Talk:Callinicus of Heliopolis

Callinicus‘ ethnicity

This subject has not been discussed here yet Please provide your arguments here. Whatsupkarren (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Callincus, from Heliopolis

The most authentic information we have about Callinicus' ancestry is that he comes from "Heliopolis" in Syria, which is Baalbek in present-day Lebanon. There seems to be no actual information about him being Jewish, aside from Britannica's article. Savipolo (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion this claim lacks reliable sources Encyclopedia.com says it’s PROBABLE that he was a Jewish refugee https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/callinicos-heliopolis Whatsupkarren (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cedrenus is the only ancient author that claims Callinicus was from Heliopolis of Egypt. Gibbon does not take this view, he actually does claim Callinicus was from Heliopolis of Syria and just makes a note that Cedrenus claims he was from Egypt without actually sharing that view. You can see it here https://books.google.se/books?id=CJQ8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Callinicus+of+Heliopolis+Egypt&source=bl&ots=RMGkVgPadK&sig=ACfU3U3iNqFW1z_lTnR1MyoRmtrj8vF7xQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit7JrHltXuAhVoAhAIHbkwArY4ChDoATAAegQIAxAC#v=onepage&q=Callinicus%20of%20Heliopolis%20Egypt&f=false

Some authors from the 18th century then seemed to have started claiming that Gibbson shared Cedrenus's view which its not correct if you look at what Gibbson actually says in his books

Theophanus, Zonan and Diacre state that he was from Baalbek https://books.google.se/books?id=B47NAAAAMAAJ&q=Callinicus+Baalbec&dq=Callinicus+Baalbec&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw2_aAlNXuAhWrtYsKHa-JC7YQ6AEwCHoECAgQAg

The World Heritage Encyclopedia states in their work on Callinicus "Indeed, the 11th-century chronicler George Kedrenos records that Kallinikos came from Heliopolis in Egypt, but most scholars reject this as an error.[15] Kedrenos also records the story, considered rather implausible by modern scholars, that Kallinikos' descendants, a family called "Lampros" ("Brilliant"), kept the secret of the fire's manufacture, and continued doing so to Kedrenos' time.[13]

So we can fairly conclude that today, the notion of Callinicus coming from Egypt is a minority view and should not been included in the article as per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also it is incorrect to add the word Syrian to a Byzantine born in Hellenized Phoenicia (part of Coele-Syria) or Roman Syria and Roman Phoenicia and link it to todays Syrians article. I would not add that Porphyry or Zeno of Citium was Lebanese, would I?

So why are all the Phoenician personalities being added the word Syrian or even Arab and Nabatean as can be seen as well. Look at all the personalities of Phoenician, Punic, Sabian (which has been established they were originally from Mount Lebanon and Baalbeck by plenty of authors) that are listed in https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Syrians#Notable_people and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Syrians#Leaders_and_politicians. Is this correct? Of course its not, but there are plenty of users going around pushing "Arab" and "Syrian" (as in today's Syrians which they link it to) ethnicity/origin to those personalities and nobody cares and does something about it.

Wikipedia is a place for exactness not vagueness, dubiousness, confusion and ambiguity.

These edits have been done for years actually. This needs to be ended.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Check out for example the personality Hanna Diab who was a Maronite that was born in Aleppo and editors keep on adding the word Syrian to it sometimes taking away the word Maronite as the last recent edit did https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hanna_Diyab. No matter how many times I revert and write that the term Syrian (whether linked to today's Syrians or not) is incorrect for a personality born in Ottoman Syria, editors keep of pushing the Syrian thing. The correct term should be Ottoman Syria or only the religious affiliation and town of birth should be mentioned. Before today's Lebanon and today's Syria were created people used to refer themselves by their religious affiliation (ex. Christian or Muslim) and the town from which they came from.

In the case of Diab it is even more incorrect because by the 1500 all Maronites resided in Mount Lebanon and the Maronites from Aleppo arrived there from Mount Lebanon in the 17th century as can be read here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Maronite_Catholic_Archeparchy_of_Aleppo so Hanna Diyab born circa 1688 belonged to parents who immigrated there from Mount Lebanon. He even went back to Mount Lebanon and became a monk for some time.

