This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Perhaps it would be better to use ush-Sham or ash-Sham instead of al-Sham? Usually, transcriptions take the assimilation of the "l" of the definite article into account (since the pronounciation changes)... David Haardt, 7 May 2006
It's more phonetic, but the majority of Wikipedia articles seem to use "al-", regardless of whether it's prefixed to the "sun" letters or not. There's a Wikipedia Arabic transcription policies discussion board somewhere, but I don't have its location right at hand... AnonMoos 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging
The article Levant pretty much covers this. I think it should be merged into it. --Yodakii 05:27:44, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
That's probably not a bad idea. What's the proposal-to-merge template these days? Is it {{Mergeto}} QuartierLatin1968 04:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sham does NOT mean "sun". Plan to merge this with "Sham (place)" AnonMoos
Took off merge template
Nothing has been done with it for three months, this article is now bigger, and the "Greater Syria" article would be a better candidate for a merge anyway. AnonMoos
Yes, I think a merge with Greater Syria would be a good idea. I think they amount to pretty much two names for the same thing. Palmiro | Talk 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Jund al-Sham
What exactly is the relevance of this organisation? Palmiro | Talk 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It uses the Arabic word "Sham" to refer to Greater Syria. AnonMoos 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it doesn't really give any more information about the topic. Perhaps it would be better to mention it in the text as an example of current use, if you think it's relevant? Palmiro | Talk 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Name origin
Some web sites claim that the name comes from Shem. Although his name in Arabic is Sam but old Arabic used to be similar to Aramic so it was Sham too. Other references points out that the name Sham comes from the word Shamal. That word means either North (Syria is north of Arabia) or left as opposed to Yemen (right). --Truthpedia 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Semitic etymologies of "content" words (such as verbs and nouns etc.) almost always proceed by Consonantal roots, so generally the first thing you need to ask in deciding whether two words in Semitic languages are related is, what is the consonantal root of each word, and are the consonantal roots behind the two words in fact the same? Arabic sham شام seems rather clearly to come from a consonantal root "Š-'-M", since older spellings like شأم and شآم, exist, and it's listed under consonantal root ش ء م in dictionaries such as the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. By contrast, shams "sun" comes from a consonantal root "Š-M-S" and shamal "north" comes from a consonantal root "Š-M-L". Since the roots are different, the likelihood of the words being related is quite low. There are some exceptional cases (where forms which seem to derive from different consonantal roots can in fact be historically related), but none of the particular circumstances involved in such unusual exceptions apply here.
As for Shem son of Noah, Hebrew Š and Arabic Š do not actually correspond to each other etymologically (in terms of Proto-Semitic correspondences), and in early loanwords from Hebrew and Aramaic, the Hebrew/Aramaic Š appears as S in Arabic (so that Hebrew Yeshua` becomes Arabic Yasu`, for example). It's only in late (basically post-Muhammad) loanwords that Hebrew/Aramaic Š appears as Arabic Š. So there's no good reason to question the corespondence of Hebrew Biblical Shem = Arabic Biblical Sam. AnonMoos 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Etymology again
Mr. AnonMoos and the writer of the main article seem to know a lot about arabic but first they did not give any refrences to their claims that Sham is not conected to Shem son of Noah or (north: shamal) and second about the conection to Shem they forgot that in Syria the Syrianic language was spoken way before arabic. I have my sources. Alkamoos Almuheet (meaning literally: The Encyclopedic Dictionary) by Alfirooz Abaady is the largest and most trusted of the three major arabic dictionary (the other two being Lesan Ala'rab (Arabs tongue) and Mukhtar Alsehah). It says in the Section of letter (M: mem), Chapter of letter (SH: sheen)
Al-Sha'm: lands to the left of Qibla [Maakah], and it was named so because some Canaanites (tsha'moo) went left (meaning north) to it, or after Sam, the son of Noah since he is called Sham with (SH) instead of (S) in Syric language. ... and Tsha'ama: means he is from there [Damascus, Sham], or it means going North. ... And Sha'oom: is the the opposite of right.
So fist of all Mr. AnonMoos and the wrighter of the article have ignored that not just the Alkamoos Almuheet but the other two dictionaries stated that although (Sha'm and shamaal) have different roots, (Sham) from the root (sheen-hamza-mem) still means shamaal (north).
Second, they ignored that Syria is Syric way before being arab country so I am really wondering why both guys, if were not one, are very determined that Sham is not related to the son of Noah. In Syric language the letter (Sh) is tranlated to (S) in arabic so the city Sham is very likely to mean Sam the son of Noah, especially that Syria has been a very biblical place and as stated in the article Syrians is actually a word to refer to christians so to name the area after Noah is most likely. And while I am from Damascus (Sham), Syria, I know like many others that there no name stands on its own. A name of a place or anything else has to mean something or be named after something or someone whose name means something.
So I am editing the articale. and until someone gives a source for his/her claim, he/she can re-edit the article back. -- 07:50, 15 May 2007 User:Samimas
By the very basic linguistics of Semitic triconsonantal roots, if Sham is derived from root shin-hamza-mim ش ء م , then it's quite unlikely to be connected with root shin-mim-lam (see discussion of "19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)" directly above). Sham earlier meant "north" in its etymology (or rather it originally meant "left/unlucky" in its etymology, and "left" could come to mean "north" in certain contexts), but that doesn't mean that it has any valid morphological connection with root shin-mim-lam according to historical linguistics (and in fact, it's pretty clear that it doesn't).
Furthermore, early Hebrew/Aramaic [š] actually generally corresponds with early Arabic [s], as when Hebrew/Aramaic Yashu` became Arabic يسوع yasu` / عيسى `isa, so Arabic Sham displays a wrong correspondence with Hebrew Shem (and in fact Shem son of Noah appears in Arabic Bibles as سام sam).
And there are in fact "sources" used -- standard scholarly Arabic dictionaries (such as the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic) list Sham under root shin-hamza-mim ش ء م (not shin-mim-lam), and see further the quote "First paragraph of Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on Al-Sham by C.E. Bosworth" given directly below... AnonMoos 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You keep forgetting or ignoring the fact that Damascus and (Sham) are both names that have been given to the area way before arabic and arab. Damascus and Syria are Syriac. In Syriac it is Sham with (SH) not (S). Large number if not most of Syrian cities, towns and even villages have syriac and aramic names and that is weather north or south of syria! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samimas (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Missing info
I see the article should mention Iraq, because it does consider bilad al sham. I will add it up.
