Talk:Antiochian Greek Christians

Photos of Antiochian Greeks

I was thinking perhaps some of the photos should be changed and replaced with one or two ancient and medieval Antiochians instead of just all modern day ones. Elias Antonius (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Expanding history section

I was thinking that the history section should really be expanded and connected to other articles. What about starting off with the first Greeks of the Levant such as the Sea Peoples. Then talking about the Seleucid Empire, and the Levant under Roman and Byzatine rule. Also a subsection on the Islamic occupation, both Arab and Turkish, and finishing off with the Ottoman Greek Genocide. What do you guys think? Elias Antonius (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth adding a subsection regarding the Crusader era especially since the Crusaders are often popularly depicted as a homogeneous unified force while in reality there were two major factions that had ethnographically contributed differently to the Levantine Christian sects.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Lombards

As far as Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic Melkite Levantines being predominately Arabized Greek diaspora, I would say that this is a fair anthropological assessment. However, if you're going to delve deeper into the historical contexts of various accumulated admixtures including older Aramiac and Hellenized Ghassanid lineages, you might as well also include the assimilation of Vulgar Latin/Italian speaking communities into the Antiochian population linked mostly with the Ghibelline imperialist Crusader alliances (more specifically Venetians, Pisans, 'Lombards', Italo-Normans and possibly some Germans as well) in contrast to the French and Genoese anti-imperialist papalists who assimilated themselves more within the Maronite population. --ByzRoman (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Is that a serious article !

It seems that Wikipedia have turned into a forum for dreaming people. This article is counting on dreams instead of reality. If someone believes himself a Greek because of his church then he is free, but he cant write those absurdities on Wikipedia. Greek orthothox or catholic in the levant is not Ethnic Greek. I f you are an Ethnic Greek and you need to write about your people then you have this article Greeks in Syria. However, you cant merge the Church and Ethnicity. Maybe this will suit you better than Wikipedia (Im sure this blog gave much ideas to the edits on this article [1])

Before we start, this sumary [2] is un-wikipedic. There is no OUR PAGE in Wikipedia. This encyclopedia isnt for anyone and not a platform for opinions.

• 1- I deleted the pictures of Pagan Greeks, as this article should speak about Christians in the Levant who follow the church not about Ethnic Greeks in the Levant who have their own article. I also deleted those historic segment about the Seleucids, Sea people ....etc. This article is about a religious sect not about the Ethnic Greeks in Syria.

• 2-The impression that the Sea-People mixed with Canaanites to produce Phenicians ! or that they are the root of rum christians. Well, aside from the fact that Phoenician cities show continued development from 3200 BC, the DNA tests found no significant genetic impact on samples from old Phoenicians. Who Were the Phoenicians? - National Geographic Magazine

• 3- Zenobia was an Aramean women who was not christian ! nor a Greek ! and all the accounts linking her to the Seleucids are considered apocryphal by real scholars Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire

• 4- Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, while all you've got is this 2. which is written in 1909 by Pavlos Karolidis who lived at an age when Religion decided your ethnic background, but you cant use this with modern scholarly !

• 5- the modern sources describe that the majority of Rum consider themselves as belonging to the same ethnicity as their fellow citizens not as ethnic Greeks. Language, Religion and National Identity in Europe and the Middle East: A Historical Study Religious Minorities in the Middle East: Domination, Self-Empowerment, Accommodation The Governance of Legal Pluralism: Empirical Studies from Africa and Beyond

• 6- If scholarly isnt enough, then I've got you solid scientific evidence, which is DNA. It prove that you are no different than the other moslims, maronites.....etc of the region ! you are not genetically closer to Greeks. [3]

• 7- The majority of Levantine Christians are part of the Greek church, and before the arabs, most of the levant was Greek christian. If you think that most of the Levant was Ethnic Greek then fine, but dont present this as facts and keep it on forums and Facebook pages.

• 8- I have sourced every thing with reliable sources, you need reliable sources to conclude that most of the followers of the Greek churches in the Levant are actual ethnic Greek (which you wont be able to find since it is laughable)

• 9- You are using this [4] to say that the Byzantine empire had a majority Greek ethnicity !! but I doubt you even read it ! because its saying that only after the arab conquest of The east that Byzantium became Greek ! so Antiochians are not included in that source as part of the majority greek empire.

• 10- My edits are reliably sourced and you cant delete them cause you dont like them. You will need to have a reliable strong source for your strong claims, others, you will be reported for vandalism, POV pushing .....etc. It normally end with block, just see the Assyrian people page and its editors, most of them are blocked. I hope not to waste my time with Nationalists or dreamers, so if this turned into fruitless discussion or an Edit war then we will need the help of Admins. Be careful, I have added the reliable sources to the article and it is un-allowed to delete reliably sourced material on Wikipedia. Normally, when something is contested then all views must be represented, I have kept your view that you are Greeks. I suggest that you start an article about Rumism, much like Phoenicianism. Better yet, you can do articles on your political organizations .....etc, But you cant abduct this article and present your ideology as facts.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is complete VANDALISM on OUR wikipedia page! Deleting the Hellenistic Age and Roman age sections of our history? This page has been purposely changed to reflect an Aramean agenda!Elias Antonius (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to accuse anyone of Vandalism. The ethnic Greeks in Syria have their own article. This is about a religious sect that started after Christ. YOU have no pages in Wikipedia. There is no Aramean propaganda and Im not Aramean nor a Christian regardless of my User Name. If you think you are ethnic Greek, then prove it with reliable sources. Otherwise you will be reported for POV pushing and falsification.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And one last thing, since this is a debated subject and we follow the NPOV policy, then even if you found sources to back your claims, you still cant delete source materials as all views must be represented.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And I advise to never use the word OUR page on Wikipedia. Read the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dreaming people? Absurdities? Haven't you all ever heard of Apollodorus of Damascus and many Levantine philosophers who are documented as ethnic Greeks? There's no need for insults... Antiochian Greeks are a legitimate people...We love the Assyrian/Syriac people...but please stop trying to erase our identity and Assyrianize us, you wouldn't like if we tried to Hellenize the Assyrian/Syriac people... Gramaic | Talk 18:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This isnt about Assyrians and Im not one. Yes there are Ethnic Greeks in Syria, but the followers of the Greek Church (the majority of Syria Christians) are not Ethnic Greeks. Most of Syria Christians are part of that Church and they are not Greeks. Ethnic Greeks in Syria have their own article which speak of them. Antiochian Greeks are a religious sect. Now, You need reliable sources for the claim that the Christians rum are ethnic Greeks. I have provided every thing to show the reality, and in the same time, kept the claims of Pavlos Karolidis.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

DNA evidence

It is not a good evidence: it doesn't look at the Cypriots and Greeks to see commonalities. DNA studies are notoriously flawed because they can show many aspects without base population. Remove section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.48.89 (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you cant remove it since its sourced and its not being used to debunk greek blood but to prove that Rums dont belong to a different origin than the other levantines. Go find a study that look at Cyproite and Greeks, but without solid evidence you cant make the majority of the Levant Christians ethnically greeks. For now, the Rums are not much different from Moslims and Maronites. By the way, what if it looked to Greeks and Cyproites and found that they are close to Rums and at the same time the Rums are similar to other Levantines ! whould that make the whole Levant of Greek ethnicity ?!! (dont answer that). BY the way, dont count on closeness to Cyprus to prove Greekness, even the Cyproites themselves admit that they are practically Hellenized Near-easternes. According to Dr Paul Kosteas, executive director of the Centre for the Study of Haematological Malignancies of the Karaiskakio Foundation, Cyproite Greeks have only 23 per cent of Greek markers, so imagine what would be the percent for Rums in the Levant. Our DNA looks East, not West--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Article protected

An editor complained about this article at WP:ANI. After looking into the dispute, I've applied full protection through July 7. This means nobody can change the article except admins until that time. During the period of protection, if you want to propose a change to the article that you believe has consensus, please use the {{edit protected}} template here on the talk page and an admin will consider the request. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 June 2015

In the lead this sentence was entered : and a growing number of Antiochians are using it as an ethnic designation due to the Levant's Hellenistic and Byzantine past. However, its un-sourced and the source given was added by me and it declare that Greek specifically mean Liturgy not ethnicity.

