Talk:Mount Lebanon

Edits

I clarified that the end of the "Mutassarefia" of Mt Lebanon came in 1920, when Lebanon acquired its modern borders. In 1943 it gained independence from France.

I also removed the blurb about a secessionist movement among Lebanese christians. This is definitely not a mainstream movement, and the statement lacked context and smacked of advocacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Makhlouf (talk • contribs) 19:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Genocide

A Lebanese friend recently told me that, during World War I, half the population of Mount Lebanon died in an artificial famine orchestrated by the Young Turk. This is recognized by Lebanon but denied by Turkey. This is apparently intertwined with the same politics associated with the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, burning of Smyrna, etc. However, I don't know much about this, and know of few materials on the subject, but it sounds like something important to mention. - Gilgamesh 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the funny thing is Ottoman empire had virtually no fleet to block the sea ports. It was the brits and French who blocked the food transport from the sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.49.51 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Intertwined with the politics" is an apt description. Odd though it may seem, the Ottoman Empire had other things to worry about at the time than murdering a mostly-loyal population in an area well away from the front-lines with the ships they didn't have in the Eastern Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.30.96 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC tells the story differently: https://www.bbcglobalminds.com/S.aspx?s=814&r=j4Il3Ei1QS7eN6WL2Uj1p0&so=true&m=600001078&fromdetect=1211.225.33.104 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

-- Who added the Genocide thing again? Because the first and third links for it don't work, the second one doesn't mention if it was the Ottomans or the Allies, as does the fourth one. There is literally no support or proof of this. This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.204.2 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

House keeping

This article should be split to 2

- Leave this article only refering to the "Mount Lebanon" as a mountain range

- Create a new section "Mount Lebanon Province" and move the part which talks about the "Mount Lebanon" as political entity there. BlingBling10 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and note the bias in this article. In the mentioning of the 'phoenician christian' (whatever that means - good ol' nationalism and invented identities) it neglects to mention any christian reprisals. At any rate perhaps this article isn't the place for all that. That should be in the history of Lebanon section as Lebanon as Lebanon begins then. This article should just be for geographic purposes. --

The whole Phoenician Christian thing shows it to be a Phalange who made the edit. They're a fascist Maronite party in Lebanon with a history of ethnic cleansing, religious bigotry and an idealogy based around neo-Phoenicianism.

Governance

I removed the following section for Saadallah Howayek, and feel it might be useful here:

Administration of Mount Lebanon

In 1861 the Ottomans separated Mount Lebanon from Syria. They reunited the geography under a non-Lebanese Christian mutasarrif (governor) appointed by the Ottoman sultan and who had approval of the European powers.

The mutasarrif was assisted by an administrative council of twelve members from the various religious communities in Mount Lebanon:

• four Maronites
• three Druze
• one Turk (In the Ottoman Empire, Turk often referred to any Orthodox Sunni Muslim, regardless of ethnicity (as opposed to Ottoman non-Muslims)
• two Greeks (Orthodox)
• one Greek Uniate (Melkite, or Greek Catholic)
• one Shiite

The members were elected from the seven districts or Aqdya,

• Batroun, one Maronite
• Keserwan, one Maronite
• Jezzine, one Maronite, one Druze and one Sunni Muslim
• Matn, one Maronite, one Druze, one Shiite and one Greek Orthodox
• Chouf, one Druze
• Kura, one Greek Orthodox
• Zahle, one Greek Catholic

SADADS (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Syriac name of Mount Lebanon by George

On 06:52, 14 August 2009 I added the Syriac name of Mount Lebanon and on 07:12, 14 August 2009 it was already removed by User:George with the explanation that Syriac was not currently spoken there.

