Talk:Levant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shaam

Strange editing by users claiming Jordan and Syria are not part of the Levant

The Levant is defined simply as " The countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt." by dictionary.com. Also, the French mandates over Lebanon and Syria were called the Levant states. The argument that the east parts of Jordan and Syria are in 'Mesopotamia' is unfounded. In fact, in archaeology, there is a key separation between the region called Mesopotamia and Northern Syria. The only part of Syria that may be considered in Mesopotamia is the Hasakah province. I have no idea where the argument against Jordan comes through.Yuber 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Nobody claimed Jordan and Syria "are not part of the Levant". They are simply not contained in the Levant. Look, Syria and Lebanon are contemporary states, and the "Levant" is a historical term for the area. They overlap, but they are not identical. Yuber, your editing style is not pleasant. All edits I have seen from you were belligerent, or designed to pick petty fights. This is not the Wikipedia spirit. I advise you to take it easy, and try to argue with people in a friendly spirit. You are not surrounded by enemies. dab (ᛏ) 22:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through many sources on the uses of the Levant and I have found no info that only the west parts of Jordan and Syria are in it. The fact that it's an approximate region also proves this. If you see the Names of the Levant you can further confirm this. I'm sorry if my edits seemed belligerent, as I haven't made any personal attacks on anyone and I have just stated my point.Yuber 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I just edited the article to make clear the points of you and Jayjg. However, I would like to point out that in the region of the worlds template at the bottom of the page there is no "Mesopotamia". Since you are an expert on middle eastern regions, dab, perhaps you would like to fix this.Yuber 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

ok, you do have a point: we are saying that 'occasionally' the term is used in a modern context. In these cases, it may occasionally also refer to the entire state of Syria/Jordan. However, use of "Levant" in a modern context is quite over the top, stylistically. The basic meaning is/was "eastern borders of the Mediterranean". Now Eastern Syria is certainly not adjacent to the Mediterranean, but in a sense of "states that border the east coast of the Med", it may be possible to include it. We're going to say that this usage is neither current nor recommended anyway. Just like "Mesopotamia" is usually used in contexts of ancient history, "Levant" is usually reserved for historical discussions. We have Near East for current issues :) dab (ᛏ) 22:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Middle Eastern regions. If anything, I'm an expert on semantics, i.e. I care about how a term is used and by whom. As I say above, "Mesopotamia" is hardly used for the contemporary region. Its area is contained in "Middle/Near East". dab (ᛏ) 22:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The term began to be used in a modern context after the French occupation. If anything, blame France for extending the borders of the Levant farther east :).Yuber 23:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

it may be that in French the term is more commonly used in contemporary contexts. Come to think of it, the "Levant" link in the "regions" template does seem a bit out of place. I would suggest it is replaced with Near East (which has, after all, the same meaning. It's just that the crusaders didn't reach as far inland) dab (ᛏ) 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be both included, since I really don't know how far the "Near East" extends to. Also, I have a great interest in archaeology and that is where I have seen the term 'Levant' used the most.Yuber 23:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

difficult... look at Near East, Middle East and Southwest Asia. I think the region template should only have SW Asia, which includes all others. Near East seems to include Anatolia, Levant, Mesopotamia, and sometimes Egypt and Iran. dab (ᛏ) 00:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Editorial Complaint Removed from Article Body

Anonymos 66.99.20.130 inserted the following under §Etymology, immediately after the first clause in the first sentence, disputing the first attestation of "Levant" in English to 1497.

(This can't be true. Levant and Outremer were interchangeable during the time of the Crusades, which began in 1095)

Leaving aside the inappropriate placement of the complaint in the body of the article — in the middle of a sentence, and without citation — the complaint does not seem to specifically address the statement. First attestation does not indicate when a term was coined, first popular, or even first noticed by compilers of dictionaries. It only indicates the age of the oldest available use of the term in writing — and specifically in this case in the writing of English. There's nothing implausible about a term current (in French, perhaps?) between ca. 1100 and 1300 not showing up in any long-lived English text before ca. 1500.

—Americist 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

GREECE IS NOT PART OF THE LEVANT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.221.50 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Skip the Political Wrangling, Please! (was "Is Israel part of the Levant?")

Wikipedia is an online, NEUTRAL encyclopaedia - NOT a political forum!

"Judea" (or 'Judaea') and "Samaria" are the names of two provinces of the Roman Empire; they have absolutely nothing to do with the ancient or modern states of Israel *or* the Palestinian territories.

"Palestine" is the English for "Palestina", which is the Roman Latin translation of "Philistia" - which is modernly called the Gaza Strip. The Philistines or, if you will, "original Palestinians" are believed to have been an Hellenic people, distantly or not-so-distantly related to the ancestors of modern Greeks. The "modern Philistine", is an ethnic mix of ancient Philistine, Turk, Canaanite, and Arab - and occasional other West Asian ethnic minorities (Akkadian, Assyrian, Syrian, etc.).

Jews (whether Israeli or not) are an historic Canaanite people, distantly related to Arabs and Bedouins; closely related to the descendants of other Canaanites (called "Phoenicians" by the Greeks) - especially the modern descendants of West Bank Canaanites (aka Palestinians), the Lebanese (Lebanon being the heart of ancient 'Phoenicia'), and Tunisians (Tunis being formerly the city of Carthage, capital of the Carthaginian Empire, and originally established as an outpost of the Phoenician Empire - in the days when Canaananites/Phoenicians/Palestinians (non-Arab) had a large and powerful, albeit disjunct and mostly coastal empire, that stretched from one end of the Mediterranean to the other. Some historians believe that Phoenicians even made it to Ireland, viz., the legends of the 'Parthalonians'. 24.4.56.198 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikipedians certain that Israel is located in the Levant? I thought that Israel was located in Canaan or the geographical area of modern day Palestine. My general impression from books I have read--however erroneous it may be--is that the Levant generally covered the region of Syria and Lebanon while Israel and Jordan's status is more ambiguous.

Regards, Leoboudv 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Any good sources you can cite describing the areal extent of the Levant will improve the article, whether they agree with what the article currently states or not. Because Levant is not a scientific term, or one defined by declaration, treaty, or acclamation, the article should properly present a wide range of the ways in which the term has been commonly used.

Levant is a relatively recent term which seems to be used generally in rough correspondence to classical Syria (not to be confused with the contemporary state of the same name) and ancient Canaan (which in turn was larger and more vaguely defined than Palestine ever has been). The term has already become obsolete and been revived at least once (at least in English). The most common contemporary usages, as far as I know, are in scholarly fields such as archaeology and history, where "Levant" and "Levantine" are sometimes used to refer to any regions within a circle defined by Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Arabia (not to confused with the Saudi kingdom), Egypt (not to be confused with the contemporary state of the same name) and the east edge of the Mediterranean Sea — and also to any languages, peoples, cultures, etc., associated with any such regions.

—Americist 17:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Saul/Americist. I just had the impression that the Levant encompassed Syria and Lebanon while its relation with Israel/Jordan was a little more vague. Everyone knows what the geographical area of Canaan, Mesopotamia or Egypt is but the term Levant is rather more ambigious--like Orientalism. Perhaps scholars like it this way! But I'll take your word for it unless someone else can offer different radically differing interpretations for the word Levant.