SeMiTiC
No, the term does not include Iraq as a whole. It might include some indefinite area of the "Syrian Desert" in the west of Iraq, but it most definitely does not include the core area of Mesopotamia. AnonMoos 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Who told you that !! I've studied in the middle east and I know how many countries are considered bilad al sham, it doesn't matter if its part of the country or as a whole country !
Your information is not updated Sir, read that quote "Initially considered co-terminous with historic Syria as described above, Saada later expanded it to include Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus. " .Also see here File:Ssnpmap.pngRevanchist fantasies of the fascist SSNP of Antoun Saadeh.
See at the map, it shows kuwait, Iraq and cyprus included in the region. I hope you understand, that even part of a country, it should mention the name of the country ! SeMiTiC
Dude, your map represents nothing more than the expansionist fantasy scenario of fascists fifty years ago, and is "evidence" of absolutely nothing whatsoever. Furthermore, Bilad-ush-Sham as a traditional geographical term represents the "sphere of influence" of Damascus (as contrasted with Baghdad, these being the two Caliphal capitals of the 700-900 period), and so does not include the core settled area of Mesopotamia -- you seem to be confusing this term with "Mashriq" (i.e. the Arab East). Furthermore, the fact that Bilad-ush-Sham may (or may not) be considered to include a sliver of the western desert of the curent-day Iraq does not mean that the name of "Iraq" should be added to the list in the way that you added it, since that carries the implication that all of Iraq, or the most important parts of Iraq are generally considered to be part of Bilad-ush-Sham -- which is not the case. In fact the parts of Iraq which possibly fall under Bilad-ush-Sham are the least important and least inhabited parts, which probably weren't generally even considered as belonging to Iraq before the 20th century. AnonMoos 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I'll write next to it (some parts) so you can feel better.
SeMiTiC
Article Greater Syria is mainly about the irredentist territorial fantasies of fascists 50 years ago, while article Bilad al-Sham discusses the meaning of a historical phrase (which dates back to a time before nationalism in its modern form even existed in the Middle East area). "Bilad al-Sham" and "Greater Syria" can be more-or-less synonymous in many contexts -- but when the context is Antoun Saadeh, they mean very different things... AnonMoos 10:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Levant
The article says:
Bilad al-Sham is not always precisely synonymous with "Greater Syria" or "Levant", since Greater Syria can refer to a smaller region, while the Levant can refer to a larger region
Here my question is that: is the difference between 'Bilad Al Sham' and 'Levant' so huge that we cannot merge them into one article? I think having two separate articles for them is not a good idea.
(PS: Off course I know that Greater Syria is different than both.) Awat 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The two terms can be loose geographical synonyms in some contexts, but Levant is really defined starting from the eastern Mediterranean coast going eastwards (i.e. from a European point of view), while Bilad-al-Sham is defined from Damascus outwards (i.e from a point of view within the region itself), so they don't have exactly the same connotations. With Bilad-al-Sham, there's also a need to go into detailed explanation of etymology, alternative Arabic language terms, etc., most of which is completely irrelevant to discussion of Levant. AnonMoos 15:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
AL-SHĀM, AL-SHA'M, Syria, etymologically "the left-hand region", because in ancient Arab usage the speaker in western or central arabia was considered to face the rising sun and to have Syria on his left and the Arabian peninsula, with Yaman ("the right-hand region"), on his right (cf. al-Mas`ūdī, Murūdj, iii, 140-1 = §992; al-Mukaddasī, partial French tr. A. Miquel La meilleure répartition pour la connaissance des provinces, Damascus 1963, 155-6, both with other fanciful explanations). In early Islamic usage, bilād al-Shām covered what in early 20th-century diplomatic and political usage became known as "Greater Syria", including the modern political entities of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel and the west Bank of Palestine, in the north spreading into the modern Turkish ils or provinces of Hatay (the former sandjak of Alexandretta [see ISKANDARŪN]), Gaziantep [see `AYNTĀB] and Diyarbakır [see DIYĀR BAKR]. As often happened in the earliest Islamic times (cf. Misr = both Egypt and its capital), al-Shām could also denote the historic administrative capital of the region, Damascus [see DIMASHK].