In almost every geographical place name of South-East Turkey, Syria and Iraq you can find multiple versions of place names. Names in Arabic, Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and Aramaic/Syriac are given when the city/region was inhabited or is currently inhabited by one or more of these peoples. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This is normal, even if for example Armenians or Assyrians/Arameans don't inhabit the area anymore, their historical significance is still important. In the case of Mount Lebanon this is especially the case since the Maronite inhabitants belong to the Syriac Church and still use Syriac as a liturgical language. The ethnicity of the Maronites is debated, some say they are Arab Christians, some that they are Syriacs while others claim Phoenician descent. Historically they were part of the larger people called Syrians (Christians). So in my opinion it is strange that this George deleted the Syriac name of Mount Lebanon while clearly this is the name the inhabitants themselves also use next to the Arabic name. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly provide a source for your claims. What Wikipedia policy states that a location's name should be written in every language ever spoken in that place? The official language of Lebanon is Arabic. Use of French is specified in special cases under Lebanese law. This article does not have the name of the region written in Egyptian, Roman, Phoenician, Aramaic, Greek, or any other language that was used there in the past, so you'll need significantly reliable sources to back up you addition. I'll also remind the editor that the burden of proof is on the editor trying to include information; in order to add something that others challenge, you must gain consensus on talk first, then you can add the information. ← George ^[talk] 18:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It should have been enough that I proved that wikipedia articles about many Eastern Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi cities had additional place names in Armenian and Aramaic/Syriac even though it wasn't inhabited by either Armenians or Assyrians/Syriacs anymore. Do you think that Armenian or Syriac is an official language in Turkey? Even the Turks don't delete these foreign language place names out of respect for their historical significance to the area/city. The historical and current (liturgical) significance of Syriac should have been enough to add this information. It is not as if I added the chinese name for Mount Lebanon. This is wikipedia not some governmental site and this kind of information is what is supposed to be in an encyclopedia.

There IS also a wikipedia policy that relevant foreign language place names may be added. Look it up on Naming conventions (geographic names). Wouldn't it have been fair that since I proved that many place names do have additional names in foreign languages, you would have at least made the effort for looking for wikipedia policy about naming conventions before you started deleting things?

• Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.

Your theory about the burden of proof applies when someone wants to include controversial theory or information in an article, it's not about proving EVERYTHING. I might in the same line of thought ask you whether you have proof that you are allowed to edit anything at all on wikipedia since you are so keen on proof. Give me the proof/wikipedia policy that you are allowed to edit on wikipedia or I will remove all your edits.... Ibrahim4048 (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this area of the world has been home to many different groups that spoke many different languages, I'll move the mention about Syriac to a new Etymology section. The policy you quoted also states that: "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves." There have been at least three languages spoken in the area for sure, so a new section would make sense. ← George ^[talk] 09:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Making an etymology section might make sense, removing only the Syriac alternative name from the introduction to the etymology section while keeping the Arabic alternative name in the introduction doesn't make sense. Currently we have only 2 alternative names not 3 and they are straightforward translations of each other. Mount=Jabal=Tur + Lebanon/Lubnan/Lebnon. The "Names" or "Etymology" section is meant for the case when these alternative names and their etymology/explanation would take too much space in the lead/introduction. It is not meant to be used by editors who just don't want to see Syriac mentioned in the article or if they can't stop that, at least keep it out of the lead/introduction while keeping their own preferred alternative in the introduction. Since there are currently only 2 alternative names and none of the names are controversial/needs extensive explanation, the introduction is not too long and the example of other articles show us that three alternative names or even more are not considered too much to be in the lead/introduction, we should keep the Syriac name in the lead. I just now saw how you cleverly added a third French alternative name to reach the 3 alternative names criteria but it doesn't matter. The 3 alternative names criteria is a recommendation not a rule and even if there is an etymology section it doesn't mean that the Syriac name should be removed from the introduction. It can exist both in the introduction and etymology section where it might be further explained or not. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You should really try to assume good faith... There are many possible names for this area, especially given that you want to include names used by other groups from the past. I didn't include the French to meet some artificial number; I count Greek, Phoenician, Aramaic, Roman, Turkish, French, and Arabic as easily meeting the need for a separate section to discuss the names of the region. I specifically tagged this section for expansion in the hopes that someone who knew one of these other languages would add it. I, however, only know the English and French names... I'll see if I can dig up some of the others if that would make you happy. Perhaps you didn't read the rest of the policy page: "Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead". I have absolutely nothing against your favorite language. I've never even heard of it before. ← George ^[talk] 10:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith when you tried to delete the Syriac alternative name completely while it's historical significance is so obvious? This fact alone is enough for me to doubt your intentions. Maronites were known for 2000 years as "Syrians" together with the other "Syrians" such as modern Assyrians, modern Chaldeans and modern Arameans/Syriacs who all speak Syriac. Most Maronites either see themselves as Syriacs or Phoenicians while none see themselves as Arabs. I hope you realize that I can see your edit history by the way. I see that you have an extensive history of editing on lebanon related articles. How do you expect me then to believe that you never heard of Syriac??!! Syriac/Aramaic is an integral part of Mount Lebanon. More so than french ever was. Nobody should even consider editing this article or any Lebanon, Turkey, Syria or Iraq related article for that matter if they never heard of Syriac...

