This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zenobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Zenobia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2017. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
However, Arabic was not spoken in Palmyra, so it is unclear why her name is given in Arabic, or why there is any reference to Arabic at all, considering that the languages used in the city were Greek and Palmyrene, an Aramaic dialect. -- 138.88.103.250 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Arabic references should be kept as she is routinely referred to in the classical Arabic histories (9th-10th century) which give us a great deal of information about her and her activities. Her conflict and alliances with Arabic speaking nomadic tribes (and the settled Arabic speaking dynasties of the Lakhmids and Ghassanids - clients of the Persian and Roman empires respectively) are strong evidence for keeping the references to Arabic. Let's keep the Arab-Israeli conflict out of this.
BTW - I corrected the transliteration of the Arabic version of her name as it is given in this article but I can't verify it from the sources. From my experience, she's usually called al-Zabba' (in the medieval sources).
In 260, her forces were responsible for an unprecedented victory against Rome: not only were Roman forces defeated, but the emperor Valerian was captured and taken back to Zenobia's court. This was the only such occurrance in Rome's history and it demanded a reply.
I took the above out, because she wasn't yet reigning in 260. Also, the source I have says that it was King Sapor of Persia (not Zenobia's husband Odenathus of Palmyra) who defeated and captured Valerian in 260. -- Marj Tiefert
Argh -- you're right -- Zenobia and Odenathus defeated Sapor...but Valerian was still made into a footstool...! JHK
Are we sure about the birth name? It would make more sense if "Septimia" derived from her husband's being "Septimius Odanathus," and I can't find "Bathzabbi" anywhere. -- isis 24 Aug 2002
Okay, I'm reading Gibbon's "Decline and Fall . . ." (which I HIGHLY recomend, BTW), and he has the following description of Zenobia (starting in year 272, ch. XI, Vol 1)
She claimed her descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt, equalled in beauty her ancestor Cleopatra, and far surpassed that princess in chastity and valour. Zenobia was esteemed the most lovely as well as the most heroic of her sex. She was of a dark complexion (for in speaking of a lady these trifles become important). Her teeth were of a pearly whiteness, and her large black eyes sparkled with uncommon fire, tempered by the most attractive sweetness. Her voice was strong and harmonious. Her manly understanding was strengthened and adorned by study. She was not ignorant of the Latin tongue, but possessed in equal perfection the Greek, Syriac and the Egyptian languges.
About the removal of the Category:Ancient Roman women: I see a conflict of that with the Cat:Ancient Roman enemies and allies. But if somebody is terribly keen of having both cats in, that ok with me. muriel@pt 09:41, 26 Nov 2004 (U
The references to Zenobia being Arab are blatant pan-Arabist/Arab nationalist revisionism. They even go so far as to refer to al-Tabari's fictionalized "history", in which the Romans, their legions, and their empire simply did not exist. Are Baathists now being given free reign on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.209.126 ( talk) 22:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Aramaic is just a language, not a people. Arabs wrote in Aramaic as well as Arabic dialects in the Aramaic alphabet. What I see is prejudice and hatred for Arabs and an attempt to steal their history. Palmyrene Empire their names and gods were Arab, but the populists are afraid of everything Arab. Reem898 ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes so @Reem898, Aramean are an People An Culture an Language an History , you (Arab) are stealing that history by claiming Zenobia and Palmyra as Arab , I see you doing the victim "what I see is prejudice and hatred for Arabs" giving true history to other people is not Hate and Prejudice you are doing your victim and all the source that Claim Zenobia to be Arab are Apocryph she did not even speak Arabic Also you say that Populist are afraid of Arab like Populist have anything to do with Arab , you say that It's an Attempt to steal their history while you are stealing the history or Aramean and other's minorities like Phoenician(Maronite) in Tunisia and Lebanon , Mesopotamian(Assyrian) in Irak Egyptian(Coptic) in Egypt and Aramean in Syria to finish we did not found Arab name in Palmyrene Empire even Vaballathus name is Debating you can see a discussion about it on Wiki , Tadmor , Bat-Zabbai , They were Aramean with a little influence from Arab people who came during the first Centuries , Centuries After Aramean ! To finish I conclud that your vision of history is brainwashed by Baathist and Pan-Arab propaganda doing the victim and claiming everything that was great I used to be Pan-Arab so I know what I'm Talking about ! Aram le Palmyréen ( talk) 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph is very hard to understand: who proclaimed herself Queen of Egypt, Zenobia or the other Egyptian person? The pronouns really need clear antecedents; I truly am confused which 'she' everybody's discussing. If somebody could just clear this up for me, I'd be glad to just clean up that section of the article. Mayukhers112 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
There are stories of her poisoning herself to escape from being brought to Rome as a slave. Can anybody check that please? (Unsigned).
Actually, there are multiple versions of her death. Here is what Warwick Ball writes in his book "Rome in the East" (Routledge, 2000):
"He [Emperor Aurelian] took the two captives [Zenobia and her son] back to Europe, but opinion differs as to Zenobia's fate. She probably died soon afterwards, either from an unstated illness or - emulating Julia Domna to the last - by fasting to death. According to other versions, however, she was first displayed in Antioch and Rome as Queen of the barbarian Saracens, then beheaded, although other sources refer to her being married off and living in retirement outside Rome, where her descendants were still supposedly pointed out a century later."
