Talk:Phoenicia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HistoryisKing.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

So, this is still a hot mess? Whether WP:ARBPIA covers it or not is one question, but more interesting (for the readers) is the question of whether we can get it right. So let's try to get it right. The State of Palestine, as far as I can tell, has only the Gaza strip on the coast, and it does not extend as far north as File:PhoenicianTrade.png extends south. I know, this is maps, and guesswork, etc. But let's focus on the main question: the reader of Phoenicia isn't interested in the P-I issue; they simply want to know where to find this on a modern map. So let's try to find some neutral and correct wording. Doug Weller, I see you've touched on this issue before and I'm interested in your thoughts. Also found on this talk page (Talk:Phoenicia#Palestine_and_the_Kingdom_of_Israel) is an ancient comment by George which was never answered--and George seems to have left the building in 2011. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies Not sure yet, but the EW is still going on. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that I want to restart a war, but I am of the opinion that we cannot privilege one or the other of the two contenders in a dispute that is not yet settled, and that, therefore, we should call that region by the two names in alphabetical order, i.e. Israel/Palestine. BTW there is a typo in the lede, a twice repeated "of the" before Canaanite subgroup. Carlotm (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Error?

In 5.1 Genetic studies (first paragraph) one may read: "...followed by "Cyprus and South Turkey; then Crete; then Malta and East Sicily". Yet East Sicily was predominantly Greek, whereas Phoenicians were settled on the Western side of Sicily. Carlotm (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Genetic origin

This article says the origin of the Phoenicians was Semitic while a recent scientific study discovered that the complete mitochondrial genome recovered from the Young Man of Byrsa (i.e. a Phoenician) identify that he carried a rare European haplogroup, likely linking his maternal ancestry to Phoenician influenced locations somewhere on the North Mediterranean coast, the islands of the Mediterranean or the Iberian Peninsula. In other words, at least that man had European, not necessarily Semitic origins. While this evidence cannot be called conclusive as regards the Phoenicians as a group, this probably should call for attention in racially classifying Phoenicians (and also for mentioning that study in the article). The study is here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155046 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.187.218 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really says anything about Phoenicians other than that their sailors slept with women in the places they visited - well, they were sailors, and sailors are known for having a girl in every port. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously Doug Weller, you're going off of modern rumors about American "sailors" promiscuity, rather than ancient Middle-Eastern and / or Roman sailors, as well as excavators and / or historians? IrishLas (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

It states the coastline of Palestine it should state Israel.

It included the coastline of what is now Lebanon, Palestine, Gaza, Syria, and south-west Turkey, though some of its colonies later reached the Western Mediterranean (most notably Carthage) and even the Atlantic Ocean. The civilization spread across the Mediterranean between 1500 BC and 300 BC.

It included the coastline of what is now Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Syria, and south-west Turkey, though some of its colonies later reached the Western Mediterranean (most notably Carthage) and even the Atlantic Ocean. The civilization spread across the Mediterranean between 1500 BC and 300 BC. 79.74.254.68 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Territory?

@Nihlus Kryik:I am trying to figure this one out. We have a map of Phoenician cities in which the Tyre is shown but that's in Lebanon, nothing in ancient Palestine or Israel. We have a copy of an old map which claims to be of Phoenicia but is titled "Towns of aram" and is described as a map of Damascus. What's that doing here? Aram (biblical region) is in Syria. We have a hand drawn OR "map of Phoenicia", apparently intended to give a rough idea of the part of the Levant known as "Phoenicia", it does not correspond to any historical empire or polity. The cities indicated are the ancient Phoenician city states, perhaps in the Late Bronze Age (?)" - that's copied from the description.

Sources: Early Antiquity edited by I. M. Diakonoff University of Chicago Press."Ancient Phoenicia approximately corresponded to the modern state of Lebanon.[1]

The Ancient Near East By John L. McLaughlin[2] [3]"Phoenicia was never a unified country but rather a collection of city-states, the most important being Akka, Aradus, Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre. Often one city took on greater significance and influence in the region; Byblos was dominant in the early years, followed by Sidon in the north and Tyre in the south."

The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade[4] By Maria Eugenia Aubet[5] Cambridge University Press "The territory called Phoim'ke by the Greeks extends along the coastal fringe of the eastern Mediterranean and its geographical boundaries coincide roughly with those of modern Lebanon. This region, which we call Phoenicia, situated between the mountains of Lebanon and the Mediterranean sea, is all that had been preserved of ancient Canaan,"

Phoencians by Glenn Markoe, University of California Press [6]. "Geographically, the Phoenicians are no more easily defined. According to the ancient classical authors, they occupied the entire Levantine coast between the Suez and the Gulf of Alexandretta. In actuality, however, their heartland was considerably smaller, consisting of a narrow coastal strip between the Lebanon mountains and the Mediterranean sea stretching from northern Palestine to southern Syria - a slightly extended version ofmodern Lebanon. The dichotomy suggests that the term ‘Phoenician’ in antiquity was broadly applied to any Semitic sea-trader. Such ambiguity, ironically, may reflect historical reality. Unlike their Syrian or Palestinian neighbours, the Phoenicians were a confederation of traders rather than a country defined by territorial boundaries.Their empire was less a stretch of land than a patchwork of widely scattered merchant communities. Maritime trade, not territory, defined their sphere." Doug Weller talk 09:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You know a lot more about this than I do. However, I have seen maps with Dor, Israel, being within Phoenician territory around 1000 BCE, but I don't know how reliable those are. I was leaning to removing both Israel and Palestine, but I am not comfortable in my knowledge about the topic to make that decision. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added one source and rewritten the lead, but forgot about this. Another source is this Cambridge University Press book[7] which says "Phoenicia. The Phoenicians were undoubtedly the most important traders in the first half of the first millennium BC. Phoenicia was a coastal area, corresponding to modern Lebanon. It extended from Mt Carmel in the south to Arvad in the north, bounded on the east by the mountains of the Lebanon. The principal cities of Phoenicia in the Iron Age were Tyre and Sidon, though Byblos and other Bronze Age Canaanite centres remained important." I only add this book, which is basically about Greece, as it says Lebanon but includes Mount Carmel in Israel. I'll add that when Markoe says Norther Palestine I'm not sure what he is including or excluding as he includes Ako, which is in modern Israel, and he's clearly talking about ancient Palestine, not today's state. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017

The article states that purple dye was made from the SHELL of the Murex snail. That is incorrect. The dye is made from the body of the snail, specifically a mucus gland. 2602:304:68AC:6140:60EE:2776:65:37B9 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Intro

I have listed Lebanon first so as to avoid confusion, putting aside the fact that I'm Lebanese. Phoenicia existed along the entire coast of Lebanon, and some parts of the coasts of Syria and Israel. Grammatically it makes sense to list Lebanon first, and then the "extension" of the Phoenician empire (heartland first, and then boundaries). Furthermore the most prominent cities of the Phoenician empire existed in modern Lebanon. To write it any other way is misleading, and confusing for the reader. LebaneseBebe (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

PREVIOUS GENETIC STUDIES CAT

ORIGINALLY/CHANGED BY BATANAT:

A study by Pierre Zalloua and others (2008) claimed that six subclades of haplogroup J2 (J-M172) J2 in particular, were "a Phoenician signature" amongst modern male populations tested in "the coastal Lebanese Phoenician Heartland and the broader area of the rest of the Levant (the "Phoenician Periphery")", followed by "Cyprus and South Turkey; then Crete; then Malta and East Sicily; then South Sardinia, Ibiza, and Southern Spain; and, finally, Coastal Tunisia and cities like Tingris in Morocco". (Samples from other areas with significant Phoenician settlements, in Libya and southern France could not be included.) This deliberately sequential sampling represented an attempt to develop a methodology that could link the documented historical expansion of a population, with a particular geographic genetic pattern or patterns. The researchers suggested that the proposed genetic signature stemmed from "a common source of related lineages rooted in Lebanon".[39]

None of the geographical communities tested, Zalloua pointed out subsequently (2013), carried significantly higher levels of the proposed "Phoenician signature" than the others. This suggested that genetic variation preceded religious variation and divisions and, by the time it became Phoenicia, "Lebanon already had well-differentiated communities with their own genetic peculiarities, but not significant differences, and religions came as layers of paint on top.[40] Another study found evidence for genetic persistence on the island of Ibiza.[41]

EDITED TO BY user:BATANAT:

Levantine Semites — Lebanese, Jews, Palestinians, and Syrians — are thought to be the closest surviving relatives of the ancient Phoenicians, with as much as 90% genetic similarity between modern Lebanese and Bronze Age Sidonians.