I want the sentence to reflect the source : The designation "Greek" refers to the use of Greek language in liturgy and not to the Ethnic origin. [5] Or at least moving the source and put it after the comma in the sentence : The designation "Greek" refers to the use of Greek language in liturgy, Because this source do not back up the notion that a growing number is identifying as Greek. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note waiting for comments from other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be no opposition so I'll make the change requested. However can you confirm which reference should be moved after the comma? Is it the US senate committee publication? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this. Yes, the reference of the US committee should have its place changed and be put right after the sentence : The designation "Greek" refers to the use of Greek language in liturgy,--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be sorted now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The lead of this article says that these are 'Arabic speaking Christians from the Levant.' (Apparently not the same topic as Arab Christians, who are described as ethnic Arabs in that article). There is no perfect name for this group, but those who participated here seem to be mostly content with Antiochian Greek Christians. The claim that these people are ethnic Greeks does not have much support, but if 'Christians' is left off then the article title appears to call them Greeks. That makes User:Andrewa's argument from WP:CONCISE less persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Antiochian Greeks → Antiochian Greek Christians – This article is talking about the followers of Greek churches of Antioch in the Levant and in its current title indicate an ethnicity. The people in relation to this article follow the Antioch church which use Greek for its liturgy. However, they are not ethnic Greeks and they use the local designation Rum to indicate themselves inside the Levant Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Note: Per the discussion below, the originally proposed move target, Rum Christians in the Levant has been replaced by Antiochian Greek Christians. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Attar-Aram Syria comments : During the days of the Byzantine empire, most of the Levant's inhabitants followed the Orthodox church of Antioch and called themselves Rum (extracted from the Eastern Roman empire). This is a religious designation not Ethnic. The church official name in English is Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch while the Catholic branch name itself Melkite Greek Catholic Church. However, in Arabic language they call themselves Rum.

1- Locally : Most of them consider themselves Syrians or Arabs :

Religious Minorities in the Middle East: Domination, Self-Empowerment, Accommodation. Brill 2011

The Governance of Legal Pluralism: Empirical Studies from Africa and Beyond. LIT Verlag Münster 2011

2- Academically : They are considered Arabs or Syrians :

The Orthodox Christian World. Routledge 2012

Language, Religion and National Identity in Europe and the Middle East: A Historical Study. John Benjamins Publishing 2006

Senate (U S ) Committee on Foreign Relations 2005

3- Historically : They are not Greeks :

During the Crusaders states era, the Christians were called Greek Christians but not Ethnic Greeks (which was reserved only to the people of Antioch city alone). The Greek Christians of the crusader states were natives and not Ethnic Greeks. East and West in the Crusader States: Context, Contacts, Confrontations : Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in September 2000. Peeters Publishers 2003

During the Ottoman empire, Turks divided society according to religion and Rum encompassed all Greek churches followers regardless of ethnicity. However, toward the end of the 19th century, even the Ottoman authorities realized that the Rum Christians of the Levant are not actual Greeks Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism. Cambridge University Press 2004

4- Scientifically : A study of the Lebanese different religious communities found "no noticeable or significant genetic differentiation between the Greek Orthodox Christians, Greek Catholic Christians and the Maronites, Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, and Druze of the region" Influences of history, geography, and religion on genetic structure: the Maronites in Lebanon. European Journal of Human Genetics 2011.

Important: Some on the internet are claiming that the Rum of the Levant are Ethnic Greeks counting on the claims of Greek historian Pavlos Karolidis who wrote his claims in 1909. However, Karolidis was engaged then with an ideological dispute with Russia who had its own ideology to attract the Orthodox of the Levant by telling them they are Arameans. for more information : Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity 1998 (If the preview is not showing in Google books, you can download the book as PDF and look at page 20 [6]. The link is the second result on Google search and titled [PDF]Byzantium and the - WordPress.com).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• The proposal is redundantly long and unconcise. Suggest move to "Antiochian Christians". Khestwol (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Khestwol, I wish I thought of Antiochian Christians before you did, it sound much better. However, there is a problem, because the name of Antioch is also used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Maronite Church. This article is speaking only about the Rum sect who follow the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Naming it Antiochian Christians will give it much more scope than it cover.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Attar and thanks for more info. Hmm, then I suggest move to "Antiochian Greek Christians". At least, that will show it is calling them "Greek" in a religious sense and not ethnically. So it is more WP:PRECISE. Khestwol (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sound reasonable, I agree to Antiochian Greek Christians or Antiochian Rum Christians. I lean more toward the latter since it is the official local name. The reason why I object "Greek" is its ethnic meaning. Much like the Syriacs of India, who call themselves Syrians because they use Syriac Language for their liturgy but they are not Syrians, and their article title reflect that (Saint Thomas Christians). So Antiochian Rum Christians is what I see best fitting.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I support Antiochian Greek Christians, but after some research I found that the following Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians was the original title, until Gramaic came along and changed it to the present title on May 12, 2015! I knew in the back of my head that the current title was not the original title. Here's the diff [1]. The original title is more precise and it makes it clear that we're talking about a religious Christian sect and not an ethnic group. My only issue with Antiochian Rum Christians, is that it would confuse readers who aren't from the Arab World and as a result would not know what Rum means. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we move back the title to its original name. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the original title is the word "Orthodox" because we have the Melkite Greek Catholic Church followers and they are part of the Antiochian Greek tradition but Catholics and they will object the title and move-war it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but they can have their own article, it's a church that split from the Antiochian Greek Orthodox church more than 300 years ago. If you want to add both of them together, I wouldn't object; but don't forget even though they share many customs, the two churches are technically two different churches. For example the Greek Catholics are in full communion with the Holy See in Rome, the Greek Orthodox aren't. Moreover, it's clear that the person who started the article wanted an article solely for the Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians. However, again, if the majority of editors want to merge both church adherents together, I wouldn't have any qualms with that. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is the problem : the article is talking about the adherents of both churches and not about the churches themselves. I actually never knew that this article exist until some IP changed the category on one of the pages on my watch-list from Orthodox to Antiochian. I will not object the Antiochian Greek Christians as it cover the scope of what is currently written in the article which by the way still require a lot and a lot of work and cleaning. Im afraid that if they (the Catholics Melkites) had their own article, then we will have to go through this again on the Catholic article, because they will try also to claim Greek ethnicity. Its less complicated, safer and better to keep the article speaking about both adherents.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem! :) I just checked the history and it turns out our friend also changed the scope of the article by adding both church adherents together before May 12 of this year. It's possible, on top of what you said, that the editors might merge the two articles together. Ok, I have no problem with keeping the two adherents in the same article. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Having read much of the article and looking into the citations, it has become clear that the scope of this article has been grossly broadened to include all of the members of Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches into the Greek ethnicity. The overwhelming consensus of contemporary sources describe the members of these churches in Syria or the Levant as "indigenous/native", "culturally Arab" and "Arabic-speaking". However, if there are actual ethnic Greeks of Antioch (Hatay province of Turkey) who live in Antioch or in the diaspora this article could remain limited to them. As far as I know, even the modern-day Greek Orthodox of Turkey are also ethnically Arab, although Turkish-speaking. So I have a dual-proposal:

1) This article (with its current name) should only be limited to the people who are actually "Antiochian Greeks", i.e. ethnic Greeks of the Antioch region and descendants if this distinct group exists.

2) All material relating to Levantine Christians who belong to the Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches being removed to their more relevant articles. The relevant article in this case could very well be Antiochian Greek Christians, but my only concern is whether or not there are any reliable, contemporary sources that group the Greek Orthodox and Catholic members of the Levant into one over-arching community. We have to wary of original research. And obviously if there is no modern-day ethnic Antiochian Greeks, then instead of moving material out of this article we could just move the article in its entirety to Antiochian Greek Christians (if such a term could be reasonably verified by RS). --Al Ameer (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree on everything Al Ameer said. If this article will remain as Anitochian Greeks, then it should include only ethnic Greeks who speak Greek and live in the city of Antioch (I tried to find something about them but so far no success). But someone who is interested must provide the sources for it. An IP in the below comment provided an article from a famous Turkish newspaper discussing this and it would be helpefull to read. However, if no sources were provided to Antichian ethnic Greeks then the article must be named Antiochian Greek Christians and any notion of them being of Greek ethnicity should be removed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I thought this article maybe useful for people here to read http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/identity-conflict-between-anatolia-christian-groups.aspx?pageID=238&nID=10564&NewsCatID=341 71.187.196.220 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A very helpful article, Thanx. It seems that even the Orthodox in the city of Antioch in Turkey are not considered Greeks by the Greek community in Turkey ! Yet, some editors are trying to portrait the Greek rite adherents of the levant as Greeks ! I qoute : Despite the opposition of other Rums, Antiochian Christians, and the younger generation in particular, insist on their Rum-Orthodox identity, even though Arabic is the language they speak at home. So, the Christians of Antioch, a former Syria city, who are Syrians, want to be Greeks but the Greeks are not convinced, I quote : When Hatay [joined] the motherland [Turkey] in 1939, Arab-Christians were registered on records as ‘Rum-Orthodox’ so as to make the Arab population look smaller. As such, the problem has persisted until this day,” S.A., the manager of a Rum school in Istanbul, told the Hürriyet Daily News.

