) with legitimate peer-reviewed research.

We can disagree on citing Kamal Salibi as a valid source (and other post civil-war Lebanese intellectuals who profit from selling books and should not be confused peer-reviewed research). That does not negate that "Phoenicianism embraces Phoenicia as an alternative cultural foundation by rejecting 850 years of Arabization" is a pan-Arabist political statement and not a valid scientific counter argument. In other words, I would like to see some criticism for actual research such as this article regarding ancestral continuity in Lebanon and this article (published by Nature) that dates 7,300 years of unique ancestral heritage. We need to shift the debate in that direction.

Citing the likes of Kamal Salibi (Pan Arabist fiction writer on his brightest day) and Assad Bou Khalil (Conspiracy theory lunatic, just go check his twitter feed don't take my word for it) leaves the debate in opinionated political arguments that lead to nowhere. The subject of Phoenicianism is a highly divisive topic among Lebanese to begin with so lets shift the arguments and counter arguments to a right path. The big elephant(s) in the room is the grotesque propaganda in the criticism section so why don't we start from there. --2601:249:8280:CF70:9E:9CFC:620C:8100 (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenicianism&oldid=1209748175"