-- a verbatim transcription (except for a slight adjustment of transliteration conventions to be more suitable to web-browsers) of the beginning of the article on page 261 of Volume 9 of the Encyclopedia (1997). AnonMoos 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That indeed support me but oppose your entry. Furthermore, I have checked Lisan al-Arab which is the main reference of Arabic Language. Under the name "Sham", it says:
الشأْم بلادٌ عن مشأَمة القبلة سُمِّيَت بهِ لذلك. أو لأن قومًا من بني كنعان تشاءَموا إليها أي تياسروا. أو سُمِّيَت بسام بن نوح فإنهُ بالشين بالسريانيَّة. أو لأن أرضها شاماتٌ بيض وحمر وسود. وعلى هذا لا تُهمَز
It says exactly what Dr Husain Atwan and C.E. Bosworth were saying. Although it does not mention the word North. However, in old Arabic شمال was used for both meaning: North or Left. This is not related to unluckiness. I don't mind if you replace my words with Bosworth's words, but the current wording is not correct. --AraLink 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How does it "support" you when it mentions absolutely nothing whatsoever about root ش م ل or any related form with lam after mim, but it in fact does mention the alternative spelling "SHA'M" (i.e. شأم or شآم)? How do you get شأم or شآم from ش م ل ? Where does the hamza come from, and where did the lam go??? Furthermore, I'm having difficulty figuring out what the words مشأَمة is supposed to mean, but it's also clearly derived from root ش ء م (as is the stem VI verb form تشاءَموا ), while nothing mentions any connection with root ش م ل . AnonMoos 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In this context, مشأَمة means 'left'... Does it make a difference if we said the left of Ka'ba or the north of Ka'ba? --AraLink 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It says "Hejaz" right now in the article, and I see no reason to change that as the result of what you've brought forward -- in fact, I see no reason to change anything in the article on the basis of what you've said here or on your user talk page... AnonMoos 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
WELL WELL WELL, so this is what you do everywhere you go, talking the same stuff you learnt in class. Delete content of editors who bring references. I have just reverted, as i dont see any referene for your content which is . do not delete people content without explanations. The samething you did on Zanj ur doing here with other serious editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
REMOVING TAGS IS VANDALISM
If an editor adds a tag to an article which is a valid tag and you remove it you become a vandal. there isnt a debate about this kind of action. You cannot change my content on the talk page, you cannot remove tags and stop deleting people's content. This article has in no proper sources, either that is a fact or it isnt, since it is, all of my changes are valid. U can stop now or continue your POV show here. U have vandalized my edits as you even removed the references section i added, blind edits like this are a violation of wiki policy as it doesnt develop the article. STOP NOW.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you have raised no valid concerns, and in fact you don't know enough about the subject-matter to raise any valid concerns, but instead you are merely following me around and reverting my edits on unrelated matters in order to get some kind of twisted "revenge" against me for pointing out that every Arabic dictionary says that the word Zanj زنج in Arabic means what you for some reason are trying to pretend that it doesn't mean. In fact, you are wiki-stalking me, and all your threats against me are intended solely to intimidate and harrass me. That's far more of a violation of Wikipedia policies than anything you have accused me of... AnonMoos 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove tags, do not delete references, and do not delete the content of the other editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not follow along behind other editors, reverting edits on subjects which you know little or nothing about, in order to get "revenge" for disputes on unrelated articles (or against them for pointing out that every dictionary says that the word Zanj زنج does in fact mean what you for some strange reason keep on insisting that it doesn't mean). This violates WP:POINT and WP:STALK. AnonMoos 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Make you choice here and now, it is as simple as that. U r harassing me, it is a matter of view point. Keep playing with my sources on Zanj and reverting eveything while i am adding references. The thing wiki doesnt like is Original research and edit war, u r a master of all. including civility violation and calling ligit edits vandalism. blind reverts. this isnt a grammar school this is not your language course, Arabic isnt evn your mother language. The topic is called Bilad al-Sham not a detail explanation of some technical rule. U have pointed out nothing but a WP:POINT. u bring no historical credit or references, just or.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you have no knowledge in the topic of this article and no interest in the topic of this article, and have only chosen to edit it at all in order to get "revenge" against me for persistently pointing out some simple facts on article Zanj, and refusing to be intimidated by your denial of those simple facts. This makes all your attempts at high-minded protestations about Wikipedia policies farcical -- not to mention perhaps somewhat hypocritical. AnonMoos 09:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever heard edit the page not the editor, focus on the article okay..--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That might be sound advice in other circumstances, but in the present circumstances it's rather hard to ignore the fact that the only reason you've taken a sudden interest in article Bilad al-Sham (which I've been editing over a year) is to get revenge on me for the fact that you're losing the argument over on unrelated article Zanj. AnonMoos 09:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
U can call me Halq. edit wiki and do not enage me in an ad hominem argument. had i been really stalking you, i could have chosen all of the other articles you edit, y did i land here? B/c maybe on the other articles you didnt violate anything. but here i see a problem. if you edit wiki properly i cannot harrast you as you claim now can i. if you add references and stop deleting content of other editors i cannot do anyting can i. So edit properly and stop discussing my knowlegde level--i dont know you. reply to my actual comments. deletion of references, deletion of another editors content.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you need a certain degree of knowledge of Semitic root structures and Arabic grammar to even understand the issues involved in whether or not Sham could be derived from Shamal (see the section #Name origin above on this discussion page). The fact that you have been consistently unwilling or unable to take the simple step of looking up the word Zanj زنج in an Arabic dictionary for many months does not give me a high impression of your knowledge of the language. I don't mean to deny that you might have a limited degree of conversational proficiency in informal spoken Arabic -- but if you can't look up written Arabic words in dictionaries arranged by root, then your conversational proficiency has very little relevance or usefulness in settling the issues under dispute here and at Talk:Zanj. AnonMoos 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr Moos, Discuss any illegal activity i have discussed here. I see Zanj being an Arabic word, I see Bilad ul Sudan, being a place i have edited on, so y cant i edit on here, dont you see the connection. Y dont i go an harrast you elsewhere? Do not remove refernces section, do not remove valid tags. discuss that our be humble enought to know you made a mistake cutting content. Wiki is not a grammar book, go to trilaterial blah blah and edit there. Moreover the issue is you deleting the other editors sourced material, the editor actually is the only one to add a reference. learn 2 add references.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, all that "trilaterial blah blah" stuff is a significant tool in establishing what is and is not a valid etymology. AnonMoos 10:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalising content
removal of valid tags, this article doesnt provide sources, HE DELETES THIS TAG--Vandalism.
The Arabic historian Yaqut al-Hamawi mentioned that the name Sham was first used by the Cannan tribes when they have migrated from Arabia northwise to this country. The word Sham comes from the Arabic word Shamal (means north)[1]. Another alternative theory is that Sham . EDITOR ADDS THIS WITH REFERENCE, HE DELETES THIS CONTENT AND INSERTS HIS BOAST ABOUT TECHNICAL ARABIC GRAM.