Another quote : Mihalis Vasiliadis, the chief editor of the Rum daily Apoyevmatini : Antiochian Christians lacking means have taken refuge at the Rum church due to their Orthodox convictions, Vasiliadis said, adding they were often employed in church and cemetery maintenance “Their children started receiving education in our schools merely because it says Rum-Orthodox on their birth records. My statements ought not to be regarded as racism, but the state cannot determine what constitutes Rum,”

If this is the situation for the followers of the Greek church of Antioch in Antioch itself, then how can this article portray the Levantine Christians in Syria and Lebanon as Greeks !!--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If there are other sources out there that buttress the view that Rum Christians in Antioch identify as ethnic Greeks, then it would lend further credibility to the claim. I would go with whatever people overwhelmingly self-identify as. Of course, this is just referring to the members of the Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey, not the Levant. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They identify but are not accepted. Real Greeks Orthodox are opposing this self-identification for Arab-speaking Christians from Antioch. However, if there is reliable sources then this article should speak about those self-identifying people and just about them whithout joining the Syrian and Lebanese. But even then, we might have real Ethnic Greeks from Antioch saying that this article is suppose to be about them and not about Arab-speaking Christians who think they are Greeks because they were joined with Greeks in 1939 in order to lower the number of Syrians in Hatay for referendum reasons.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Just wondering here, wouldn't the term "Antiochian" exclude the Palestinian and Jordanian Christians who belong to the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem? I think it might be strange to group Greek Orthodox Syrians with Greek Catholic Lebanese, but exclude the Greek Orthodox of Jordan and Palestine/Israel because they don't belong to an "Antiochian" branch of their church. Incidentally, the Melkite Catholics of Palestine and Jordan would be included in the Antiochian article, just not the "Jerusalemite" Orthodox. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the exclusion of Jerusalemite Orthodox, I just think its strange since they have so much in common with other Levantine Greek Orthodox Christians. Any thoughts? --Al Ameer (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As I read in the Arabic wikipedia, the Orthodox of Jerusalim church are not considered and dont consider themselves part of the Antiochian tradition, so I dont think they will be a problem.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think the problem might be the plural word "Greeks", which implies ethnic Greeks. Something like "Antiochian Greek Christians" or similar would be less misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• What does it matter if the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople doesn't recognize them as Greeks? The point of the article is that the Antiochian youth does identify as Greek. I know many people in Istanbul that are Antiochians, speak Greek, and identify as Greeks. The Patriarchate of Constantinople isn't the authority of 'Greekness". Also the article shows that whether anyone likes it or not, in 1939 Antiochians were registered as Greek.Elias Antonius (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

