Talk:Baharna/Archive 1

False Name
The correct subject is Baharna بحارنة NOT Bahrani, because Bahrani is the adjective not the name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.132 (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. "Bahrani" is singular; "Baharna" is plural. This page should therefore be called either "Baharna" or "Bahrani people". Since "baharna" is quite obscure, as a google search will indicate, I support a move to Bahrani people. It is a much more well-recognized term. Snocrates 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Page moved to Bahrani people per discussion above. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar
Article currently suggests Nebuchadnezzar II was Bahrani, but Bahranis were part of the Persian Empire at the time of Nebuchadnezzar II, not Babylonian.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
You need to discuss issues here instead of edit warring. Please read WP:RRR. Bahraini Activist (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Phoenician, Chaldean, etc. origins
The claims of the Phoenician, Chaldean etc. origins of Bahrani people are not supported by reliable sources and must therefore be considered WP:Original research. Please know that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, as it is strictly based on WP:Verifiability. I invite you to provide relevant, reliable sources to support your claims or I have to ask you to accept that original research material will be deleted. --RJFF (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the "Original research" tags until this issue is resolved. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed--my concern was that the questioned material, as well as much that was sourced, is being persistently deleted. There appears to be a long-term skirmish here (hmm, how apt for an Middle East article), with one of the parties reappearing under multiple IP accounts as an 89. You're exercising admirable diplomacy, RJFF, but methinks that eventually an administrator will be required to sort this out--inevitable when two sides stop talking and continuously revert one another. Cheers, 99.136.255.180 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection and dispute
I have semi-protected this article for a week. If discussion here does not seem to be reaching a conclusion within that time, I recommend those most interested in improving the article consider the options described at Dispute resolution and make a proposal here for agreeing to try a suitable process. If established accounts indulge in apparent edit-warring then I will be happy to consider a period of full protection to encourage everyone to discuss improvement rather than continue reverting. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Maybe we got to an impasse must say that Bahrain before the third century BC it was inhabited only fish, birds, insects and reptiles Great idea

Phoenician+Chaldean+North Arabian =Bahrani people
First,I apologize for my weak English

I do not know what exactly is required of me!!,If Herodotus and Strabo are not sources!! What are the sources?? Bahrain, a country inhabited for thousands of years ago,Herodotus and Strabo tell us the identity of the ancient inhabitants of Bahrain. The oldest inhabitants Arabs came to Bahrain in the 3rd century BC,Therefore, I demand to prove the contrary. What is the evidence that the ancient inhabitants of Bahrain were Arabs,Do you have evidence that the Arabs were in Bahrain before the 3rd century BC.


 * Maybe, we should discuss what is the topic of this article. In my understanding, it is the ethnic group that we today know as "Bahrani people". Not Phoenicians and not Chaldeans. There are separate articles on Phoenicians and Chaldeans. It is not verifiable with WP:Reliable sources that Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Bahranis are identical. As they are not identical we cannot treat them as identical in this article. This has nothing to do with the question whether or not present-day Bahrain may have been inhabited by Phoenicians or Chaldeans in ancient times, nor with the question whether or not present-day Baharna might trace back their lineage to ancient Phoenicians and Chaldeans. But they are not identical. Therefore, this article has to focus on the present-day ethnicity of Baharna, and the history of ancient Phoenicians and Chaldeans has to be treated in the respective articles. Do you agree? --RJFF (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, we have an article on History of Bahrain which also describes the ancient history of Bahrain, so it is very unnecessary and redundant to treat all that here, and create the impression that Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Baharna were identical. --RJFF (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)I do not see that this logical reason to ignore the history of the Bahrani people You have to do the same thing with other peoples,They should not talk about their ancestors as long as they are today speak a different language from the language of their ancestors,Strabo saw the population of the Chaldeans, Phoenicians Bahrain in the first century BC After hundreds of years of Arab migration,This means that he was gradually Arabization of Phoenicians, Chaldeans.

Ashrf1979 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Maybe we got to an impasse must say that Bahrain before the third century BC it was inhabited only fish, birds, insects and reptiles Great idea There is evidence of the use of language as a Chaldean worship in Bahrain in the 4th century AD.