As an Aside, I wonder whether most Israelis object to their nation being classified as being a part of the Levant? Thank You. Leoboudv 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to raise this issue, but I don't want to be another anonymous editor, so I'll say it here. I changed "Judea and Samaria" to "the Occupied Palestinian Territories" a few days ago because that is the official, internationally recognized name assigned to this area. The term "Judea and Samaria" is a term used by Zionists in the Jewish Israeli community as a way to deny the very existence of Palestine, and to re-assert their claim to all Palestinian territories. "Judea and Samaria" do not exist. All of the other country names used in this particular subsection of the article referred to current nation-states. Therefore, the inclusion/use of "Judea and Samaria" is not only historically inaccurate, but reflects a bias which is rather distasteful. I noticed that someone changed it to "West Bank / Judea and Samaria." Though this is more broad, again, the inclusion of "Judea and Samaria" is incorrect at best. I added "Gaza Strip" to this phrase, instead of deleting the inaccurate phrase again, in the hopes that this would be acceptable until the appropriate person/people can confirm this information and make it right. -anonymous

• The Levant is simply the Eastern Mediterranean. Funkynusayri 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Stepping back a bit -- let's all remind ourselves that "etymology" is about how words derive their meanings, while passing through minor transformations. You might have a word in an ancient language, and it transforms -- it is an etymon. But you can't just take an old word and look up a recent synonym, then talk about that word, and claim that is the etymology of the first word?

Previously, In the Etymology section it says:

As such, it is broadly equivalent to the Arabic term Mashriq, "the land where the sun rises".

Actually, Al Mshriq refers to very much wider range that includes Iraq, KSA, Yemen and the Gulf states. The Levant in Arabic is Al Shaam الشام. --Maha Odeh (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In a narrow sense, the Levant can be regarded as being the same as Shaam, but in a broad sense, the Levant is not Shaam. This is because Shaam (Arabic: الـشَّـام, Ash-Shâm) is a region that is bordered by the Taurus Mountains of Anatolia in the north, the Mediterranean Sea in the west, the Arabian Desert in the south, and Mesopotamia in the east. It thus includes the modern countries of Syria and Lebanon, and the land of Palestine, but not Iraq or the Sinai peninsula, for example. Leo1pard (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Order

I ordered the last section in alphabetical order: Israel, Jordan, Lebannon, Palestine, Syria. I'm syrian and I don't mean anything by it, some people might take it as a reason to argue that Israel should not come first since it's not in alphabetical order. Thanks. 62.240.47.167 (talk)Ali —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems Iraq was added to that list (Regions) since you did so, but Israel is still first on the list. 141.157.197.57 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

but Iraq is not part of the Levant... not in any context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.35.89 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC) new to this, but was it not that levant was used to name the nowadays istambul, that is the whole eastern roman empire?89.201.152.223 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

About Palestinian Authority territories

Resolved

I've notice many vandals have come on the page, and deleted Israel and put "Palestine" in its place, even tho Palestine is not a UN Member State or meet the criteria of the term "state," although it does have a delegation to the UN. First off, deleting Israel is not acceptable. Putting it at the bottom is ridiculous, as these states are in alphabetical order which means Israel comes second in the list if no Cyprus, or third if there is Cyprus listen. What should we do to combat these vandals? Should we include the Palestinian Authority territories? Perhaps in a separate section, like "recognized territories, or put it indented under Israel? If it is there, how is it done without compromising the article or NPOV?Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine is in there now. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancient activities omitted?

It occurred to me that this article and the discussion it generated seem to omit the fact that Neolithic culture began in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) some fourteen thousand years ago, long before political borders, when the climate was quite different than it is in historical times.

"The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10200-8800 cal. BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, ... 12000-10200 cal. BCE." --http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Neolithic Hpfeil (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

I saw the recent edits going back and forth between Palestine and State of Palestine, as well as Palestinian territories. I would like to propose a solution.

On the one hand, I understand that all other countries in the list are official states. For that reason, I think that "Palestinian territories" is not an option that is acceptable to all. The statehood of the State of Palestine is an issue for others. Since we all agree that the this article, Levant, is about a geographical area, perhaps we could agree to link to "Palestine", which is also about the geographical area, with no political associations? Debresser (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with State of Palestine, considering the fact that it is not a full UN member state, but is officially referred to as "state".GreyShark (dibra) 14:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"almost all have been expelled from their homes and sought refuge in Israel"

To be sure, many of the Jews of Syria and Lebanon left for very good reasons. But very few were actually "expelled from their homes". In the case of Lebanon, a good source says

Lebanese Jews welcomed the creation of the State of Israel and had a deep commitment to the idea of a Jewish state. But unlike Jews in other Middle Eastern states they were neither expelled from their country nor voluntarily left to live in Israel. Jewish sympathies for Israel were never strong enough to overcome a very Levantine attitude towards life. (Kirsten Shulze, The Jews of Lebanon, Sussex Academic Press, 2nd edition 2009, p.75; similar statement on p.82).

The part "sought refuge in Israel" is, if anything, worse. Actually a large fraction went to the USA and other countries.

Lebanese Jewry preferred emigrating to Europe and to the United States where they often settled among other Lebanese expatriates - Muslim and Christian - to making Aliyah. (same source, p. 58)

Many Syrian Jews went to Lebanon and only left Lebanon much later. This text is simply unacceptable and has to be replaced. Zero^talk 11:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you for discussing instead of edit warring. Such "courtesy" is rare nowadays.

The edit under discussion is this one, which replaces "almost all have been expelled from their homes and sought refuge in Israel" by "save for a handful or remaining Jews in Syria and Lebanon, they live almost exclusively in Israel and the West Bank".

The main points of this edit seems to be 1. replacing "almost all" by "save for a handful or remaining Jews in Syria and Lebanon 2. replace "have been expelled" and "sought refuge" by "they live" 3. Add West Bank.

The first change is fine with me. That seems to have been your main point, if I correctly understand your post above. The third change seems unnecessary to me, undue percentage wise, and a likely pointy edit. I am more or less confident that you can agree with me on that. Do we need to discuss point two after we agreed on points one and three? Debresser (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The words I replaced the unacceptable text were someone else's words and they aren't optimal. Actually I find them confusing and I'll think of a replacement. The issue is minor for this very general page so a lot of detail is not needed. Zero^talk 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be a recommendable idea to propose the replacement text here first. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Location of State of Palestine

@Debresser: Your last edit violated WP:1RR, I suggest you self-revert.

State of Palestine claims Palestinian Territories but has no defined borders, so it's wrong to say that it's "located" anywhere at all. You restored the counter-factual claim in this article - that it's located in the Levant - so it needs a citation. For the rest of the states the location is well-defined so it's a case of WP:BLUE - it's trivial to find sources supporting their location. “WarKosign” 17:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Normally it's hard to prove a negative (that there are no defined borders), but here even President of the State of Palestine himself said "nobody knows what the borders are. We are determined to know our borders and theirs, without that there will be no peace". “WarKosign” 07:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

See my reply on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_1RR_on_Levant_by_DebresserWP:ANI, that you already undid my last edit, otherwise I would have done it myself. As to the issue itself. State of Palestine isd well-defined. I am afraid that your insistence on Palestinian Territories, which is a highly disputed term, is politically motivated. In any case, the first is in accordance with WP:NPOV, while the second is not. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There are countless sources that State of Palestine claims the West Bank and Gaza but at best has partial control over these territories nor defined borders, so it can't be said to be "in" these territories.