With the Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians of Turkey (not the Greek Orthodox and Melkites of the Levant), you may have a point because some of the sources we have attest to their Greek ethnicity or identity. Over time, this population in Hatay could have gradually adopted Arabic as their language. Anyhow, if someone could list a few sources here that back the following view: That the Antiochian Greek Orthodox of Turkey are ethnically Greeks and/or that most of them identify as such, then we could have an article called Antiochian Greeks with no issue. Their adoption of Arabic, the dispute of their Greek ethnicity by Constantinople, their classification in various censuses as Greek or Arab, could all be discussed in such an article. However, this does not pertain to the Christians of the Levant who follow Greek churches. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Elias, the point is that this at best should be about the Antiochian, and just the Antiochians from the city of Antioch itself, who number around 5000, not the whole Levant, not the whole 1.5 million Syrian and Lebanese christians who follow a church that call itself Greek as you tried to do in this article. Even then, you will need reliable academic sources for those 5000 Antiochian from Antioch--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is possible that these Antiochians from Hatay could be ethnic Greeks why is it not possible that those in the Levant can't be as well? Especially when many in Syria came originally from Hatay after it was annexed by Turkey. Also I've spoken with the President of the Rum Association in Constantinople in the past. He claims that the Antiochian Rum are fully accepted as ethnic Greeks. I've also spoken to a historian in the United States that claims to have documentation to this fact. I'm trying to get the documents from him but it is a little difficult as he is older and doesn't use a computer. I will continue to try though so I can so you acceptable evidence 71.187.196.220 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't deal with possibilities. We have sources testifying that the city of Antioch was Greek city. Even then, you cant say that those Christians who are refused by Greeks themselves are Greeks. You need a source for this. As for the rest of the Levant, its not even on the academic table ! We cant take your word that you spoke to someone ! and most of the Levant Christians are not from Antioch. Homs, Beirut, Damascus, Aleppo ...etc, those all have Antioch church Christians since forever!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Rum Christians in the Levant", per WP:COMMONNAME. "Rum" is not recognizable to most readers, and always requires explanation. Even "Levant" is a geographical reference most would have to look up or have explained. I grant the difficulties many here see about how to interpret "Greek", but the word is much more recognizable to the ordinary reader. With the complexities talked about above, it is clear that the article will need to explain just how that word applies to its subject, but even if that is difficult, recognizability is what gets a person to a page in the first place. Possibly, there is some confusion here among editors who do not have the same idea about what the actual topic of the article is, which also confuses the renaming process. There is also clearly much concern about ethnicity, and I do not see agreement about how large a concern that is when weighed against the fact that the article is supposed to be about a certain group of Christians. If you can consider even "Rum" in the title, why not "Greek" on the same historical basis that Orthodox Christians throughout the Byzantine Empire were identified as Greek? I do not think blood ethnicity is the central issue here, and that is a matter that can be carefully explained in the article itself. The bigger question revolves around identifying what the article is about: which group(s) of Christians. Orthodox, I think, not eastern Catholic, originally at least. Does that need to change? Do those eastern Catholics need their own article? Also, what should alternate articles be called? I don't think a stable resolution to this article's title is possible until those basic organizational questions are answered satisfactorily. I still favor "Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians" from among the alternatives I have heard. But it also begs a resolution of the question: why is the article focusing on the group of people if the identifying factor is that they belong to a specific church (church, mind you, not "sect")? Or is this really just another question about what the article itself is supposed to be about? Sorry I don't have answers, but sometimes asking the right questions is more important. Evensteven (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the easiest answer is that the confusion here came from people claiming that those Syrian and Lebanese Christians are Greeks by Blood and Origin. Since the Catholics separated from the Orthodox only 300 years ago, then Antiochian Greek Christians sound suitable. Im not pushing for Rum in the Levant anymore. This article is dealing with the adherents of the Greek orthodox and Greek Melkite catholic churches who call themselves Rum in Arabic. The problem was trying to claim that they are Ethnic Greeks. You can see this version of the article that led to this discussion 1--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing some light on that for me. I tend to think that questions of ethnicity often tend to devolve into a political and social mess, especially where there are conflicts or disputes among people. My own feeling is that if racial identifications cannot be amicable, then a plague be on them and may they be lost in obscurity! (Not the people, but the racial identifications.) There is just no settling those kinds of disputes, because even official recognitions become tainted with political or national motives that have an agenda to keep. I do think, therefore, that it would be wise to keep the focus on the people of the churches, of whatever ethnicity, and take the article naming cues from the naming of the churches. That is why I mentioned "Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians". "Antiochian" is more geographical than ethnic, and "Greek Orthodox" is religious, not ethnic, since it is clearly derived from historical naming of the church that goes back to the Byzantine era. I see no reason why the article can't state that. Perhaps it will satisfy the ethnic claimants to have the article explicitly explain that "Greek" is not an ethnic term in this context. If not, then there are other agenda in play, probably religious and political. If there are Syrians and Lebanese who wish to deny that any Syrians or Lebanese are Christian, it would be convenient to label the Christians there "Greek". Historically, such things have been done elsewhere and in other places, and with the backing of recognized governments. WP can't solve these conflicts. The best we can hope to gain is a clear separation of issues in an attempt to provide information. Unfortunately, information is also sometimes viewed as an enemy. Fortunately, WP has some defenses against that. Let's use them. Evensteven (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, its better to name the article Antiochian Greek Christians. As for the agenda, its the other way around, some of Syria's Christians in the USA are trying to claim they are Greeks and have nothing in common with Syrians who dont belong to Antioch Greek church.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again. And I was only trying to illustrate a possibility. The actual agenda looks very much alike, just pointed backwards, and just as useless. For what it's worth, I am considered an adopted Greek, although my northern European ancestry shows no sign of Mediterranean blood, and I'd be happy to recognize all of those Syrian Christians as Greek if that is what they'd like. I expect the Greeks I know would be too; they accepted me, after all. Some things do run deeper than blood. But "nothing in common" is just too absolute. I find that people who take that kind of position end up suffering personal loss because of it, however painful the personal connection may be. The pain creates the agenda. All WP can do is to see that the agenda doesn't influence the information. I defer as regards the article title. Evensteven (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, yeah, they can be accepted, but they cant change history and origin. Even if they got accepted, the article will still reflect their roots and non-Greek origin. But the problem is : they are not accepted for now, and the majority of them dont adhere to such ideologies ! They were the ones who created Syrian nationalism !!!! Believe me, the only Greek thing you will notice about them is their liturgy (Im talking about the ones in Syria and Lebanon).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Their liturgy: that is one of the things that run deeper than blood. "They can't change history and origin" is just what I was saying by "nothing in common" being too absolute. I fear that position will be ultimately to their own regret. As for the ideologies you mention, those are the agenda which WP needs to keep at bay. But accepting people does not mean accepting their agenda, although that might in return affect whether or not they accept you. Yet I'd be happy to accept them as Syrian, Lebanese, or Arab if they'd take kindly to that. Mostly, I'd accept them as Christians - again, deeper than blood. Whatever anyone's ethnicity and blood is, it is human, and it is acceptable. May the painful agenda be healed. Evensteven (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can see where your logic come from, and I wish that Im more like that, but Im bit of a traditionalist. I dont think I will ever be a Dutch if I believed myself to be one and lived as one and forgot all about my roots. But thats just me. But ofcourse, I agree that we are all humans. All what I care about is reliability and truth. Once (if ever) the majority of our Rum decide to be Greeks, then that fine, but their origin should be remembered instead of forged. However, this article in its former version tried to make them real ethnic Blood Greeks ! which led to all this very very long discussion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I agree quite thoroughly. My blood has its origins in northern Europe (pretty much all over northern Europe), but, for better or worse, I am American (US). I can't change where I was born and nurtured; trying to forget it would be futile. I can't change my European blood, nor well over 150 years of family history in the US along all ancestral paths. And I can't imagine how circumstances can drive people to try to deny these kinds of things in themselves. But I can see that it happens, and generally to no benefit. The truth about blood can be uncomfortable, but DNA tests can confirm a lot about that truth if anyone has the interest and resources to pursue it. But I agree that claims of blood ties sometimes require independent verification, as it does on WP. If you see me, you won't see much of Greekness about me, either, outwardly. But I have decided to be Greek in some ways not as easily noticed, not in place of my American-ness, but in addition to it. That is my acceptance of it, and I am glad of others' acceptance that permits the adoption and the blending. It's that kind of acceptance, in a mutual recognition of kinship (though not by blood), that I think can extend our humanity beyond its physicality. And for me, I find it of value, and would be glad to extend the same to others. So forgive me if I've digressed from WP concerns, but this is a value I bring to WP, and which I think is both compatible and helpful to its functioning. For I think it helps us to keep perspective about relations, and to stay balanced and rational in the face of determined agenda-pushing, or wishful thinking. WP is supported by reliable sources, but it is also grounded in balanced editors - or else it fails. It's a pleasure discussing this with you. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Those last words from you were fantastic ! I cant think of any additions to make them better, if this is your philosophy, then we are on the same page. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Just to avert confusion, the intended name request should be changed to Antiochian Greek Christians instead of Rum Christians of the Levant since the nominator has abandoned the latter in favor of the former. And as an overview, so far we have four editors including the nominator who support Antiochian Greek Christians (Attar-Aram syria, FunkMonk, Khestwol and Al Ameer) and a fifth who supports Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians (Evensteven). I'm assuming Elias Antonious wants to keep the current name Antiochian Greeks. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No objections. I'm satisfied simply by a rejection of "Rum Christians of the Levant", and don't insist on another specific alternative. Evensteven (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And I can support the new proposed name if others are in agreement. Evensteven (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then that's 5 users (Evensteven, Attar-Aram syria, Khestwol, FunkMonk and myself) in support and again, I'm assuming Elias Antonious is oppose. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but after the changing of the title, something must be done to protect the article from becoming a platform for agendas and to avoid edit wars like the ones that happened five days ago. Any one wishing to edit must understand that he cant delete reliable sources and cant add any controversial info that is not supported by Academic sources and of course, since it is contested then they cant add to the lead that those Rums are Ethnic Greeks like they tried to do before. Thankfully, User:EdJohnston added the article to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC which should be indicated in the talk page. To see when he placed the article under sanctions see Here--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree fully with this goal. An article name can generally do little to address these concerns, but they are ever important. WP can't thrive when there is bickering, and articles can't be improved by warring. Even legitimate material can't be accepted under threat of editing misbehavior, for it then morphs into agenda-pushing and must be blocked. Only collegial editing can expose the value of the materials themselves. Misbehavior is entirely disruptive and unproductive, and must be shut off whenever it arises. Discretionary sanctions can help, as can a watchful eye from helpful administrators. Evensteven (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support move to "Antiochian Greek Christians" as per comments above by myself, Attar-Aram syria, George Al-Shami, FunkMonk, Al Ameer, and Evensteven. Khestwol (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I filled in Antiochian Greek Christians as the new move destination in the {{Requested move}} template per the statement by User:Attar-Aram syria. I hope that the editors who are following this discussion will take note of the change and revise their vote if it is affected by this change. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I stumbled onto this page and am an uninvolved editor. My question is, what does the term Christians in the proposed article title disambiguate? Is there a self identified Antiochian Greek Muslim cultural group that a reader may confuse with this group? Even if one of the characteristic of this cultural group is Christianity, changing it just complicates the title and labels a cultural group with a religious epitaph. It seems like an attempt at framing (social sciences) by constructing a persuasive definition that includes Christians as an ideograph (rhetoric). I have read historical works that use the term Greek in several senses and not restricted to the contemporary (e.g. 19th century ethnic or national, or 20th century genetic) usage. There is a Ottoman Greeks article that includes a 1910 map that shows such a group before the Greek genocide. The group seems to exist now, is the dispute only about how to label them? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the dispute isnt about that small blue area in Antioch that is shown in your map. The dispute is about Christians of the Levant who are part of the Green area and who use Greek language for their liturgy but are not ethnic Greeks. So in short, this article is not about the Ethnic Greeks of Antioch. Some people tried to make Syrian and Lebanese Antioch Churches followers as Ethnic Greeks. This article original title was Antiochian Greek Orthodox Christians and dealt with the Levant christians in Syria and Lebanon. It had its name changed a month ago to Antiochian Greeks. So the addition (or re-addition) of the word "Chrisitan" serve to clarify that this article is talking about the religious group and not about the Ethnic Greeks of Antioch.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Are there any Antiochian Greeks who are not Christian? If not, then no further disambiguation is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This article is not about Antiochian Greeks, nor about ethnic Greeks in the city of Antioch. This article is about a Levantine Arab religious group from Syria and Lebanon who follow the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Khestwol (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Disagree... part of the way English works (and many other languages) is to form new terms by combining existing terms and assigning a new meaning to the combination, in ways that are arbitrary and not necessarily logical. Thus French toast is neither French nor toast. Wikipedia policy is of course to follow English usage rather than to attempt to correct it. So the question is: Is Antiochian Greeks an English name for this group? On the evidence above, it is. Interested in any evidence to the contrary, but the argument to which I am replying, while interesting, is quite simply irrelevant in terms of Wikipedia article naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

While your argument makes a good point, it still must be remembered that the article already exists, and that it is written on the topic that it is written on, and that is the topic that it tries to cover on WP. So, while an English phrase can be constructed as you indicate, phrases don't always mean just what one first thinks when they are used in context. Consider "French toast". The problem here is to find a phrase that fits the article topic, which also connects to the topic, and which doesn't mislead according to already common English usage. We don't need to look at all the ways a new given phrase can be interpreted. We just need to consider if the phrase fits well enough to suit this context, or if there is any better phrase for getting us to the topic. The article lead, especially the first sentence, can be used to settle ambiguities. Evensteven (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually Andrewa, Antiochian Greeks isnt the English name for the group. And it isnt the original title of the article which was moved only a month and a half ago. the evidence above does not call them Antiochian Greeks. it calls them many things : Antiochian Greek Orthdox, Melkites, Rum, Arab Christians....etc take a look at google [7]. This isnt their English widespread term, most of the links will lead you to blogs and forums written by people who are part of this new ideological group that is claiming Greek ethnicity called Operation Antioch [8]. Antiochian Greeks refer to actual ethnic Greeks of Antioch who were wiped out (sadly but it was the middle ages) by the Mamluks in the Siege of Antioch (1268). If you want the historic and common English name, then it will be Antiochian Greek Orthdox Christians. But because of a schism in the Church 200 years ago, a Catholic Church appeared that have Catholicised former Orthodox Christians.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my argument... I said it was an English name, not the English name. And the evidence supports this much weaker assertion. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. So, is Antiochian Greeks ambiguous, in current English usage (which includes reliable historical sources of course but is weighted towards the present)? I'm skeptical. There's no evidence that it is, and it seemed unlikely when I posted my "vote" above, and at the risk of arguing from silence, it seems even less likely now in view of the lack of any attempt to answer that question... which I asked in slightly different words in my "vote", of course. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I remain opposed to the move as proposed, but recognising that fthere's considerable concern about the current name, is there a better one? Several have been mentioned above. Is there one that better satisfies WP:AT, is supported by evidence, and might have a better chance of consensus than the current proposal? Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I cant understand the objection on Antiochian Greek Christians. its the Greek Christianity of Antioch that make them a group. They are not Antiochian because they are Greeks or from Antioch but because they are Christians. You have Syriac Christians in India Saint Thomas Christians and the title include Christians because thats whats special about them. The title Antiochian Greeks can be used to write an article about the real Greeks who once inhabited Antioch, but how can that be done if the title will be reserved for this group of Levantine Christians. There are already 5 editors (Attar-Aram syria, George Al-Shami, FunkMonk, Al Ameer, Evensteven and Khestwol) who believe that Antiochian Greek Christians do satisfy WP:AT.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My objection is simply that the current title Antiochian Greeks is already sufficiently concise. The closing admin will not just count the votes but also assess our arguments. Andrewa (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well as its said already repeatedly, this article is not about ethnic Greeks from ancient Antioch, the current title in no way reflects the article's scope. It should become obvious just from seeing the infobox even. Khestwol (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Church History site