CHANGED to (BY ME): According to one study conducted modern Levantine Semites — Lebanese, Jews, Palestinians, and Syrians — are thought to be genetic relatives. Furthermore, of the ancient Phoenicians, with as much as 90% genetic similarity between modern Lebanese and Bronze Age Sidonians.

User:Batanat undid my edits, she has been going around the article and using biased editing. LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Appropriateness of predominance of names Phoenicia, Phoenician, Punic, etc

The predominant or exclusive use of such names as Phoenicia, Phoenician and Punic in articles on this and related topics to refer to the people, language and alphabet of the region is misleading. These were only ever used by foreign (Greek and Roman) writers, never by the natives. The names used by them are well attested in inscriptions and on coins: for the region, kn'n (Canaan), kn'ni, (Canaanite) and kn'nim (Canaanites), and they were the names used by their neighbours to refer to them from as far back and the Sixteenth Century BCE. They were also used by the Carthaginians with reference to themselves. This was the case for the whole of the Levant between Asia Minor and Egypt, including the southern part called Palestine by the Greeks and Romans. The whole of the Levant was Canaan and its native people Canaanites to themselves. I have seen many maps that separate Canaan (Palestine) from Phoenicia, which is nonsense. This also applies to those inhabitants who called themselves Israelites or Jadaites (Jews). Whatever their reasons for radically differentiating themselves from the Canaanites, that is what they predominantly were (as the genetic section in these same articles clearly demonstrate). There may have been some admixture between them and nomadic immigrants or invaders from elsewhere in the wider region ("Hebrews") or refugees or invaders from Egypt ("Exodes"), but not enough to submerge the predominance of native Canaanites in their ancestry. There is no evidence of an Israelite conquest of the southern Levant or any part of it or the expulsion or extermination of those they called Canaanites. As for language and writing, the languages called Phoenician (or Punic) and Hebrew are essentially one and the same, the common language of Canaan, and the alphabet, again whether called Phoenician or Hebrew, is the same alphabet, the common alphabet used throughout Canaan and by Canaanite colonists, including Carthaginians. It is surely of some importance that this be fully recognised in articles on this and related topics, rather than obscured or even misrepresented by the use of foreign designations unknown to those they designate.

   Beebledum (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Beebledum

@Beebledum: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DUE, we just use the term most commonly used in professionally-published academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That is the problem. The sources are thoroughly Eurocentric, following the usage of the Greeks and Romans who successively conquered Canaan and imposed their own nomenclature on the region and its inhabitants, rather than even acknowledging that of the natives to whom that usage was alien. That is how it comes about that Phoenicia is treated in text and maps as quite distinct from Canaan when to the inhabitants themselves there was no such distinction. That is a serious misrepresentation of reality. Likewise as regards the Phoenician and Hebrew languages and alphabets which are treated a quite distinct when in fact they are one and the same, allowing for slight local variations. All manner of erroneous assumptions arise from that. One interesting consequence of getting these things right is to bring to the fore the question why the Israelites and Judaites, who (as shown by their genetic makeup) were of predominantly Canaanite ancestry, gave themselves a foundation myth involving Hebrew immigrants, Egyptian refugees and bloody conquests that, at most, were of marginal significance. Can anyone shed some light on that fascinating conundrum? 82.13.54.200 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Beebledum

Honestly, any critical reader will notice that this article is sort of ridiculous. There is zero unique geographic or cultural content to the label "Phoenician," and the article admits as much several times. I don't understand why the article should not be rewritten to be about the term "Phoenician" as a term, i.e. as a lens through which some historians have seen aspects of the ancient Mediterranean world system. When we have articles about biased constructions, they are honest in this way. -2601:241:8401:DAED:F9D4:50BC:27B3:A669 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Important Cities and Colonies

This section's a bit of a mess. Barely anything is sourced, there's massive inconsistencies between whether a modern location is given, there are towns that appear twice on the list (Tipasa), and in general it's wildly inconsistent with what's included as 'important' - there are nearly as many Maltese sites mentioned as Tunisian ones. The biggest question mark for me is the section titled "Other": for a start, why do cities like Thenae appear here instead of in the list for Tunisia? And more to the point, I'm unable to find any details on the last four - well, Surya I believe is just another name for Tyre, but the other three only appear here and in sources citing this page. 2A00:23C4:D128:E200:3521:997C:8DC9:A201 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

BCE has become the more popular terminology amongst scholars and I see no reason for the continued use of BC, it would be good if this was changed. (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree but see WP:ERA. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem with 2nd para of religion section

It reads: "Phoenicians were known for being very religious.[[this used to read "Like their Hebrew cousins...] While there remain favourable aspects regarding Canaanite religion, several of its reported practices have been widely criticized, in particular, temple prostitution, and child sacrifice. "Tophets" built "to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire" are condemned by God in Jeremiah 7:30–32, and in 2nd Kings 23:10 (also 17:17). Notwithstanding these and other important differences, cultural religious similarities between the ancient Hebrews and the Phoenicians persisted.

The first sentence seems to me silly. "Very religous" compared to what contemporary cultures? Source? The second sentence starts with a weaseley comment (favourable aspects? what does that even mean) with vague sourcing and then tells us that temple prostitution is bad. That's a modern day subjective judgement.

Doug Weller talk 16:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much. We are not here to apply modern ethics to historical religions. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly edited the section to remove the non-NPOV phrasing. The practices can be described without adopting Judeo-Christian value judgements. Carlstak (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The source is wrong about there being distinctions between ancient Israelite and Phoenician religious practices. Both cultures were Canaanites and worshipped Canaanite Gods. The Ancient Israelites were Canaanites who also practiced child sacrifice. These practices were purged in the second temple reforms in the 6th-5th century, and after the exile, when the religion was monotheized by merging together various Canaanite deities, prohibiting child sacrifice, and producing works of literature justifying the religious reforms. The practice of child sacrifice was known as Moloch, and Moloch was in fact sometimes done to Yahweh, who was essentially the same God as Baal. Confused modern translators often misinterpret Moloch as an independent diety, rather than a religious practice. However the extensive condemnation of child sacrifice that is present in the Bible, is in fact evidence that it was once practiced, and that the work was commissioned to justify the change in practices, and that Yahweh now hated it and would not accept child sacrifice. The work also invented a strange narrative where the Israelites came out of Egypt and murdered the previous Canaanite inhabitants, however this is clearly impossible and is obvious the Israelites were simply Canaanites themselves. The narrative may have emerged after the Babylonian exile to justify the returning nobles right to rule, although it would not have been accompanied by an extermination. Anyway confusingly the biblical narrative gives the city of Tyre to the Israelite tribe of Asher, which would've occurred before 1000 BC. So by this narrative the Phoenicians would've been driven out as Canaanites by the invading Israelites long ago. But it's clear that the Canaanites in Phoenicia existed long after that, and founded numerous colonies including Carriage in the 0's BC. However they never had the religious reforms that existed in the southern Canaanites (Israelites), so child sacrifice and polytheism existed much longer.2601:140:8900:61D0:9E7:497E:512F:A6BB (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for all of that, then a condensed version might make an appropriate addition to this article; the full-length paragraph would be better, I think, at a more specialized page about Middle Eastern religion. If you have reliable sources. —VeryRarelyStable 01:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

@Zurkhardo: some of your material looks good, a lot is unsourced, and some is sourced and in at least one case copied directly from a website - a website which wouldn't meet WP:RS in any case, but the page is copied from the New World Encyclopedia which we should never use as a source - we describe it as "an Internet encyclopedia that, in part, selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values." I think it needs to be rolled back and then you add bits at a time, sourcing as you go to academic sources. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Good point and very good to know. I have written and academic sources, I just need to include them more robustly. Will be doing so now!