I'll try to rework the article, which currently relates the "happy retirement" story, to reflect more of this ambiguity. Nandt1 ( talk) 13:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
If a picture of Zenobia is necessary, perhaps a coin from her lifetime would be a better choice, rather than a 19th century orientalist fantasy. Aliibn ( talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not use this image instead, contemporary (3rd centry) bust of Zenobia from the Vatican museum) http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=40172&rendTypeId=4 Aliibn ( talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement (unsupported by references) that the gens of Zenobia and her father was Aurelius. This was indeed a gens but also became a popular cognomen during the Empire (see Aurelius page). Additionally, the assumption that that Aurelius was their gentilicium implies that Zenobius' praenomen was Julius -- but Julius was a gentilicium, not a praenomen. Lastly, Zenobia's own name begins with "Julia", which also implies the family's gentilicium was Julius. JagoWoodbine ( talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)JagoWoodbine
I removed the following line about Cassius Longinus from the page:
Longinus composed his celebrated Treatise on the Sublime for her which incorporates fragments of poetry since lost, such as the love poems of Sappho of Lesbos, originally penned in the 6th century BCE. [ref: Wilden, 1987, p. 230.]
As far as I know, few now think that the treatise On the Sublime was written by Cassius Longinus, since it's apparently a 1st-century text. Even if one was to ignore modern scholarship and assume it was a 3rd-century text by Longinus, it is surely speculation that it was written for Zenobia. Singinglemon ( talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What proof is there that the name of Zenobia's son, Vaballathus, is from Arabic? I think that the name is most likely descended from the language of the Aramaeans. There are no referrences in regards to that so I think it needs to be removed.
202.89.151.170 ( talk) 22:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean the Aramaic language? Is this your personal opinion or do you have a source for that? Preferably a published one. Dimadick ( talk) 06:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
A source for this person would be useful. I do not find him in Smith's dictionary of Graeco-Roman biography or anyplace else. 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Nofi ( talk • contribs)
the translation of this name is wrong, it doesn't mean the gift of the "goddess" but it means the gift of Allat, which it's an pagan idol believed by ancient Arabs to be the daughter of ALLAH
i can see why some people refuse to relate anything Arabic to this article, their purpose is very clear
that clearly unveils the identity of some of the contributors to this article. Omar amross ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Zenobia did not assume this title, and we have no prove for it in the archaeology. Trevor Bryce is a very respected scholar but his book is the center of criticism for not following the newest results in the field and counting on ancient fabricated literature. I quote this peer review of Bryce' book: Regrettably, the scholarly impact of the book will be limited. The author has occasionally overlooked the most recent scientific contributions to specific matters he wanted to focus on and sometimes offers traditional interpretations to old problems by ignoring fundamental academic updates.
Bryce claim that Zenobia went to Egypt herself but there is no evidence for this and neither for her use of the title: Queen of Egypt.
The article is a featured one and all the info must be precise or it will lose that status. Hence, the info about the title Queen of Egypt should be removed.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Two sources were added to support the notion that she was an Arab. The first is a historical fiction book (secret papers) by french novalist fr:Bernard Simiot (not archaeologist, not historian, not linguist, and for sure had no access to any documents from Palmyra and Rome that can be called diaries of Zenobia) and the second was by Ahmad Dawood who is a Syrian so called historian supported by the Arab nationalist Baath party. Dawood is known for his fringe theories; he thinks the anceint Greeks were Arabs, the bible events took place in Yemen....etc
What we know of Zenobia is:
It is known, based on the names of the inhabitants, that the Palmyrenes were a mixed people with Arab, Aramean and Amorite bloods among others. The Early life section makes it clear that the queen, as a Palmyrene, would have had both Arab and Aramean origins. There will be many sources found (mainly from the Arabic speaking world or sources written by non specialists orientalists) stating that she was an Arab with no proof given. But the Academic consensus is far from uniform regarding her origin and her being an Arab does not have academic consensus. It is therefore fruitless to add the word "Arab" in the lede and also against the style of writing to include citations in the lede. If Arab will be written then someone else with other sources will come and write "Aramean" and the article will turn into an edit-war field.
The article was reviewed during the FA process and the Wiki consensus is for the origin to be mentioned neutrally in its own section where a neutral view (the queen is Arab and Aramean) is stated.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 00:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
1. French Bernard Simiot "Secret Papers" stated Zenobia as an Arab from her own Diaries. For those saying it is "fictional", Bernard Simiot himself didn't state that his Published Book were in any way fictional. The only place it says fictional is from an Arabic translated version of the book were the translator stated from his own mind that it is "fictional" providing no evidence.
As well as the Palmyrene Empire
Any references of her being fully Aramean that you can provide since the wiki page doesn't have one, i'm searching for one too.
