Talk:Phoenicianism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The page was so one sided. Instead of presenting both sides of the argument it just constantly tried to prove phoenicianism wrong. It could link an article done by National Geographic (citation needed)proving that Lebanon has a strong Phoenician ancestry. Lebanon as well as the other Levatine nation have been influenced by many cultures, not only Arab, and that should not be denied. |
The page was so one sided. Instead of presenting both sides of the argument it just constantly tried to prove phoenicianism wrong. It could link an article done by National Geographic (citation needed)proving that Lebanon has a strong Phoenician ancestry. Lebanon as well as the other Levatine nation have been influenced by many cultures, not only Arab, and that should not be denied. |
||
Langauage and culture are irrelevant. Most Zimbabweans speak English. Does that make them Anglo-Saxons? And does anyone who likes pizza suddenyl become a descendant of the Romans? Whoever created this page is clearly confused by the obvious differences between bloodline and language/culture similarities. Also "Arabic" Lebanese and true Arabic(as spoken in Saudi Arabia) are different to the point that many speakers of one can not understand the other. This article was clearly created by a Zionist spouting the "all Middle Easterners are Arabs" lie, since the recognition of a unique Lebanese people may in turn to them having to recognise a unique Palestinian people. But if they're all "Arabs", then such recognition is not necessary. |
|||
Revision as of 10:52, 2 August 2007
Stop placing information that cannot be proven. Show me that Lebanese people have been proven to be genetically Arab.
- Reading the cited article does not give any genetic proof at all instead giving hopes for a proof for a study to be done !!! So citing that isnt exactly giving any proof of any mean. And about Arab, it's not about genetically proofing, it's about a culture, it's like asking give a proof of some american origin of some white guy!!! So please stop removing this part of the article, after all, every point of view should be given otherwise this encyclopedia wont be neutral and objective --Banzoo 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well there's nothing neutral about that part of the article. This article is about phoenicianism, not arabness.
Why is this page so one sided? It discusses Christian militias killing Palestinians, but doesn't talk about all murdered Christians at the hands of Muslims.
The page was so one sided. Instead of presenting both sides of the argument it just constantly tried to prove phoenicianism wrong. It could link an article done by National Geographic (citation needed)proving that Lebanon has a strong Phoenician ancestry. Lebanon as well as the other Levatine nation have been influenced by many cultures, not only Arab, and that should not be denied.
Langauage and culture are irrelevant. Most Zimbabweans speak English. Does that make them Anglo-Saxons? And does anyone who likes pizza suddenyl become a descendant of the Romans? Whoever created this page is clearly confused by the obvious differences between bloodline and language/culture similarities. Also "Arabic" Lebanese and true Arabic(as spoken in Saudi Arabia) are different to the point that many speakers of one can not understand the other. This article was clearly created by a Zionist spouting the "all Middle Easterners are Arabs" lie, since the recognition of a unique Lebanese people may in turn to them having to recognise a unique Palestinian people. But if they're all "Arabs", then such recognition is not necessary.