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Philosopohy"

I removed this section, as it largely consists of fables. Thales' purported Phoenician descent is largely a myth. As mreliable sources make clear, his parents' names were Examyas, a Carian name, while his mother was named Cleobulina, a Greek name [8]. Similarly, Pythagoras is surrounded by fables, supposedly having "learned arithmetic" from the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and even India. The truth is, very little is known about the actual lives of these philosophers, who are surrounded by myth due to their prestige. When one looks at the sources critically, there is actually very little substance there. Khirurg (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Article getting too long

This article has approximately doubled in size in the last month. It is now vastly larger than articles on comparable topics such as Ancient Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, or Classical Greece. I apologize to the enthusiastic contributors who have brought about this state of affairs, but I really do think some condensing is in order. —VeryRarelyStable 07:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Semi-democratic government"

This section has a number of serious issues with it. Specifically:

• Almost all of it is sourced to a single obscure paper by Stephen Stockwell, a journalism and and communications professor at an Australian University []. The paper has been cited at most 12 times since 2010. While such a source is probably acceptable for some claims, sweeping claims such as Greek democracy was influenced by the Phoenicians falls under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which this source does not meet.
• There are multiple instances of sources being misquoted and outright falsified. For instance I found the claim Several historians have claimed that Sparta's form of government may have been inspired by that of Carthage. to be highly suspicious, since the Spartan constitution (latter half of the 9th century BC) predates the founding of Carthage (814 BC). Sure enough, when I looked into Stockwell, he actually contradicts this claim with It is unlikely that the Spartans copied the Carthaginians, whose devel-opment had just begun in the seventh century BC. Furthermore, this is only sourced to Stockwell, so where does "several historians" comes from?
• Another instance of source falsification is Polybius seems to confirm this, claiming that during the Punic Wars, the Carthaginian public held more sway over the government than the people of Rome held over theirs.. This is sourced to [9], but ipon reading that entire chapter, I cannot see anything in there that backs this claim.
• As Stockwell himself states, this whole notion started with the now widely discredited Black Athena thesis, which has been comprehensively debunked.
• The remainder of the section is sourced to Aristotle, who falls under WP:PRIMARY and should be avoided.

I am becoming increasingly concerned that a POV is being pushed by misusing sources. I will be trimming the section accordingly. Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Time for a Thanos job? Cutting the article in half

This article remains far WP:TOOBIG, as I pointed out back in May. I hereby signal my intention to begin cutting it down at some point before the end of this year towards a target of approximately half its present size. (Let me link to WP:TOOBIG again; the limit for dividing an article is supposed to be 100K, and this article is presently > 218K – leaving half of it here is generous.) I will try to do this by condensing wording rather than removing content as far as is reasonably possible, but I don't think that's going to be enough. I invite other editors here who may be invested in the page to make suggestions as to what should be kept. Once again, just to be clear, the article is currently far above guideline; keeping more than half of it is not an option. I'm sorry if this sounds brusque, but I phrased this politely months ago and have been ignored.

—VeryRarelyStable 21:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

More silence. So nobody minds which parts I cut? —VeryRarelyStable 02:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done the cuts. The new version is now up in my sandbox; I will put it up here tomorrow if there are still no objections. What I've cut falls into three main classes: (a) extraneous puffery, needless verbiage, vague statements (especially without sources); (b) repetition – lots of things get said two or three times under "History", "Economy", "Foreign relations", etc.; (c) stuff specific to Carthage, which would be better placed in one of the dozen or so pages dealing with Carthage. My version is down to 86K, which is still on the long side although no longer actually WP:TOOBIG, so if you put anything back you have to take something else about the same size out. If you want to keep the fine detail, it's time to hive off a "Phoenician history" or "Phoenician religion" page. —VeryRarelyStable 08:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What? A barefoot Kiwi bisexual who considers singular "they" standard English usage wants to perform a hatchet job on the article? This is an outrage!

I'm kidding, I'm kidding. I do agree that the article in its present form is too long, but I think you should at least notify Zurkhardo on his talk page, since he has contributed much of the text (it was 113,662 bytes when he started adding material). He is knowledgeable and writes well.

I think it's rather arbitrary, to say the least, for you to assert "so if you put anything back you have to take something else about the same size out." I do not agree. There is voluminous literature on Phoenicia, and 100,000 bytes would not be excessive for such a vast subject.

Your version looks okay to me, but there is way too much white space in the "Important cities and colonies" colony. Carlstak (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStableCarlstak, sorry for being MIA. I wasn't aware it exceeded the recommended size! (I also appreciate you all keeping me in the loop; I got the personal message as well!) I'll defer to you all what should be cut, as I did notice some things could probably be removed or at least trimmed. But yeah, it's such a big topic with so much literature it was hard for me to choose! Zurkhardo

@Carlstak: I did indeed notify Zurkhardo, as you'll have seen by now. I agree that 100,000 bytes is not excessive for such a vast subject as the entirety of Phoenician civilization; indeed 200,000 or 300,000 bytes wouldn't be excessive. But 100,000 bytes is getting excessive for one single Wikipedia page on the subject of Phoenician civilization. What I'm recommending is not that the extraneous information be deleted, but that it be hived off to separate pages of its own (say "Phoenician history", "Phoenician navigation", "Gods of the Phoenician religion"), with this page remaining as a sort of hub bringing together summaries of the more detailed pages.

Singular "they" you will have to take up with Jane Austen and William Shakespeare.

—VeryRarelyStable 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, VeryRarelyStable. What you propose is eminently workable; I agree it's the best way to handle the subject. Perhaps you or Zurkhardo, or both of you, would be up to the task? I have too much on my plate now. I beg you not to drag my spiritual antecedents into this singular "they" business, though. Everyone knows Shakes wrote whatever he damn well pleased, and I notice all the authors cited by grammar infidels as using the construction are English. Sounds like a devious conspiracy to me.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

History of Phoenicia is now up. It's just a copypaste of the old version of the "History" section of this article, and still requires a lot of work. —VeryRarelyStable 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable: @Carlstak: What a phenomenal improvement! Thank you both so much for keeping me in the loops :)

Contradictions in Article - Needs Contractions header?

April/2021 - Hiya, the two lines of information (below) contradict themselves. I believe the author of the Demographics part has cherrypicked or misquoted the information because their sources state that there are 4 theories of origin/identity of Phoenicians (none are conclusive). Should there be a "self-contradictory" header at the top of the article or align the text?

Intro 2nd Paragraph: "The term did not correspond precisely to Phoenician culture or society as it would have been understood natively,[10] and it is debated whether the Phoenicians were actually a civilization distinct from the Canaanites and other residents of the Levant."