Today descendants of the Greek community form the Antiochian (Greek) Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholic Church’s. The Syriac community continues in the Maronite, Syrian Catholic and Syrian Orthodox churches.

http://www.melkite.net/who-we-are/who-melkite-church/pluralism

Apparently this Melkite Church is stating that both the Orthodox and Catholic Antiochians Churches are ethnic Greek Elias Antonius (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of Academic sources disagree. In Wikipedia we count on reliable sources, and this church's claims are refused by the Academic world. This church's claims can only support the notion that some adherents believe themselves Greeks, but not that they are actually Greeks. You have this Moorish Science Temple of America claiming all African Americans descends from the Muslim Moors who conquered Spain, and specifically from Morocco, it doesnt make them actual Moors. People claim a lot of things and without reliable Academic sources, their claims dont belong in Wikipedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I’m not impressed with your academic sources, and personally think you are letting your POV blind you. All your sources [11] [12] [13] really don’t prove the Antiochians to be Arabs. They all simply state that the Antiochian ‘regarded themselves’ or ‘consider themselves being they speak the language’, but as you know this doesn’t actually prove or make you an Arab. You just said yourself that someone can regard themselves as anything, but that doesn’t make them right. So are these truly useful sources? Where is the data? The evidence? Reality is that NO DNA testing has ever been done of the Antiochian community specifically. Therefore to claim them to be Arab, Aramean, or Greek would always be a POV. I know of only one Antiochian who did take a DNA test. He is from Syria, and his results showed Greek ancestry. Elias Antonius (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Elias, all you're providing us right now is your opinions, your own research and a dismissal of the consensus of reliable, scholarly sources that good Wikipedia articles are made of. This simply won't fly here. If you have any reliable sources that say the Greek Orthodox and Melkite Christians of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Beirut, Zahle, Qarah, Maaloula, Hauran and so on are in fact ethnic Greeks and not the descendants of the native, Semitic, inhabitants of the Levant, just as many of their Muslim counterparts are, then your argument will hold no real standing and this discussion on Wikipedia should be over. This is not a forum. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You dont need and its not important for us that you be impressed Elias. Some sources provide you with what they consider themselves, while others provide you with how the Academic world consider them, and others with how history consider them and lastly, the DNA study showing them practically the same as Maronites and Muslims. You seems to have avoided reading all the sources. You will stop this discussion because Wikipedia is not a forum, come back when you have solid evidences.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What DNA evidence? Again there has never been a study on the Rum. Only ones on the Maronites, Muslim, and general population. So what evidence are you claiming I am not reading? Please share.I'd love to read whatever DNA testing you claim is available on the Levantine Rum population. You tell me that ones perception of their identity is not valid, but claim it is valid if in an academic paper. But all 3 sources do not provide actually evidence, just an opinion. To me this is an obvious double standard. If an academic paper says they are Semitic in origin because they perceive themselves to be, how come a source from their community which perceives themselves to be Greek not be valid? I'm honestly not following your opinion here. Its seem like you are cherry picking. The appropriate solution in my opinion is to make all these claims known in an article. Also no is claiming that all Antiochians are 100% anything, but a mix. The Levantine Rum are a combination of Greeks, Arameans and Arabs. 71.187.196.220 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought we made it clear that this isnt a forum !. You need to read this Talk:Antiochian_Greeks#Requested_move_7_June_2015. Its much more than 3 sources (more like 9) and the study is included where samples from Muslims, Maronites and Antioch church followers have been analyzed. Its so disparate to say the word Greek all the time when Greeks dont want you, Academia deny you, DNA show you the same as other Semites, And the majority of your sect dont adhere to this "Greek" thing. As for cherry picking, you haven't provided a single reliable source ! how can I pick from a collection that have no diversity ! anyway, that karolidis thing is still there so you have no point of accusations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2015

In the "3.Population and ethnocultural heritage" section, we have the following statement: Genetically, the followers of Greek churches in the Levant are not significantly different genetically from the rest of the region's population. [article quoted/ footnote18]", an affirmation backed by poor data based on v. small samples... of (mostly) Lebanese Maronite Christians and (Egyptians) Copts. The Antiochian Greek-Orchotodox and Greek-Catholics = Northern MENA area Melkites constitute a distinct ethno-cultural minority => this statement should be removed = totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Also, at the onset of the article, I think we should try to explain the term more clearly as there are at least two possible definitions of ‘Antiochian Greeks' ...

B.Andersohn (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, Its not poor data to begin with, its a genetic study published by a scientific journal 1 which is accepted by Wikipedia as a Reliable source and its not up to editors to decide that the data is poor. Secondly, people here (some) are claiming that the followers of Greek churches are ethnic Greeks. This study show them no much different from the rest of the region, so if they are Ethnic Greeks then that whole Levant is ethnic Greek. This sentence is sourced and reliable and no reason for it to be removed. Its certainly more important than the work of Pavlos Karolidis claiming them as Greeks.

As for Greek churche followers constituting a a distinct ethno-cultural minority. This is a new thing to be heard. They (the majority) consider themselves from the same ethnicity as their surrounding. They are considered as such by the world. Its all already sourced. I grouped the sources here Talk:Antiochian_Greeks#Requested_move_7_June_2015.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I’m at loss for words here (bis) : you seem to be keen to exercise your “editorial authority” abruptly & arbitrarily, in a highly biased way.

In reality, what you say makes absolutely no sense from a statistical perspective:

According to the authors = the academics who actually wrote the piece, the article you quote focuses specifically on members of the Maronite community = a completely DIFFERENT ETHNO-CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS SUBSET in Lebanon = a DIFFERENT COUNTRY..., with only small “ancillary”/secondary testing-s in other jurisdictions, SOLELY for the sake of broad/general/COUNTRY-WIDE/NON-SPECIFIC statistical comparisons with the ONLY group studied in depth = the Maronites of Beirut and Mount Lebanon. It’s as if you were quoting say a single article focusing on “Buddhist minorities in Pakistan” to justify a highly biased view of “Hindus in Nepal” = that wouldn’t make any sense at all… Yet that’s precisely what you’re doing here!

Wishing you well/good continuation… --B.Andersohn (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop focusing on ME. Anyways, dont focus on the title of the article, it actually studied samples from all the sects, actually there was as much Moslim samples as Maronites, and a sample of Greek Christians that is consistent with their percentage of the total population. Ofcourse, you can edit the sentence to indicate that the study was conducted to understand the Maronites, but still the same, they are similar to their fellow citizens. As for your objections about the country, your argument is for the Greek Christians as a whole, which mean that you are talking about them in the Levant not just Syria or Antioch. The article will be moved to a new title which will eliminate the ethnic confusion and stop the mixing between actual Ethnic Greeks from Antioch (extinct as I understood) and with Greek Christians of the Levant. If you dont like the DNA reference because you think that it is being used to impose the results of the Lebanese over the actual Ethnic Greeks of Antioch then dont worry, because the article will not stay as "Antiochian Greeks" and will be moved to "Antiochian Greeks Christians".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. You're absolutely right: there's no scientific consensus on the issue and the ONLY TWO ARTICLES AVAILABLE/CITED BOTH have shortcomings => Instead of favoring one or the others, I've kept both VIEWS/ARGUMENTS in place & simply added some editorial NUANCES in parenthesis for the most part. The Haber, Platt & al. piece CLEARLY focuses on the Maronites of Lebanon, a DISTINCT ethno-cultural minority, with relatively scarce data-points for Lebanese Greek-Orthodox Christians = not great... but better than nothing I guess => kept it with the required caveat.

Now the Ruffié and Taleb article analyses more Greek-Orthodox and Greek-Catholics individuals, giving them EQUAL WEIGHTS to Maronites, Druses and Muslims, within a broader research project. As a result, their findings are based on a SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER SAMPLE of Greek-Orthodox and Greek-Catholic respondents = better..., but they ignore other related Greek-Orthodox communities in Syria, Southeastern Turkey and Northern Israel, without which one CANNOT GENERALIZE TO 'ALL ANTIOCHIAN GREEKs' or ALL ANTIOCHIAN GREEK-ORTHODOX & GREEK-CATHOLICS i.e. NORTHERN LEVANTINE MELKITES. Such an in-depth study remains to be conducted.