2. The "Secret Papers" were heavily detailed and described every encounters and historical events that Zenobia faced very precisely and accurately , Hence it is impossible for the "French" Bernard Simiot to be the one writing the diaries!
3. Zenobia's son name Vaballathus is a clear giveaway ; The name وَهْبُ اللَّات (Vaballathus in Greek) meaning: Gift of Al-Lat. Al-Lat(اللات) is an Arabian Goddess originated in Central Arabia and is worshiped by Arabs solely.
Lastly, isn't the name Zainab more likely to be Zenobia since it contains all the letters and make perfect sense rather than Bat-Zabbai (which isn't even a name) MWahaiibii ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Slapnut1207. Can you please present reliable sources regarding the titles of Zenobia? This isnt up to the judgment of Wikipedia's editors.. its not even up to the opinions of scholars... Only a solid evidence mentioned in a reliable academic source can decide the title and what Geographic limits it had. Please present a reliable source for your edits. The rules of Wikipedia are clear regarding this. Please read this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 01:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Attar-Aram syria I did this just like what editors did for the Gallic Roman Empire since the Emperors there had the title of Emperor of the Gallic Empire. The Gallic Empire is just a conventional name and I simply just did that except for Empress instead of Emperor and Palmyrene Empire instead of Gallic Empire. The book The Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World New Revised Edition states that she declared herself Augusta since if she did not. The Roman Legions of the East would probably be more likely to support Aurelian then Zenobia. If you declare yourself Augusta, you imply that you are the legitimate Roman Empress. It doesn't make sense for her to be called Augusta if she didn't give herself the title for being a claimant to the Imperial Purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: In this section of the Palmyrene empire Palmyrene_Empire#Evaluation_and_legacy, you can read why we cant know what she meant with her titles. Since it is a debated issue between scholars, and since we have no actual evidence from the days of Zenobia, then calling her with any title, that can cast a shadow of authority on Rome, which she did not specify, is not possible.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The opinion of the Gallic Empire being not high quality is just opinion. It makes no sense for you or Wikipedia to censor my opinion on Empress of the Palmyrene Empire. She was the Empress of her Palmyrene Empire. So why did she declare herself Empress, was it for a sign of independence? No in my opinion. It was so that she could get the support of more Romans in the East since if she did not declare herself Augusta, the Romans would have though her as a foreign enemy much more. Why can't this article state the opinions of mine and your scholars. Even if he was a fictional character, he still had the title of Emperor (self declared). The naming conventions are just like the Byzantine empire and Eastern Roman Empire name debate. The title of Emperor/Empress of the Palmyrene Empire has logic since she was a Empress. Because the title of just Empress is so vague. We can at least add the she was a Empress of the Palmyrene Empire since she had the title of Augusta and ruled it in name of her son. The Palmyrene Empire had people that spoke Latin. Roman Officials, Roman Migrants and Roman soldiers lived there or were stationed there in the East. Zenobia mostly likely had Roman soldiers in her command. (Either wise her army would be smaller or filled with inexperienced conscripts) The controversy on titles is just a debate about bias on one side and the bias on others. At least state my opinion on that page. Since this article is full of biased opinions that aren't mine. The title of Empress makes it look like she was a Empress of nothing. i did not give him a title. The story says he possibly declared himself Emperor, so I added the titles of Roman Emperor. Because the only state that had the position of Emperor in that area was the Imperium Romanum. it doesn't make sense for her and him to declare herself and her son Augusta and Augustus if she was not claiming the Roman Purple (Position of Empress and Emperor of the Roman Empire) At least give them the titles of Usurper of the Roman Empire since they were proven Usurpers (also neutral on this debate since they were usurpers) at least. Because if they wanted to rebel against the fury of Rome, they would have to take over the entire Empire. Ether wise the mostly Latin speaking Legions would have still destroyed the so called Palmyrene Empire as well. This talk is too full of scholar opinion, so I will just leave it to the bias scholars since scholars usually have a hint of bias in them. Because I want actual scholars to debate this and decide in their opinion whether or not they should be given the title of Emperor/Empress of the Palmyrene Empire. Which they should be since they had the title of Augustus, Augusta and they ruled the Palmyrene Empire. Also The title of Usurper of the Roman Empire would be correct since they had Roman citizenship. I would be okay and happy with the position of Usurper of the Roman Empire.I will not talk on this anymore and I hope that wikipedia doesn't punish for just for adding reasonable titles that have logic since scholars use logic as well besides just the historical sources made in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
this time he added a source that does not support his edits as he wants to call Zenobia either Empress of Rome or Empress of Palmyra and his source did not contain an evidence for both!. Actually I changed the titles from Roman Empress to Empress of the Palmyrene Empire just to be more accurate and friendly to the modern conventional name of the Palmyrene Empire. That's the only reason why. Is the book Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World NRV not accurate of a source for this period? Chapter six of the book explains some of the reasoning on why she declared herself Augusta and also the war between the two Roman factions.. They had 11 or possibly 10 legions under the command of the Palmyrenes but those legions (Most of them at least) apparently weren't in the civil war. The Palmyrenes possibly ordered them to guard the Empire in possibly remote locations. Vaballathus also had Roman Victory titles and the Palmyrenes also had a custom of aligning their administrative titles with Roman ones as well. Oh well, just read the book if you haven't. I just added this to justify some if not all of my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: The discussion was continued here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 18:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Attar-Aram syria: Apparently, the word "Bat" is also spelled "Bath"?