Demographics: "The Phoenicians were an offshoot of the Canaanites, a group of ancient Semitic-speaking peoples that emerged at least in the second millennium BC.[11] Though they were often known to outsiders as Canaanites, and continued to self-identify as such, the Phoenicians became a distinct people some time in the Late Bronze Age, between the 14th and 13th centuries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnabti (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

On "debunked archaic beliefs"

@Zlogicalape: This is why I reverted your edits:

1. I'm going to be charitable and chalk up the ungrammatical "which are tended to be rejected" to haste. The grammatical form would be "which tend to be rejected", although it would be better to simply say "which are rejected".
2. The fact that the information comes from Herodotus is sufficient to establish that it is ancient; the fact that it is ancient makes it likely that it has been updated. To describe it as "debunked archaic beliefs" is therefore inappropriate emphasis which departs from the neutral tone required in an encyclopaedia.
3. The existing sources do not establish that the beliefs you are criticizing are "widespread". As far as I know the typical non-scholar, across the world, has no particular opinion on the origins of the Phoenicians.
4. If the opinions you are criticizing really are widespread enough to be notable, then they should have at least their own paragraph; and that paragraph should come after the discussion of the fact of the matter. They should not be squeezed in before it in an aside. If they are not notable then they should not be mentioned.
5. You removed information about the Dilmun civilization without explaining why – though I see, on a second reading, that the existing article does not establish the relevance of the Dilmun civilization to Phoenicia. If that was your concern, it would have been appropriate to say so in the edit summary.

For future reference, the place to discuss edits to an article is on the Talk page of that article, not on the Talk page of the editor who made them. —VeryRarelyStable 10:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1.It isn't necessarily "ungrammatical" and is actually used but to avoid deferring the topic, Thank you. "which tend to be rejected" is more fitting as it is not synonymous with "which are rejected", since the latter assumes a general consensus unlike the former. (trust me if I had the choice, i'd choose the latter)

2."the fact that it is ancient makes it likely that it has been updated" ?! such as a flat-earth ?! If by updated you mean "shown to be fallible" then why not mention the fallacy.

3/4. As i've mentioned, "user can argue that the term widespread should be removed and can remove it". I do not want to argue this point nor waste time supporting it (as u've mentioned "they should have at least their own paragraph"). P.S: I'd argue that "widespread" refers to those that have opinions on the matter. Same as how widespread beliefs regarding Shiva applies to those that have opinions on that matter and not people who have never heard of him (but still unimportant)

5. You answered this one and though (i agree) it would have been appropriate of me to mention this, I would've expected the editors on this subject to have read the edits before reverting !

6. You could've edited the article instead reverting again to avoid all this, especially since I already removed the word "debunked", though fitting, and offered more explanations in the article with references to the source but you decided to negate it all instead of editing.

I'll make an edit that should have points we agree upon except for the usage of the term "archaic" which would be a fitting emphasis for an old belief that lacks any scientific support (actually rejected due to evidence negating it) yet still remains adamant.

P.S: you have sparked a big debate over here regarding "which are tended to be rejected" and it's correctness, and we're at each other's throats. Hope your happy ! Zlogicalape (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"which are tended to be rejected" is definitely ungrammatical ("are + perfect participle" is the passive construction, but "tend to" is intransitive, so it cannot be used in a passive construction). I don't think "certain archaic beliefs on their origins, which tend to be rejected by modern researchers "because of archaeological and historical evidence of population continuity through successive millennia in the Levant" is an improvement on the previous "Herodotus believed". The proposition is shot down by the following sentence anyway; trying to also disprove it in the sentence where the point is introduced just makes things needlessly confusing. Furius (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

But aren't there cases where they do work together such as in a prepositional passive ?

Ex: "Furius commented on my wordy Wikipedia edit." --> "My wordy Wikipedia edit was commented on by Furius." Zlogicalape (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but "commented on" is a transitive prepositional verb, while "tend" isn't (the "to" is the particle for introducing infinitives, not the preposition to). If we try to do what you did with "commented on" with "tend", it produces a nonsense phrase ("the theory tended to be rejected" --> "be rejected was tended to by the theory" / "to be rejected was tended by the theory").

Nb: despite my earlier comment "tend to" with the preposition "to", as in "care for someone", *is* a transitive verb: "The nurse tends to the patient" --> "the patient is tended to by the nurse"... (English, huh.) Furius (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I mentioned prepositional passives as an example of cases where a "mainly" intransitive verb would be used passively.

I don't think you've quite done justice to the comparison (unless I misunderstood your point of it) since in "Furius commented on my wordy Wikipedia edit.", the subject "Furios" ends up being the object of a prepositional phrase starting with by. But since the phrase "the theory tended to be rejected" doesn't have one included, then transforming it would be impossible.

So if we take "the theory tended to be rejected by Furius" this should output --> "Furius tended to reject the theory"

My introduction of "are" is what is considered ungrammatical where a similar comparison would be:

"Furius tended to reject the theory" --> "the theory is tended to be rejected by Furius" Zlogicalape (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

To begin with the minor matter, no.

Furius tended to reject the theory → The theory tended to be rejected by Furius

Reject is transitive and can be put into the passive. Tend + verb is intransitive and cannot. The fact that in your sentence both verbs are passive should have been a warning sign.

However, this does not address the core concern, which is the inappropriately contemptuous tone the entire edit confers upon the paragraph, in combination with the awkwardness it lends to the introduction of Herodotus' theory.

Yes, the flat earth theory was updated a couple of thousand years ago. Prior to that, it was the best explanation of such evidence as had been gathered and analysed. Then further evidence was gathered and analysed, and the earth was shown to be round. That is how knowledge works. There is no call to sneer at people for believing a theory that is the best explanation of such evidence as is available to them.

Wikipedia is not a place for expressions of contempt or even impatience; it is a place for stating facts in plain language. This, the previously existing text already did.

I direct your attention to MOS:Words to watch, particularly Contentious labels, Expressions of doubt, Editorializing, and Synonyms for said – the latter particularly in connection with the wording about "the people of modern Tyre in Lebanon who insist on having Persian Gulf origins".

I understand that it is frustrating to try and tell the truth to people who aren't listening. However, Wikipedia is not the place to vent this frustration.

My recommendation therefore is to revert the entire edit except for not reinstating the part about the Dilmun civilization.

—VeryRarelyStable 05:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You missed the point ! the flat-earth analogy was given to show that since it had been "updated", it shouldn't be presented anymore (or at least shouldn't be presented as a contender)

"that is the best explanation of such evidence as is available to them" is %100 right, SO you make evidence available. You do not present them as equals.

If we look at Figure of the Earth - Wikipedia, we don't see any mention of a flat-earth being presented. Because such an archaic point that HAS BEEN UPDATED should not be present ! Except for some form of "History" section that would describe all the OUTDATED beliefs up to the current belief !

There is no "sneering" but putting it in place !

"it is a place for stating facts in plain language" nor is it a place for misleading statements that could imply that "outdated" beliefs are contenders/alternatives to "updated" beliefs. Presenting outdated & updated beliefs as equal creates lots of problems in addition to being simply wrong. If mentioning an outdated belief is a necessity then it would be fitting to mention it's "outdatedness" as well as it's updated version (even better would be to place it in an appropriate section)

It is funny that you should mention MOS:Words to watch & Synonyms for said, since it calls to pay attention when editorializing since it "can produce implications that are not supported by the sources" which is literally why I changed it.

This re-worded sentence "The people of modern Tyre in Lebanon, have particularly long maintained Persian Gulf origins." is not similar to what the source states "The people of Tyre insisted on their Gulf origins" WHEREAS "the people of modern Tyre in Lebanon who insist on having Persian Gulf origins" is.

Note: IMO, this statement all-together could be removed from the article

Lastly, yes it is frustrating but editing the text to fit the sources and make it clear that a belief is outdated is not venting (though the previous use of the word "debunked" might be :p), same as how if I were to mention the flat-earth belief in the other article, I would not be able to present it on it's own without showing it as being outdated/false/unsupported/.... Zlogicalape (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Call it what you will, "sneering" or "putting it in place"; it's still non-neutral language that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Sources cited are allowed to use non-neutral language like "insisted", but Wikipedia itself is not. Please follow the Manual of Style.

Here is a quote from the Earth article:

Scientific investigation has been resulting in several culturally transformative shifts in people's view of the planet. Initial belief in a flat Earth was gradually displaced in Ancient Greece by the idea of a spherical Earth, which was attributed to both the philosophers Pythagoras and Parmenides. Earth was generally believed to be the center of the universe until the 16th century, when scientists first concluded that it was a moving object, one of the planets of the Solar System.