by the way, without any references
FInally the references section at teh bottom of the page, is being vandalized by this editor. See the difference. He is deleting all of teh references. THIS IS VANDALISM. see Vandalism to reference by editor
Whatever -- you're pretty confused, since I didn't add that, I deleted it. Furthermore, I've been editing this article for over a year, and in fact have expanded it significantly (merging two closely connected articles in the process), whereas you only started editing it a day ago, in order to intimidate and harass me with respect to a dispute on the unrelated article Zanj -- in violation of Wikipedia policies WP:POINT and WP:STALK. As a simple matter of linguistics, Sham (or rather Sha'm) cannot come from Shamal, and it doesn't matter how many times non-linguists think that it does (whether Arabic speakers or non-Arabic speakers). The consensus of linguistic scholarship is the only thing that counts here in disputes over etymology of a word, whether you like it or not. AnonMoos 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I was the one who went to the University library, looked up the entry on Al-Sham by C.E. Bosworth, photocopied its first page, came home, and typed in its first paragraph, so don't lecture me about "sources". AnonMoos 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
WHERE THE HELL ARE YOUR SOURCES IN THIS ARTICLE? stop being vengful and look at what you deleted. you chop my reference section.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
i Did 1 for you, follow my lead, add them in the article not on the talk page. and note Not a dictonary. so undue weight on dictonary is not valid for content.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
U can now continue your aggression or decide to respect the edits i have made and the comprimises i have made.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any differences between them. Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sham actually started off as a disambiguation page, and it's really better that way... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Article title
Perhaps it would be better to use ush-Sham or ash-Sham instead of al-Sham? Usually, transcriptions take the assimilation of the "l" of the definite article into account (since the pronounciation changes)... David Haardt, 7 May 2006
It's more phonetic, but the majority of Wikipedia articles seem to use "al-", regardless of whether it's prefixed to the "sun" letters or not. There's a Wikipedia Arabic transcription policies discussion board somewhere, but I don't have its location right at hand... AnonMoos 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Merging
The article Levant pretty much covers this. I think it should be merged into it. --Yodakii 05:27:44, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
That's probably not a bad idea. What's the proposal-to-merge template these days? Is it {{Mergeto}} QuartierLatin1968 04:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sham does NOT mean "sun". Plan to merge this with "Sham (place)" AnonMoos
Took off merge template
Nothing has been done with it for three months, this article is now bigger, and the "Greater Syria" article would be a better candidate for a merge anyway. AnonMoos
Yes, I think a merge with Greater Syria would be a good idea. I think they amount to pretty much two names for the same thing. Palmiro | Talk 23:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Jund al-Sham
What exactly is the relevance of this organisation? Palmiro | Talk 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It uses the Arabic word "Sham" to refer to Greater Syria. AnonMoos 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it doesn't really give any more information about the topic. Perhaps it would be better to mention it in the text as an example of current use, if you think it's relevant? Palmiro | Talk 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Name origin
Some web sites claim that the name comes from Shem. Although his name in Arabic is Sam but old Arabic used to be similar to Aramic so it was Sham too. Other references points out that the name Sham comes from the word Shamal. That word means either North (Syria is north of Arabia) or left as opposed to Yemen (right). --Truthpedia 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Semitic etymologies of "content" words (such as verbs and nouns etc.) almost always proceed by Consonantal roots, so generally the first thing you need to ask in deciding whether two words in Semitic languages are related is, what is the consonantal root of each word, and are the consonantal roots behind the two words in fact the same? Arabic sham شام seems rather clearly to come from a consonantal root "Š-'-M", since older spellings like شأم and شآم, exist, and it's listed under consonantal root ش ء م in dictionaries such as the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. By contrast, shams "sun" comes from a consonantal root "Š-M-S" and shamal "north" comes from a consonantal root "Š-M-L". Since the roots are different, the likelihood of the words being related is quite low. There are some exceptional cases (where forms which seem to derive from different consonantal roots can in fact be historically related), but none of the particular circumstances involved in such unusual exceptions apply here.
As for Shem son of Noah, Hebrew Š and Arabic Š do not actually correspond to each other etymologically (in terms of Proto-Semitic correspondences), and in early loanwords from Hebrew and Aramaic, the Hebrew/Aramaic Š appears as S in Arabic (so that Hebrew Yeshua` becomes Arabic Yasu`, for example). It's only in late (basically post-Muhammad) loanwords that Hebrew/Aramaic Š appears as Arabic Š. So there's no good reason to question the corespondence of Hebrew Biblical Shem = Arabic Biblical Sam. AnonMoos 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Etymology again
Mr. AnonMoos and the writer of the main article seem to know a lot about arabic but first they did not give any refrences to their claims that Sham is not conected to Shem son of Noah or (north: shamal) and second about the conection to Shem they forgot that in Syria the Syrianic language was spoken way before arabic. I have my sources. Alkamoos Almuheet (meaning literally: The Encyclopedic Dictionary) by Alfirooz Abaady is the largest and most trusted of the three major arabic dictionary (the other two being Lesan Ala'rab (Arabs tongue) and Mukhtar Alsehah). It says in the Section of letter (M: mem), Chapter of letter (SH: sheen)
Al-Sha'm: lands to the left of Qibla [Maakah], and it was named so because some Canaanites (tsha'moo) went left (meaning north) to it, or after Sam, the son of Noah since he is called Sham with (SH) instead of (S) in Syric language. ... and Tsha'ama: means he is from there [Damascus, Sham], or it means going North. ... And Sha'oom: is the the opposite of right.
So fist of all Mr. AnonMoos and the wrighter of the article have ignored that not just the Alkamoos Almuheet but the other two dictionaries stated that although (Sha'm and shamaal) have different roots, (Sham) from the root (sheen-hamza-mem) still means shamaal (north).
Second, they ignored that Syria is Syric way before being arab country so I am really wondering why both guys, if were not one, are very determined that Sham is not related to the son of Noah. In Syric language the letter (Sh) is tranlated to (S) in arabic so the city Sham is very likely to mean Sam the son of Noah, especially that Syria has been a very biblical place and as stated in the article Syrians is actually a word to refer to christians so to name the area after Noah is most likely. And while I am from Damascus (Sham), Syria, I know like many others that there no name stands on its own. A name of a place or anything else has to mean something or be named after something or someone whose name means something.
So I am editing the articale. and until someone gives a source for his/her claim, he/she can re-edit the article back. -- 07:50, 15 May 2007 User:Samimas
By the very basic linguistics of Semitic triconsonantal roots, if Sham is derived from root shin-hamza-mim ش ء م , then it's quite unlikely to be connected with root shin-mim-lam (see discussion of "19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)" directly above). Sham earlier meant "north" in its etymology (or rather it originally meant "left/unlucky" in its etymology, and "left" could come to mean "north" in certain contexts), but that doesn't mean that it has any valid morphological connection with root shin-mim-lam according to historical linguistics (and in fact, it's pretty clear that it doesn't).