Both papers are referenced and contextualized here in all fairness. --B.Andersohn (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the papers call them greeks and the Ruffié and Taleb (though blood type and DNA are two different things) doesnt say that their blood is similar to Greeks. Plus, why did you wrote that some modern scholars dont consider them Greeks ??? DO you have at least some modern scholars who actually consider them Greeks ??

Not the Greeks, not the Greek church, not the majority of them and not the scholars consider them Greeks..... Yet you insist that its academically accepted that they are Greeks.

And whats that about modern Greek ethnicity !! those people who are trying to portray themselves as Greeks have the intention of implying that they immigrated from Greece and are the same as the people of Greece !! so why playing with words--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

'Antiochian Greek' in the Broader vs. Narrower Sense = Not the Same

I think we should try to explain the term more clearly as there are at least two possible definitions of ‘ANTIOCHIAN GREEKS’:

In the NARROW SENSE, the term is more limited geographically = limited to the Southern Turkish province of Hatay/Iskenderun ((+in the old days/before 1936, to a few adjacent villages/hamlets near Adana)), & Narrower ethnically = limited strictly to the Greek-speaking direct descendants of European or Northwestern Anatolian Greeks who had come for the most part to Southern Turkey and Northern Syria AFTER the 16th century AD (and in many cases after the 18th century) = “new Greeks” so to speak.

Here “Antioch-ian” is used to describe small towns and villages near (within say a 40 miles radius) of the city of Iskenderun/Alexandretta in the Hatay Province of Southern Turkey (formerly known and Sandjak Iskenderun) = a small, limited geographic area.

That community is practically extinct.

---

In the BROADER SENSE, Antiochians Greeks means “northern MENA area MELKITES” = the ‘Syro-Lebanese’ Levantine RÛM Christians = the “Antiochian” Greek-Orthodox and Greek Catholic Christians of Southern Turkey (Hatay province and Adana province = quasi extinct communities), Syria, Lebanon, and Northeastern Israel and the Golan Heights (Eastern Galilee and the Lake Tiberias area) = members of the GREEK-ORTHODOX CHURCH OF ANTIOCH (excluding recent converts in e.g. Latin America) and the GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ANTIOCH AND JERUSALEM (including Galilee, Tiberias and the Golan Heights, but excluding most of the Palestinian-Jordanian members of that church).

The “Uniat” Greek Catholics are included as their community is a relatively recent (mid-18th century) offshoot of the original Antiochian Greek-Orthodox community.

Here, “Antioch-ian” refers symbolically to the capital of the ANCIENT Greco-Macedonian Seleucid Kingdom, and thus to much older waves of Greek settlers/migratory currents that were scattered across a much bigger geographic area = Cilicia (Southern Turkey = not only the Hatay province), Syria and Lebanon. More importantly, over time, these Greek and Hellenized Macedonian settlers intermarried with and absorbed various Hellenized groups- see below.

These “Antiochian Greeks” (in the larger sense) or “Syro-Lebanese” Byzantine “Rûm” Christians are descended from earlier, much older waves of gentile European Greeks, Greco-Macedonians (Greco-Slavic?), Hellenized Syrians (Hellenized Arameans), ‘Greco-Syrians’ (born of mixed marriages), local/Syro-Cilician Hellenized Jews (initially mostly of Babylonian Jewish descent), Cypriot and North African Hellenized Jewish migrants (mostly Hellenized Libyan Jews), gentile Hellenized Roman/Italian migrants, Yemenite Christians (know as “Ghassanids” – but only a fraction of the Ghassanid settlers eventually joined the Antiochian Greek-Orthodox community), and Hellenized Jews from Israel itself (mostly Galilee, but also Lydda and Jerusalem) who migrated to Syria after the failed anti-Roman revolts of the 1st and 2nd C. AD ... etc.

Bottom Line: the term “Antiochian Greek” needs to be defined, and the definition needs to be nuanced.

In the broader sense, “Antiochian Greek” is practically synonymous with “LEVANTINE GREEK-ORTHODOX AND GREEK CATHOLICS” or “MELKITES” (in the pre-18th C., original sense) => it’s an ethno-cultural or ethno-religious concept.

But “Antiochian Greek” is still understood/used more frequently in the narrower sense (Hatay province only / 'new Greeks' only) . . .

B.Andersohn (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You need a very reliable source for this claim These “Antiochian Greeks” (in the larger sense) or “Syro-Lebanese” Byzantine “Rûm” Christians are descended from earlier, much older waves of gentile European Greeks, Greco-Macedonians (Greco-Slavic?), Hellenized Syrians (Hellenized Arameans), ‘Greco-Syrians’ (born of mixed marriages), local/Syro-Cilician Hellenized Jews (initially mostly of Babylonian Jewish descent), Cypriot and North African Hellenized Jewish migrants (mostly Hellenized Libyan Jews), gentile Hellenized Roman/Italian migrants, Yemenite Christians (know as “Ghassanids” – but only a fraction of the Ghassanid settlers eventually joined the Antiochian Greek-Orthodox community), and Hellenized Jews from Israel itself (mostly Galilee, but also Lydda and Jerusalem) who migrated to Syria after the failed anti-Roman revolts of the 1st and 2nd C. AD ... etc.

Remember, you need a data for the extent and numbers of Greek colonists from the old age and what happened to them and with whom they mixed .... etc.

As for this article, it is stated in the beginning that is is talking about the Greek churches adherents and not about the Ethnic Greeks of Antioch. We had a discussion and the article will be moved to a new title Antiochian Greek Christians instead of the ethnic title Antiochian Greeks--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I’m at loss for words here…

Please note that unlike Gramaic and some other contributors with whom you’ve engaged in a childish “editing war”, I don’t necessarily favor the “broad” definition of “Antiochian Greeks” (see earlier comments in the Discussion page) … but you seem to have “settled” that debate - & settled it in the wrong way, considering that “Antiochian Greeks” is simply synonymous with “People of Southern Turkish and Syrian Greek-Orthodox and Greek Catholic descent” or “Northern MENA area Rûm Christians”, and that it is a purely “religious” or “theological” issue/group – such as say “Buddhists” or “Seventh Day Adventists”.

In reality, there are at least two definitions for this term = this is where you and Gramaic are both wrong.

And ethno-cultural groups are by definition complex phenomena that can only be approached with nuancing and subtle multidisciplinary distinctions = in that case, Byzantine and Ottoman law (the ‘Rûm’ millet system), cultural anthropology, ethnography, religious history, Greco-Macedonian history, Turkish history focusing on Cilicia, Syrian history from the Seleucid era onward, Hellenistic Jewish history in the Northern MENA area and how/why it differed substantially from say Egypt or Israel (more intermarriages and higher conversion rate to ‘Greek’ Christianity), the “Uniat” crisis in the 1720s and its aftermath, the history of the ‘Nahda’ movement in Alexandretta, Aleppo, Damascus and the “Chami” Syrian Christian communities of Egypt in the 19th century… etc.

You’re as wrong as your Wikipedia nemesis Gramaic, trying to dumb down a complex notion: offering in essence simplistic “solutions” (“we had a debate and we have decided!" [sic]) to a v. complex issue.

=> I will therefore exit the debate as the proverbial dices are loaded against rational thinking and common sense!

Wishing you well/good continuation… B.Andersohn (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, those are your points of views and I respect them. Sorry if my words sounded snobby or aggressive. It is not my intention, its just the way I speak (or write in the case of Wikipedia). But again, you need a proof that they are "Ethno something". They (the majority) describe themselves as Syrians or Arabs by ethnicity. They are a cultural or religious group at best. You cant make them an ethnicity if they say that their ethnicity is Syrian or Arab--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antiochian Greek Christians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830131029/http://www.hr-action.org/thr/GRTURK.html to http://www.hr-action.org/thr/GRTURK.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fw-magazine.com/content/patriarch-antioch-i-will-be-judged-if-i-do-not-carry-church-and-each-one-you-my-heart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Archaic