- LouisAragon ( talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is Hebrew Bathsheba (Hebrew: בַּת שֶׁבַע, Baṯ-šeḇa‘, "daughter of Sheba" or "daughter of the oath") a cognate of her name (apart from bat)? -- Error ( talk) 12:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Attar-Aram syria: Sometimes users make major overhauls to articles without seeking consensus; I've also dealt with it and it can sometimes be irritating because it's hard to tell if there's any mistakes or bad-faith edits as it's obfuscated in the stream of edits. But I made no overhaul or major content changes. Seeking consensus beforehand just to make general edits can become tedious as consensus is something that can take weeks or months. I've been editing WP for well over a decade and I've only come across something like this once or twice. Nevertheless, my intended edits were the following:
Another edit I intend to make but which I haven't yet:
You stated in your revert that "...Also, deleting that her chastity impressed male writers renders what they wrote context-less" (in reference to "Her reputed chastity impressed some male historians;")
Reply: Ofcourse no one has to ask for permission, but a featured article is the result of a community consensus and much work has been spent on it. There are sets of rules and conventions that wikipedia editors adhere to. When it comes to featured articles, Im gonna copy two of those conventions:
Hence, while "Seeking consensus beforehand just to make general edits can become tedious as consensus is something that can take weeks or months." is true for normal article, it is not for a featured one.
As for the points you mentioned:
1-Redundant citations is a fair note (though the rational was that every sentence that end with a . has a citation)
2-"According to the historian" is better than "according to historian" and it was noted in an FA review. A historian should be qualified, as you dont go to one and call him: historian Rolf, how are you. Title are not encouraged, and should be descriptive.
3- 30em to the reflist template (restored)
4-As for re-ordering the sections, I totally disagree. They are part of the chronology, which is logical: first we start with how she became queen, her expansion, how she governed, then fell. Her cultural and religious policies are definitely part of governance. If you feel so strong about this, and because a featured article is the result of consensus, then you can attempt to change that consensus by attracting more editors to comment or starting an rfc.
5- the titles section is meant to give a chronological development of how her titulary developed. I am against a merge. The empress section is about historical events, while the titles section is about, the titles!
6-"should have been obvious from the context itself"-This is subjective.--
Attar-Aram syria (
talk) 10:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply 2:
1-For the FA, it was that of Demetrius III,
see here. Anyway, we have an article for
False title.
2-Regarding point #5:What is missing in the titles section could be added to it to complete it. The point is still there: the titles section serves a different function. I cant see the redundancy you are talking about. It is helpful to collect such technical information in one section.
3-Regarding point #6: I didnt address it because it cant be addressed. You are saying that it "should have been obvious from the context itself", but thats your subjective opinion, and not all reader will get the point. I realize you can improve FAs, and that some of them go down in quality, but thats exactly why I keep an eye on this article and all the featured articles I created. Improvements can be discussed to see if they are really improvements or just a personal taste of an editor. An FA is the result of a consensus, and everyone is welcomed to edit, but if this raise questions then a consensus should be reached first.
4-Regarding point #4: Okay, then I should have wrote that Administration is part of governance.--
Attar-Aram syria (
talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply 3:
1-I gave you a diff, so its highlighted, you will see two additions by the reviewer, read the second one.
2-Im not possessive, I just dont agree with some of your edits which you find are imporvments while I dont. You can seek consensus on that from other users.
3-Empress is a title but the section of empress isnt meant for a title but to discuss the establishment of a new regime, i.e. independence
4-Antiochus XII Dionysus: oh, its not my habit to write according to historian, I should change that. False titles are widespread, but they shouldnt. They are ridiculous (and thats my subjective opinion). Anyway, I will copy that comment from the FA as you asked:
"It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title".-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies in advance. I would like some users to look at my discussion above. I wish to make a myriad of stylistic edits to improve the article.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Zhomron: hi. Please tell me that it was a misunderstanding. It happened to me more than once, and when it did, I truly hope I admitted to it each time it did – it's normal.
I have added two items to the article:
There was also a set of (double) brackets, which were not needed.
My edit summary was:
"Unvocalized form relevant, Aramaic abjad. Removed superfluous brackets. | Explicitly setting AE as standard (is already used de facto)."