Furthermore, early Hebrew/Aramaic [š] actually generally corresponds with early Arabic [s], as when Hebrew/Aramaic Yashu` became Arabic يسوع yasu` / عيسى `isa, so Arabic Sham displays a wrong correspondence with Hebrew Shem (and in fact Shem son of Noah appears in Arabic Bibles as سام sam).
And there are in fact "sources" used -- standard scholarly Arabic dictionaries (such as the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic) list Sham under root shin-hamza-mim ش ء م (not shin-mim-lam), and see further the quote "First paragraph of Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on Al-Sham by C.E. Bosworth" given directly below... AnonMoos 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You keep forgetting or ignoring the fact that Damascus and (Sham) are both names that have been given to the area way before arabic and arab. Damascus and Syria are Syriac. In Syriac it is Sham with (SH) not (S). Large number if not most of Syrian cities, towns and even villages have syriac and aramic names and that is weather north or south of syria! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samimas (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Missing info
I see the article should mention Iraq, because it does consider bilad al sham. I will add it up.
SeMiTiC
No, the term does not include Iraq as a whole. It might include some indefinite area of the "Syrian Desert" in the west of Iraq, but it most definitely does not include the core area of Mesopotamia. AnonMoos 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Who told you that !! I've studied in the middle east and I know how many countries are considered bilad al sham, it doesn't matter if its part of the country or as a whole country !
Your information is not updated Sir, read that quote "Initially considered co-terminous with historic Syria as described above, Saada later expanded it to include Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus. " .Also see here File:Ssnpmap.pngRevanchist fantasies of the fascist SSNP of Antoun Saadeh.
See at the map, it shows kuwait, Iraq and cyprus included in the region. I hope you understand, that even part of a country, it should mention the name of the country ! SeMiTiC
Dude, your map represents nothing more than the expansionist fantasy scenario of fascists fifty years ago, and is "evidence" of absolutely nothing whatsoever. Furthermore, Bilad-ush-Sham as a traditional geographical term represents the "sphere of influence" of Damascus (as contrasted with Baghdad, these being the two Caliphal capitals of the 700-900 period), and so does not include the core settled area of Mesopotamia -- you seem to be confusing this term with "Mashriq" (i.e. the Arab East). Furthermore, the fact that Bilad-ush-Sham may (or may not) be considered to include a sliver of the western desert of the curent-day Iraq does not mean that the name of "Iraq" should be added to the list in the way that you added it, since that carries the implication that all of Iraq, or the most important parts of Iraq are generally considered to be part of Bilad-ush-Sham -- which is not the case. In fact the parts of Iraq which possibly fall under Bilad-ush-Sham are the least important and least inhabited parts, which probably weren't generally even considered as belonging to Iraq before the 20th century. AnonMoos 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I'll write next to it (some parts) so you can feel better.
SeMiTiC
Article Greater Syria is mainly about the irredentist territorial fantasies of fascists 50 years ago, while article Bilad al-Sham discusses the meaning of a historical phrase (which dates back to a time before nationalism in its modern form even existed in the Middle East area). "Bilad al-Sham" and "Greater Syria" can be more-or-less synonymous in many contexts -- but when the context is Antoun Saadeh, they mean very different things... AnonMoos 10:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Levant
The article says:
Bilad al-Sham is not always precisely synonymous with "Greater Syria" or "Levant", since Greater Syria can refer to a smaller region, while the Levant can refer to a larger region
Here my question is that: is the difference between 'Bilad Al Sham' and 'Levant' so huge that we cannot merge them into one article? I think having two separate articles for them is not a good idea.
(PS: Off course I know that Greater Syria is different than both.) Awat 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The two terms can be loose geographical synonyms in some contexts, but Levant is really defined starting from the eastern Mediterranean coast going eastwards (i.e. from a European point of view), while Bilad-al-Sham is defined from Damascus outwards (i.e from a point of view within the region itself), so they don't have exactly the same connotations. With Bilad-al-Sham, there's also a need to go into detailed explanation of etymology, alternative Arabic language terms, etc., most of which is completely irrelevant to discussion of Levant. AnonMoos 15:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
AL-SHĀM, AL-SHA'M, Syria, etymologically "the left-hand region", because in ancient Arab usage the speaker in western or central arabia was considered to face the rising sun and to have Syria on his left and the Arabian peninsula, with Yaman ("the right-hand region"), on his right (cf. al-Mas`ūdī, Murūdj, iii, 140-1 = §992; al-Mukaddasī, partial French tr. A. Miquel La meilleure répartition pour la connaissance des provinces, Damascus 1963, 155-6, both with other fanciful explanations). In early Islamic usage, bilād al-Shām covered what in early 20th-century diplomatic and political usage became known as "Greater Syria", including the modern political entities of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel and the west Bank of Palestine, in the north spreading into the modern Turkish ils or provinces of Hatay (the former sandjak of Alexandretta [see ISKANDARŪN]), Gaziantep [see `AYNTĀB] and Diyarbakır [see DIYĀR BAKR]. As often happened in the earliest Islamic times (cf. Misr = both Egypt and its capital), al-Shām could also denote the historic administrative capital of the region, Damascus [see DIMASHK].