@PopulationGeneticsLevant: Hi. How about we change it to "from" and is the term Levant archaic and a colonial term or not? JJNito197 (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"America" is also a colonial term. So is "Middle East" since it is an exoname as well, though currently in common practice. Wikipedia is about reflecting well attested facts not changing designations. I agree about "from" as it makes no statement about migrations. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to you, your presence on Wikipedia per your contributions is very limited to minor edits. The problem is you are taking the term Levant in the article down to the most narrowest sense, thereby isolating other communities in Egypt, Iraq and Israel. What definition are we agreeing to when we refer to "Levant"? and also residing has connotations of impermanence, hence it looks out of place. Not scientific. JJNito197 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have removed Greek from the lead per MOS:LEADLANG JJNito197 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@PopulationGeneticsLevant: can you please explain this edit[9] and how your edits could give cause, and be construed, to be acting against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Quote 'Most Arabic-speaking Christians in the Levant are natives or of Anatolian Armenia, Georgian, or Greek descent.' JJNito197 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, you know this article is built on weak foundations. Are we talking about a ethno-cultural grouping, ethnic religon, or ethno-religious grouping. Is this article speaking about ethnicity? What is the critera for this article, are we really basing this article off a genetic disorder study? Do we agree that this article has nothing to do with the modern country of Greece and its modern-day language Greek. We are not talking about liturgy. JJNito197 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have anything to do with the newly created account [10] created 10 minutes ago vandalising this page before I them report for vandalism. I hope it is not a WP:SOCK. JJNito197 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@JJNito197, "your presence on Wikipedia per your contributions is very limited to minor edits." is a personal attack on a Wikipedia editor. And additional accusations such as WP:SOCK are attempts to bully me, as if I was the only person to get involved. Clearly it is not me but some enthusiastic person with Rum origin and this is easy for an administrator to check. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not an attack, it is an observation. Now can you please go through those other points with a response or are you not here to improve the article. The user appeared 10 minutes after I reverted you. JJNito197 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It is patently a personal attack. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought it was funny how you would tell me about the rules of wikipedia when you watch this page and don't make an effort to improve it. You would rather maintain the orthodoxy (no pun) than make major edits to improve the readabiliy, because the page is confusing. I'm trying to improve it. JJNito197 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"You watch this page and don't make an effort to improve it" is another personal attack. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

These are observations, not attacks. Can we get back to trying to improve the article? JJNito197 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Greek in the intro.

Hello, sorry, I'm new to Wiki and just received two warnings, haha. Concerning having the name Antiochian Greek in Greek, why has it been removed and only Arabic remained and why is being reverted back each time, what's the big issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greco-Levantine (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for coming to talk. Firstly, do we accept that Antiochian Greek Christians do not speak or write in Greek. What do any of the communities in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria have to do with the country Greece other than in liturgy. Also when using Greek in liturgy, its Koine Greek. I hope you are not confusing those Rûm Greek Christians from Antakya prior to the establisment of Turkey. JJNito197 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for the prompt reply! First, would be great to have your advice on how to stop receiving warnings and getting blocked for each edit. Second, they have a lot to do with modern day Greece. Let's look back to history, since Greek independence, the Rûm were targeted in the Levant, fearing they would aid the Greeks, assuming there was no connection, then why the Aleppo Massacre? Also, we don't believe the Rûm are Greek, but the Greeks are Rûm. The Arabization of the Church is a relatively recent event, no? Why does people keep forgetting the 1900 years of using Greek? Take a look at each wiki page of any Greek Orthodox saint, they have the saint name in Greek, Arabic and English (if he is from the Levant). And finally, Greece still maintains management of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jordan and Palestine, so you can't deny huge connection between current day Greece and the Rûm Orthodox Church in the Levant.

That comes under Wikipedia:No original research as you do not have any sources to infer the points you are making, see also NPOV as you have stated you are a member of the community [11] and please see WP:ADVOCACY; wikipedia isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. As per your request, here is a link to the Aleppo Massacre: [12]. Here is also a link on the Arabization of the church (which was advocated by Russians): [13]. And here is a link to a Saint in the Greek Orthodox Church who was born in the Levant with the name in Greek, Arabic and English: [14]. Do you also need population genetics studies to infer ancestral connection with modern day Greece population? Or this is enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greco-Levantine (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

These are historical events regarding the Church, we are talking about the ethno-religous group who have nothing to do with Greece. What about those in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan who don't recognise Antiochian Greek or run label but identify as Arabs? Do they cease being Antiochian Greek? This article needs to change from speaking on behalf of millions of people to avoid misconception. It currently is speaking for everybody under the banner of Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic. The article does a good job at showing the hisory and historical events, but starts becoming incoherent when blurring the lines of ethnicity. The fact remains: Antiochian Greek Christians as an ethno-religious group doesn't speak, write or communicate in Greek outside of litury; even then its koine. It's like making all Maronites Assyrians because they both use Syriac. Not cohesive. JJNito197 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Aha, now we are talking.:) "we are talking about the ethno-religous group who have nothing to do with Greece. " can you prove this? Please back up your argument with a scientific resource as you kept requesting earlier on.

"What about those in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan who don't recognise Antiochian Greek or run label but identify as Arabs?" this claim is wrong, can you back up your argument please to prove otherwise? P.S.: The Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jordan clearly advocates the Romioi identity, check him out on youtube.

"This article needs to change from speaking on behalf of millions of people to avoid misconception." But aren't you being a judge for these millions of people yourself here and creating misconceptions yourself here?

"but starts becoming incoherent when blurring the lines of ethnicity." I clearly asked you if you want population genetic studies and you didn't reply. It seems that you yourself don't want these studies because you have no knowledge of them and are trying to avoid the subject because you can't understand it

"The fact remains: Antiochian Greek Christians as an ethno-religious group doesn't speak, write or communicate in Greek outside of litury;" So if they live in the US and communicate in English that makes them ethnically what, English?

Is there a bias here? You asked for resources and you were provided with resources, You need to backup you arguments to keep this scientific and historical and leave speculation out of the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greco-Levantine (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you even prove the term "Antiochian Greek Christian" actually exists and is in academic/scientific discourse? There is also no sources in the lede. A genetic study can't even prove that they are antiochian greek christians either due to Wikipedia:No original research. That point you made about English people in the USA is exactly my point. Wouldn't it make more sense to use Koine Greek as opposed to Greek anyway? JJNito197 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. The Greek Orthodox of the Middle East are ethnic Greeks, period. When I went to Iskenderun, for example, I was told that they used to speak Greek well into the 20th century, and even a few do today. The city of El Mina in Lebanon speaks Greek too. Also ask this study from 1876 about the origins of the Greek Orthodox of the Middle East: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/8/e/b/metadata-388-0000002.tkl?fbclid=IwAR0qk3Yd1PweRwgERtE5YZmet5TgVa09nz0wF7wSdFNvmA9k7dOOTXeW5Ug Also, ask yourself what happened to Seleucid immigrants from Macedonia and the Aegean 3000 years ago? Did they disappear into thin air? No! Their descendants form the majority of the Christians in the Levant today.Turkified Greek (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you even prove the term "Antiochian Greek Christian" actually exists and is in academic/scientific discourse? There is also no sources in the lede. A genetic study can't even prove that they are Greek either due to Wikipedia:No original research. Wouldn't it make more sense to use Koine Greek as opposed to Greek anyway? JJNito197 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Everyone in this chat backed up their argument so far except for JJNito197 who has been demanding them but hasn't provided any. He is seems to be reporting anyone who makes simple adjustments too (like adding Greek to page called Antiochian Greek Christians, but clearly has not problem with Arabic). This is not a good scientific practice. Is this considered professional or cyberbullying?

You still haven't backed up your arguments first. Please answer the above questions and back up your arguments instead of continuously demanding others to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greco-Levantine (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Provide a source that shows the "Antiochian Greek Christians" actually exist. Wikipedia is about Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as you have none, its hard to see where we go from here. JJNito197 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Provide a source that shows the "Antiochian Greek Christians" doesn’t exist. Wikipedia is about Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as you have none, its hard to see where we go from here. Levantinerum (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Also why didn’t you refute all the resources provided thus far by everyone? On what basis are you deciding this resources are ineligible? Can you please illustrate your scientific method of decision making? Levantinerum (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please have a read through Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The Greek language is not spoken or written by "Antiochian Greek Christians", this is the issue. I have further qualms like If you are going to include personalities and population groups in this articles you need to provide citations that they identify as "Antiochian Greek Christians", and whether the phrase "Antiochian Greek Christian" is even in scientfic or acadmeic discoure, but this is not the point of contention at the moment. JJNito197 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No citations from your side provided to prove your points, no arguments are provided to our questions and resources provided. You keep requesting citations, which we provided and you provide non. As a minority in the Levant, I feel threatened by such continuous unhealthy attacks at my identity and ethnicity by someone denying my existence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levantinerum (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Greek in the Lede