"Has been resulting in" (instead of "has resulted in") is clumsy English, but you'll notice there's nothing here about it being "archaic" or "debunked", nor does the article rush to discuss the rejection of the idea before actually saying what is being rejected.

But suppose for a moment that it did: suppose we edit it to say

Certain archaic beliefs on its shape, which tend to be rejected by modern researchers, are built upon the initial belief in a flat Earth, which was gradually displaced in Ancient Greece by the idea of a spherical Earth, attributed to both Pythagoras and Parmenides.

Does that look more factual? Does the question of the Earth's shape now feel more settled? For my money it has exactly the opposite effect. The use of contentious language immediately tells me that this is a contentious subject. The fact that the writer has felt the need to emphasize its falsehood tells me that its truth or falsehood is still a live question.

Just to drive the point home: let's suppose for argument's sake that you have two kids, and one of them has broken something precious of yours, and you ask each of them in private whether they did it. One of them says "It wasn't me." The other says "Not me, that is a total lie and absolutely not true and you can't believe them when they say it." Which kid broke your possession?

That is why Wikipedia uses plain language.

—VeryRarelyStable 11:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh but there is a difference between the example you have provided and our current affair !

The first quote(Q1) you mentioned clearly states the words "Initial belief", "displaced", "was generally believed", "until the 16th century", "concluded"... which I find to be no different than "Archaic" BUT if we were to replace Archaic by these terms, i'd more than glad.

There were no cognates nor anything similar to such terms found in the article prior to my introduction of some. So if we were to project the wording of Q1 onto the our sentence, it would say something like:

Scientific investigation has been resulting in several culturally transformative shifts in people's view of the origin of the Phoenicians. Initial belief in a Bahrain origin was gradually displaced in modern times by the idea of them developing from local Chalcolithic people (showing population continuity in the Levant), which was attributed to both the scientists Pierre Zalloua and Marc Haber. Phoenicians were generally believed to have originated from the Gulf until the 21st century, when scientists first concluded that the archaeological and historical evidence does not support this claim.

"The fact that the writer has felt the need to emphasize its falsehood tells me that its truth or falsehood is still a live question." Because in a way it is, which is why highlighting the shift from an "outdated" belief to an "updated" one is an important one.

Nevertheless, based on the quotes provided that seem to provide a pleasing wording to both of us, I suggest the following edit:

Scientific investigation has lead to the displacement of the initial Bahrain origin belief, which started with Herodotus & later shared by Strabo, with the current thought of being developed from local Chalcolithic people who themselves developed from people who settled in farming villages during the Neolithic period.

Archaeological and historical evidence do not support the Gulf origin belief, which seems to be held by some Lebanese (the Tyre example), in addition to recent genetic researches that have shown that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry (over 90%) from a Canaanite-related population showing great continuity in the Levant.

P.S: I would believe none of them and would definitely not base my conclusion on a sentence I read ! Evidence or any form of deduction would guide me. If they were in front of me, I would have better probabilities at identifying the culprit. Realistically speaking, if I were the parent then i'd know my children and how each one reacts.

To further elaborate, how the kid reacts is not the indication! It is the reaction coupled with the child's character/mentality Zlogicalape (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think even "Initial belief in a Bahrain origin" gives the idea too much credit. Herodotus said that some Persian storytellers said it; we don't really know whether that's true, whether the Phoenicians also believed it at the time, or if it was just Herodotos' personal theory. I tend to agree with VeryRarelyStable that the changes have the opposite effect from what you intend - they turn Herodotos' molehill into a mountain. Furius (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with you which is why IMO it shouldn't even be mentioned !

The initial statement mentioned Herodotus, Strabo, local beliefs... alongside the scientifically backed beliefs which might give the impression that these are justified if not equal views.

If it is unclear, vague, uncertain and moreover scientifically contested then why mention it ?!

I understand that the current phrasing might be giving it too much credit so if you could help with rephrasing it, that would be great.

P.S: in a way, the same could technically apply to Q1 as it would be seen as giving a flat earth credit. Zlogicalape (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the original paragraph is a mess. An work-in-progress attempt at fixing it, with comments in {}:

• The fourth-century BC Greek historian Herodotus claimed that the Phoenicians had migrated from the Erythraean Sea around 2750 BC and the first-century AD geographer Strabo reports a claim that they came from Tylos and Arad (Bahrain and Muharraq).{Cite Rice, Bowersock, Donkin here; I'm tempted to remove Tsirkan who mentions Strabo very much in passing. I'd quite like to also include the primary references here, which are Herodotos Histories 1.1, 2.44 & 7.89; Strabo, Geography 16.3.4} Some modern scholars{or maybe specifically say "Bowersock, Rice, & Donkin?" or "Some archaeologists of the Persian Gulf} have accepted these traditions and suggest a connection with the collapse of the Dilmun civilization ca. 1750 BC{Cite Bowersock, Rice, Donkin again} The people of modern Tyre in Lebanon have long maintained Persian Gulf origins.{we currently cite Rice for this, but he says nothing about modern or ancient Tyrians' claims about themselves, so we need a source or the sentence should be deleted altogether} However, most scholars reject the idea of a migration "because of archaeological and historical evidence of population continuity through successive millennia in the Levant" and recent genetic research indicates that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population.{cite Haber and all}

It's probably worth listing here what the secondary sources that we are citing actually say:

• Bowersock pp. 400-402, followed by Rice pp. 19-29, specifically propose a scenario where the Phoenicians emigrated from Bahrain following the collapse of the Dilmun civilization ca. 1750 BC. This is based on the literary sources, the coincidence of the names of the Phoenician cities Tyre & Arados with the islands Tylos and Arad, the archaeological evidence for the Dilmun civilization's collapse and... I can't see what else because google books cuts off for me there (Rice also cites Ezra's claim that Tyre is an island as evidence that the Tyrians came from the island of Bahrain, which is odd, because Tyre is an island + there's stuff about the garden of Eden).
• Donkin pp. 48-49 just repeats the ancient sources and takes it for granted that they are true.
• Tsirkan... is hard to summarise, but he's not talking about where the Phoenicians came from historically, he's trying to explain the origins of the terms 'Canaanite', 'Phoenician', and 'Sidonian'. I don't think he belongs in this paragraph.
• Haber et al are accurately represented by the text as stands.
• Can we find more secondary sources? I'm surprised that there aren't more people calling Bowersock et al out on this (in my opinion) nonsense.

I think we do need to mention Herodotos and Strabo because they are the only contemporary testimony & have been influential. Also, if we take them out, someone will add them back in. Furius (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Furius: I substantially agree with your proposed edit. I would cut the sentence about the people of modern Tyre, and I would paraphrase rather than directly quoting the clause "because of archaeological and historical evidence..." Otherwise I think we're good to go.

For that paraphrase, how about something like

However, most scholars reject the idea of a migration; archaeological and historical evidence alike indicate millennia of population continuity in the region, and recent genetic research suggests that present-day Lebanese... (etc.)

—VeryRarelyStable 00:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll give it a day or two for further comments, then, implement. Furius (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Furius Looks splendid and I agree with both you & @VeryRarelyStable regarding cutting the Tyre sentence.

@VeryRarelyStable's paraphrase is great.

Between the three choices presented:

1-Some modern scholars

2-Bowersock, Rice, & Donkin

3-Some archaeologists of the Persian Gulf

2 & 3 seem fine, though 2 might seem most appropriate. (maybe both, something like "Some archaeologists of the Persian Gulf (Bowersock, Rice, & Donkin)" or flipped)

P.S: "The theory tended to be rejected by Furius" works :D, it is the prepending of "is" (as u've mentioned in the beginning) that is wrong (though part of me is still unconvinced :p) Zlogicalape (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, even if consensus on the grammatical question eludes us, we've at least solved the minor matter of the content of the page! Furius (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Source not up to par

Holst, Sanford (2011). Phoenician Secrets: Exploring the Ancient Mediterranean. Santorini Books.

