Talk:Roman temple of Bziza

Congratulations!
I'd like to congratulate everyone who worked tirelessly to improve this article, especially from WikiProject Lebanon. This page revealed only 3 minor grammatical errors and several missing commas.

This makes it the best wiki article I have reviewed so far!

Keep up the great work fellow Wikipedians Sabaybayin (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for your words of encouragement. I would like to appreciate the efforts of the reviewers and editors whose input was critical to improve this article; to name a few:, , , , , , , , , , . ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Original Research
I’m not being unreasonable here,, all I ask for is that the written material need to stay true to its sources; as it stands right now, the article fails to adhere to a main and core policy:WP:OR. North Semitic, Canaanite, those claims are not supported by the sources you provided—as such, it should not be included. Also, Arabian is geographical term of purely conventional and lazy application which might be misleading in our case; I added additional source that specify what “Arabian”, Himyarite, Sabaeans, Qatabanians? Do not remove what have been supported by reliable and authoritative materials because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, please. Best regards Nabataeus (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nabataeus I understand where you come from but stating that it is Arabian is oversiplification. New material has since come to light so Let's stop reverting until we figure this out. el.ziade (talkallam) 09:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no point in engaging in disruptive edit wars—I’m humbly asking you that you provide the said materials that explicitly states the Canaanite or North Semitic affiliation of the god. Nabataeus (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's little merit in incorporating content that draws parallels between Azizos and Arsu with Shahar and Shalim, as there's no evident link in the existing literature, at least to my knowledge. While my initial response may have been reactive, I maintain the belief that restricting the deity's worship exclusively to Arabs is imprecise. I propose considering a more encompassing term, but I'll keep the article unchanged until I can suggest a precise alternative that aligns with the content. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nabataeus pinging el.ziade (talkallam) 14:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @el.ziade
 * Understood. It’s easy to get carried away and assume bad faith in such situations, instead of engaging in constructive and meaningful discourse. However, I was confused when I read about the Canaanite nature and origin of the god knowing what I know. To add to my bafflement, there was an unsettling absence of the Arabian nature and characteristics of the deity, despite such aspects are being made abundantly clear in literature; according to Teixidor, he was brought to Edessa by Arab migrations along with his twin brother Monimos.
 * Doubtless, you have absorbed wide and vast amounts of material on the subject that led you to conceive such a picture. Still, we can not rely on that alone, obviously. I respect your opinions on the matter and would entertain them in a discussion if I’m free of any commitments, perhaps even accept them. However, one thing needs to be clear: personal opinions, analysis, and synthesis are not accepted here. Every non-trivial claim made in the article needs to be verifiable through reliable sources directly related to the article's topic and directly supporting it. If such criteria are met, I, sorry, there is (as it’s not a matter of opinion) no problem including relevant materials. Lastly, I do not see how the Arabian nature of the god is not aligned with the content of the article—if so, the issue need to be resolved with content of the article itself and not with how we present the god himself. Nabataeus (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that all published materials related to the temple, mentioning Azizos, say that he is either a Semitic or a Phoenician deity (the latter is not supported by ancient sources save tangentially. Ugaritic texts give the dawn and dusk twin gods different, more literal names, and these are equated with Azizos and Arsu). I, too, felt conflicted upon encountering sources like these. We are aware that Phoenicians and Itureans coexisted, and their territories overlapped. A prime illustration is the Roman temple of Yanouh, situated on the route to the Phoenician Temple of Astarte in Apheca in the hinterlands of Byblos. Here, the earliest attested Iturean inscription, written in Aramaic, was discovered. Untagling the histories of these populations is a challenge. Take a look at these results, even academicians assert the same like here, to see what I'm talking about and that I did not out of my way to introduce OR. Thank you for bringing this up, until better sources are made available I will not change your edits. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Arabs are speakers of a Semitic language, but not Northwestern Semitic languages (e.g. Phoenician). If you have authoritative sources that assert the Phoenician or Canaanite identity of the god directly, feel free to add them. In any case, thank you for your civility—best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)