You are now using by the way the rules which you didn't know in the first place or pretended not to know to justify removing the Syriac name from the lead. I confess that I didn't read all of the policy page, I stopped reading when I found the explanation for why greek, armenian and aramaic/syriac names are included in turkish city articles. You are right that when you make an etymology or names section all the alternative names go in that section except the local official alternative name. But I still think that you added the french alternative name just to reach the 3 alternative names criteria so you could remove the syriac name from the introduction. You yourself felt there wasn't enough info to fill the etymology section because you added an "this section needs expansion tag". Why make it then? Do you now feel that you didn't lose the argument about including the Syriac name in this article by being able to at least move it from the introduction to the etymology section? Well done, very clever use of a policy you didn't know in the first place. Maybe some other editor can use this trick to remove Armenian, Turkish, Greek, Jewish and other undesirable names they don't like to remove it to an etymology section. Maybe they can even drown it in uninteresting etymology blabber so nobody will read it. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's historical significance is "so obvious"? Says who? Based on what? Maronites were known for 2000 years as "Syrians"? Maybe that's true - do you have a source that supports it? It's a bit hard to believe that a 1500 year old religion was known by a relatively modern name for longer than its been around. None see themselves as Arabs? I know plenty of Maronites, thank you, and I don't know any who consider them self to be "Syriac", and maybe one out of twenty who actually considers them self to be "Phoenician". I'm a member of WikiProject Lebanon, and I've been to Mount Lebanon quite a few times, and no, I've never heard of "Syriac". I've heard or spoken with people in French, English, and Arabic, but I've never heard Syriac, and I don't attend Maronite masses there to have heard it.

You pointed me to the correct page, and I read it. I already stated my reasoning for including the section. If you know the name for the area used by the Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, or others, by all means add it. Why make it? Why ever create a stub article? They're created with the hopes that someone with more knowledge on some specific area can expand it. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of stubs for that very reason. "Undesirable" names?! Wow, watch the personal biases. I have nothing against any language. I don't want to see the lead to any article filled with the name of that place in twenty different languages. That is far less readable than an etymology section. You claim that Syriac is the most important language ever in this area, and I find that claim hard to swallow, given that I've never even heard of it, and know of no usage of it outside of the Maronite church services. If you have some reliable sources that state otherwise, I'm always open to reading them, and expanding the article based on them. ← George ^[talk] 18:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's a bit hard to believe that a 1500 year old religion was known by a relatively modern name for longer than its been around"

Again you show your ignorance of Middle Eastern History. Syrian is not a relatively modern name. It is the name used for Middle Eastern/Levantine Christians ever since the church of Antioch was started a couple of years after Jesus's death. See Ephrem the Syrian. Syrian/Syriac Christianity predates the Maronite Church (which is a split off from Syriac christianity) so it is logical that the name Syrian was around longer than the Maronite religion. You are confused by the fact that Syrian now apllies to the (mostly muslim) inhabitants of modern Syria. This left the christians who where previously known as Syrians, without a western name causing division among the Syrians/Suryaye/Suryani on what to be called. I advice you to just stop editing Middle Eastern related articles or if you insist on participating, edit only what you know. Having sunbathed on the beaches of Lebanon, riding a camel or participating in other tourist attractions and taking a hiking trip on Mount Lebanon doesn't give you the expertise to contribute to Lebanon related articles. Not knowing Syriac even existed, not knowing about the formation of Lebanon, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and other important facts says enough. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I'll warn you to watch the civility. Any editor is allowed to edit any article they so choose. Dissuading editors from doing so with personal attacks will get you banned. ← George ^[talk] 19:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was civil enough to you. Maybe more than you deserve since you vandalized my referenced edits and removed them. You called the respectable sources I gave (Daily Star, SIL ethnologue, Joshua project, Zinda Magazine) garbage so you shouldn't even be talking about civility.