These territories are often referred to as Palestinian Territories, which I agree is a politically loaded name but is considered WP:COMMONNAME. If you prefer to change the notation on this page to West Bank and Gaza I would fully support it.“WarKosign” 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The charter of the PLO claims the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and they haven't changed it since the 1970s. There is no reference in Palestinian claims to oPt, because oPt came into existence as a concept in 1999.GreyShark (dibra) 07:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Does it mean you support writing "West Bank and Gaza" instead of "State of Palestine" in this article ? “WarKosign” 07:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

State of Palestine is a fact - it exists. The question is its exact status of sovereignity and borders, both disputed. It doesn't change the fact it exists on the map as a location on its own right - controlling areas A+B, with some of its population living in area C and EJ.GreyShark (dibra) 09:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The borders of Israel are not defined either, but we know where it is. It is well established that the SoP claims soveriegnty over the PT. We also know that the PNA is in the PT, and the PNA now calls itself the SoP. So being simple, as this article requires, it is fair to say that SoP is in the PT. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The extensive usage of abbreviations aside, Oncenawhile and I seem to have the same point of view on this issue. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the irrefutable logic of my argument on WP:ANI proves my point. I quote: In any case: 1. if the Palestinian territories are in the Levant, then so is the State of Palestine, and visa versa, since they are in the same geographical location, far and by. 2. Since all countries that surround either of them are in the Levant, so are they, and no source is needed.

As I have said there as well, the Abbas quote you bring only says that the boundaries are not clear. That does not mean to say that the State of Palestine is located somewhere in the Americas, for example. The fact remains that whatever the exact boundaries are, the territory is inside the Levant. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to find a compromise.

Both solutions are good:

• Palestininian territories
• State of Palestine

A fair reason to use the 1st one is -as Warkosign says- it is more precisely defined than the 2nd one ; a fair reason to use the 2nd one is that State of Paestline is a more official for -as Debresser says- what is geographically speaking the same at the end.

Good luck... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Palestinian territories have no defined borders. Once you say "Palestinian" territories, you imply a question of what is Palestinian exactly in territorial scope. Palestinian territories generally refer to PNA areas A+B, sometimes also including area C and sometimes also the entire WB and GS. According to the UN, Palestinian territories was replaced with State of Palestine in terms of definition in 2013, so State of Palestine cannot be in Palestinian territories (PNA), as they don't overlap historically.GreyShark (dibra) 07:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Palestinian territories ... are descriptions often used to describe the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip". Sounds very well-defined to me. “WarKosign” 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 I'd like to add the argument that State is more NPOV than Territories, in the eyes of the world. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the other way around - territories are there and it's an indisputable objective and NPOV fact. Claiming that these territories already belong to one of the two sides in a territorial dispute is taking sides, something that we mustn't do.“WarKosign” 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian territories ... are descriptions often used to describe the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip", as well as often for areas A+B of the Oslo Accords or sometimes areas A+B+C (WB+GS-EJ-GE). Seems well defined to me.GreyShark (dibra) 09:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this exaggeration ? I quoted the lead of Palestinian Territories which is supported by US department of State, UN OCHA and a book ("International Assistance to the Palestinians After Oslo") that I'm unable to verify at the moment. "West Bank and Gaza" is a clearer and more neutral definition of the territory, so it's fine by me. “WarKosign” 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You quoted wikipedia. Both the US department of state and the OCHA don't define the oPt geographically, but rather talk in general terms on West Bank, Gaza Strip, Areas A-B-C and EJ, without making a clear "border" of where the PNA/oPt is located.GreyShark (dibra) 09:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - some users continue to claim that State of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories, is there any source actually saying such a thing?? The sources of the PLO clearly state that the State of Palestine claims the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. If some users make the questionable interpretation of West Bank + Gaza Strip = Palestinian territories, it doesn't make the PLO charter say that. And finally, Palestinian territories as a concept was aborted by UN and ISO in 2013, in favor of State of Palestine, so saying State of Palestine (non-member observer state in UN) is in the Palestinian territories (PNA autonomy) is like saying that Canada (state) is the British Province of Canada (British dependency). See ISO 3166-1 Change History:

1999-10-01 (Newsletter V-2): Occupied Palestinian Territory split from Israel.

2013-02-06 (Newsletter VI-14): Name of Palestine changed from "Occupied Palestinian Territory" to "State of Palestine" (both short and formal).

I wonder if anyone can refute those fact after checking the source.GreyShark (dibra) 09:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Our territory is recognized as the lands framed by the 1967 border"

You keep saying that Palestinian Territories were/are a political entity. Do you have sources for that ? The sources that I provided describe it as just territory, which is partially administered by PNA (which calls itself State of Palestine now). “WarKosign” 09:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What difference does that make? The geographical location is what matters. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Geographical location of West Bank and Gaza, a.k.a Palestinian Territories is well-known. State of Palestine claims these territories, but since it's a de-jure entity it can't be said to be located in these territories - or anywhere else at all. The statement that State of Palestine is located in Levant is therefore wrong - as of now, the state has no current location, only claimed/intended/probable future location. Palestinian National Authority (which calls itself Self of Palestine) has partial control of some of the territories - so one could say that PNA is located in the Levant, but it's like saying that a government is located somewhere - correct but incomplete. Saying that Palestinian Territories (or West Bank and Gaza, if you prefer) are in Levant is an objective fact that nobody (?) can deny and which does not support or contradict any POV claims. “WarKosign” 11:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Palestinian claim is very clear. They claim a state within the 1967 borders, which happens to coincide with the OPT. See Recognizing the Palestinian State on the 1967 border & Admission of Palestine as a Full Member of the United Nations: "In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the establishment of the State of Palestine over the territory occupied by Israel in 1967 (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip)." (p. 2). See also Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009): "Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state" --Qualitatis (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Comment - What a waste of time. Saying the State of Palestine is in the Levant is an objective fact that follows from ISO 3166-2:PS. ISO 3166-2:PS is an international standard for the current state of affairs and it should be good enough for any Wikipedia editor. The location of a single point known to be contained by a bounded region is all that is required to make valid (albeit imprecise) statements about the location of a bounded region, regardless of the lack of information about the boundary itself. So, the international standard ISO 3166-2:PS tells us, for example, that Ramallah is contained by the bounded region called the State of Palestine and we know where Ramallah is located. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that all editors apart from WarKosign know where the State of Palestine is located, as I predicted on WP:ANI. Can we close this redundant discussion now? Debresser (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree.GreyShark (dibra) 14:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland, Debresser, and Pluto2012: I would also like to draw editorial attention to another related discussion, where WarKosaign has also promoted the idea that State of Palestine doesn't exist.GreyShark (dibra) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

The statement: "Until the creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948, Jews lived throughout the Levant alongside Muslims and Christians; since then, almost all have been expelled from their homes and sought refuge in Israel." does not have a reference sited. Furthermore, the word "expelled" indicates they [Jews] were forced to leave their homes. According to information found here the Jews were indeed persecuted in many parts of the world, but they were not forced to leave and take refuge elsewhere. Perhaps the correct statement should read more like this: "Until the creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948, Jews lived throughout the Levant alongside Muslims and Christians; since then, a large number have immigrated to Israel out of fear of persecution." 24.120.129.75 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

24.120.129.75 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Let's think this over a bit more, because it was not just "fear of persecution", there was real persecution. When you are persecuted, that is very close to being forced to leave. Let's think about this, let's hear some more opinions, and I'll be happy to make the edit, as soon as consensus is reached. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

immigrated, many to Israel, due to persecution.

or: immigrated due to persecution, many of them to Israel in several relief operations. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Palestine

change ((Palestine)) to ((State of Palestine|Palestine))

Not done. Please specify where you propose to make this change. Two links titled "Palestine" in infobox and "Geography and modern-day use of the term" actually point to State of Palestine, these easter eggs probably should be changed to Palestine (region) or Palestinian Territories since the article is about geography and not politics. “WarKosign” 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem

There's been an edit war on the Israeli flag next to Jerusalem. I don't see a discussion here about it. The first to add cities was [[user:Khestwol] in edit number 757405213. He had the Israeli flag next to the city of Jerusalem, which is in Israel, and was so since Israel was established in 1948.