I wouldnt write that Marinus of Tyre was Lebanese would I? Eventhough both were born in modern-day Lebanon. Only in the case of immigrants or immigrants with ancestors who left the part of Ottoman Syria that later became Lebanon you could say that they were of Lebanese descent because most of those people that left that area in the 1880-1920s were still alive in 1943 when Lebanon was created and started calling themselves Lebanese so in that case is correct to say someone is Lebanese or of Lebanese descent. And even then editors keep on vandalizing the articles of personalities of Lebanese descent by either changing it to Syrian or adding Syrian to Lebanese as can be seen here https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Doug_Flutie&diff=1002444487&oldid=1002397794Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Eventhough authors and academics have indeed used the term Syrian for someone born in Roman Syria and even Roman Pheonice, or even for someone born in the area the became Lebanon after the end of Ottoman Syria, the term Syrian has become to mean today someone from what is today's Syria so it is incorrect to add the term Syrian and link it to today's Syrian for any of those ancient and modern personalities. A lot of disruptive editors are going around gaming the system using the sources that claim someone was a Syrian from Hellenized Pheonicia or from Roman Syria, Roman Phoenice or Ottoman Syria to link it to today's Syrians to make readers believe they are of today's Syrian descent which is incorrect. Wikipedia is not the place for outdated terminology even if it has been used in credible sources.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Syrian, or rather from the region known as Syria?

The term "Syrian" is not necessarily wrong, but it's misleading. As it is already established, Wikipedia is a place of clarity, not ambiguity, and using the term "Syrian" is going to mislead the general reader into thinking he's from modern-day Syria, so it's more accurate to use something like "An engineer from Heliopolis in Roman Syria/Byzantine Phoenicia, present-day Baalbek" instead of vaguely labeling him as "Syrian". Aside from that, I hope it won't evolve into some anti-Syrian/Lebanese sentiment nonsense. - Savipolo (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the Phoenician personalities from Hellenized Phoenicia and Roman Syria/Roman Phoenicia are being added the word Syrian or even Arab and Nabatean as can be seen as well. Look at all the personalities of Phoenician, Punic, Sabian (which has been established they were originally from Mount Lebanon and Baalbeck by plenty of authors) that are listed in https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Syrians#Notable_people and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Syrians#Leaders_and_politicians. Is this correct? Of course its not, but there are plenty of users going around pushing "Arab" and "Syrian" (as in today's Syrians which they link it to) ethnicity/origin to those personalities.

Something needs to be done about this. What should we do? I dont want to go into an endless war with all the editors that are doing this but if we are here to make wikipedia a place of clarity and updated terminology we need to end this.Chris O' Hare (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Phoenicians were not one group of people and there is no evidence that they viewed themselves as a single nationality they never called themselves Phoenicians. Phoenician’ was a generic label invented by ancient Greek authors for the Levantine sailors. Even Greek writers never used the term Phoenician as a description of a distinct ethnocultural community like they did with Egyptians & Persians. The label picks out social characteristics, designating by contemporary culture and practice rather than by Historical links, therefore, a Barber from Carthage would be called a Phoenician. Im gonna advice you to read the book in search of the Phoenicians by Josephine Crawley Quinn Anyway Baalbek wasn’t part of ancient Phoenicia but rather Roman Syria https://www.jstor.org/stable/774781?seq=1 + There isn’t an ancient writer who did describe Callinicus as Phoenician Whatsupkarren (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The term Syria shouldn’t be linked to modern day Syria ( Syrian Arab Republic) Whatsupkarren (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The term Syrian shouldnt be used at all today for Hellenized Phoenicians/Canaanites. After 1945 the term Syrian means someone from todays Syria. Including the term in those articles is misleading and the group of editors going around vandalizing i guarantee you will link the word Syrian to todays Syrians.

Only the occupation, religious affiliation and city of birth should be included.

A lot of authors, ancient and modern have also used the term Arab to certain ancient personalities of Phoenician/Canaanite descent out of ignorace. Just like today a lot of authors are still going around writing that Assyrians, Maronites and Arameans are "Arabs". Like I said ambiguity should not have a place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place for modern updated information, not a place to repeat dubious terms and stories just because that is the way it has been done in the past.