Unreliable. The author is fringe (see published works, which include freemasonry and the Templars, in one volume), and the publisher is not academic. There may be others of this ilk. Haploidavey (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I've done a prune of the sources section, which did contain a lot of detritus. Furius (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Palestine/Israel

I'm sure that quietly tolerating people ping-ponging the names back and forth is better than constant fighting, but is there really no other option? This is getting annoying. I see six years ago they thought they had found a solution, but it evidently wasn't a permanent one. —VeryRarelyStable 12:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Surely there's a more general policy on this point? Furius (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This is happening all over Wikipedia with random IP users changing "Israel" to "Palestine". There is no other option since the Phoenician city-states and their possessions have never reached any part of the modern State of Palestine. Even in the peak of their territorial expansion during the Persian period, the southernmost point they reached was Ashkelon.

This is a good point to address an issue in the lead section. It states that the southernmost point the Phoenicians reached was "possibly" Gaza. I looked through Edward Lipiński's Itineraria Phoenicia and it gives no mention of Gaza. The same goes for History of Phoenicia by Josette Elayi and History and Archaeology of Phoenicia by Helene Sader - none of them mention Gaza as a Phoenician possession. In Meir Edrey's Phoenician Identity in Context: Material Cultural Koiné in the Iron Age Levant page 23 he explicitly states: According to the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax... the borders of Phoenicia during the Iron Age III stretched from the Tapash River in the north... and the city of Ashkelon in the south... the city of Gaza was not included in the Phoenician territory since it served as an administrative and military base of the Persian army. So I am changing to lead to say that the Phoenicians in their homeland reached as south as Ashkelon.

As for the issue of random IP trolls changinf "Israel" to "Palestine" there's nothing else to do rather than keeping reverting. Otherwise you could protect this article for extended-confirmed users.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable and Furius, after additional disruptive edits I've requested to protect the article and it will be semi-protected for 3 months.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Tripoli vs Tripoli

The opening paragraph mentions the core Phoenecian territory stretching from "Tripoli and Byblos in northern Lebanon" but links to Tripoli in Libya. Is this intentional or should it link to Tripoli, Lebanon instead 84.65.150.221 (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. —VeryRarelyStable 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mtcav4, Tyre123, MotoMoto1952, MannyRamirez12345, Phoenician24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cunningseafarer2024, Cunningseafarer22.

— Assignment last updated by Jking1304 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect a course entitled "The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers" to honestly address "the Phoenicians, Punic peoples, and Carthaginians on their own terms and in their own contexts within the ancient Mediterranean sphere." Tone deaf, and not a good sign.

Imagine a course entitled "The Hebrews – Cunning Merchants". Carlstak (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Etymology unclear

There appear to be a lot of sources saying that Phoenicia meant "land of purple" in Ancient Greek. Even if this is discredited, it need to be explained better in the Etymology section. Currently the section is unclear on which came first; in other words, is it saying that the Greeks took the existing name and applied the meaning "land of purple" to it, or did they have words for "purple" and "land of" and applied them to the place or the people? Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Thalassocratic"

Google Ngrams shows that the words thalassocracy and thalassocratic are two to three orders of magnitude rarer than words like maritime, naval, and seafaring. A Google Books search for "thalassocracy" produces only technical works for academic specialists. I do not think this word conveys anything at all to non-specialists, except for the few who happen to know enough Greek to recognise θάλασσα.

If you're coming to dispute this and you're a specialist in the subject, I would ask first that you read this xkcd cartoon and take its message to heart.

I don't think the word thalassocratic needs to be used in the lede paragraph at all, since we don't proceed to use it anywhere else in the article; but if it is, then it needs a within-text explanation, not just a link.

—VeryRarelyStable 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The linked page thalassocracy discusses the alternate word maritime and seaborne. The article does not redirect to those words suggesting its been determined to be common usage there. If what you saying is correct, it probably should be addressed on the Thalassocracy article first.

That said, my view is if the academic specialists use it, then that's what we should use. Wikipedia should set the standard according to that best practice. So if that is how they describe Phoenicia (or not), that's the relevant discussion to be had here. Biz (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought that an uncommon word on its own, not part of a flood, presents a learning opportunity to expand one's vocabulary, and that it should be defined at first use. Thalassocracy is rare enough that it demands an in-text explanation, beyond the wikilink. Carlstak (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, there's not anything wrong with a note. Secondly, while the use of terms isn't to be done explicitly with the intent of expanding the reader's vocabulary, we use terms because they're the best terms to use as reflected in our sources. Thalassocracy is the name of its article because it is the most appropriate name for the concept it describes. There's a very basic reason that our policy on article titles is nigh-coterminous with our policy on general naming conventions—there's usually no reason not to use the form used for its article title in the body of other articles as well. To insist that we shouldn't use words because they're comparatively rare (or Greek and from the 19th century, as @Aid1969 has seemingly thought to argue—maritime is Latinate and from the 16th century, what on earth is your point?) is arbitrary and has no logical terminus. That's why we leave it to sources like we do everything else. Remsense ‥ 论 14:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what this word salad means, it seems to be in response to my statement, but I don't have a problem using the word thalassocratic. I do think it's helpful to the reader to explain briefly, in as few words as possible, what it means upon the first instance of its occurrence. Carlstak (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not getting into an edit war Aid1969 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Me neither, that's why I'm trying to discuss it with you here instead. Remsense ‥ 论 15:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this:

@Aid1969 has seemingly thought to argue—maritime is Latinate and from the 16th century, what on earth is your point?) is arbitrary and has no logical terminus. That's why we leave it to sources like we do everything else. Aid1969 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You posted in your argument a quote saying that thassalocratic was Greek and from the 19th century—I didn't see why that was relevant, is all. Remsense ‥ 论 15:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The answer is in your own reply.

'Maritime' has a longer provenance in the English language.

Personally I would prefer 'seafaring' for the same reason, but 'maritime' will do if you like fancy words.

I'm always thinking that this encyclopedia is meant to be accessible to the billion plus non-native speakers. Aid1969 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A term's provenance is not an argument for its appropriateness: the two are simply not correlated. Again, we should call Phoenicia a thassalocracy because that is what it is often called in sources, and it is a term with specific meaning not entirely captured by near-synonyms. Technical or domain-specific language is often the correct language to use on Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 15:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ok, have it your way then. Aid1969 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Phoenicia" or "Phoenicians"

Modern scholarship views the idea of "Phoenicia" as basically a misnomer - there was no one place called Phoenicia, but it was a set of city-states with a common Canaanite culturo-ethnic context, one that was shared in part with overlapping Levantine and/or Mesopotamian and/or North African ancient polities, but said city-states were sometimes warring or independent or had different alliances. I'm assuming so far I haven't said anything too controversial, yes? Given that, the article feels a bit schizophrenic at times, talking about Phoenicia as a distinct nation or civilization, when in fact it was part of a more complex situation at the time, isn't that also true? Andre🚐 23:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Civilization does not imply political unity. Sumer was also composed of city-states in conflict with each other, and Ancient Egypt had several periods with rival dynasties or civil wars. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, but are sentences like As a mercantile power concentrated along a narrow coastal strip of land, the Phoenicians lacked the size and population to support a large military. coherent? Phoenicians weren't a single mercantile power. Andre🚐 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm no authority, just a random reader who didn't find this incoherent, but here was my thought: the Phoenicians didn't have certain types of unity but they did have other types of unity, so different types of single-ness are at play in different sentences. They were "a mercantile power" insofar as the Greeks and other neighbors saw them that way and induced them to act that way, in the usual way Orientalists awkwardly unify opposed Orients.