Stop threathening me wit bans because I disagree with you and exposed your ignorance on certain matters. If you don't want to be embarassed then don't make statements like "Syrian is a relatively modern term and it's hard to believe that a 1500 year old religion was known by that term". Should I distort the facts just so you can feel knowledgeable/good? Should the article be a representation of your personal opinion and (lacking) knowledge about Mount Lebanon? I didn't try to dissuade you from editing completely nor did I personally attack you. I simply adviced you not to make edits on subjects you don't know. You could even thank me for such advice instead of threathening me with bans. If you feel you have a case against me then pursue it but stop polluting my talk page with ban threaths and warnings.

Any editor is allowed to edit any article they so choose under certain requirements. Some of these requirements are that their edits should be accurate, they should respect other editors sourced contributions by not deleting them, they shouldn't give irrelevant information in places where it doesn't belong as you did when you gave information about (classical) Syriac being extinct next to a modern Syriac place name thus creating the inaccurate impression that (modern) Syriac is extinct. There are already enough people who think Aramaic/Syriac speaking people are extinct. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Lebanese traditions" by Mislav Popovic

We're going to need a better source for the "heart of god" statement than a website by Mislav Popovic. I'm not able to verify anything about them, making this an unreliable source. ← George ^[talk] 10:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that Lubb, Lebb and Leb means heart in Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew so the "Heart of God" idea is at least not totally made up regardless who this Mislav Popovic is. I am sure I can find proper academic sources for it. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I don't speak Syriac, so a proper academic source is necessary to confirm it. ← George ^[talk] 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical Names?

The Syriac name is not a historical name. Syriac, Armenian and Kurdish are real live languages spoken by minorities in Lebanon. Syriac is apart from being spoken by a minority (Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs) also the liturgical language of the Maronites. So these names are not at all historical names. Roman and Phoenician names would be historical names but currently we only have the Arabic, Syriac and French names. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, do you have a source that Syriac is still used as a language in Lebanon? Let me try to explain this... The CIA World Factbook lists four languages as being used in Lebanon: Arabic, French, English, and Armenian.[7] The Maronite church uses Syriac for liturgical purposes; that's obvious. But Catholics might use Latin, or the Orthodox might use Greek in their services - that doesn't mean that they should be listed as alternate languages used in the area. There are foreign workers from Sri Lanka - that doesn't mean we would list the name of the area in their language. We need reliable sources to support the inclusion of any language, that state that it has some historical or modern significance to the area. ← George ^[talk] 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a reliable source that says that Syriac was used from the third to the thirteenth centuries in Lebanon, when it was displaced by Arabic.[8] I've added it to the Names section, while keeping the bit about it still being used by the Maronites for church services. ← George ^[talk] 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, may I ask why you insist on editing a subject (Syriac) which you admit you didn't even know existed before I mentioned it? Do you really believe that if you Google Syriac + Lebanon and come up with a single source from Google books which you claim tells Syriac was displaced by Arabic in the fourteenth century (it doesn't say displaced in Lebanon by the way), you can then claim that Syriac doesn't exist anymore? Do you know better than the native speakers of Syriac?

Your own source says on page 546 that Maronite Lebanon put up a desperate and prolonged fight until the late seventeenth century. Indeed Syriac is still.... Luckily this book is available in the library of my university [9]. I can already tell you that the rest of the sentence will say that Syriac is still spoken by a small minority in Lebanon. The fact that CIA World Factbook doesn't list it in the spoken languages section doesn't prove that it is not spoken. It only proves that the CIA World Factbook doesn't consider 50.000 Neo-Aramaic/Syriac speakers in Lebanon enough to mention just like they don't consider 75.000 Armenian speakers in Turkey enough to mention and only give Turkish and Kurdish as languages. You can look it up on the Joshua project yourself [10]. Fill in the Country (Lebanon) and the peoples name (Aramaic or Assyrian) and you'll see that there are 24.000 Western Neo-Aramaic speakers and 22.000 Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers. Another source gives 14.000 Assyrians in Lebanon [11] but it is from 2001 and doesn't take in account recent arrivals. Let me point out that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers are (descendents of) refugees/immigrants from Turkey, Syria and Iraq, but Western Neo-Aramaic speakers are natives of Mount Lebanon, Beqaa Valley and the Anti-Lebanon region (just over the border in Syria). Western Neo-Aramaic is the language that you claim was extinct since the fourteenth century. I admit that 24.000 is not much (even fewer a couple of decades ago) but it is hardly extinct and more and more Maronites are learning this dialect as a spoken language. Also beside being a Liturgical language, Syriac is also a Literary language. This means that in contrast to Latin (nobody writes books or letters in Latin anymore) Syriac is still used as a modern means to communicate in Lebanon (mostly by the clergy but also historians, academics, nationalists etc). Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to cover your various points one-by-one:

• "May I ask why you insist on editing a subject (Syriac) which you admit you didn't even know existed before I mentioned it?" I watch just about every article related to Lebanon. This is an article about a region in Lebanon, not specifically about a Syriac language, and so I watch it. I don't know much about the Syriac language, nor do I need to, because I do know quite a bit about the region.
• "Do you know better than the native speakers of Syriac?" Please review Wikipedia's policy on original research. Just because you think you know something to be true doesn't mean you can add it to an article without reliable sources.
• "I can already tell you that the rest of the sentence will say that Syriac is still spoken by a small minority in Lebanon." Actually, I can tell you what it says, as since I can read it. It says "Indeed Syriac is still spoken in three villages in Anti-Lebanon: Ma'lula, Bakh'ah, and Jubb'adin." That's quite interesting, but those areas are outside of Mount Lebanon. I will add that the Maronite held onto the language until the late 17th century, since they live inside the area of Mount Lebanon.
• The Joshua project is a website used by Christian missionaries to target ethnic groups to convert the to Christianity. It is not a reliable source.
• The Daily Star article is a reliable source (though we would prefer the original of course). However, it's talking about an area of Beirut, which isn't in Mount Lebanon. Also interesting to note that it too states that "Assyrian, also known as Syriac, Chaldean or Neo-Aramaic, was widely spoken in the Middle East until 700 AD when it was supplanted by Arabic."

Even if your claims that it is being used for other things are true, I'm not sure of the relevance with regards to Mount Lebanon. These sound like things that belong in the Syriac or Maronite articles. ← George ^[talk] 23:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing with you George. You are unreasonable. How can you claim Syriac is dead?!! You don't know anything about Syriac yet you make such claims. Syriac may be displaced by Arabic (as the majority language) but that doesn't mean it is a dead language. I hear people talking Syriac (Turoyo dialect) on a daily basis. 30.000 Assyrians/Syriacs live here in Holland [12] and many more in Germany and Sweden. It is true that some smaller local dialects have become extinct in the last 20 years [13] or are facing extinction but Syriac still exists.

I gave you a link to Neo-Aramaic which proves Syriac still exists but you didn't read it. There are plenty of references in that article. SIL ethnologue says there are at least 416.000 Syriac speakers in the world [14]. 219,330 of which are Assyrian Neo-Aramaic [15] speakers, 110,000 are Chaldean Neo-Aramaic [16] speakers, 84,000 are Turoyo [17] speakers and 15.000 are Western Neo-Aramaic [18] speakers. More importantly Western Neo-Aramaic is the native language of the Maronites (and some Lebanese Muslims) in the Mount Lebanon, Beqaa Valley and Anti-Lebanon area. Phoenician which is older is extinct and Arabic came later. Western Neo-Aramaic is still spoken by Maronites and Muslims in the anti-Lebanon and according to some sources also in a few remote areas of Mount Lebanon. There are between 50.000 and 100.000 Assyrians, Chaldeans and Arameans/Syriacs in Lebanon who all speak Syriac as their native language. These numbers are difficult to verify because in Lebanon it is hard to get exact figures because of all the ethnic problems and nationalism in Lebanon. You discredit the Joshua project, which is used on wikipedia in close to a hundred articles, as an unreliable source. Clearly it is considered a good enough resource even if it is a Christian evangelical site.

I have disproved your claim that Syriac is extinct which makes it an alternative name, not an historical name. I have given proof that Syriac is spoken in Lebanon with the Joshua Project, Daily Star and the SIL Ethnologue sources. Now you discredit the Joshua project source and claim the Daily Star source talks about Beirut while you asked for proof that it was spoken in Lebanon, not specifically in Mount Lebanon. Read your own sentence. "Again, do you have a source that Syriac is still used as a language in Lebanon?" What is next? If I somehow I find proof that Syriac is spoken in some remote village on Mount Lebanon are you going to complain that the village is located on the shadow side of Mount Lebanon instead of on the sunny side? All I needed to prove was that Syriac is a live language regardless of location to give the Syriac name as an alternative name instead of historical.