The predominant population in Western Jerusalem is Jewish and Israeli. Most of the Arabs of East Jerusalem, Muslims and some Christians, have Israeli citizenship. In Jerusalem, the Israelis and Arabs live mostly in peace with each other, in the Jewish established hospitals, transportation, postal office, town municipality, and even police, they share being staff and clients. The Israeli parliament and main government offices are there. The Top Court of Law is in Jerusalem. It is the De-Facto capital of Israel. Parts of Jerusalem are predominatly Arab - with Muslims and lately less and less Christians (being pushed out), and parts of Jerusalem are in the PA, and so IMHO it would only be right to put up both flags on the city, just as it is over Gaza City, although that town is actually under the Hamas green flag.

There are those who would say that it should only be if/when a Palestinian state will be established or if/when the Israeli state will be dissolved into a peaceful regional state with equality for all citizens and a historical reconciliation will happen. Meanwhile, that's where things stand.

The Jerusalem page reads: Administered by Israel, Claimed by: Israel, Palestine.

The first to remove it was user:Nayefc edit 772186632 who wrote: Jerusalem is part of Israel as per UN recognition. Removing flag to indicate its unassigned status.

He was revoked immediately by user:WarKosign, but then Nayefc revoked the revokation without remark.

It was reverted back again, with the Israeli flag by user:Queen Geedorah88. and then reverted to being without a flag by user:Kashmiri with the remark: No country flag is on purpose.

All this with no discussion. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Went WP:BOLD and removed the flags altogether. No flags, no nonsense wars in the article I hope. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kashmiri, taking a flag off does not solve the problem.

And to Nayef: First and formost: In any case the flag should not have been removed without discussion. And to your points: Yes it does matter that Jerusalem is administered by Israel. That is what the flag is about. And the argument about "East Jerusalem" is not an argument about Jerusalem.

The blue ID card is full citizenship. An orange ID card (which my brother just recieved) is a resident card. So we are talking about full citizenship. It's a mistake by the translator. (The original Hebrew article states things differently). The article is based on Nir Hason's 2012 article, and which states that most EJ residents wished to stay under Israeli control. But you are correct. I misread Lubel's original article (for Royters, in Hebrew on NRG site) which was misleading. It's just 1000 a year who ask for citizenship. Everything else I said still stands.

And just to restate my Friend Yusuf's words (in Arabic): Ya Mushe: The whole world they hate the Yahud and the whole world even in Cuwait and Saudia Arabia they hate the Filastinis and everybody hates Gaza. So everybody hates us, and stupid us sit here and kill each other. Why? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

levant and lebanon

Lebanon means in the ancient phoenician which has been retained in the biblical Hebrew: The white mountains, refering to the Hermon mountains. Is it clear that Levant has nothing to do with this? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The article specifically says that the name Levant is unrelated to Lebanon, and you seem to agree with this notion, so what is the problem exactly ? “WarKosign” 15:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

OK I read David F. Graf in the source given, (Ancient Greece and Rome edited by Michael Gagarin), and you (he) convinced me. So, your correct, no problem.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Jerusalem Citizens Status

Responding to פשוט pashute ♫, it doesn't matter if Israel administers Jerusalem or not. East Jerusalem is occupied territory and is not recognised as part of Israel by the international community. Therefore, it is not in Israel. It is occupied by Israel.

Regarding citizenship, the vast majority of Arabs (both Muslim and Christians) in Jerusalem are blue ID holders and not Israeli citizens. I'm not sure what source you used for this false information. This is shown by any amount of research you do, and of course if you talk to Arabs in Jerusalem which I assume you have not. Here is a recent Haaretz article: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.669643.

Nayef (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nayef. (Your assumption btw is wrong. Illi as'hab fi'l (Q)uds wa'anna bahki ubaktob Arabi...). We are discussing the article not our political views. Right? So the question is about the flag and not the Jerusalem citizen's status - which is not mentioned in the article. Let's please continue the discussion there. I promise to respond to each of your points. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a right or wrong to this question, and does it matter?

Dear User:Leoboudv, I agree with you that the term is quite ambiguous and one can find verifiable sources that rightfully claim any number of borders or areas of inclusion/exclusion, and which becomes even more ambiguous when you throw in the passage of time. Everyone who has done some research on the subject is probably "right" to some degree. It is a term that I would compare to the modern world's use of the term "The West" (can anyone specify its borders? yet there is a general sense of what it means) or The Pacific Rim, or for that matter, the Middle East. Who is in charge of making the final decision as to specific borders of these terms? No one, of course. I think the news media comes up with such terms, and they either stick if they are useful, or die a natural death if not. As to historical or ancient place names, aren't they sometimes the creations of archeologists and other scholars attempting to clarify or specify various facts to make their research easier to understand, rather than an attempt to place boundaries on areas or places that don't meet our modern concepts of nationhood or geopolitical boundaries? Kurt76.171.173.77 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

In the intro:

It is an imprecise term, however, because it refers to an area of cultural habitation rather than to a specific area of land. It is a much needed term, however, given that throughout much of history this region has had many different national or political names.

"Imprecise" and "much needed" are POV. They are probably correct, but still OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.13.87 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "Imprecise" might be supported by facts. "Much Needed" might be POV. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Too restrictive designation

Traditionally the Levant includes Cyprus, Turkey,even Greece --as can be seen in the text. The map and the rest does not seem to mean "Levant", rather "Fertile Crescent" or Greater Syria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epistemeter (talk • contribs) 22:10, October 26, 2008 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

Agreed. The article should make clear that there are no defined boundaries for "Levant," and that historically different authors used it in various ways, some more narrowly and others broader. Many authors included Turkey as part of the Levant, and this should be mentioned. E.g., a 2010 article by a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress is entitled "The New Levant: Understanding Turkey’s Shifting Roles in the Eastern Mediterranean", which explicitly states: "the central and eastern regions of the country, which once were considered part of the Levant." In December 2010, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan signed an agreement to form a “Levant Quartet” to develop stronger economic and cultural ties. The "Levant Company" was formed in 1581, and was also called the Turkish Company. Members of it were called Turkey Merchants, and it established centers ranging from Constantinople to Smryna, Alexandria, and Aleppo. There are cookbooks on The Levant: Lebanon, Syria and Turkey Authentic Dishes, Latin-Levantines refers to Christians who lived under the Ottoman Empire, the Levantine Cultural Centre (and its Review) includes Turkey, etc. One could also give examples of authors who use a more restrictive boundary. Then, one could have a section on reliable-source authors who debate these boundaries, and present those RS-authors' views on why or when they prefer a narrower or broader definition. (There is no need for original research to judge these discussions; simply present them.) Benefac (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Map concerns