And yes I have read Stephanie Quinn's book. Im pretty sure you havent and you are probably just repeating what you have read about what she supposedly says in her book.

"Phoenicia/Phoenicians" was a political term used used by the Greeks and Romans to distinguish a group of people that shared a same language, religious practices, commercial/navigation culture and ethnicity. The descendants of the kings of Byblos and Ugarit became the kings of Sidon and Tyre. They were linked to each other in all possible ways a group of people could.

You keep playing your game of words and try to game the system. Its not going to work with meChris O' Hare (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The group of people called Phoenicians most likely called themselves Cannanites every once in a while, then later probably called themselves Phoenicians after the new term became common. But the standard thing was to identify themselves with their city of origin.

The term Syrian was also a political term used by the Greeks and Romans to describe the bigger region not just the coast of the Levant. If you do your homework and further reading you will know that when the Greeks conquered the Levant they gave Greek citizenship to all the Phoenicians but not to the Syrians that lived inland. They considered Phoenicians of the coastline people with similar culture and lifestyle as them (probably not what you've heard, right?) hence the reason why they gave them citizenship.Chris O' Hare (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

No need to be hostile. "Levantines" of today are not descended from one single strand of people in the Levant (e.g Lebanese are exclusively Phoenician), but are rather a mix of all the people who have lived in the Levant throughout the ages since prehistoric times to present day. Levantines are effectively very similar in genetics and culture, the difference here is nationality and how we identify at the current moment, which of course brings us to calling Callinicus a "Lebanese" or a "Syrian", whom I doubt would have labeled himself as such. For all we know he probably identified with his native hometown, as most people did back then all around, as both of you acknowledged above.

Edit: I found similar labels (such as "Arab") on Julia Domna's and Iamblichus' pages, for instance. Is this what you have in mind? - Savipolo (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, im referring to the Severus dynasty, the 7 popes, and all the rest that are listed as Syrians.

This issue is about ancient personalities pre-Arab conquest people, not modern Lebanese people (which btw are more related to those ancient hellenized and roman personalities that todays Syrians as determined by the latest scientific studies). Are those people Syrian or Arab? Of course not, but a group of editors are going around gaming the system cherry picking sources of ignorant authors, ancient and modern, who claimed they were Syrian and/or Arab.Chris O' Hare (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed your edit on Pythagoras was reverted. Lots of ancient philosophers were from Tyre or had ancestors from there. But if you say that on the pages of Pythagoras (80% or more of the ancient writers have said his father was from Tyre), Euclid (lots of medieval authors have said he was from Tyre), Moshe of Sidon etc, it will immediately get reverted by the "Greek mafia" here in wikipedia.

Lots of authors going around saying that very little is known about the Phoenicians/Cannanites because they didnt write much or this and that. I think the main reason is actually that their history has been vandalized or more like completely sacked by authors post 18th century and continues to be vandalized by modern authors with political and racist agendas. Its a shame that wikipedia is letting that happen here as well.Chris O' Hare (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

We can discuss this over at your or my page if you wish to, as I do have something to say about this, but not on here since its a different topic. - Savipolo (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If its related to this issue I see no reason why we cannot discuss it here. I have nothing against Syrians, Greeks, Jews, blah blah. I just dont think its fair that the history of a group of people that did nothing but contribute to civilization, especially western civilization, is constantly being vandalized, distorted and stolen. And this is not being done just by Syrian, Greeks and Jewish authors (mainly since I would say the Eurocentrism of the 18th century did the biggest damage) but also by pan-Arabists Lebanese "historians" like Kamal Salibi who is going around saying the Lebanese (Maronites especially) migrated as a Arab tribe and settled in Lebanon around the 7th century. I mean its just ridiculous.Chris O' Hare (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

I do agree with what you said about the rampant pan-Arabism among some of the popular historians. What I disagree with is the divisiveness here. Some Syrians, such as those from Tartus, Latakia, Homs etc. are overwhelmingly similar to Lebanese people, and they also have a similar claim over the Phoenicians, similar to how the Lebanese hold claim of descent from other Levantines as well.