By the way if you are so interested in Lebanon and claim to know "quite a bit" about Lebanon. You would probably like to know that Syriacs and Maronites are an essential part of Mount Lebanon/Lebanon and information about them belongs in this article. Syriac followers of Saint Maron settled on Mount Lebanon and converted the local inhabitants to Christianity thus creating the Maronites who are Phoenician/Syriac descendents [19]. The Maronites know this and nearly all of them don't identify as Arabs [20] contrary to what you say. Even the Lebanese Arabs (Muslims) are mostly Phoenician/Syriac descendents, both belonging to Haplogroup J2 while real Arabs belong to Haplogroup J1. When the Arabs conquered the Middle East and converted the Christian population, the Maronites where the only ones able to survive in large numbers because of their fortresses and unattractive location (to the Arabs) in Mount Lebanon. Maronites were the reason why Lebanon was created, by the allied power after World War I, in the first place because there was such a big population of Christians in and around Mount Lebanon. If not for the Maronites there would be no Lebanon and it would be part of Syria. Read for yourself in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Lebanon is in essence a (maronite) Christian country in which the Maronites lost the majority of the population because the French thought it necessary to extend the autonomous region of Mount Lebanon's territory by including Sidon (South Governorate), Tripoli (North Governorate), Nabatieh Nabatieh Governorate and the Beqaa Governorate to form the modern country Lebanon. Palestinian refugees also contributed to the current situation of Lebanon where Christians comprise only 40% of the population. Mount Lebanon and Lebanon is all about the Maronites. Lebanon=Mount Lebanon=Maronites. Silly to say information about Maronites should be given in the Syriac or Maronites article and not here. Do you want only information here about the flora and fauna of Mount Lebanon? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "How can you claim Syriac is dead?!!" When did I say it was dead?
• "Western Neo-Aramaic is still spoken by Maronites and Muslims... in a few remote areas of Mount Lebanon." Where's your source for this?
• "I have disproved your claim that Syriac is extinct" When did I say that it was extinct? There's a difference between being extinct and no longer being used in the region.
• "I have given proof that Syriac is spoken in Lebanon." And I agree. Your sources say that it is spoken in three villages in the Anti-Lebanon mountains, and a part of Beirut. Neither of these fall within Mount Lebanon. They also state that it's used in some Maronite church services. The article states this.
• "Again, do you have a source that Syriac is still used as a language in Lebanon?" This was my question to you before you provided any sources. You've provided sources that say it is still used as a language in Lebanon, but none saying that it's still used in Mount Lebanon for anything other than church services.
• "Mount Lebanon and Lebanon is all about the Maronites." What sort of nonsense is this? Maronites make up approximately 30% of the population of Lebanon today. Trying to make blanket statements about one place or people apply to another based on this sort of fallacy isn't logical.

It's fairly simple – find reliable sources that support statements that you want to include that are related to Mount Lebanon. All this off topic banter achieves little. I'm not even sure what it is you want the article to say that it doesn't already say. ← George ^[talk] 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion started when I inserted the Syriac name for Mount Lebanon which you deleted because you didn't think that "Wikipedia policy states that a location's name should be written in every language ever spoken in that place". I proved that the Wikipedia policy states exactly that.

Then you started to mutter that it was spoken in "the past" and that the CIA World Factbook didn't include Syriac as one of the current spoken languages of Lebanon. You said the Syriac name is a historical name instead of an alternative name. On top of that you came with sources with which you tried to prove that Syriac was displaced by Arabic in the thirteenth century in the Middle East. You even pointed out that my own source the Daily Prophet stated that "Assyrian, also known as Syriac, Chaldean or Neo-Aramaic, was widely spoken in the Middle East until 700 AD when it was supplanted by Arabic" (it also stated that they thaught Syriac to children on school, and spoke Syriac instead of Arabic themselves), trying again to prove Syriac didn't excist as a spoken language.

You did all this after I gave the wikipedia Neo-Aramaic article and the Joshua Project as sources that Syriac existed both outside Lebanon and inside. Your sources didn't say that Syriac is extinct, only that it was displaced as the main language, but together with your effort to delete the syriac name, your claim that the Syriac name was "historical", a name from "the past", your efforts to discredit all my sources, your refusal to acknowledge that Syriac is still spoken in Lebanon can give me one conclusion only. You denied first the existence of Syriac as a modern spoken language, then denied its existence in Lebanon by inserting the "spoken locally from the third to the thirteenth centuries" text next to my Syriac name. Anyone who reads that will conclude that this name is a historical name not a current one. Then you turned denying Syriac's existence as a modern language into denying that it was spoken in Lebanon, and now you turn it into that Syriac is not spoken in Mount Lebanon.