I'm unsure why you, Izzedine, keep reverting the map of the Levant. This map is well referenced and does certainly not fall under Original Research. Like most of my maps (and most Wikipedia articles), it was developed using multiple sources. I would be interested in hearing any critique of the map. MapMaster (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Izzedine, I see you have been edit-warring at File:EasternMedMap.JPG. You have reverted 3 other editors' changes there. Apparently you believe that Irag is part of the Levant. I have seen no definition that includes Iraq and I am certain that the standard mainstream definition does not go so far to the East. MapMaster (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The scope on this map is original research. The shaded crescent is placed arbitrarily. The Eastern Med map is for the Eastern Med article, and there are several sources there verifying Iraq's inclusion into the region. Those are two seperate articles for different terms and with different references. As for levant, I have several references which include Iraq, which I will add. ^Izzedine 06:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• You say the shade in this map is placed arbitrarily, that is because the levant is an arbitrary definition, not an exact one. The shaded map represent the levant much more accurately.Somebody please revert it (dont wanna join the editing war myself) Aa2-2004 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I gather from reading the above that there has been some controversy about the map. But the map as it exists, showing far more than the Levant without indicating which bit is the Levant and which isn't, is not of much use and would be better removed altogether. asnac (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just an addition, in my experience of reading older texts (1500-1800) Levant was a diffuse area somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Area undefined but sometimes including, at least, part of Nile delta. Mostly stretching from todays Turkey to somewhere close or in the Nile delta. In my opinion the map vas a good try to show how undefined the are was, without any modern complications. Seniorsag (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do the name of the region appear in Arabic, and if already so, why in Arabic only?

1. The Levant region referes also to ancient times, before the 8CE, when Arabs where still not present as significant part of the population of the Levant. Ancient people like the Phenocians, Ashurians and etc didn't speak Arabic and Arabic became dominant in the region only after Islam was formed, at about the 8CE.

2. Hebrew is also spoken in the Levant today and was spoken in the Levant, according to historical and arechological accounts, much before Arabic was. So why it is not included in the article lead? --Gilisa (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

3 and 4: The Arabic name of the region " Mashriq" referes also to Egypt and geographically it's different from the regions included in the Levant. There is not single one RS indicating the Levant came from Mashriq or that "Mashriq" even preceded "Levant" as a term to describe the region. --Gilisa (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Levant is a geographical area not defined by national borders. This image better represents the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Levant is composed of the Mediterranean regions of Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and Syria. That image posted includes parts of Saudi Arabian Desert, Sinai, and Iraq, which are not generally accepted as a part of the modern Levant. Lazyfoxx (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Levant is a loose definition. These regions were arbitrarily cup up by the french and british, that's why parts of Iraq or Saudi appear in the map. The majority of people in this discussion are of the view that the Levant is not an exact definition.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Map defining a region should not include areas that are not part of the region, that doesn't make sense, that would be like Including Mexico in a United States map, it's false facts.

The general consensus agrees that the Levant is made of the countries Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Jordan, and Syria, the countries bordering the Mediterranean sea, these are the only countries where the Levantine dialect of Arabic is spoken, it is also shown as a Linguistic boundary.

If we were to include parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the map then we would have to include parts of Sinai, Cyprus, and Turkey as well because they are occasionally seen as part of the Levant. It does not make sense to include countries not part of the Levant, in the main picture telling people what the Levant is.

Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Hebrew translation doesn't belong in the article since its not a real Hebrew name, its a straight translation of the European word "Levant". Going by that we could ad 10-20 different language translations from the Middle east, Armenian, Aramaic, Syriac, Circassian, Kurdish etc all being pronounced "Levant" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So why don't you add other names used by local inhabitants rather than going around removing Hebrew from articles? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats just it, its not a Hebrew name, its a straight translation of the European word. It would basically look like this: Armenian: (Levant), Aramaic: (Levant), Syriac: (Levant), Circassian: (Levant), Kurdish: (Levant) etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would add the name in local alphabets, which might be interesting to a reader of this article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia you know. People come here to learn stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Levant" is not the name in "local alphabets", its a European name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Levant" is used locally, written in local alphabets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? If the word pronounced "Levant" is used locally, then its imported since its a European name, so no foreign translation of it is relevant. For example the french word "merci" is used in Lebanon, this wouldn't make it appropriate to ad the Arabic translation to the word in a dictionary or wiktionary. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Many names for geographic places are imported. For example, "Syria" is imported from Greek. So what?

It is relevant because it's used locally, by people living in the region. You removed it because it is in Hebrew. This isn't the first Hebrew transliteration you've removed from wikipedia articles. I think a good case can be made for you being disruptive and tendentious. If you continue with this I'm going to make a list and report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Syria is the name of an Arab country. I removed the hebrew translation because it doesn't belong here per that its not a hebrew name. The same way its not a Japanese name. "Merci" is used in lebanon, would it be appropriate to ad the Arab translation to that word in a dictionary? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a multilingual dictionary: it is perfectly useful and appropriate to cross-reference Greater Syria, but there is no particular reason to mention the Arabic (or Hebrew or French or Italian) translation of 'Levant'. --Macrakis (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The European name translation would be relevant because that is its origin, the Arabic translation is for "Bilad ash Sham" which is an arabic name for the same region, so that's also relevant, there is no hebrew name for the same region.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you use Canaan as an Hebrew translation and not Levant (in Hebrew alphabet)as it should be. Levant is the proper Hebrew name (just like many other words that are used in a language and were taken from another language). the specific word is not only used but also hold a cultural meaning. the word is used as an adjective: Levantini. anyway Canaan is the name of the land of Israel/Palestine in the times of the Canaanites and is not tantamount to Levant (that includes Syria and Lebanon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.121.116.55 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently, a dialect of Levantine Arabic, Cypriot Maronite Arabic, is the most-spoken minority language in the country

78% greek, 18% turk, 4% other including armenian, so cant be most-spoken minority language in the country can itEugene-elgato (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, that statement doesn't belong in the article. I've removed it. --Macrakis (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's come back!Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sanity please!

Does anyone actually read books any more? Does anyone read them with a critical mindset?

I find it very ironic that the only WikiProject NOT interested in this article is France, though the French coined the name. And, it was coined for purely theological reasons, not those of politics or geography. Awaiting a new Crusade to the lost Holy Land, in typical Medieval mysticism they begun to refer to it as Levant thereby alluding to the correctness of their eschatology over that of Islam, i.e. the second coming (rising).

Just because some authors choose to use the wrong term doesn't mean Wikipedia has to do so also based on "reliable sources". They may be reliable, but nutz at the same time!

In ancient geography the Med was called "the sea". Sometimes "the western sea". I have seen references to it as the Phoenician Sea, though rarely, and mostly from early Roman sources I think. Modern geographers have a name for the part we are concerned with, the Eastern Mediterranean littoral Region. I quote "The eastern Mediterranean littoral is a narrow strip of plain varying in width from zero to c. 40 km." And it can be defined in terms of 'behaviour' of those that occupied it in the ancient history of the region.

