# Talk:Julia Domna

How does being "of Punic descent" make a person Arab? Cynwolfe (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

just to be fair she was an Arab not any other thing. And I think you can read  the sources given.  هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
She came from an Arab tribe, the Emesenes, who were nomadic in the second century BC before founding the city of Emesa. She patroned Cassius Dio who described her family and explicitly called them Arabs. Furthermore her name is Arabic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.120.237 (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
She is not of Punic descent. She is of Arab descent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 
Just call her Syrian since she was of Emessa. There is no way to determine her ethnicity, tho I am sure she was not "just Arab".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:4A07:82BD:2410:5A6E:C172:5021 (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC) 
You are sure eh? You don't even know what Arab means. Anyway wikipedia is not a creative exercise or an opinions game. It follows the sources. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This source said she’s of mixed ancestry https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/julia-domna-c-170-217-ce
-
The source you provided says:
"Julia Domna was born in Emesa, a city of Arab foundation in the rich Orontes River valley of Roman Syria."
"...Arabic founders."
"Thus, however mixed her ancestry might have been, it is likely that Domna could trace her line directly back to the olden kings of Emesa."
The wikipedia article says:
"Julia Domna was born to an Arab family that was part of the Emesan dynasty"
There is no contradiction. There are much more reliable sources than yours explicitly saying she was Arab (Harvard uni press, cambridge uni press, etc, see discussion below), and in the wikipedia article it makes a very clear and undeniable claim: her family was Arab. You know what you're doing, you're pretending to use sources and pretend to care about fairness when your goal is to invent some "Syrian" ethnicity and put it on everyone who was born in Syria, ignoring the difference between geography politics and ethnicity. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
And in reference to your accusations against me, the thing is you're obsessed with ethnicity and think everyone else is equally as obsessed as you. Personally as long as the word Arab is mentioned once in the article I'm content. I don't have to plaster the article like you do in your edits (which have gotten you banned multiple times and your current account will soon get banned for sockpuppetry). You want to erase the word entirely. If I was 1% as obsessed as you I would've gone to other articles like for example Julia Mamaea, which has 0 mention of the word Arab in it. I can use the exact same sources for Julia Domna and add them there, but I don't, because I haven't reached 1% of your obsession levels. So please don't project. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Again with your accusations? 

I’m not a 🧦 it’s weird that you contradict yourself how can an IP blocked user use another account? If the ip is blocked no one can create another account 

Regarding Julia:
Lots of reliable sources do mention her as a Syrian empress in fact there is a whole book named: Julia domina Syrian empress 
https://books.google.com/books?id=BjkfKsCttrkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=julia+domna+syrian+empress&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY1pPgwvXtAhVEZxUIHWpfCccQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg
Brittanica says she’s a Syrian as well https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Domna
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/julia-domna
https://books.google.ae/books?id=FRttDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA23-IA199&dq=julia%20domina%20syrian&pg=PA23-IA199#v=onepage&q=julia%20domina%20syrian&f=false
https://books.google.ae/books?id=JyIzDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT381&dq=julia%20domina%20syrian&pg=PT381#v=onepage&q=julia%20domina%20syrian&f=false
https://books.google.ae/books?id=p-VfDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=julia%20domina%20syrian&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q=julia%20domina%20syrian&f=false
I know what you will say: they’re talking about her birthplace. Well I don’t know your English level but these sources are saying she’s a Syrian empress not a Syrian by birth or Syrian born.
I’m not obsessed with any ethnicity but I see how Arab nationalists and Phoenician fanatics hate the mentioning of the Syrian nationality I see how lots of reliable sources do mention them as Syrians but here they aren’t
bear in mind that I’m not claiming she’s not an Arab but she’s a Syrian Arab just like the majority of Syrians  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.193.128.47 (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 
You do know she can be both? Maybe a "Syrian born Arab"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Sources not only mention her as a Syrian born or Syrian by birth in the sources above you’ll see what I mean. Brittanica says she’s a Syrian empress and this is the official louvre museum website it mentions her as a Syrian princess 
Lots of other figures are only mentioned as Arabs in Wikipedia this is a mistake  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:C134:4C3B:1199:A202 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 

I can't see the word "empress" even on the Britannica page. Now, what I have suggested is a compromise, we have sources saying she was Syrian, others say she was an Arab.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes I’m not saying she’s not an Arab but rather a Syrian Arab