Then you removed both, with the edit summary
"Not superfluous, not unvocalized, and if you're going to remove the American English template, don't sneak it in without a proper explanation in the edit summary – Undid revision 1074883974 by Arminden"
Which, however I look at it, is: doing the opposite of what the "edit summary" claimed was done. Fortunately, Attar-Aram syria brought my edits back in. So all is fine. All I want to ask is: it was a slip, right? Thanks, Arminden ( talk) 11:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zenobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Zenobia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2017. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
However, Arabic was not spoken in Palmyra, so it is unclear why her name is given in Arabic, or why there is any reference to Arabic at all, considering that the languages used in the city were Greek and Palmyrene, an Aramaic dialect. -- 138.88.103.250 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Arabic references should be kept as she is routinely referred to in the classical Arabic histories (9th-10th century) which give us a great deal of information about her and her activities. Her conflict and alliances with Arabic speaking nomadic tribes (and the settled Arabic speaking dynasties of the Lakhmids and Ghassanids - clients of the Persian and Roman empires respectively) are strong evidence for keeping the references to Arabic. Let's keep the Arab-Israeli conflict out of this.
BTW - I corrected the transliteration of the Arabic version of her name as it is given in this article but I can't verify it from the sources. From my experience, she's usually called al-Zabba' (in the medieval sources).
In 260, her forces were responsible for an unprecedented victory against Rome: not only were Roman forces defeated, but the emperor Valerian was captured and taken back to Zenobia's court. This was the only such occurrance in Rome's history and it demanded a reply.
I took the above out, because she wasn't yet reigning in 260. Also, the source I have says that it was King Sapor of Persia (not Zenobia's husband Odenathus of Palmyra) who defeated and captured Valerian in 260. -- Marj Tiefert
Argh -- you're right -- Zenobia and Odenathus defeated Sapor...but Valerian was still made into a footstool...! JHK
Are we sure about the birth name? It would make more sense if "Septimia" derived from her husband's being "Septimius Odanathus," and I can't find "Bathzabbi" anywhere. -- isis 24 Aug 2002
Okay, I'm reading Gibbon's "Decline and Fall . . ." (which I HIGHLY recomend, BTW), and he has the following description of Zenobia (starting in year 272, ch. XI, Vol 1)
She claimed her descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt, equalled in beauty her ancestor Cleopatra, and far surpassed that princess in chastity and valour. Zenobia was esteemed the most lovely as well as the most heroic of her sex. She was of a dark complexion (for in speaking of a lady these trifles become important). Her teeth were of a pearly whiteness, and her large black eyes sparkled with uncommon fire, tempered by the most attractive sweetness. Her voice was strong and harmonious. Her manly understanding was strengthened and adorned by study. She was not ignorant of the Latin tongue, but possessed in equal perfection the Greek, Syriac and the Egyptian languges.
About the removal of the Category:Ancient Roman women: I see a conflict of that with the Cat:Ancient Roman enemies and allies. But if somebody is terribly keen of having both cats in, that ok with me. muriel@pt 09:41, 26 Nov 2004 (U
The references to Zenobia being Arab are blatant pan-Arabist/Arab nationalist revisionism. They even go so far as to refer to al-Tabari's fictionalized "history", in which the Romans, their legions, and their empire simply did not exist. Are Baathists now being given free reign on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.209.126 ( talk) 22:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Aramaic is just a language, not a people. Arabs wrote in Aramaic as well as Arabic dialects in the Aramaic alphabet. What I see is prejudice and hatred for Arabs and an attempt to steal their history. Palmyrene Empire their names and gods were Arab, but the populists are afraid of everything Arab. Reem898 ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes so @Reem898, Aramean are an People An Culture an Language an History , you (Arab) are stealing that history by claiming Zenobia and Palmyra as Arab , I see you doing the victim "what I see is prejudice and hatred for Arabs" giving true history to other people is not Hate and Prejudice you are doing your victim and all the source that Claim Zenobia to be Arab are Apocryph she did not even speak Arabic Also you say that Populist are afraid of Arab like Populist have anything to do with Arab , you say that It's an Attempt to steal their history while you are stealing the history or Aramean and other's minorities like Phoenician(Maronite) in Tunisia and Lebanon , Mesopotamian(Assyrian) in Irak Egyptian(Coptic) in Egypt and Aramean in Syria to finish we did not found Arab name in Palmyrene Empire even Vaballathus name is Debating you can see a discussion about it on Wiki , Tadmor , Bat-Zabbai , They were Aramean with a little influence from Arab people who came during the first Centuries , Centuries After Aramean ! To finish I conclud that your vision of history is brainwashed by Baathist and Pan-Arab propaganda doing the victim and claiming everything that was great I used to be Pan-Arab so I know what I'm Talking about ! Aram le Palmyréen ( talk) 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph is very hard to understand: who proclaimed herself Queen of Egypt, Zenobia or the other Egyptian person? The pronouns really need clear antecedents; I truly am confused which 'she' everybody's discussing. If somebody could just clear this up for me, I'd be glad to just clean up that section of the article. Mayukhers112 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
There are stories of her poisoning herself to escape from being brought to Rome as a slave. Can anybody check that please? (Unsigned).
Actually, there are multiple versions of her death. Here is what Warwick Ball writes in his book "Rome in the East" (Routledge, 2000):
"He [Emperor Aurelian] took the two captives [Zenobia and her son] back to Europe, but opinion differs as to Zenobia's fate. She probably died soon afterwards, either from an unstated illness or - emulating Julia Domna to the last - by fasting to death. According to other versions, however, she was first displayed in Antioch and Rome as Queen of the barbarian Saracens, then beheaded, although other sources refer to her being married off and living in retirement outside Rome, where her descendants were still supposedly pointed out a century later."