 * But where are the reliable sources that prove that present-day Baharna are identical with Chaldeans and Phoenicians? You're right, with other peoples it is the same. If I find more cases like this one, I will take up the same position as I do in this case. But Other stuff exists is not a good argument in discussions and does not convince me at all. Herodotus and Strabo can impossibly be reliable sources to verify the identity of ancient Phoenicians and Chaldeans with present-day Baharna. --RJFF (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)That's right We need more studies of DNA to prove link to the indigenous population of Bahrain With the Lebanese and the Syrians and Tunisians,However, DNA studies of Bahraini people, even though it a few but it Gave positive results for the existence of links with the people of Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon. Hundreds of Bahranis Tested the DNA,But the results by proving the existence of significant relationship with the inhabitants of the Mediterranean

These are some examples

Al-Ahsa, Arabia Cluster

M6575 	Al Qurashi 	Saudi Arabia 	J2a4h2 	12 	23 	15 	10 	13-16 	11 	15 	11 	13 	11 	30 	16 	8-9 	11 	11 	26 	15 	20 	30 	12-14-16-16 	10 	10 	19-23 	16 	15 	17 	19 	36-38 	12 	9 	11 	7 	14-15 	8 	11 	10 	8 	11 	9 	12 	19-19 	14 	10 	12 	12 	14 	9 	11 	23 	21 	14 	12 	11 	14 	11 	12 	12 	12 	37 	17 	8 	14 	13 	26 	26 	18 	12 	12 	13 	11 	11 	10 	12 	11 	10 	10 	11 	31 	10 	13 	24 	14 	11 	11 	22 	15 	19 	11 	21 	16 	11 	14 	25 	11 	21 	20 	10 	14 	17 	9 	13 	11

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/arabworlddnaproject/default.aspx?vgroup=arabworlddnaproject&vgroup=arabworlddnaproject&vgroup=arabworlddnaproject&section=yresults

Lebanon Cluster

N44844 	El-Hoss 	Lebanon 	J2a4h2 	12 	23 	14 	10 	13-16 	11 	18 	9 	13 	11 	29 	15 	8-9 	11 	11 	25 	15 	21 	31 	12-12-15-15 	10 	10 	19-23 	15 	14 	18 	18 	38-38 	11 	9 	11 	7 	14-15 	8 	11 	10 	8 	10 	9 	12 	17-17 	17 	10 	12 	12 	14 	9 	13 	22 	21 	15 	12 	10 	14 	12 	12 	13 	13 http://www.familytreedna.com/public/j2-arab/default.aspx?section=yresults

Msaken Cluster,Tunisia

166188 	Baya Chatti 	Tunisia 	J2 	12 	24 	15 	9 	13-15 	11 	15 	11 	12 	11 	28 	15 	8-9 	11 	11 	24 	15 	21 	30 	12-13-16-17 	10 	11 	19-22 	15 	15 	16 	18 	36-37 	12 	9

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/msaken/default.aspx?section=yresults

Syria Cluster

N65160 	Keilo 	Syrian Arab Republic 	J2a4h2 	13 	25 	15 	10 	13-17 	11 	15 	12 	13 	11 	28 	16 	8-9 	11 	11 	26 	15 	21 	30 	11-13-16-17 	10 	11 	19-22 	15 	15 	16 	17 	39-40 	12 	9 	11 	7 	14-15 	8 	11 	10 	8 	10 	9 	12 	17-17 	14 	10 	12 	12 	16 	10 	11 	22 	21 	12 	12 	11 	14 	11 	11 	12 	13

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/j2-arab/default.aspx?section=yresults