"By the middle of the first millennium BC the known world of western mankind centred on the eastern Mediterranean and the adjacent Middle East. This was divided into two sub-regions, a maritime and a continental one, each of which was characterized by its own particular type of state. In the maritime sub-region it was the city-state, the whole existence of which was bound up with its maritime location. In the continental subregion it was the territorial state, the existence of which was equally bound up with its continental location. To territorial states wealth and power were achieved through the acquisition of more land, while to city-states these attributes were the products of trade.", and "The centuries following the establishment of the first city-states saw the rise of the Assyrian Empire and in the ninth century BC this brought about a fundamental change in the Mediterranean world. Expanding rapidly from their homeland in northern Mesopotamia, the Assyrians reduced Babylon to dependency and advanced westwards to the sea. The whole of the eastern Mediterranean littoral, home of the first city-states, rapidly fell into their hands. In 878 BC the Phoenician city-states lost their independence and became subjects of the king of Assyria. This conquest of the core region of the Phoenician world resulted in the complete disruption of the commercial system that had been built up over the preceding centuries."(Sovereign city: the city-state through history, Geoffrey Parker, p.25)

Never mind that Parker elsewhere calls the place "Middle East", but the point is that the Med defined the region, and would continue to do so until today as a land, and with the Suez canal, a maritime bridge between Europe and Asia. Why anyone would want to call it after the rising of the Sun, which is the most literal expression of POV, I would not have a clue. The Japanese were so sure they were the first to see the rising of the Sun, they put it on their national flag!

Can we please stop this pursuit of the impossible, and relegate the Levant to European Medieval history? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Koakhtzvigad, thank you for your thoughtful comments above. You've changed the Levant article into an interesting essay arguing that the modern use of the term "Levant" is based on an abuse of the medieval French terminology. An interesting discussion, but I am not convinced that it is what belongs in Wikipedia. Wikipedia describes what is; it doesn't advocate for what should be. True, the pre-existing Levant article had some issues, but I'm afraid I don't find your edits to be an improvement. Your edits start by defining the Levant as a term ("a term used for geographic identification of Asia...")-- though Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not about words. You then mix a discussion of the referent of 'Levant' with the role of the region "as a trade link to Asia". Then you talk about the ecology of the region, as though it had been defined ecologically -- which according to your own definitions, it had not. I plan to go back to the older framework of the article, though I will try to keep additional information you've added as possible. I invite other editors to discuss all this. --Macrakis (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen no discussion on this topic here on the Talk page, so I have made some updates based on my above comments. It is not up to Wikipedia to determine that some common academic term is an "abuse" or "eurocentric". Many geographical terms have historical origins which have become separated from their modern meanings. For example, "Anatolia" is Greek for the East (just as Levant is French for the East), yet the geographic and cultural entity is called "Anatolian" even for periods long before there were Greeks (cf. Anatolian languages). The Americas are named for a 15th-century cartographer, even when referring to periods before Europeans knew of them. "Palestine" refers to a certain geographical region, even referring to periods before the arrival of the Philistines (about 1200 BCE). The name "Egypt" is apparently a Greek corruption of the name of a temple in Memphis. "Africa" in Latin referred to part of North Africa, not the whole continent. etc. etc. Miller and Hayes, A history of ancient Israel and Judah, talks about many of these names. --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion - Physical Geography

I deleted the below section for two reason. First, it was placed in the section titled Physical Geography, though neither paragraph discusses physical georgraphy. Second, there first paragraph is very unclear, I can't figure out what it is saying or how that is relevant or related to anything in the article.

Modern published sources, including in academic literature on ancient history, often misuse the Levant as a Eurocentric geo-political region, in the same way that Middle East is used to refer to historical periods prior to the Modern period. Doing so they include in the region modern Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, none of which existed when the term came into use.

Sometimes the term is also equated to the historic area called Syria or Greater Syria which is predominantly continental. Occasionally, even peripheral regions of Cyprus, Sinai and Iraq are included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenbite (talk • contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Spain

The spanish use the term Levante for the eastern part of spain, region around Barcelona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.223.50 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse in academia section contains original research?

Excerpt from the paragraph above: "borrowed from the French levant 'rising', that is, the point where the sun rises" sure sounds like a "Eurocentric" view when the term was created, so please state the NAME of any scholars claiming this is a "misuse" & note that it's their OPINION that these other scholars, below, are "misusing" the term. Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.208.138 (talk) 2011-05-03T23:15:41 (I moved this comment from the article to this talk page. —C45207 | Talk 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Agree with IP contributor: the section deals with an obscure and off-topic aspect of the Levant region and does not add to the reader's understanding of it.—Biosketch (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I have tagged the article as having "Multiple issues". The current article is badly organized, has content that is not relevant, and has considerable amounts of original research. I have tried to remove the most egregious irrelevancies and OR, but there is still a lot left. --Macrakis (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Levant stamps

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Stamp_French_PO_Turkish_1903_30c.jpg (see French post offices in the Ottoman Empire ) Böri (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Levantine as a pejorative term

I want to submit Somerset Maugham's short story "Mr. Know All" as proof that "Levantine" is often used pejoratively. In the story the speaker is a proper English gentleman. On three occasions he refers to the aggressive, dark skinned (swarthy) Mr. Kelada as "The Levantine", each time clearly with a negative connotation. He is not referred to in a less condemning manner such as, "Mr. Kelada, a man from the Levant". http://maugham.classicauthors.net/knowall/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmanoffesto (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because some people have negative associations with a given group doesn't mean that the group name itself is pejorative. Consider the negative associations some people have for "Jew", "Greek", "Arab", etc. --Macrakis (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maugham's choice of words in a work of fiction does not "prove" anything. See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Without reliable secondary sourcing, verifying whether Maugham was more or less bigoted than his peers, or whether he was accurately reflecting the circles in which he moved at that time, is an exercise in interpretation beyond the remit of any Wikipedia editor. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I submit this: "Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa: Levantine" which I found at http://www.answers.com/topic/levantine-4#ixzz1kPR27aty

"By the 1900s Levantine had acquired a negative moral coloration. Sir Evelyn Baring, British agent and consul-general in Egypt from 1883 to 1907, adhered to the traditional definition, but emphasized the southern European origin of those to whom the term applied. He further included a pejorative nuance that had recently been attached to the term: "Levantines . . . suffer in reputation by reason of qualities which are displayed by only a small minority of their class . . . among this minority are to be found individuals who are tainted with a remarkable degree of moral obliquity." Other writers were more specific and referred to Greek or Armenian money lenders or to "sellers of strong waters to Muslims in most cities of Western Asia."

"The pejorative implication gained ground. An impressive publication that served as a guide to British investors in Egypt, in discussing Alexandria as a summer resort, informed its readers that the city became the temporary home of "businessmen from the capital unable to get over to Europe and a certain class of Levantines who invariably return to Cairo richer than they left." Thus, the term Levantine evolved to encompass both ethnocultural identity as well as moral judgment. From applying to a European born and living in the eastern Mediterranean, it came to include either an Eastern Christian or another member of a non-Arab minority whose business dealings were ethically tainted to the point of implementing the profit motive even while on vacation."

and also "The Journal of Levantine Studies" which acknowledges that "Levantine" has been used pejoritively and tries to re-define the term more positively. http://www.levantine-journal.org/AboutJLS.aspx

"While the term "Levantine" originally referred to the European residents of the eastern Mediterranean region, it later came to refer to regional "native" and "minority" groups. As it developed alongside colonial practices and Eurocentric attitudes, the notion gradually acquired derogatory connotations in its everyday and academic usage." Webmanoffesto (talk)

Nice material about the term "Levantine" (as opposed to "Levant")! It could be useful in the "Franco-Levantines" article in a discussion of the shift of meaning from the Franco-Levantines to the non-Arabs or non-Muslims in the Levant. --Macrakis (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, but I think this is not the right place for it. Perhaps either at "Franco-Levantines", or at Wikitionary. Yazan (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I was researching the term "Levant" in order to better understand a piece of literature. I think I am (at least a little) representative of many users, in that I was familiar with the term "Levant" but had never in my life heard the term Franco-Levantine. Furthermore, I never would have run a search on that term, and Wikipedia does not offer that term at all when I search for "Levant" or "Levantine" Therefore your burying the "derogatory" part in the Franco-Levantine section would have prevented me from understanding the literature I was researching.