-- a verbatim transcription (except for a slight adjustment of transliteration conventions to be more suitable to web-browsers) of the beginning of the article on page 261 of Volume 9 of the Encyclopedia (1997). AnonMoos 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That indeed support me but oppose your entry. Furthermore, I have checked Lisan al-Arab which is the main reference of Arabic Language. Under the name "Sham", it says:
الشأْم بلادٌ عن مشأَمة القبلة سُمِّيَت بهِ لذلك. أو لأن قومًا من بني كنعان تشاءَموا إليها أي تياسروا. أو سُمِّيَت بسام بن نوح فإنهُ بالشين بالسريانيَّة. أو لأن أرضها شاماتٌ بيض وحمر وسود. وعلى هذا لا تُهمَز
It says exactly what Dr Husain Atwan and C.E. Bosworth were saying. Although it does not mention the word North. However, in old Arabic شمال was used for both meaning: North or Left. This is not related to unluckiness. I don't mind if you replace my words with Bosworth's words, but the current wording is not correct. --AraLink 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How does it "support" you when it mentions absolutely nothing whatsoever about root ش م ل or any related form with lam after mim, but it in fact does mention the alternative spelling "SHA'M" (i.e. شأم or شآم)? How do you get شأم or شآم from ش م ل ? Where does the hamza come from, and where did the lam go??? Furthermore, I'm having difficulty figuring out what the words مشأَمة is supposed to mean, but it's also clearly derived from root ش ء م (as is the stem VI verb form تشاءَموا ), while nothing mentions any connection with root ش م ل . AnonMoos 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In this context, مشأَمة means 'left'... Does it make a difference if we said the left of Ka'ba or the north of Ka'ba? --AraLink 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It says "Hejaz" right now in the article, and I see no reason to change that as the result of what you've brought forward -- in fact, I see no reason to change anything in the article on the basis of what you've said here or on your user talk page... AnonMoos 14:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
WELL WELL WELL, so this is what you do everywhere you go, talking the same stuff you learnt in class. Delete content of editors who bring references. I have just reverted, as i dont see any referene for your content which is . do not delete people content without explanations. The samething you did on Zanj ur doing here with other serious editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
REMOVING TAGS IS VANDALISM
If an editor adds a tag to an article which is a valid tag and you remove it you become a vandal. there isnt a debate about this kind of action. You cannot change my content on the talk page, you cannot remove tags and stop deleting people's content. This article has in no proper sources, either that is a fact or it isnt, since it is, all of my changes are valid. U can stop now or continue your POV show here. U have vandalized my edits as you even removed the references section i added, blind edits like this are a violation of wiki policy as it doesnt develop the article. STOP NOW.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you have raised no valid concerns, and in fact you don't know enough about the subject-matter to raise any valid concerns, but instead you are merely following me around and reverting my edits on unrelated matters in order to get some kind of twisted "revenge" against me for pointing out that every Arabic dictionary says that the word Zanj زنج in Arabic means what you for some reason are trying to pretend that it doesn't mean. In fact, you are wiki-stalking me, and all your threats against me are intended solely to intimidate and harrass me. That's far more of a violation of Wikipedia policies than anything you have accused me of... AnonMoos 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove tags, do not delete references, and do not delete the content of the other editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not follow along behind other editors, reverting edits on subjects which you know little or nothing about, in order to get "revenge" for disputes on unrelated articles (or against them for pointing out that every dictionary says that the word Zanj زنج does in fact mean what you for some strange reason keep on insisting that it doesn't mean). This violates WP:POINT and WP:STALK. AnonMoos 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Make you choice here and now, it is as simple as that. U r harassing me, it is a matter of view point. Keep playing with my sources on Zanj and reverting eveything while i am adding references. The thing wiki doesnt like is Original research and edit war, u r a master of all. including civility violation and calling ligit edits vandalism. blind reverts. this isnt a grammar school this is not your language course, Arabic isnt evn your mother language. The topic is called Bilad al-Sham not a detail explanation of some technical rule. U have pointed out nothing but a WP:POINT. u bring no historical credit or references, just or.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you have no knowledge in the topic of this article and no interest in the topic of this article, and have only chosen to edit it at all in order to get "revenge" against me for persistently pointing out some simple facts on article Zanj, and refusing to be intimidated by your denial of those simple facts. This makes all your attempts at high-minded protestations about Wikipedia policies farcical -- not to mention perhaps somewhat hypocritical. AnonMoos 09:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever heard edit the page not the editor, focus on the article okay..--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That might be sound advice in other circumstances, but in the present circumstances it's rather hard to ignore the fact that the only reason you've taken a sudden interest in article Bilad al-Sham (which I've been editing over a year) is to get revenge on me for the fact that you're losing the argument over on unrelated article Zanj. AnonMoos 09:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
U can call me Halq. edit wiki and do not enage me in an ad hominem argument. had i been really stalking you, i could have chosen all of the other articles you edit, y did i land here? B/c maybe on the other articles you didnt violate anything. but here i see a problem. if you edit wiki properly i cannot harrast you as you claim now can i. if you add references and stop deleting content of other editors i cannot do anyting can i. So edit properly and stop discussing my knowlegde level--i dont know you. reply to my actual comments. deletion of references, deletion of another editors content.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you need a certain degree of knowledge of Semitic root structures and Arabic grammar to even understand the issues involved in whether or not Sham could be derived from Shamal (see the section #Name origin above on this discussion page). The fact that you have been consistently unwilling or unable to take the simple step of looking up the word Zanj زنج in an Arabic dictionary for many months does not give me a high impression of your knowledge of the language. I don't mean to deny that you might have a limited degree of conversational proficiency in informal spoken Arabic -- but if you can't look up written Arabic words in dictionaries arranged by root, then your conversational proficiency has very little relevance or usefulness in settling the issues under dispute here and at Talk:Zanj. AnonMoos 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr Moos, Discuss any illegal activity i have discussed here. I see Zanj being an Arabic word, I see Bilad ul Sudan, being a place i have edited on, so y cant i edit on here, dont you see the connection. Y dont i go an harrast you elsewhere? Do not remove refernces section, do not remove valid tags. discuss that our be humble enought to know you made a mistake cutting content. Wiki is not a grammar book, go to trilaterial blah blah and edit there. Moreover the issue is you deleting the other editors sourced material, the editor actually is the only one to add a reference. learn 2 add references.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, all that "trilaterial blah blah" stuff is a significant tool in establishing what is and is not a valid etymology. AnonMoos 10:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalising content
removal of valid tags, this article doesnt provide sources, HE DELETES THIS TAG--Vandalism.