The removal of one a multicultural group's ancestral language on grounds of MOS:LEADLANG appears to be unjustified. For instance, the page Copts is bilingual. One must not have double standards. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Antiochian Greek Christians do not conversate in Greek. Arabic is their first language. Address this statement. (from my response above) What about those in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan who don't recognise Antiochian Greek or Rum label but identify as Arabs? Do they cease being Antiochian Greek? This article needs to change from speaking on behalf of millions of people to avoid misconception. It currently is speaking for everybody under the banner of Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic. The article does a good job at showing the hisory and historical events, but starts becoming incoherent when blurring the lines of ethnicity. The fact remains: Antiochian Greek Christians as an ethno-religious group doesn't speak, write or communicate in Greek outside of liturgy; even then its koine. The majority of those included as 'Antiochian Greek Christians' in this article identify as Arabs. JJNito197 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Arabic is not their first language, they don't walk around speaking Classical Arabic. Levantine is what they speak, which has been proven to not be descendant of Classical Arabic. And what they speak has nothing to do with their ethnicity. Greeks born in America and whose first language is English are not ethnically Greek? The argument doesn't make sense at all and is being narrowed down into language instead of the wider perspective of religion, culture, ethnicity and genetics. This article doesn't speak for millions, it elicits scientific facts and are being removed by unbacked arguments. This ceased to be scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levantinerum (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you even prove the term "Antiochian Greek Christian" actually exists and is in academic/scientific discourse? There is also no sources in the lede. A genetic study can't even prove that they are Antiochian Greek Christians either due to Wikipedia:No original research. Wouldn't it make more sense to use Koine Greek as opposed to Greek anyway? JJNito197 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you prove that the term doesn't exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levantinerum (talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Not an argument. Wikipedia is about Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as you have none, its hard to see where we go from here. JJNito197 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you making assumptions about me that do not hold? This is a clear personal attack. Levantinerum (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please have a read through Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The Greek language is not spoken or written by "Antiochian Greek Christians", this is the issue. I have further qualms like If you are going to include personalities and population groups in this articles you need to provide citations that they identify as "Antiochian Greek Christians", and whether the phrase "Antiochian Greek Christian" is even in scientfic or acadmeic discoure, but this is not the point of contention at the moment. JJNito197 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The statement above seems to misrepresent the notion of Wikipedia:No original research as no original research is involved here. The Copts no longer speak Coptic yet it is a language associated with them. Russians no longer speak Slavonic, Parsis in India no longer speak Persian, etc. It is well attested that the language of the population under consideration has been Greek for long periods through history and the group was part of the Rumoi Millet. You must provide sources. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS on that page about reaching conclusions like potential Greek admixture without having a tangible connection to a country across the Med; I'm not denying some communities have said connection,the problem is you are acting like Greek is something used by Christians across the East Med as some sort of second tounge but the connection isn't enough that you can speak for 3.2 million Christians. Pretty much the majority that identify as Arab and speak only Arabic. The article reads fine other than the unsourced populations that you are reaching by WP:SYNTHESIS to refer to "Antiochian Greek Christian" when that isn't the sources; and also the unsourced personalities. JJNito197 (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing unsourced

I have now removed all unsourced personalities and removed the unsourced popuation figures due to WP:SYNTHESIS, you cannot make these "Antiochian Greek Christians" if it is not in the sources; except Nicholas Taleb, and I have added citations needed for the lede seeing as their is none. You do not speak for all Christians in the Levant with the "Antiochian Greek" identity. JJNito197 (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Arab or Greek?

I'm a really active Wikipedia editor and member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (Newton Eparchy-- I don't attend mass as often as I should though). My church is one of many descended from the Church of Antioch. While almost all of my family lives in America, we are descended from immigrants from Syria and Lebanon (generally referred to as Levant); a fact I am rather proud of. Speaking from experience, I don't know a single Melkite that actually speaks Greek. Our liturgy, the Byzantine Rite, is delivered in Arabic (though I guess this is not the case for other churches of the Byzantine Rite). Newsletters and advertisements are also dually written in America using both English and Arabic (again not Greek).

My understanding seems to be supported by several academic sources:

• "Authentic Arabs, authentic Christians: Antiochian Orthodox and the mobilization of cultural identity"
• "Fragmented in space: the oral history narrative of an Arab Christian from Antioch, Turkey"
• Arabic and its Alternatives "The two largest groups of Christians, however, i.e., the Rum Christians of the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch and the Copts of Egypt, who wrote all or most of their new texts in Arabic, had from an early stage used the Arabic alphabet for their Arabic texts."
• "The last despot: Ethnic consciousness, power politics, and the Orthodox Church in late Ottoman Syria"

I obviously can't speak for members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch for how common the Greek-language is over there, but it is something that I have never experienced as an American Melkite (either within my family or my church).

Also, for what it's worth, the scope of this article should really be on the historical Greek Church of Antioch rather than members of the two churches that since split from it (described here). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC

This is a complicated issue. First, Greek before 1900 was "Romoi", a different classification from today. Second, after the 1900s, under Arab Nationalism, the Antiochian Churches started "arabizing" texts and procedures and promoting Arabism, particularly the Melkites. Third, many texts were actually in Western Aramaic, not Arabic -- it is not just the Maronite church that used Aramaic. What is confusing is that many Arab tribes converted to Orthodoxy (particularly East Syria, Jordan, and Palestinians) so these are truly Arabs. Finally, as it is being shown progressively, people in North Lebanon and North Syria are actually genetically largely "Greek" in the sense that they resemble populations called Greek at the present. At any rate, people are allowed to self-identify as they wish whether they wish to be called Arabs or Rum. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MJL, Greece as the country and Greek as the modern-day language has nothing to do with this article if we are talking about the ethno-religious group. Of course you can identify how you want, but the article prior was speaking for everyone without exception. You even included everyone from the Jerusalem patriarchate in Jordan for example, and every Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite adherent in Syria and Lebanon. These claims about Greek as in Greece ethnic relations to the Syrian and Lebanese has little credibility in my opinion (if it did it would have reliable sources) and seems to be Lebanon(Koura)-centric, where Taleb is from. Let us not forget those not from Lebanon.

This article should read as an identity to adopt not supersede prexisiting identities; especially as we are talking about 3.2 million people, many of whom who do not speak of a Greece ethnic identity. This is where the ethnicity question comes in referring to the personalities and using SYNTHESIS to count all those figures in the infobox. They were counted as Arabs in Syria and Jordan at the very least. The historical events and general structure of the article reads great until we start bringing ethnicity into it. There is no doubt that "Rum" have separate origins than others, but the majority of those that identify as "Rum" are not overly concerned with their ethnic origins; if they were, MJL and myself would be no doubt agreeing with you. Of course I can only speak for myself. JJNito197 (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, once you start talking about the Church of Jerusalem post-451, you are officially not talking about Antioch any more. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody know the signficance of the Russian Orthodox church in the formulation of various identities; was for example the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Christians Russia-centric as opposed to Greece, and does this make them Antiochian Greek or not? This may explain the splinter in identites in the Levant. It may be worth noting. JJNito197 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@PopulationGeneticsLevant: You're talking about Aleppo, right? That is precisely where my family is originally from.
Look, I don't disagree that there were historically ethnic Greeks in the two churches, but that was a long time ago (mostly within the clergy as well). If there has been a movement to (re-)claim some Greek ancestry among the lay people, it's definitively a recent phenomenon. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

There is an undefined refname in the infobox. It was removed as part of the recent back and forth.
The following:
<ref name="ewtn.org"/>
should either be replaced with:
<ref name="ewtn.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.ewtn.org/library/CHISTORY/SYRIAHIS.HTM|title=OVERVIEW OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF SYRIA|access-date=8 April 2017}}</ref>
or if the source is unsuitable:
{{citation needed|date=December 2021}}
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - I restored the missing reference, without regard for if it is appropriate or not - anyone should feel free to file another edit request if this has been evaluated and needs another update. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Arabic and Greek identity

The Antiochian Greeks are considered an Arab Christian group by the great majority of the sources. The Greek ethnic identity is not held by the community. The modern Arabic identity, literature and politics (just think of Arab nationalism) was actually created by members of this community. The two main Antiochian churches (the Melkite Catholic and the Patriarchate of Antioch) hold a strong Arabic identity and in fact eliminated most of their Greek heritage during the last centuries. The only Antiochian Church who hold a small Greek identity is the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, but this identity is limited mostly to the clergy from Greece (actually many members of the Jerusalem Orthodox clergy identify with the Arab Orthodox Movement). So, there is no problem identifying this community as Arab Christian. P.S: I don't think that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem could be considered an Antiochian church. --Syphax98 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you what you mean. However, I think the intro can be more neutral. You seem like a very reasonable and fair person, let's see if we can work on a compromise concerning the intro of this page.

I was thinking of wording the intro something along the lines of:

Antiochian Greek Christians (also known as Antiochian Rūm) are an Eastern Christian group residing in the Levant region. The majority of its members identify as Arab, and some of the members reject the Arab label, and identify as Greek.

This seems like a reasonable compromise, in my opinion.

Gramaic | Talk 06:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

References

OK, thank you for wanting to find a compromise! But actually i didn't find sources about Antiochian Christians identifying as ethnic Greeks. Many of them identify with the Rum identity and maybe with Bizantine heritage, but not with Greece or ethnic Greeks. The source that you have added (the article from Hellas Journal) doesn't seem to be very reliable and neutral, also taking in consideration WP:WEIGHT. Actually I think that the intro is neutral; the community and the Antiochian churches expose a strong Arab identity (in contrast to Syriac Christians for example) and this is confirmed by the great majority of the sources. A compromise on the intro is possible, but first we need sources to base on. --Syphax98 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)