Now I see that my efforts to improve the article have resulted in the article becoming worse; the "citation needed" section about "Levantine" being derogatory (in the post WWI years) has been moved/deleted. Is this a case of political correctness? Is someone worried that the Levantine community will be offended by reporting the fact that in the post WWI years "Levantine" was often used in a derogatory manner?

   http://www.answers.com/topic/levantine-4#ixzz1kPR27aty
   Google Books "In spite of partition: Jews, Arabs, and the limits of separatist imagination" by Gil Z. Hochbe http://books.google.co.il/books?id=gjtb7K2IK_EC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA45&ots=nRexrAKgBk&dq=levantine+derogatory&hl=iw
   Search Google Books for "levantine, derogatory" http://www.google.co.il/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=iw&q=levantine+derogatory&btnG=
   Search Google Books for "levantine, pejoritive" http://www.google.co.il/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=iw&q=levantine+pejoritive&btnG=

I should point out that Wikipedia's explanation of the word "Jew" (as opposed to "Jewish") mentions that it is often used "a disparaging manner by antisemites". http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jew_%28word%29#Antisemitism "The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether, and the term Hebrew was substituted instead (e.g. Young Men's Hebrew Association)." Webmanoffesto (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents about this is that this is not the place for it. The article is about the region and its people, and placing this here would be a "eurocentric" approach. The usage is not notable because it didn't gain traction to the point where none of us here actually knew about it, whereas antisemitism against Jews is still an issue, and it's a much more notable one, that deserves a mention. You can't expect an explanation of the term in every historical context on wikipedia (that's what dictionaries (or wikitionary) are for). Yazan (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Yazan. I have moved the information about the pejorative meaning of "Levantine" from this article (which is about a region) to the Franco-Levantines page, which is about a social group in that region.

I'll note, too, that the negative stereotype of "Levantine" is just a small part of the interesting Gale article that User:Webmanoffesto found, which covers much more about the history of the Levantines. I wouldn't want to overemphasize that small part, any more than an article about Jews should primarily be about negative stereotypes of Jews.

I certainly agree that the current and historical stereotypes about ethnic, religious, and social groups are encyclopedic and should be documented in Wikipedia, though doing it well is delicate (we wouldn't want to imply the Wikipedia endorses the stereotype) and Wikipedia hasn't been systematic about it. For example, the Wikipedia page on Scottish people says nothing about the stereotype of frugality or thrift. --Macrakis (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree that in some cases such stereotypes can be encyclopedic (antisemitism, islamophobia, for instance), but I think there should be some sort of a threshold, a notability guideline of sorts. Every group of people has certain stereotypes about other groups of people (religious, ethnic, geographic, etc.) and the use of such stereotypes will find its way to literature. Where does one draw the line? Yazan (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We draw the line where WP always draws the line -- notability as demonstrated in reliable sources. Webmanoffesto's cites seem to be enough to show that the stereotypes about Levantines are notable. I'm sure we could find equally reliable sources for stereotypes about Scots and other groups. In any case, this discussion should really be happening at Talk:Franco-Levantines since that is where the content is now. --Macrakis (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

infobox

I'm not a fan of the new infobox, for the following reasons:

• Cyprus floating over central Asia on the map looks weird. There's nothing there connecting the large floating Cyprus to where the island actually is.
• The population figure, which admits it's OR in the footnote, gives an exact number although I strongly suspect whoever put it there took population numbers from various countries and for various years and added them up. The real figure could easily be a couple million more.
• The list of languages is so long as to be completely useless.
• What's the source for the list of largest cities? Just off the top of my head, Haifa has a larger population than Gaza City.

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your points are fair, but i would like to say thanks to User:Winkpolve because it is definitely moving in the right direction.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The image is proclaimed original research. That is a reason to remove it, and I have seen at least one geographical map removed for precisely that reason. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Archaic term

Correct me if I am wrong, but "Levant" seems very rarely used in N. America. "Middle East" is more commonly used. Seems as backwards as "oriental". Kortoso (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Archaic": [1]

"An archaic name for the eastern part of the Mediterranean with its islands and neighbouring countries." [2] Kortoso (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

North America is not the world – this is the English Wikipedia, not the American English Wikipedia. Also, Levant remains in common use in academia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

current political usage

This article is missing discussion of current political usage of the term.-71.174.178.251 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Some mention of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), also called ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) should be made. 71.191.237.16 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I came here to make the same request. Some section defining what "Levant" means in the context of ISIL would be very helpful. --skeptical scientist (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no need. We don't mention every organization that uses the term "Levant". Especially since I see no indication they use the word in any special way. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is all very nice, however it defies logic. From the article "ISIL has adopted the term "Levant" within the English translation of their self-designation.[citation needed]" This needs to be substantiated with reference or citation, because I highly doubt that Daesh/ISIS/The Islamic state in Iraq and Syria/The Islamic State in Iraq and al-Shām/ or whatever you wish to call them would use the term "Levant" simply because it is the word used by the hated Franks/Crusaders/West/Christians/Infidels. This is a term used by only the US State Department and many devout Muslims, even those who would oppose the Islamic State would find, if not outright offensive, mildly irritating. And if you think that is untrue, consider that before the changed their name and announced the Islamic state, the US State State Department gave the the title of al-Qaeda in Iraq in Mesopotamia (The US Military and they themselves used the title al-Qaeda in Iraq.) The whole "Levant" and "Mesopotamia', neither word Islamic Fundamentalist would ever use, smack of the whole "We like to use big words of Obscure meanings to show how photosynthesis we are." 108.241.122.20 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Debresser

This is to User:Debresser, what is the thing in my edit which you could not find in the sources mentioned in the article? If you do not respond I will revert your edit. --HD86 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I do not have time to argue with you, so I have decided instead to add the citations directly to the image box. This is more useful since it could deter future disruptive editors from changing the information.--HD86 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be less haughty in your replies. But thank you for the sources. Still, there is something I do not understand, and which is the reason I reverted in the first place, and am still of a mind to revert. How can it be that the very same areas which previously was "Entire territory of countries whose regions are included in the Levant region" is now precisely "Levant in the broad, historic meaning"? The other two changes I understand. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The odds of the historic term referring to modern nation borders in the Middle East is slim to none, and none of the sources support such a claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not create the map. I only modified it. The map was based on modern country borders before I improved it.--HD86 (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The current version is an improvement, although I don't understand what the point is and what benefit a reader would get from using current borders anachronistically for a fuzzily defined historic geographical area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being haughty, but to me your revert also seemed haughty, especially because you ignored the content of the article and its citations. You should have read that before claiming that my edit lacked citations.

This is the definition of the Levant in the Oxford Dictionaries Online:

The eastern part of the Mediterranean with its islands and neighboring countries.