I'll try to rework the article, which currently relates the "happy retirement" story, to reflect more of this ambiguity. Nandt1 ( talk) 13:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
If a picture of Zenobia is necessary, perhaps a coin from her lifetime would be a better choice, rather than a 19th century orientalist fantasy. Aliibn ( talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not use this image instead, contemporary (3rd centry) bust of Zenobia from the Vatican museum) http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=40172&rendTypeId=4 Aliibn ( talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement (unsupported by references) that the gens of Zenobia and her father was Aurelius. This was indeed a gens but also became a popular cognomen during the Empire (see Aurelius page). Additionally, the assumption that that Aurelius was their gentilicium implies that Zenobius' praenomen was Julius -- but Julius was a gentilicium, not a praenomen. Lastly, Zenobia's own name begins with "Julia", which also implies the family's gentilicium was Julius. JagoWoodbine ( talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)JagoWoodbine
I removed the following line about Cassius Longinus from the page:
Longinus composed his celebrated Treatise on the Sublime for her which incorporates fragments of poetry since lost, such as the love poems of Sappho of Lesbos, originally penned in the 6th century BCE. [ref: Wilden, 1987, p. 230.]
As far as I know, few now think that the treatise On the Sublime was written by Cassius Longinus, since it's apparently a 1st-century text. Even if one was to ignore modern scholarship and assume it was a 3rd-century text by Longinus, it is surely speculation that it was written for Zenobia. Singinglemon ( talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
What proof is there that the name of Zenobia's son, Vaballathus, is from Arabic? I think that the name is most likely descended from the language of the Aramaeans. There are no referrences in regards to that so I think it needs to be removed.
202.89.151.170 ( talk) 22:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean the Aramaic language? Is this your personal opinion or do you have a source for that? Preferably a published one. Dimadick ( talk) 06:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
A source for this person would be useful. I do not find him in Smith's dictionary of Graeco-Roman biography or anyplace else. 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Nofi ( talk • contribs)
the translation of this name is wrong, it doesn't mean the gift of the "goddess" but it means the gift of Allat, which it's an pagan idol believed by ancient Arabs to be the daughter of ALLAH
i can see why some people refuse to relate anything Arabic to this article, their purpose is very clear
that clearly unveils the identity of some of the contributors to this article. Omar amross ( talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Zenobia did not assume this title, and we have no prove for it in the archaeology. Trevor Bryce is a very respected scholar but his book is the center of criticism for not following the newest results in the field and counting on ancient fabricated literature. I quote this peer review of Bryce' book: Regrettably, the scholarly impact of the book will be limited. The author has occasionally overlooked the most recent scientific contributions to specific matters he wanted to focus on and sometimes offers traditional interpretations to old problems by ignoring fundamental academic updates.
Bryce claim that Zenobia went to Egypt herself but there is no evidence for this and neither for her use of the title: Queen of Egypt.
The article is a featured one and all the info must be precise or it will lose that status. Hence, the info about the title Queen of Egypt should be removed.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Two sources were added to support the notion that she was an Arab. The first is a historical fiction book (secret papers) by french novalist fr:Bernard Simiot (not archaeologist, not historian, not linguist, and for sure had no access to any documents from Palmyra and Rome that can be called diaries of Zenobia) and the second was by Ahmad Dawood who is a Syrian so called historian supported by the Arab nationalist Baath party. Dawood is known for his fringe theories; he thinks the anceint Greeks were Arabs, the bible events took place in Yemen....etc
What we know of Zenobia is:
It is known, based on the names of the inhabitants, that the Palmyrenes were a mixed people with Arab, Aramean and Amorite bloods among others. The Early life section makes it clear that the queen, as a Palmyrene, would have had both Arab and Aramean origins. There will be many sources found (mainly from the Arabic speaking world or sources written by non specialists orientalists) stating that she was an Arab with no proof given. But the Academic consensus is far from uniform regarding her origin and her being an Arab does not have academic consensus. It is therefore fruitless to add the word "Arab" in the lede and also against the style of writing to include citations in the lede. If Arab will be written then someone else with other sources will come and write "Aramean" and the article will turn into an edit-war field.
The article was reviewed during the FA process and the Wiki consensus is for the origin to be mentioned neutrally in its own section where a neutral view (the queen is Arab and Aramean) is stated.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 00:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
1. French Bernard Simiot "Secret Papers" stated Zenobia as an Arab from her own Diaries. For those saying it is "fictional", Bernard Simiot himself didn't state that his Published Book were in any way fictional. The only place it says fictional is from an Arabic translated version of the book were the translator stated from his own mind that it is "fictional" providing no evidence.
As well as the Palmyrene Empire
Any references of her being fully Aramean that you can provide since the wiki page doesn't have one, i'm searching for one too.