On the other hand, I'd definitely respect an argument that this means the page is echoing the schizophrenia of Orientalist ideologies in general and that a better sort of coherence should be possible for the article. RowanElder (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is mistitled: it should be moved to "Phoenicians", because that is what it is actually about. Perhaps that would resolve the "schizophrenia" (not the right word). Carlstak (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Enough of the nonsense. I've boldly moved the page to "Phoenician people", which is what the entire article is actually about, in that it consistently refers to "the Phoenicians" rather than the supposed country of "Phoenicia", which didn't actually exist, and was a concept foreign to the Phoenician people themselves. Carlstak (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an authority here, but the sources seemed clear to me that "Phoenician people" was also foreign to the "Phoenician people." They called themselves Tyrians or Sons of Tyre or other alternatives. Did you check sources like Quinn? RowanElder (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what's going on here that well so I'm going to drop this immediately rather than do any pretense of expecting Wikipedians to be welcoming of others or assume good faith. RowanElder (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Good thing because, ironically, you're not assuming good faith. "Phoenicians" is merely a convenience used by historians and archaeologists such as María Eugenia Aubet in her masterpiece The Phoenicians and the West. As I said, the entire article is about "the Phoenicians". Carlstak (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I was confused about your wordings and asking for clarification. I just realized that, after writing it, it would be assumed that I was asking in bad faith -- that's an unwelcoming pattern I've become used to. RowanElder (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am unhappy to have been correct and to have had bad faith imputed to me here, yet again, on this site where being welcoming is explicitly policy to the point it is written at the top of every single talk page. RowanElder (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think that the move is an improvement (and the map). Thanks, Carlstak. Andre🚐 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue. I'd been meaning to do this for a while. Carlstak (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so happy about this move, although I appreciate the motivation for it. The article is generally about "Phoenicia" (i.e. the region in the Levant), with occasional references to particularly important events in the wider Mediterranean. Evidence from Carthage, Sicily, and Spain is generally excluded as out of scope. That the cities of the region of Phoenicia can be treated together is not controversial (it's like talking about "Renaissance Italy" and need not imply a single state). The controversy concerns whether the pan-Mediterranean phenomenon should be treated as a unity (i.e. treating Tyre, Carthage, Gades, and Motya as a single entity). The title change slightly increases the impression that this article is meant to deal with the pan-Mediterranean phenomenon. If editors follow up on that and update this article to cover Phoenicians throughout the Mediterranean, then (1) we'll be implicitly assuming a position in the controversial debate and (2) we'll end up without an article dealing with Phoenicia specifically. Furius (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

So you really think it's preferable to have an article whose first sentence says one thing, treating "Phoenicia" as an actual state, which we all know it wasn't, and then the entire rest of the article treats of the Phoenician people (55 instances by my count, outside of the references), and every paragraph of the lede but one (now all) started with "The Phoenicians". There are only 14 instances (outside of the references) of "Phoenicia". Your're worried about possible complications, which may or may not materialize. I don't see the logic of your position, and your concerns are a non sequitur, by my reading. Carlstak (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The article does not and did not refer to Phoenicia as an "actual state". The situation is analogous to Ancient Greece and Sumer, which refer to regions, without implying that that those regions were a state, and then speak about "the Greeks" and "the Sumerians" in individual sections.

What would be the grounds for an article on "the Phoenicians" not including detail on Motya, Carthage, and southern Sardinia? Furius (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't say it "referred" to Phoenicia as an actual state; I said it "treated" Phoenicia as an actual state. I don't see why the article shouldn't include detail on Motya, Carthage, and southern Sardinia. The sources I mentioned below have material on those, and I have other sources as well. I should be getting back to my work on Nanni di Banco and Phil Lesh, but I'll have to drop some acid for that, so I'll talk to you later.;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What would be the problem of treating a bit about Sicily and Spain in this article? Carthage has its own article as does Punic people Andre🚐 19:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. Aubet has written a great deal about Phoenician settlements and trading posts in Iberia, and The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Gil Stein, has an essay by Peter van Dommelen, "Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian Settlement in the Ancient Mediterranean", that has much to say on the subject. Michael Dietler and Carolina Lopez-Ruiz edited Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, which has Dietler's essay, "Colonial Encounters in Iberia and the Western Mediterranean" and "Phoenician Colonization on the Atlantic Coast of the Iberian Peninsula" by Ana Margarida Arruda, among others. Carlstak (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that one of the major points of Jo Quinn's In Search of the Phoenicians was that it is dodgy to lump the people from Phoenicia together with the people from Kition, Motya, Carthage, Spain, etc. as if they were a unit. Punic religion had a major space for Tophets and centred on the goddess Tanit; neither are attested in Phoenicia. The language spoken in Phoenicia was distinct from the language of Carthage. And so on. They were related, of course, but Phoenicia was its own cultural phenomenon distinct from those of the central and western Mediterranean. We have an article on those western cultures: Punic people, which certainly needs work, but which this article shouldn't duplicate. Furius (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, OK. Quinn argues that "the notion of these sailors as a coherent people with a shared identity, history, and culture is a product of modern nationalist ideologies." So maybe the article should simply be titled, Phoenicians. Andre🚐 01:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you put it that way, Furius, I suppose I agree. Surely we should distinguish between the original "Phoenician" cultural traits shared by the Levantine city-states and the different permutations that developed with the dispersal of that culture, principally Tyrian, across the Mediterranean, as at the Phoenician (Tyrian) colonies in North Africa and at Gadir (Gades, Cádiz). Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried to move it to "Phoenicians" first, Andrevan, but the wiki software wouldn't let me. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's a noncontroversial technical move or we can gain a consensus, it can be asked at Wikipedia:Requested moves. An admin or page mover would have to delete the redirect. Andre🚐 01:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Canaanites" crossed my mind—after all, that is what the so-called "Phoenicians" called themselves in their own language, and the Punic people called themselves by the obvious derivative, "Chananaei", but using it would introduce a whole new set of problems. Carlstak (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I think if only as a historical case, even though the Phoenicians were probably in some sense equivalent to and in some sense a later generation/inheritors of Canaanites, and technically they are a subtopic to that, but big enough for a WP:SPLIT. I think the best solution is to have a subsection or explanation with link in both articles. Currently the Canaanites article redirects to "Canaan#Canaanites" which seems to have changed in 2022 and a discussion is here: Talk:Canaanites#Redirect or article. Still, I think Phoenicians makes more sense as an article name for this article than Phoenicia because nothing in this article is about that region, it's about the maritime peoples centered around that region, who as you point out, were Canaanite or Semitic peoples. Andre🚐 02:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