All that aside, the main point that I was contending with you here is downplaying the contributions of Phoenicians. The edit you referenced was reverted for being "redundant", which I would hold it's anything but that. Bear in mind, the "Greek" ethnos was used to describe people often speaking Greek as their native language, or even using it as scholarly language, rather than a label that referenced the exact ethnic origins of the philosopher/physician/orator. We could add "of Y origin" if the aforementioned person is not an ethnic Greek, for better clarity.

Also, I agree about the "Arab" label of some Roman figures that came from Roman Phoenicia/Roman Syria. - Savipolo (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well an important observation to make is that there are also lots of “Syrians” today from what used to be the Tripoli Eyalet/Sanjak https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tripoli_Eyalet later part the Beirut Vilayet https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Beirut_Vilayet and “Palestinians”or “Israeli Arabs” today from what used to be the Sidon Eyalet https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sidon_Eyalet later part as well of Beirut Vilayet that are being called of “Syrian descent” or “Palestinian descent/Israeli Arab descent” both in their new Syrian and Israeli territories as well as in the diaspora just because those territories ended up being part of Syria in the north and Israel (before Mandatory Palestine) in the South.

So for example, someone like Teri Hatcher, whose ancestors left Ottoman Syria before 1917 from Latakia which was of the Tripoli Eyalet/Sanjak for like 400 years and then part of the Beirut Vilayet before the fall of the Empire in 1917 or somebody like Governor Mitch Daniels whose grandfather immigrated from Qalatiyah, is considered of “Syrian descent” just because that area ended up as part of what is today Syria in 1917.

However when their ancestors immigrated those places were part of the Beirut Vilayet-Tripoli Eyalet/Sanjak which makes them actually of Lebanese descent not Syrian since those areas were part of the larger “Lebanon” aka Beirut Vilayet.

Everybody whose ancestors migrated from what was the Beirut Vilayet should be called of Lebanese descent since all that area was inhabited by Christians of Lebanese descent. Only those whose ancestors migrated from what was the Vilayet of Syria outside of the Vilayet of Beirut as can be seen here https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ottoman_levant.png should be called of “Syrian descent”

Lots of people from places like Haifa, Safed, etc in the north of todays Israel are being refered today as "Israli Arabs" or "Palestinians" which is also laughable since those places belonged to the Sidon Vilayet-Beirut Vilayet for like 400 years before the Ottomans fell and Mandatory Palestine was created.

I can tell you though that some people I know in the diaspora whose ancestors migrated from Sabita, Tartous etc refer themselves as of Lebanese descent.

Also a chunk of the Syrian Christians that immigrated to America from Damascus and Aleppo are possibly of Lebanese Christian descent since Damascus (and Homs to a lesser extent) was the cultural/intellectual city of Ottoman Syria until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Aleppo was the commercial city of Ottoman Syria as well so lots of Lebanese Christians likely migrated to those two cities for work and commerce since at the time Beirut was a port of not the most importanceChris O' Hare (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We could add "of Y origin" if the aforementioned person is not an ethnic Greek, for better clarity. Good luck with that. Just like the "Syrian mafia" here, the "Greek mafia" will play the same card on you: they will argue to death that because so and so source said that he was a "Greek" he had to be a Greek living in Tyre or Sidon and ethnically Greek. They will play with words like Whatsupkarren and cherry pick sources to get away with their disruptive editing. Look at for example what is being said in the note that was placed on Pythagoras origin sentence that talks about his father, it says "his father origins is uncertain blah blah".

The fact is that very few Greeks actually settled in Phoenica when they conquered it, the very few that did settled around Antioch. The same during the Roman period where the Romans that settled there where mainly military troops.

Saying "A Greek of Phoenican origin" or "A Greek from Tyre" can be ambiguous and confusing. Better to say a Hellenized Phoenician or a Phoenician-Greek or a Phoenician of Greek nationality. Ultimately being Greek was a nationality more than a designation for those that wrote in Greek.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I know this is not the place to talk about that But regarding the book It never said Phoenicians shared a common ethnicity he may quote from other unsubstantiated claims made by others to answer it, it says in the first page of chapter 2: there are six different criteria by which we can recognize an ancient ethnic group—a collective name, a common myth of descent, a shared history, a sense of solidarity, an association with a specific territory, and a distinctive shared culture— and that such groups should fulfill all of these criteria at least to some degree.4 I would argue that on the available evidence the Phoenicians fulfilled none of them. Even the evidence that some called themselves Canaanites is highly suspect In page 31. Note: this book is based on archeological & linguistic & chronological evidence.