 * No, you're driving the discussion into a wrong direction. Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability, not truth! What you want to do is WP:Original research. But Wikipedia is not the place for original research, i.e. research that you do yourself. You need Reliable sources that literally say: "Baharna are identical with Phoenicians and Chaldeans", but you won't find any, because this would be a fringe theory, not represented in established, mainstream academia. Information about Phoenicians and Chaldeans does not belong in this article, but in the articles Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and - as far as ancient Phoenicians and Chaldeans have settled in present-day Bahrain - in History of Bahrain. Please try to accept this. --RJFF (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Let's agree, Chaldeans, Phoenicians potential ancestors of the Bahrani people,North Arabian Ancestors do not dispute about their relationship with the Bahrani people,I suggested that you edit this thing,To write that the Phoenicians, Chaldeans potential ancestors of the Bahrani people and write what is supported That, such as the writings of Herodotus and Strabo And the similarity of the names of villages and cities etc...,What is your opinion


 * You should really occupy yourself with Policies and guidelines. Comparing similar names of towns and villages is pure WP:Original research. Original research is not accepted on Wikipedia. Please grasp it. You may discuss this stuff in internet forums or on your private blog, just not on Wikipedia. And Herodotus and Strabo are dead for 2000 and 2500 years respectively. How could they possibly know whether or not Phoenicians and Chaldeans were identical with present-day Baharna? This discussion is not leading anywhere. --RJFF (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding on what is the subject of this article. While you seem to understand "Bahrani people" as the population of what now is Bahrain during all times, I understand it only as the ethnic group that today populates Bahrain, i.e. modern Baharna. I would justify my position with the already existing articles on Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and History of Bahrain. It is redundant to treat the same subject in several articles, and I think it is better to treat the Phoenicians in their own article, the Chaldeans in their article and the History of Bahrain at History of Bahrain. Do you understand? --RJFF (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's the same with Iraqi people. The article should be on the ethnic and national group that today is the population of Iraq, and not about the peoples that have inhabited Mesopotamia (present-day's Iraq) in ancient times. --RJFF (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Bahranis ethnic group is not a nationality,Bahrani people known by that name for thousands of years Literal translation of the name is the people of the sea The same name exists in the inscriptions Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian,The Iraqi and Bahrani peoples Are not your family or your own private in order to force us to ignore thousands of years of Their history and their culture. Go and do the same thing with the other ethnic groups
 * Doing literal translations to prove something is WP:Original research again. Please provide reliable sources to verify your claims. Only information supported by reliable sources is acceptable on Wikipedia. We have separate articles here on Wikipedia for Chaldeans, Phoenicians and History of Bahrain. If you want to write about Phoenicians, do it at Phoenicians. If you want to write about Chaldeans, do it at Chaldeans. If you want to write about the early history of Bahrain, do it at History of Bahrain. If you want to write about the ethnic group that populates Bahrain today, do it in this article. Just don't mix it all up in a way that is not supported by reliable sources, and that has to be considered original research for this reason (which is not accepted on Wikipedia!) --RJFF (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have the impression that this discussion is at a standstill and not leading us anywhere, I will request a Wikipedia:Third opinion. OK? --RJFF (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If I interpret Bash Prompt's Third Opinion right (please correct me if I am mistaken), he/she agrees that current Wikipedia policies are valid and applicable in this article and that the passages that assume the identity of Baharna with Chaldeans and Phoenicians cannot stand without verification for this link in reliable sources. Therefore I invite editors who insist on keeping these sections to provide clear, written evidence soon, or I will be compelled to remove the controversial passages. --RJFF (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Isaac of Nineveh
Ashrf1979 (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Bahrani people acquired its name from the belonging to a historical region of Bahrain,and There is no proof to link a family or race of Isaac the Syriac with Syria, he was born in the historic region of Bahrain. Even if it was of Syrian origin that does not change anything ,Posidonius he was Greek philosopher But he is a Syrian because he born in Syria

Ok then, so that's just like saying that because thousands of Indians born were in Bahrain, they're Bahraini? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikecod (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)This is true also Sunni Persians and the Baloch immigrants can not convert to the Arabs

Isaac is not a Syrian & arab Christian sources did not say that he Syrian he Is a Christian from Beit Qtaraym(historical region of Bahrain) in the Arab Christian sources Is named Isaac of Nineveh(اسحاق النينوي) or Isaac Syrus (اسحاق السرياني) or Isaac of Qatar (اسحاق القطري)

http://www.ishtartv.com/viewarticle,35108.html