The Arabic historian Yaqut al-Hamawi mentioned that the name Sham was first used by the Cannan tribes when they have migrated from Arabia northwise to this country. The word Sham comes from the Arabic word Shamal (means north)[2]. Another alternative theory is that Sham . EDITOR ADDS THIS WITH REFERENCE, HE DELETES THIS CONTENT AND INSERTS HIS BOAST ABOUT TECHNICAL ARABIC GRAM.
by the way, without any references
FInally the references section at teh bottom of the page, is being vandalized by this editor. See the difference. He is deleting all of teh references. THIS IS VANDALISM. see Vandalism to reference by editor
Whatever -- you're pretty confused, since I didn't add that, I deleted it. Furthermore, I've been editing this article for over a year, and in fact have expanded it significantly (merging two closely connected articles in the process), whereas you only started editing it a day ago, in order to intimidate and harass me with respect to a dispute on the unrelated article Zanj -- in violation of Wikipedia policies WP:POINT and WP:STALK. As a simple matter of linguistics, Sham (or rather Sha'm) cannot come from Shamal, and it doesn't matter how many times non-linguists think that it does (whether Arabic speakers or non-Arabic speakers). The consensus of linguistic scholarship is the only thing that counts here in disputes over etymology of a word, whether you like it or not. AnonMoos 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I was the one who went to the University library, looked up the entry on Al-Sham by C.E. Bosworth, photocopied its first page, came home, and typed in its first paragraph, so don't lecture me about "sources". AnonMoos 09:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
WHERE THE HELL ARE YOUR SOURCES IN THIS ARTICLE? stop being vengful and look at what you deleted. you chop my reference section.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
i Did 1 for you, follow my lead, add them in the article not on the talk page. and note Not a dictonary. so undue weight on dictonary is not valid for content.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
U can now continue your aggression or decide to respect the edits i have made and the comprimises i have made.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Extra comment on AnonMoos' request. See discussion here[1] and here.[2]Funkynusayri 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry my reply has been greatly delayed.) While it theoretically might be a good idea to merge "Bilad al-Sham" with "Greater Syria" (if the merge were done well), the way it was done seemed very problematic to me. For the first thousand or more years of its use -- and in fact until at least the late 19th-century -- the term had no connotations or associations with irredentist nationalism at all. Instead, the term originated from the fact that in the early Caliphates period, there were four or five cities that were strong centers of Arab administration and authority -- pretty much Medina, Damascus, Kufa (later superseded by Baghdad), Fustat (later Cairo), and Kairouan. Each of these cities was the center of administration of a large surrounding region, and in some ways each city tried to expand the sphere of its influence. For many centuries, "Bilad al-Sham" meant pretty much the sphere of influence of Damascus, without having much connection at all to the modern type of nationalism.
From a historical point of view, the irredentist uses of the term are rather recent and rather modern, and if there's to be a merge, the Greater Syria must make this very clear... AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The differences are geographical explained clearly in the article, and the historical and cultural contexts are different. I am going to remove this ancient merger suggestion. Postlebury (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
About new edits
You have just wasted your time as this article is anticipated to be merged with the Greater Syria article. The spelling of "Syria" you used is false (though common) and its use in official media is banned by law in Syria itself. The correct spelling (and pronunciation) is sūriyya(tu). HD86 (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The spelling I used is the one listed in dictionaries of Arabic. It's not a nisba. Check it yourself. And check your "I own this article" attitude, it's inappropriate to "bite" other editors. ناهد/(Nåhed)speak! 10:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not annoyed by you editing my articles ... I'm just telling you that this article was supposed to be merged with Greater Syria. If you want, maybe you can do the merge yourself.
I don't feel like opening a new language debate with you; just stick to the official spelling please. Syrians say sūriyya not sūriya; the latter is flase on all respects; and for your own information, the word sūriya was invented in the 20th century and never existed before that.HD86 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The article isn't yours. That's the point. ناهد/(Nåhed)speak! 11:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
To curious readers: Sham, Greater Syria, and Levant are one thing
Whatever the smart reason for having three different articles for the same thing is, the reader should know that these three designation basically refer to the same thing.
Syria - is the oldest pre-Islamic name.
Sham - is the classical Arabic name.
Levant - is a European name.
Bilad al-Sham - is not a name; it literally says "the Sham country," which is the elementary-school-kid way of saying "Sham." HD1986 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever -- in certain circumstances the terms can be roughly equivalent (not necessarily exactly equivalent) in geographical denotation, but they have different origins, different etymological meanings, and were used by different groups beginning in different periods of history, so their connotations can be rather different. Levant is defined looking eastwards from Europe, going inwards from the Mediterranean coast. Bilad-al-Sham is defined as the area centered around Damascus. And Syria has had a lot of different meanings over the last 3,000 years or so. Furthermore, "Sham" on its own often means the city of Damascus (as explained in the article), so that Bilad-al-Sham is an unambiguous way of specifying the region (not just the city).
Since you still haven't come up with a comprehensible deletion rationale for Aslim Taslam, and your renaming of Homat el Diyar to a bizarrely-garbled nonsensical mess created a number of technical difficulties for other users, I would really advise you to learn a little bit more about how things are done here, instead of flitting about here and there making dogmatic pronouncements... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Look ... you clearly seem to be an Israeli or some sort of fanatic who knows very little about the things he talks about. Either way, I'm not discussing anything with you. I don't need your permission either. Once I have the time I'll come back and fix the mistakes that are scattered around in the pages on your watchlist. HD1986 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- your reply itself would seem to provide much more direct evidence that you're a bigot than there is any valid information available to you from which to conclude that I'm allegedly a so-called "fanatic". You don't need my "permission" to do anything, but if you continue to display the same dogmatic arrogant ignorance and haughty overbearingly uncooperative behavior that you've displayed so far, then your Wikipedia editing career shows every evidence of becoming "nasty, brutish, and short" (as Thomas Hobbes would have said). AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some of the ignorance aspects in your talk:
Damascus is NOT called Sham. Have you paid attention to what I wrote in the Greater Syria article, or simply refrained from issuing judgments on things you're unfamiliar with, you wouldn't have made such a big mistake. Damascus is called Sham only in modernLevantine Arabic. Since you're clearly unfamiliar with the Arabic language (as evidenced by your spelling of حماة الديار , and your approval of "Bilad al-Sham" as a title of an encyclopedia article, both denoting less than primary knowledge of the language)... since you're unfamiliar with the Arabic language, it wouldn't make sense that I explain to you what it means that something is only true in a modern local dialect but not so in the formal Arabic or even in the rest of the spoken dialects. You wouldn't be able understand what such issues mean while you can't even spell a simple phrase in Arabic.