Here is an article about that https://aeon.co/amp/essays/phoenicia-an-imaginary-friend-to-nations-in-need-of-ancestors. Whatsupkarren (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s funny because you’re labeling my edits disruptives anyone can see who make disruptive edits from your talk page there are no Syrian mafias nor Greeks, here we stick to what the reliable sources say Whatsupkarren (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But regarding the book It never said Phoenicians shared a common ethnicity he may quote from other unsubstantiated claims made by others to answer it It is the genetic studies have determined they were Canaannites, indigenous from the Levant, having lived there since like 12,000 BC. Very likely mixed with Anatolians around 5000BC. They have dug out skeletons from all the coastal cities in Phoenicia and they have discovered no ethnic/genetic differences out of them and the Lebanese of today share 93% of their genes with them. Maybe you should write you friend Ms Quinn and tell her that.

As for the other criteria:

-Collective name- I told you that before the Greeks started calling them Phoenicians they referred to themselves as Kanani/Canani as being from Canaan/Cannanites. In fact there are legends from the indigenous people of the Caribbean that were recorded by French authors (cant remember the names of the French authors right now but the book is there) were they said that thousands of years before the Europeans the indiginous people of the Caribbean were visited by the "Kanani"

-A common myth of descent- Quinn chose not to elaborate very much about the work of Sanchuniathon who so far seems to be the main authority on the subject of Phoenician mythology. He created a genealogy of the Phoenician gods and who ended up ruling where in antiquity. Text your friend Quinn and as her about why she didnt chose to elaborate too much on the work of Sanchuniathon in her "sensational book".

-A shared history and chronology? Well if we start from when the Cannanites started navigating the open waters you can clearly see the pattern of everything starting from Byblos exporting to Egypt and the same culture moving down south all the way to Acre and Haifa. Each city traded with different places and absorbed elements of the people they traded with. But didnt that happen with most cities that constitute a "country/nation" at some point? Thats like saying the Vikings from Norway traded with West and the Vikings from Sweden traded with the East so they shouldn't be both called Vikings.

-A sense of solidarity? Well the Phoenicians never went to war against each other and all of the cities were peaceful traders so how is that they dont meet that criteria.

I would argue that on the available evidence the Phoenicians fulfilled none of them I recommend that you read your friend Quinn's book because I did really hoping she will leave me convinced of that. Its quite a strange book because I actually ended up being convinced of the opposite. It could be that she played the controversial title for the book card so that people read it kind of like when you read the title of a "shocking news" and after you read the article you fail to see what is so shocking about it. Good marketing strategy no doubt.

I also find the article you sent me quite funny. Its a Anthony D. Smith, one of the founders of nationalism studies, who does describe Phoenicia as a nation in his classic book and who "alongside ‘a political loyalty to the individual city state’, found ‘a cultural and emotional solidarity with one’s cultural kinsmen, as this is interpreted by current myths of origin and descent … based on a common heritage of religion, language, art and literature, political institutions, dress and forms of recreation" VS the upcommer Quinn who is not an expert on nationalism studies but a historian of the Mediterranean who got her Phd a decade agoChris O' Hare (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s funny because you’re labeling my edits disruptives anyone can see who make disruptive edits from your talk page there are no Syrian mafias nor Greeks, here we stick to what the reliable sources say Depends on what you call "sticking to reliable sources". Anyone who cherry picks sources, gives undue weight to minority views from minority sources, distorts what a source say or choose to hold on to outdated sources or outdated terminology is a disruptive editor in this Wikipedia project. Since you seem to be fulfilling the criteria perhaps you have signed up to the Syrian mafia you loyal soldier. Chris O' Hare (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Okey this is enough, this has nothing to do with the article I’m not going to waste my time. Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)