2. The "Secret Papers" were heavily detailed and described every encounters and historical events that Zenobia faced very precisely and accurately , Hence it is impossible for the "French" Bernard Simiot to be the one writing the diaries!
3. Zenobia's son name Vaballathus is a clear giveaway ; The name وَهْبُ اللَّات (Vaballathus in Greek) meaning: Gift of Al-Lat. Al-Lat(اللات) is an Arabian Goddess originated in Central Arabia and is worshiped by Arabs solely.
Lastly, isn't the name Zainab more likely to be Zenobia since it contains all the letters and make perfect sense rather than Bat-Zabbai (which isn't even a name) MWahaiibii ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Slapnut1207. Can you please present reliable sources regarding the titles of Zenobia? This isnt up to the judgment of Wikipedia's editors.. its not even up to the opinions of scholars... Only a solid evidence mentioned in a reliable academic source can decide the title and what Geographic limits it had. Please present a reliable source for your edits. The rules of Wikipedia are clear regarding this. Please read this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 01:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Attar-Aram syria I did this just like what editors did for the Gallic Roman Empire since the Emperors there had the title of Emperor of the Gallic Empire. The Gallic Empire is just a conventional name and I simply just did that except for Empress instead of Emperor and Palmyrene Empire instead of Gallic Empire. The book The Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World New Revised Edition states that she declared herself Augusta since if she did not. The Roman Legions of the East would probably be more likely to support Aurelian then Zenobia. If you declare yourself Augusta, you imply that you are the legitimate Roman Empress. It doesn't make sense for her to be called Augusta if she didn't give herself the title for being a claimant to the Imperial Purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: In this section of the Palmyrene empire Palmyrene_Empire#Evaluation_and_legacy, you can read why we cant know what she meant with her titles. Since it is a debated issue between scholars, and since we have no actual evidence from the days of Zenobia, then calling her with any title, that can cast a shadow of authority on Rome, which she did not specify, is not possible.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The opinion of the Gallic Empire being not high quality is just opinion. It makes no sense for you or Wikipedia to censor my opinion on Empress of the Palmyrene Empire. She was the Empress of her Palmyrene Empire. So why did she declare herself Empress, was it for a sign of independence? No in my opinion. It was so that she could get the support of more Romans in the East since if she did not declare herself Augusta, the Romans would have though her as a foreign enemy much more. Why can't this article state the opinions of mine and your scholars. Even if he was a fictional character, he still had the title of Emperor (self declared). The naming conventions are just like the Byzantine empire and Eastern Roman Empire name debate. The title of Emperor/Empress of the Palmyrene Empire has logic since she was a Empress. Because the title of just Empress is so vague. We can at least add the she was a Empress of the Palmyrene Empire since she had the title of Augusta and ruled it in name of her son. The Palmyrene Empire had people that spoke Latin. Roman Officials, Roman Migrants and Roman soldiers lived there or were stationed there in the East. Zenobia mostly likely had Roman soldiers in her command. (Either wise her army would be smaller or filled with inexperienced conscripts) The controversy on titles is just a debate about bias on one side and the bias on others. At least state my opinion on that page. Since this article is full of biased opinions that aren't mine. The title of Empress makes it look like she was a Empress of nothing. i did not give him a title. The story says he possibly declared himself Emperor, so I added the titles of Roman Emperor. Because the only state that had the position of Emperor in that area was the Imperium Romanum. it doesn't make sense for her and him to declare herself and her son Augusta and Augustus if she was not claiming the Roman Purple (Position of Empress and Emperor of the Roman Empire) At least give them the titles of Usurper of the Roman Empire since they were proven Usurpers (also neutral on this debate since they were usurpers) at least. Because if they wanted to rebel against the fury of Rome, they would have to take over the entire Empire. Ether wise the mostly Latin speaking Legions would have still destroyed the so called Palmyrene Empire as well. This talk is too full of scholar opinion, so I will just leave it to the bias scholars since scholars usually have a hint of bias in them. Because I want actual scholars to debate this and decide in their opinion whether or not they should be given the title of Emperor/Empress of the Palmyrene Empire. Which they should be since they had the title of Augustus, Augusta and they ruled the Palmyrene Empire. Also The title of Usurper of the Roman Empire would be correct since they had Roman citizenship. I would be okay and happy with the position of Usurper of the Roman Empire.I will not talk on this anymore and I hope that wikipedia doesn't punish for just for adding reasonable titles that have logic since scholars use logic as well besides just the historical sources made in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 ( talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
this time he added a source that does not support his edits as he wants to call Zenobia either Empress of Rome or Empress of Palmyra and his source did not contain an evidence for both!. Actually I changed the titles from Roman Empress to Empress of the Palmyrene Empire just to be more accurate and friendly to the modern conventional name of the Palmyrene Empire. That's the only reason why. Is the book Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World NRV not accurate of a source for this period? Chapter six of the book explains some of the reasoning on why she declared herself Augusta and also the war between the two Roman factions.. They had 11 or possibly 10 legions under the command of the Palmyrenes but those legions (Most of them at least) apparently weren't in the civil war. The Palmyrenes possibly ordered them to guard the Empire in possibly remote locations. Vaballathus also had Roman Victory titles and the Palmyrenes also had a custom of aligning their administrative titles with Roman ones as well. Oh well, just read the book if you haven't. I just added this to justify some if not all of my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: The discussion was continued here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 18:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Attar-Aram syria: Apparently, the word "Bat" is also spelled "Bath"?