You're having an article with a clumsy name that never exists in any formal Arabic source, and not only this, the very bases on which you're having this article do not exist. I don't know where got this from in the first place; Sham is Damascus?! This is like calling the US "Uncle Sam." what Sham meant to classical Arabs was mostly Gaza and Bosra not Damascus. The capital of the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Syria (which the Arabs knew as Sham, and to which Muhammad sent his messengers) was Antioch not Damascus. Your level of knowledge is just too shallow that I don't feel like discussing the rest of the fallacies in your talk. I just don't understand where you have all this confidence from. HD1986 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just one more sarcastic analogy; Egypt was known to Arabs as Misr. However, the Arabic Misr meant only lower Egypt (the Cairo region) but NOT upper Egypt which was always a separate entity called Nuba. In modern Egyptian Arabic, Cairo is indeed called Masr not Cairo. If someone is to follow AnonMoos's example, he should make two separate articles, one is called Egypt and the other called Masr or Bilad Masr (not Misr, the proper formal spelling). This would be good Wiki work.
Please take a look at the Misr page and compare with the Bilad al-Sham smart page. At least, the Arabic Sham did equal the pre-Islamic Syria, but the Arabic Misr NEVER equaled Egypt until probably the 19th century. HD1986 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- my Arabic dictionary clearly says that one of the meanings of the word الشام is "Damascus", and when it comes to trusting the dictionary or a somewhat unpleasant little individual like yourself (with an unfortunate tendency to spout off at the mouth on subjects which you seemingly know rather little about), then I prefer to go with the reliable printed source. And Damascus was the Arab capital during the Umayyad period, and there has been a long-lasting east-west rivalry between Damascus vs. Kufa or Baghdad, so that I have very little what you're talking about when you claim that Gaza was a more important geopolitical reference point in the early Caliphates period than was Damascus. Furthermore, if you had bothered to inform yourself about the basics of how Wikipedia works, then you could have easily ascertained that I did not add any Arabic text whatsoever to the Syrian anthem article, and in fact have barely edited it at all (these are my only two edits: [3][4]). I did have it on my watchlist, however, and when you renamed the article to a nonsense gibberish title you managed to sabotage my watchlist (and the watchlists of a number of other people as well). AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Agree with HD1986 that Syria, Sham, and Levant are basically synonyms. Note to HD1986, since you are new here, you may not be aware of WP:CIVIL. Do read it and try to avoid personalizing discussions. Anonmoos, you should probably re-read it as well. Just because someone offends you, it does not give license to offend them back. Let's try to stay on topic and discuss the merits of merging the discussion of these concepts into one page, or not. While I think a merge of Levant and Bilad al-Sham would be preferable to leaving them as separate pages, we need to think about how such an article would be structured and what to include of its contents on the Syria page itself. Tiamuttalk 09:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, yes, Bilad al-Sham and Greater Syria should be merged, they're the same thing, but Levant is a pretty notable term in itself with different historical origins and is less inclusive, so I don't think it should be merged. Bilad al-Sham is always translated as "Greater Syria" in Western media. People like the SSNP refer to Bilad al-Sham in Arabic, not "Greater Syria". FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point about Levant having a slightly different origin and meaning and perhaps even scope. Bilad al-Sham and Greater Syria are the most closely related concepts and should be merged. Tiamuttalk 10:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There was already an attempt to merge the articles Bilad-al-Sham and Greater Syria, but it was an abortive attempt, since it subordinated the presentation of the term Bilad-al-Sham to the presentation of the modern irredentist nationalist term "Greater Syria", and thus obscured the fact that historically Sham / Bilad-al-Sham was in use for well over a thousand years without any particular connotations of irredentist nationalism in the modern sense (something which simply didn't exist in the region until the very end of the 19th century at the earliest). And Greater Syria according to Antun Saadeh was rather different from historical Bilad-al-Sham. See my comments of "08:36, 29 November 2007" above. Also, there have been various other proposals to merge middle eastern terminology articles covering terms which have similar denotations, and so theoretically should be easy to merge -- but when it came down to specifics, then a number of people have decided that the merger process wouldn't be all that easy or desirable after all. See Talk:Middle_East#Merge_suggestion etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. FunkMonk, since you seem to have a great interest in Syria, would you know of any accessible source for the Syrian coat of arms or state emblem during the ca. 1963-1972 period? I've made images of the successive Syrian state emblems for the article Coat of arms of Syria for most periods from the 1950's on, but I'm kind of stymied for the 1963-1972 period (as discussed on Talk:Coat of arms of Syria). Also, I'm unsure if the 1957 emblem was readopted during 1961-1963 (when the flag was changed back). AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know of anything off-hand, but I'll notify you if I find something. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Syria and Levant shouldn't be merged, because they were traditionaly both used by westerners and they weren't exactly equals. However, Sham is just an Arabic translation of Syria. I don't think anybody in western history ever translated Sham to things other than Syria. I also don't think Antun Saadeh is a good reference on the definition of Syria. This is like having Hittler set out the borders of Germany. HD1986 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The current Greater Syria article is fairly SSNP free. I relocated the SSNP imginary map of Syria to the bottom of the page, and I changed the definition of Greater Syria from the SSNP defintion to a more familiar definition (Syr, Leb, Pal,& Jor). The current article is a better basis for work. HD1986 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No body wnats to do the merge? Fine, I'm doing it tomorrow at 06:00 GMT. Spectators are welcomed to watch for free. HD1986 (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You got my blessing, but you should take what Anonmoos~said into consideration, so some of the different definitions are made clear in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Things have came up and I may not be able to do it on the scheduled time, but I'm doing it soon. HD1986 (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't know what is the big deal about this merger; all the information on this article are literally present in that one. I'm going to do the first step and redirect this page to that one (we won't be losing any information by that). After that, users can add there whatever they think should be added to the article. HD86 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
^The historical geography of Bilad al-Sham during the Umayyad period. Dr. Husain Atwan, Page 19.
^The historical geography of Bilad al-Sham during the Umayyad period. Dr. Husain Atwan, Page 19.