OK so do we have an agreement to change it to "Syrian born Arab"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I see a Syrian Arab princess is more accurate the sources I did mention say she’s a Syrian 
Brittanica is a reliable source and I did provide a book published by Oxford it says it all https://books.google.ae/books?id=p-VfDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=julia%20domina%20syrian&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q=julia%20domina%20syrian&f=false
It says in the article born in Syria to an Arab family. This is already enough. The other user wants to link to this article: Syrians which argues that Syrian is an ethnicity not a geographic term. They have been for months going on every person who was born in Syria and linking to that article, regardless what their ethnicity was. Also that user has been banned for using sockpuppets for months now. An admin said, and I quote: "campaign to make everything and everyone Syrian" about them. Article is fine as it is.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
You really have no argument 
I gave a reliable source from Brittanica a book named Julia domina Syrian empress and a book published by Oxford and you keep saying the same thing. You know it’s Wikipedia and not arabipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:C134:4C3B:1199:A202 (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 
I’m not a 🧦 you have no argument and you didn’t retort and just gave unsubstantiated claims  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:C134:4C3B:1199:A202 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 
No you did not. The book is a novel written by a non historian. The britannica has been discussed below, where an admin told you not to confuse geography with nationality with ethnicity. The academic consensus is clear and that is what I'm following. Stop stalking me and stop making accusations. My edit history is mostly reverting your unfounded and nationalistically driven edits. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Official louvre museum website states she’s Syrian https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/julia-domna-wife-septimius-severus-emperor-ad-193-211
This book is displayed by the permission of Oxford it states she’s Syrian https://books.google.ae/books?id=p-VfDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA55&dq=julia%20domina%20syrian&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q=julia%20domina%20syrian&f=false
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Domna
But professor Julia Baal has a different opinion she just want to neglect all of that and accuse me of being a sock 🧦 to twist the subject  it’s so simple right
Your sayings that those sources are talking about her Syrian birth and not Syrian ethnicity aren’t substantiated whatsoever 
If that the case doesn’t that mean the scientists who are described as arabs in the Muslim epochs doesn’t the term Arab refer to the culture and the language they spoke? Just like with Greeks?
We can keep on adding sources, it does not alter the fact it's in dispute. So we compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Compromise between academic consensus vs not as reliable sources (which, furthermore, are misunderstood and taken out of context)? This person has a lot of free time on their hand and uses wikipedia in bad faith, so the solution is to compromise? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not users. If anyone one has an issue with a user take it to their talk page or wP:ani, not here. This is to all of you, not anyone user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We've had enough of this ethnic fighting, and when someone brings personal attacks into it they get reverted and blocked. There's an IP that will not be editing here for a while, and there will be further sanctions if I see any further ethnic attacks or personal insults. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll just make the point that when we have a dispute, we do not compromise between what the various protagonists want - we go on what reliable sources say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I was talking about the lack of agreement among sources, not users. We can support both "Arab" and Syrian" with RS. So it seems to be we say "Syrian Arab".Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no lack of agreement, these are two different topics being mentioned by the sources, and are not mutually exclusive. Not every author is interested in ethnic designations especially for ancient figures thousands of years removed, so they mention a generic term in passing as to what they believe is relevant enough. But when academics are actually discussing the matter in detail re: ethnicity, like the sources posted below, and discuss how Domna's rise (along with emperor Philip) forms a peak of Arab power and self confidence in the long line of events leading to Islam, then she is unequivocally called an Arab. Cambridge, Harvard, Brill, Routledge publications about history by historians listed below are clear on the matter. For example one of the "sources" used here is a novel written by a non historian. Its reliability is orders below actual history books published by the same university, like the Oxford Classical Dictionary co-authored by how many historians and constantly updated, which explicitly called Domna Arab. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I was just expanding on the compromise thing mainly for the benefit of IP editors. My biggest concern here is that we have had a long line of IP editors trying to remove reference to the subject's Arab ethnicity, either altogether or by gradually chipping away at it. And, while I know I'm supposed to AGF, I am not convinced by the purity of their motives. On the content itself, I think we should use the same terminology as the consensus of reliable historical sources, whatever that might be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the three above "users" pretending to be acting in good faith have all just been banned by an admin for sockpuppetry. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is she categorized under "Damnatio Memoriae"? As far as I know this act has never been done on Julia Domna, but to her son. So why is it neccessary to categorize her under it? Jadd Haidar (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Julia Domna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