? What do you mean? We don't have a "Canaanites" article. We only have the Canaan article and the redirect. I did forget about that prior discussion, though, in which I participated. Carlstak (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm referring to. We've just moved Phoenicia to Phoenicians. Yet Canaanites was merged into Canaan. I guess maybe we have to see whether Canaan or Canaanites is a more common name. But I think Phoenicians is probably a more common historical name. Andre🚐 02:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I wasn't suggesting "Canaanites" as a demonym name for the article, just noting that it crossed my mind. As Ermenrich said in that discussion, with M.Bitton's and my assent, "Canaanites is really a term for a variety of closely related peoples (Moabites, Ammonites, arguably Israelites and Phoenicians too). The subject is better handled at Canaan." Quite true. I think "Phoenicians" is fine as a utilitarian demonym. Carlstak (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hello @Andrevan, Carlstak, Furius, RowanElder, and Skitash:; given that the bold move request has been contested by Furius, and we also had a request at WP:RM/TR to move the title to Phoenicians, I have reverted back to the stable title of Phoenicia. Assuming any of you wish to proceed with a move, please go to WP:RM and follow the instructions for starting a requested move discussion of a controversial move. Also pinging Extraordinary Writ who commented on this at RM/TR. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan, so now we're back to an article titled with the arbitrary name of a "place" that never actually existed and is dissonant with the text. There is only a single instance of the non-native name "Phoenicia" in the entire lede, and only three mere mentions in this entire article (94,808 bytes) of "Phoenicia" as a place. Would you be able to start a requested move discussion? I've just taken on a project and have to travel tomorrow. Will have little time for WP. Carlstak (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I have done so below and I invite everyone to discuss below. We can also make a separate section for threaded discussion, which I've not done yet. Particularly Furius and RowanElder. I wasn't try to steamroll the proceedings here. And I want to stress there are good faith reasons to oppose the move. This thread has been going for a month. While I appreciate Carlstak being bold and favoring action, this move should certainly get a proper discussion. Particularly RowanElder and Furius, I wasn't try to ignore or override your legitimate questions here. Andre🚐 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever has been meant, I have not felt welcome in these discussions and I have chosen not to contribute further. RowanElder (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, as far as I know I didn't do anything to make you feel unwelcome, and if I did it was unwitting. Andre🚐 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I only interacted with Carlstak and I didn't understand the content of the interaction well enough to say what happened. Whatever it was that happened, my fault or not, I don't want it to happen again, and the only way I know to prevent something I understood so poorly is to avoid these situations entirely. RowanElder (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything happened other than a bit of quibbling and sniping back and forth, and perhaps mutual suspicion which is regrettable but not unusual. If you wish to oppose the move, you may do so below and you don't need to engage further. If you wish to abstain or support you may do that. You're not required to provide satisfaction to me or Carlstak or anyone, and you're not obliged to participate. I'm sorry if anyone made you feel otherwise. AGF is a core guideline and I try my best to follow it. Carlstak and I happen to agree on the proposed move, we've also disagreed vociferously before. It's abstract and not personal or at least is aspirationally so. Sorry if you were made to feel unwelcome by anyone. Andre🚐 21:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. I am learning that the "be polite and assume good faith" policy can always be overruled by the "just a little quibbling or mutual suspicion" defense. I find it unwelcoming. RowanElder (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what AGF is, but I'll look it up. RowanElder (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Assume good faith. To be clear I wasn't excusing sniping or mutual suspicion, just trying to explain it. Again, I'm sorry that this is your experience but I do not see how I personally contributed to this. Andre🚐 21:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I found and read the official policy page as well. I didn't say you personally contributed to this, and I am not holding you responsible for it [except technically insofar as I'm finding Wikipedian culture in general unwelcoming and you represent it [as I do too, and all editors would], but that's a very impersonal type of responsibility that I'm not trying to make your problem right now: I wouldn't and couldn't expect or pressure you to fix that individually]. All I said was I stopped feeling welcome and stopped participating in the (object level) discussion. RowanElder (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The man made one statement and I responded with one statement. That was it. I wouldn't call it "a bit of quibbling and sniping back and forth", and don't see "mutual suspicion" there either. I'd already forgotten about it, and wouldn't think of investing such a trivial exchange with emotional energy. Frankly, when I'm not working or talking on WP, I think mostly about sex.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Good thing because, ironically, you're not assuming good faith" was an accusation that I was not assuming good faith, which is inherently a snipe and a form of suspicion. This is really cut and dry. RowanElder (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree there's no point in attaching emotional charge here, though, and if I were a regular and not trying to learn from these things actively as a newcomer, I'd probably have forgotten it quickly as well. RowanElder (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't talking to you. You seem to be fixated on feeling unwelcome, as your talk page indicates. I'd rather think about sex.;-) Carlstak (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, I came here to volunteer because of highly publicized problems Wikipedia is having retaining editors. The problems of retention, such as welcome, therefore interested me from the beginning. If they don't interest you that's not a problem for me and I'm not asking you to.

I am talking to you, here, but not for your sake. I understand you'd rather think about sex, whatever that means (hopefully not an Asimov or Epstein situation). RowanElder (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh. This reply tells us everything we need to know about you. Bye. Carlstak (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Us" - cool, I expected that. Bye. RowanElder (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2024

Phoenicia → Phoenicians – This article is about the Phoenicians. Phoenicia is a region but this article isn't really about the region. Phoenicians is used more often to refer to this group of citystates. Andre🚐 18:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. JIP | Talk 19:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: This article deals with the group of city-states in Phoenicia (Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Arados), a region on the Levantine coast, which is well-defined in modern scholarship. "The Phoenicians" is a much larger, more amorphous concept which encompasses much of the Mediterranean and whose validity has recently been subject to challenge (esp. in Quinn, In Search of the Phoenicians). References to the region of Phoenicia need not imply that it was a unitary state (although, I acknowledge that there are a few places where the drafting of the article currently gives that incorrect impression; they should be redrafted). Cases like Ancient Greece and Sumer provide parallels. "Phoenicia" is frequent in scholarship: note, for example, the recent Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean, with chapters entitled "Canaanite Roots, Proto-Phoenicia, and the Early Phoenician Period: ca. 1300–1000 bce," "Phoenicia in the Later Iron Age: tenth century bce to the Assyrian and Babylonian periods," "Phoenicia Under the Achaemenid Empire," "The Hellenistic Period and Hellenization in Phoenicia" and "Phoenicia in the Roman Empire." Furius (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support, of course. If the article is to be titled "Phoenicia", then the entirety of it should be rewritten to eliminate the dissonance of it discussing a people but bearing a title about a rhetorically constructed place that had no corporality. Carlstak (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Furius.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above (Furius) - el.ziade (talkallam) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the request to move "Phoenicia" to "Phoenicians", as the current title provides important historical and contextual accuracy. Historically, "Phoenicia" denotes not only the people but also the region, culture, and broader civilization, covering the complex political, economic, and cultural networks that characterized its city-states. A move would narrow the article’s scope, shifting focus solely to the people rather.

In scholarly works, the term "Phoenicia" is commonly used to reference the civilization as a whole, encompassing its geographical, cultural, and societal significance. Additionally, this approach aligns with the conventions used in other historical entries, such as Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt where names are retained to provide a comprehensive understanding of the civilization, rather than limiting it to its inhabitants. If you look at these articles, reference to the people abounds in both and does not incur a page move. GusChago (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, if this article actually covered "the civilization as a whole, encompassing its geographical, cultural, and societal significance", but unfortunately for your argument, it does not. As anyone who actually reads the entire article can see, it is covers almost exclusively the Phoenician people, regardless of attempts to pretend it operates within the aegis of scholarly works that actually treat "the civilization as a whole", a respectable position that this article doesn't meet.

Of the entire article, only the second paragraphs of the "Vassalage under the Assyrians and Babylonians (858–538 BC)" and "Persian period (539–332 BC)" sections, the first paragraphs of the "Persian period (539–332 BC)", "Hellenistic period (332–152 BC)" section, and the "Industry" section, and the one paragraph of the "Mining" section discuss "Phoenicia". This is inadequate to support your argument. Carlstak (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Furius. I do not understand how "Phoenicians" can be less problematic than "Phoenicia". They have the exact same problem. We do not have to always distinguish people and place. Canaanites redirects to Canaan, for example. There is a better argument for splitting so as to have a wider article on the Phoenicians covering Ancient Carthage and Punic people as well as this article on the home cities ("Phoenicia"). The lead was only changed recently to start with "Phoenicians". I don't understand Gachago's and Carlstak's comments above, because, to me, Phoenicians is more expansive in meaning than Phoenicia, so if the page comes up short, giving it a broader title will not help it. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course I will bow to consensus, which so far is going against the move. Unlike "Phoenicia", Canaan was an actual place, rather than a construct to provide a framework on which to lay the cultural commonalities of the city-states. Most of the scholarly corpus on "Phoenicia" appears actually to be about Tyre. "Canaan" consequently has more foundation in history and archaeology than does the artificial "Phoenicia", a term of convenience, and the Canaan article treats the subject accordingly, with 54 instances of "Canaan", and only 30 of "Canaanites", which seems right. Carlstak (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

map

@User:Muyhna, The map with the green part is WP:OR. The one added by Carlstak is sourced and properly licensed. Andre🚐 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)