I can assure you that it is spoken in the Mount Lebanon Governorate. This is where most of the Assyrians/Syriacs live because it is the only governorate with an overwhelming christian majority. You would probably turn another 180 degrees and turn it into that it is not spoken on the Mountain itself. After that probably you will turn it into the sunny or rainy side of the mountain. You are dishonest George. There is no point to continue discussing with you. I have inserted my Syriac name. I changed your edit that Syriac was a language spoken from the third century untill the thirteenth century into modern dialect of Syriac.

You still talk about related to Mount Lebanon and "off topic" when I pointed out that Mount Lebanon was the only region in the Middle East where christians (Maronites) managed to survive as a majority, that the country Lebanon was created for these Lebanese Christians (Maronites form the greatest part), that the Mount Lebanon Governorate was the initial territory of Lebanon and the rest of the governorates was added later resulting in Christians making up only 50% or less of the total population (30% Maronites). So saying that "these sound like things that belong in the Syriac or Maronite articles" is pretty stupid. Information about Syriacs and Maronites is essential in the article of Lebanon and Mount Lebanon. It is already in the article so I don't even need to add it.

"Maronites make up approximately 30% of the population of Lebanon today" Funny that you now come up with figures of all of Lebanon in relation to this article. Didn't you say that info from other regions of Lebanon was irrelevant? Hahaha. Christians make up the overwhelming majority of Mount Lebanon of which Maronites form an overwhelming majority in turn. Mount Lebanon is the heartland of the Maronites. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said Syriac was an extinct language; don't put words in my mouth. You still have yet to provide any reliable sources that state that Syriac is still spoken in Mount Lebanon. Your assurances mean nothing to mean, and the sources you've cited are garbage. Likewise, calling another editor "dishonest" and "stupid" is a violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct. Incivility is likely to get you banned from Wikipedia. You are correct, however, that this discussion is quickly going no where. It's become evident that your intent is to use this article as a soapbox. I'll looking into filing an RfC on the issue in the coming days. ← George ^[talk] 23:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it's just the two of us here, I've filed a request for a third opinion from a neutral party. Hopefully they can help us achieve consensus on the wording. ← George ^[talk] 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did call you dishonest. That's true. You are dishonest. Everybody who would take the effort to read the comments can see how you turned and turned untill you yourself couldn't remember what it was you said. I didn't call you stupid though. I only said that saying "these sound like things that belong in the Syriac or Maronite articles" is pretty stupid.

It seems I was right. Everything I said about the Syriacs followers of Saint Maron settling on Mount Lebanon being the start of the Maronite Church, that the maronites are essential information for this article, that the state of lebanon wouldn't even exist if not for the Maronites/other christians, that Mount Lebanon and the Maronites are intertwined is already in the article. So it did belong here in this article.

The reason I gave all the information about the history of the Maronites and what role they played in the creation of Lebanon was because I wanted to insert this information in the article, not knowing it was already there. If I had known, I wouldn't have made the effort just to educate you. Your lack of knowledge is not my responsibility. I don't need to prove to you that Syriac is still spoken on Mount Lebanon. I didn't even need to prove that it was spoken in Lebanon. So you will have to do with my assurances. Or not. Who cares. All I needed to do was point you to the Neo-Aramaic article and maybe give a link to the SIL ethnologue website so that you would know Syriac is a live language. That was enough to just delete the irrelevant information about Classical Syriac not being spoken since the thirteenth/seventeenth century. What has Classical Syriac to do what speakers of Modern Syriac call Mount Lebanon? Talk about irrelevant. Why did you have to put that next to the Modern Syriac name, unless you wanted to create the impression that Syriac was a dead language, and like latin only used for liturgical purposes.

The Joshua project (used extensively as a source on wikipedia), the Daily Star, SIL ethnologue and even Zinda Magazine are all acceptable sources, not garbage.