### Criteria
No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations Y


### Prose Suggestions
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

Suggest reorganizing sections into:
1. Family
1.1 Mariage
2. Life
2.1 Civil war
2.2 Power and influence
2.3 Transition of power.
2.4 Death
3.1 Legacy
4.1 Ancestry.
Julia Domna (AD 160–217) was a Roman empress of Syrian origins, the second wife of Septimius Severus (reigned 193–211). suggest:
Julia Domna (AD 160–217) was a Roman empress through her marriage to Emperor Septimius Severus (reigned 193–211).
After the deaths of both Caracalla and Julia Domna in 217, her older sister Julia Maesa successfully contended for political power. suggest either removing this, or writing a full paragraph on how Julia Maesa helped Elagabalus become emperor in the body. Would also suggest mentioning her death in lead.
many contenders rushed for the throne suggest:
many contenders fought for the throne
An elder senator, Pertinax, was appointed by the praetorian guard emperor of Rome.  suggest:
Pertinax, an elder senator, was appointed emperor of Rome by the praetorian guard.
By offering Clodius Albinus, a powerful governor of Britannia, the rank of Caesar, Severus could focus on his eastern rival to the throne, Pescennius Niger, whom he defeated at the Battle of Issus in 194. suggest:
Severus pacified Clodius Albinus, a powerful governor of Britannia who was a contender for the throne, the rank of Caesar in exchange for renouncing his claim on the throne. This allowed Severus to focus on his eastern threat, Pescennius Niger, whom he defeated at the Battle of Issus in 194. (side note, I'm not sure where eastern came from, given that Niger was in Spain/Britannia.
honorary titles were granted to Julia Domna reminiscent of titles given to Faustina the Younger, suggest:
honorary titles were granted to Julia Domna similar to those given to Faustina the Younger, the wife of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (reigned 161–180).
@Векочел: That is all my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Her name, Domna, is an archaic Arabic word that means black." This really make me curious. Some more sources should be added. --MarcusVetus✠ 14:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I added sources. I disagree that it's archaic, it's still in use. Since you're curious, it's theophoric, a reference to Elagabal which took the form of a black stone. Her sister and her two nieces, mothers of emperors Elagabalus and Alexander Severus, also had Arabic names.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 
can you give us more sources? you need to know what the word semitic means nd to whom it is applied. please in middle east they speak a range of languages that are called Semitic and not especially to arab. arab is inculded in the range of languages called afro-asiatic languages, so please don't confuse us. the honesty is to just mention Julia Domna as Syrian to where she belonged and not to the arabic peninsula. Syrians are not amused to see their historical heritage diverted for the benefit of another ethnic group
Domna is an Arabic word, as were her sister Maysa, and Maysa's two daughters Suhayma and Mama. The source is enough (published by Dumbarton Oaks, Harvard, and peer reviewed by historians such as Glen Bowersock, in Cambridge University's Classical Review. There is also literally a link to an Arabic language dictionary on her name. Besides, she is not Arab because she had an Arabic name, she is Arab because she came from an Arab family, the Emesenes. The name is just a cherry on top. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Some more sources on the name being Arabic:
Septimius Severus: The African Emperor, Routledge.  (page 72)
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1. (definition of "Julia Domna")
And pretty much every biography of her or of her husband. 
Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Brittanica and lots of other reliable sources  say the name is Syrian and as we know Brittanica is a reliable source https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Domna OhioanSBR (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes true but Julia seems to be very ideologically motivated she accused me of being obsessed with ethnicities, ironically, if you check her editing history you’ll see the true Arab nationalists the kind of people who think God was actually an Arab  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.193.128.47 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC) 
Are you really pretending to be talking to a different user? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone apply to get this page protected from drive-by anony or new editors? Every few days someone comes along and changes all instances of "Arab" to "Aramaic" just because. You can see this in the page history. Granted it happens all over the site but still, it's very prominent here. Someone even edited the source reference book "Rome and the Arabs" to "Rome". Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Why would you want to prevent people from editing? this is the main purpose of wikipedia! You want to prevent people from establishing the truth because it contains your lies. 
we are on democracy and freedom of speech is a legion. we are not in diktatorship.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensig (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC) 