- LouisAragon ( talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is Hebrew Bathsheba (Hebrew: בַּת שֶׁבַע, Baṯ-šeḇa‘, "daughter of Sheba" or "daughter of the oath") a cognate of her name (apart from bat)? -- Error ( talk) 12:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Attar-Aram syria: Sometimes users make major overhauls to articles without seeking consensus; I've also dealt with it and it can sometimes be irritating because it's hard to tell if there's any mistakes or bad-faith edits as it's obfuscated in the stream of edits. But I made no overhaul or major content changes. Seeking consensus beforehand just to make general edits can become tedious as consensus is something that can take weeks or months. I've been editing WP for well over a decade and I've only come across something like this once or twice. Nevertheless, my intended edits were the following:
Another edit I intend to make but which I haven't yet:
You stated in your revert that "...Also, deleting that her chastity impressed male writers renders what they wrote context-less" (in reference to "Her reputed chastity impressed some male historians;")
Reply: Ofcourse no one has to ask for permission, but a featured article is the result of a community consensus and much work has been spent on it. There are sets of rules and conventions that wikipedia editors adhere to. When it comes to featured articles, Im gonna copy two of those conventions:
Hence, while "Seeking consensus beforehand just to make general edits can become tedious as consensus is something that can take weeks or months." is true for normal article, it is not for a featured one.
As for the points you mentioned:
1-Redundant citations is a fair note (though the rational was that every sentence that end with a . has a citation)
2-"According to the historian" is better than "according to historian" and it was noted in an FA review. A historian should be qualified, as you dont go to one and call him: historian Rolf, how are you. Title are not encouraged, and should be descriptive.
3- 30em to the reflist template (restored)
4-As for re-ordering the sections, I totally disagree. They are part of the chronology, which is logical: first we start with how she became queen, her expansion, how she governed, then fell. Her cultural and religious policies are definitely part of governance. If you feel so strong about this, and because a featured article is the result of consensus, then you can attempt to change that consensus by attracting more editors to comment or starting an rfc.
5- the titles section is meant to give a chronological development of how her titulary developed. I am against a merge. The empress section is about historical events, while the titles section is about, the titles!
6-"should have been obvious from the context itself"-This is subjective.--
Attar-Aram syria (
talk) 10:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply 2:
1-For the FA, it was that of Demetrius III,
see here. Anyway, we have an article for
False title.
2-Regarding point #5:What is missing in the titles section could be added to it to complete it. The point is still there: the titles section serves a different function. I cant see the redundancy you are talking about. It is helpful to collect such technical information in one section.
3-Regarding point #6: I didnt address it because it cant be addressed. You are saying that it "should have been obvious from the context itself", but thats your subjective opinion, and not all reader will get the point. I realize you can improve FAs, and that some of them go down in quality, but thats exactly why I keep an eye on this article and all the featured articles I created. Improvements can be discussed to see if they are really improvements or just a personal taste of an editor. An FA is the result of a consensus, and everyone is welcomed to edit, but if this raise questions then a consensus should be reached first.
4-Regarding point #4: Okay, then I should have wrote that Administration is part of governance.--
Attar-Aram syria (
talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply 3:
1-I gave you a diff, so its highlighted, you will see two additions by the reviewer, read the second one.
2-Im not possessive, I just dont agree with some of your edits which you find are imporvments while I dont. You can seek consensus on that from other users.
3-Empress is a title but the section of empress isnt meant for a title but to discuss the establishment of a new regime, i.e. independence
4-Antiochus XII Dionysus: oh, its not my habit to write according to historian, I should change that. False titles are widespread, but they shouldnt. They are ridiculous (and thats my subjective opinion). Anyway, I will copy that comment from the FA as you asked:
"It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title".-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies in advance. I would like some users to look at my discussion above. I wish to make a myriad of stylistic edits to improve the article.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Zhomron: hi. Please tell me that it was a misunderstanding. It happened to me more than once, and when it did, I truly hope I admitted to it each time it did – it's normal.
I have added two items to the article:
There was also a set of (double) brackets, which were not needed.
My edit summary was:
"Unvocalized form relevant, Aramaic abjad. Removed superfluous brackets. | Explicitly setting AE as standard (is already used de facto)."
Then you removed both, with the edit summary
"Not superfluous, not unvocalized, and if you're going to remove the American English template, don't sneak it in without a proper explanation in the edit summary – Undid revision 1074883974 by Arminden"
Which, however I look at it, is: doing the opposite of what the "edit summary" claimed was done. Fortunately, Attar-Aram syria brought my edits back in. So all is fine. All I want to ask is: it was a slip, right? Thanks, Arminden ( talk) 11:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)