I take it that by filing an RfC, you mean complain about me to get me banned? If that is the case good luck. I did nothing wrong. I should be reporting you for vandalism for deleting perfectly valid sourced material in favor of your own irrelevant information about Classical Syriac being extinct without making a distinction between Classical Syriac and modern Syriac. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is a request for comment. It's a public invitation to other, neutral editors to come here and take a look at this discussion, and voice their opinions on the subject. ← George ^[talk] 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Opinion

I saw recently that an editor had listed this discussion on the WP:3O page requesting a neutral opinion. I would be happy to offer such an opinion. I am glad to see that both George and Ibrahim4048 are enthusiastic editors. While I do not have as extensive a background in this matter as you both do, I hope I can be of some help. I would appreciate it if one or both of you could clearly explain the two differing proposals/viewpoints in under a paragraph. I have read the above information, but I find that it helps to simply and briefly state the main points of both proposals. Thank you both again for your hard work. Matheuler 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matheuler, thanks for stopping by to help out. My initial reaction to Ibrahim4048's insertion of the Syriac name was to remove it, because it seemed to be a language no longer used in the area; a historical name. After reading through Wikipedia's geographic naming conventions, I realized that it was probably okay to include the name as one "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". The problem with including it in the lead is that there are many such historical names for the area because many groups conquered or controlled the area. These languages include Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Aramaic, Turkish, Arabic, and French, and possibly others. Not wanting to have a long listing of such alternative names for the region in the lead, I created the Names section, adding the Semitic root, Ibrahim4048's Syriac, as well as the French, and marking it as needing expansion (since I don't know all the historic names of the region). I think we were mostly in agreement up until that point, but then our content dispute arose. My preferred wording for mention of the Syriac was: In Syriac, a language used locally from the third to the thirteenth centuries (and by some Maronites until the late seventeenth century), and the liturgical language of the Maronite Church, the area is called ܛܘܪ ܠܒܢܢ (Tur Lebnon). I cited a book titled History Of Syria: Including Lebanon And Palestine for this timeline, which states that "Syriac, the langauge of Edessa, became with local variations the language of the churches of Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia and was used from the third to the thirteenth centuries, when it was displaced by Arabic."[21] Later, the same source states that "Maronite Lebanon put up a desperate and prolonged fight until the late seventeenth century. Indeed Syriac is still spoken in three villages in Anti-Lebanon: Ma'lula, Bakh'ah, and Jubb'adin." (The Anti-Lebanon mountains is the name of the mountain range between Lebanon and Syria, which does not include Mount Lebanon, the topic of this article.) Ibrahim4048's version is: Another theory, by among others Lebanese Bishop George Saliba, is that the origin of the word Lebanon is from Syriac (Middle Aramaic dialect) Lebnon, "leb" is heart, (a)non is God, which can be translated as "the heart of God". The area is called ܛܘܪ ܠܒܢܢ (Tur Lebnon) in various modern dialects of Syriac. Classical Syriac is the liturgical language of the Maronite Church and the Western Aramaic dialect of Syriac was the original spoken language of the Maronites before it was displaced by Arabic. Western Neo-Aramaic, which is the sole survivor of Western Aramaic, is still spoken in a few villages of the Anti-Lebanon Area. The source cited for the first statement is Zinda Magazine, which is a service of the Zinda Corporation. I don't consider it to be a reliable source, and am unable to verify the claim from any reliable sources. The second statement is completely unreferenced, and strikes me as original research to a large extent. Furthermore, it discusses in detail things unrelated to the topic of this article, Mount Lebanon, that I view as more appropriately mentioned in the Maronite or Syriac articles. ← George ^[talk] 23:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that comprehensive summary. I agree with George that it would be beneficial if more independent secondary sources could be found if Ibrahim4048 wishes to include the contoversial statements. But I will wait to hear from him regarding whether he feels there is any addition points that should be brought up. Thanks again to both of you for your work. Matheuler 20:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just following up. Since it's been two weeks since this conversation went stale, and since the user hasn't bothered to join the conversation to defend their addtion, I'll probably be reverting their edits shortly. ← George ^[talk] 09:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this page from the Third Opinion template on the top of the article page. FWIW, I agree with Matheuler's view on the dispute. I've removed the template, however will leave it to George to update the article accordingly (mostly because I am editing from work, and do not have the appropriate language packs installed to see the foreign characters). PGWG (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've actually reverted back a ways further, back before this user's insertion of material. After reviewing their edit history, it became pretty clear that they are a SPA that solely goes around eulogizing and promoting Syriac nationalism. I believe their initial edit was added due to this personal bias, and the user as dropped out of this discussion. ← George ^[talk] 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)