Because you're not editing in good faith and don't know how wikipedia works. Wikipedia has rules, and semi protection on articles has its place when articles are vandalised by people who don't know these rules. You edit based on whims and opinions. Wikipedia isn't a personal blog to spew uneducated drivel by random people. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I read your article on Julia Domna carefully and my surprise was to read that she was from an Arab family, while she is not, she is of Syrian Roman origin, the main language spoken in syria at that time, before muslim expansion, was assyrian (aramaic) I thought Wikipedia was a reliable source and can see now that it is just a benchmark for lies and falsifications of history. You say we can help, but when we do it to restore the truth, you threaten to exclude us from the discussion. how do you want us to contruibue in this case?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensig (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC) 

You being ignorant of the history of Syria doesn't mean you and your friends get to change it accordingly. It's not my article, wikipedia is a crowd sourced project. Her being Arab is not my opinion, it's the opinion of historians. Wikipedia is written based on reliable, verifiable sources. For example on the page we have sources saying she was Arab, like publications from Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford. You can check the sources and verify. Before Muslim expansion Arabs constituted a major population of Syria, according to both ancient and modern historians. Assyrian is not Aramaic. Assyrians spoke Akkadian then Aramaic became their language after invading Aram, which during this invasion Arabs were among the native population defending against Assyrian invasion. If you like to contribute then present strong sources to every sentence you add, not just adding opinions like wikipedia is your personal blog. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I said assyrian and aramaic and more other languages which are considered afro-asiatic languages.  Syrians are not amused to see their historical heritage diverted for the benefit of another ethnic group  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensig (talk • contribs) 09:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC) 

Yes, I'm Syrian and I'm not amused by anti Arabs lying about Arab history in Syria and people stealing Arab presence for the benefit of other groups.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I am also syrian and i think you are ignorant and say that syria is inhabited by syrians and not arabs is anti arab for you? where real arabs live exactly? 
here is a good source and truth about Julia Domna https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Domna
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Domna  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensig (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC) 

She is Syrian as in came from the geographic location of Syria. Syrian and Arab are not mutually opposing terms. She was an ethnic Arab who came from Syria. Trying to hamfist "Syrian" into an ethnicity when a historian obviously uses it as a geographic term is one of many ways Arab haters use to obfuscate the Arab element. She is a Syrian Arab. Simple stuff. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Syria was inhabited by people of many ethnicities, including Arabs. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
"According to Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy, much of the Province of Syria was populated by Arabs." Source: ARABS, ARABIAS, AND ARABIC BEFORE LATE ANTIQUITY, by MCA Macdonald, Oxford historian. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
i regret, arabs live in the hijaz, and syria is inhabited by arameans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lensig (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC) 

@Lensig: Please learn to sign your comments. Just add "~~~~" to the end, and the Wikipedia software will convert that to your user link and a timestamp. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Can both sides produce an RS backing their claim? Note NATIONALITY and ETHNICITY are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A source has been provided, here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
the page contains half a dozen sources saying she was Arab. Like mentioned above, RS from oxford Harvard Cambridge routledge etc. Heavy academic consensus. Check the early life section on her article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.125.172 (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of connivance I am asking for one source form each side, top make it easier for me to judge the merits of both sides case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
A defender of the status quo does not need to provide a source when sources are already in the article. The relevant requirement is that anyone wanting to change it must provide a source to support the change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and I presume you mean convenience rather than connivance ;-) - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I know they do not need to, but it makes it easier for me to decide if its an OR or undue issue (or if in fact both sides have  valid point). Its also called treating both side equally.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


### Sources (and a convenient break)
As requested:

Cheers, now its the other sides turn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a false equivalency. There is academic consensus on one side and wishful thinking and misrepresentations and non specialists on the other side.

Rome and the Arabs, Dumbarton Oaks (Harvard)
Page 35:
"But more important is the involvement of two of the Arab empresses, Julia Domna and her niece Julia Mammaea, in the religious movements of the time."

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1
Page 141:
[Definition of Julia Domna]
"Julia Domna came from a prestigious family in Emesa… The Emesenes were originally of Arab descent, and the name “Domna” has been connected to an archaic Arabic words meaning 'black.'"

Roman Arabia, Harvard University Press
Page 128:
"With the last of his names, he clearly tried to forge a link with the ultimate Antonines, who were the Arab emperors from the family of Julia Domna."