For more detailed information refer to the article. It has sources. If you do not want to read, do not revert.--HD86 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. How did you decide that a certain area is to be called "Levant" in the "broad, historic meaning", when previously this same article called that area neither "broad" or "historical"?

Please note that per WP:BRD the onus of proof is on you. Haughtily referring me to the article is likely to make me revert your edit again. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bold editing is a good idea, and this is what I personally do, but I would never do "bold" editing without having enough background about the subject I am editing. That would be very inappropriate. Your edit summery was:

Unsourced, doubtful, contentious, etc.

This summery is not just haughty, but it shows that you did not read the article, otherwise you would not have claimed that what I wrote was "unsourced." What is truly unsourced is the material you are defending and asking me to explain why I changed it. I did answer your question in the edit summery. --HD86 (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. Okay, I'll just have to believe you that you did your research. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Muslim occupation of Syria-Palestine and Egypt

In Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome there is a sentence that reads "[the countries] of Syria-Palestine and Egypt, occupied by the Muslims and visited by Christian merchants." When I read the word "occupied" in this sentence I did not think of military occupation. What is meant is simply that these countries had a Muslim population, not Christian. The recent edit in the article is not as clear. It gives the false impression that these countries were not Muslim but under Muslim control, which is not the case.--HD86 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same thought. I'm changing it. Zero^talk 04:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

supposed turkish name

the turkish translation reads, TO RUN AWAY BEFORE SATISFYING DEBT . I believe this is meant as an insult. I am neither Turk nor Arab, however AYIP SENE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.168.238 (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Similar slurs NE SAMIN SEKERI NEDE ARABIN YUZU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.168.238 (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand google translate translates the whole expression as Levant. I will add a ping on project Turkey to ask someone speaking the language to have a look.“WarKosign” 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is what Nedim Ardoğa replied on WikiProject Turkey:

In this sense, the Turkish equivalent of Levant is the same as in English. "borçlarını ödemeden kaçmak" is just a homonym and it has nothing to do with this usage. So I'll remove it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all other languages. Just stick to English on the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Consistency of translations

The article says "...Italian Levante, meaning "rising", implying the rising of the sun in the east [...] The western counterpart [is] Ponente in Italian, meaning 'west, where the sun sets'."

"Levante" and "Ponente" are poetic Italian terms for the east and the west, and their literal meanings are "rising" and "setting" (of the sun). The article inconsistently uses the literal translation for one word ("rising") and the actual translation for the other ("west"). Perhaps giving both the literal and actual translations can be given for both words, changing the sources if necessary. — 91.238.123.116 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mashriq

As numerous comments above attest, Mashriq is a wider term than Levant, so shouldn't be used as a translation in our article. There are sources attached to the translation, but I can't verify them. Does anyone object if this is removed?

I think we should keep the sentence that states that the etymology of the terms are equivalent, but not show them as translations since their usage is different. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC) "Mashriq" should be removed since "levante" is the maritime term for the eastern wind at the sea which was not an Arab Sea. The Arab seas were the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea!

Also, instead of "Syria-Palestine" term should be used "Syria-Palaistina" or "Syria-Palestina" before the Holy Land was turned into British Palestine.192.80.65.189 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

ISIS

Isn't that ISIS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.69.101 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Levant?

I see no reference to levant being used to refer to the eastern-Mediterranean coast of Spain. Obviously this usage is not as common as the Near Eastern original, but archeologists certainly use it. I came for the origin of the word, and noticed the failure to include this usage.

MarkinBoston (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source, and then it can be added to the article. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure they talk of the "Levant" and not of the "Levante"? I'll add the latter as a "See also". --Macrakis (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Current status of term

A recent edit added the text "The term Levant to designate the Eastern part of the Mediterranean with the adjacent islands and countries has progressively fallen into disuse during the 20th century and is now almost exclusively used in a historical context.", citing three dictionaries which call the term "archaic", "formerly used", and "vielli". The dictionary entries actually do not say anything about the term "progressively falling into disuse", but rather only report their judgement about its current usage. And in fact, it is not true that the term has progressively fallen into disuse during the 20th century: Google Ngrams shows that after a period of popularity from 1720-1820 or so, usage dropped by about 1870, and has fallen only slightly since then (about 15% down since the 1870s). Ngrams can even give us a sense of the common uses: "Levantine coast" and "southern Levant" (geographical references) are up considerably, while Levantine countries (political?) is down. Though it is certainly true that "Levant(ine)" is used heavily in historical contexts, it is also used for contemporary culture (e.g., cuisine, culture, ...), not just history. --Macrakis (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is strange that emotional attachment you seem to show for the words Levant and Levantine. AFAIC, when I recently read this article, I felt that it should be clearly stated that The Levant, as a descriptor of the Eastern Mediterranean lands of today has fallen into disuse. I went about checking 2 leading English-language dictionaries/encyclopedias and THE leading French-language dictionary, all three say that the term is outmoded ("archaic", "formerly used", "vieilli"). The Robert adds that nowadays we will rather say Near East, Middle East ("on dit plutôt de nos jours Proche-Orient, Moyen-Orient"). You look at that with suspicion then come up this "Google Ngrams", whatever that is, and interpret it in your own way. Sorry, but I will stick to my three dictionaries. And write what you want since you own the article.--Lubiesque (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Iraq?

I feel like Iraq should be moved to the broader definition instead of the regular definition, Iraq is only regarded as Levantine by western analysts and has both historically and in modern times been considered its own mesopotamian region — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.143 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Leo1pard (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I second this; Iraq isn't included in any narrow definition of the Levant that I've ever used or seen. The broader definition seems like a much better place for it. Maybe someone could find some sources for this particular inclusion? PhainetaiMoi (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

Change "Spanish" to "Castellano". "Catalan" and "Castellano", both are Spanish Languages, like Vasco and Gallego which are Spanish too. Jobjh (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Levantine Arabic Map v4.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Request to add Greek to language list

The language list in the infobox currently lists Domari, spoken by approximately 281,670 (2015) worldwide, as a language spoken in the Levant region. The Greek language, which is spoken by around 679,883 (2011) people in Cyprus hasn't been listed. Shall we add Greek to the list? nasvks (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. “WarKosign” 13:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! Done. nasvks (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic Map

What is the source used by the map maker? Because "Levantine Bedawi" Arabic is painted over a largely desolated and uninhabited region of Jordan. See the population distribution here:

https://books.openedition.org/ifpo/5021

I suggest using the map in the Levantine Arabic article. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Map in Infobox

The map in the Infobox seems to be based on an older map template. The boundaries are imprecise and the Palestinian territories appear to have disappeared into either Israel or Jordan.

I don't have any ability with graphics but it would be great if someone who does could make an updated version based on the latest. For comparison, File:Greater Middle East (orthographic projection).svg RoanokeVirginia (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Remove Iraq from the broad definition section into the narrow definition section. SickNC (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Not done. The article text discusses this, Iraq isn't always included. It is in between narrow and broader. --Mvqr (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Levantine : proposed definition

This means “urban” “liveable” areas that are connected to Mediterranean trade. 2607:FEA8:205F:98F0:2D4F:75A7:B4DE:817A (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Add the following link - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/where-is-the-levant.html - as a citation for " Some communities and populations speak Aramaic, Greek, Armenian, Circassian, French, Russian, or English." LoudPorcupine797 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done not a high-quality reference. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)