Rome in the East, Routledge.
Page 456:
Chapter title: "Rome’s Arab half-century: Julia Domna and the Arabs who ruled Rome"
Page 457:
"But it is not often appreciated that Arabs dominated the very heart of Rome as well, most notably with the emergence of Arab families who became Roman emperors in the third century.
The first of these families was – appropriately in the context of Semitic domination of the Mediterranean – both Phoenician and Arab. The Phoenician side came from the aristocracy of Lepcis Magna in Africa. The Arab side came from the line of priest-kings who ruled the client kingdom of Emesa in Syria."
Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Slatersteven is implying any equivalence. He's essentially just saying that if anyone wants to change the article from what the current sources suggest, they'll have to provide better sources at least as good as those already in the article (Yep, good point, I've changed it), and highlighting what the sources say here is a way to examine the opposing claims - and it's the reliability of sources that matters, not any count of quantity. The extra sources you have provided now are very useful, but we do need to allow others to try to challenge them if they think they have better. If the necessary opposition sources do not exist (and against those sources you have now provided, I think it's unlikely that they do), you have nothing to worry about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being frustrated but I can post 30 sources. There is a mountain of evidence. Maybe I don't get how wikipedia works but how is this in contention in the first place? If she was any other ethnicity we wouldn't have this discussion, but only for Arabs do they have to go the extra mile to prove something so evident. Again, sorry if I come out as annoyed but it really is frustrating and a waste of time. And am I the only one who looked at the page history? For 95% of its lifetime the Arab element is hidden and for the past weeks people are randomly removing it for no reason. I've seen pages protected for less. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I do understand your frustration. But the problem has been brought to administrator attention now (by the editor wanting to make the contested change, as it happens). And I can assure you nobody will be allowed to change any sourced content unless they can present sufficient reliable sources for their change. That's essentially how Wikipedia policy on content works - when a change is contested, the one wanting to make the change must present their sources and seek consensus. I will be happy to enforce that policy, using blocks or protection, as necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh! That explains everything. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that is exactly what I am saying. Except, not better sources but at least equal ones (but then we could not remove, just point out the conflict). As I said there are many potential issues here, the first task is to establish what the issue is, wp:or wp:fringe wp:undue, or even wp:npov.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
there is no OR, it's parroting what the sources say exactly. And it's not just blood either, but culture as well. Elagabalus successfully preserved Arab characteristics both in his names and in his representations (source: The Cambridge Ancient History, section "The Arabs", page 502, which also talks about Domna). So it's not fringe (if I understand what fringe means). We have sources that say Julia Domna came from the Emesene dynasty and then say the Emesene dynasty was Arab. If this is considered OR then there are other sources that explicitly say "Julia Domna is Arab/from an Arab family", which is what I posted above. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I am going to be very nice, and not sarky. There are two sides to this dispute, I need to decide which one is in the wrong, and if they are how. I have not yet sided with either side is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
And you couldn't tell that from the manner in which they talked or from how they edited the page? Some random person replacing words with a complete disregard to the most basic principles of knowledge sharing (nevermind wikipedia rules), and who just above showed a total lack of knowledge on the subject matter. They are clearly acting in bad faith, operating on prejudiced misconceptions, and repeating falsehoods easily debunked by very reliable, very clear, very verifiable academic sources, by the top historians in the world writing in the most reputable publishers. Yet you're still deciding which side to take? And this isn't singular either, it's part of a trend on this page that will surely come up again and again. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As I have no knowledge of the subject no, so I approach it form the stand point of "make your case and lets see whose argument is best". I suggest you drop the attitude, I am trying to be even handed and fair, to both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Julia Domna Ba'al: You really don't need to worry about it now. Slatersteven is acting as an impartial editor here, and is giving both sides equal opportunity to make their case, and will offer his opinion solely on the balance of sources (and not on any assumptions of bad faith, so please bear my warning below in mind and do not pursue that avenue here). That is absolutely the correct approach for an impartial witness to take. What you might not be grasping here is that if an impartial editor like Slatersteven should form the opinion that the current article content is supported by the available reliable sources, then that will help establish it as the current consensus version and will provide a basis to keep it that way against any future attempts to make unsourced changes. You've done your bit now, so I suggest you just leave it and see if the other side comes up with anything. I know Slatersteven well enough to trust him to evaluate sources properly. So don't *tell* him that other sources have been debunked and he shouldn't consider them, leave him to examine them himself and form his own conclusion. There'll be time to dispute any other sources in due course, but please just let Slatersteven guide the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee:, How about now? (check history) Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Julia Domna Ba'al: Yes, it doesn't look like it's going to stop. Given the history of editors trying to make this change, including autoconfirmed ones, I've applied indefinite extended-confirmed protection. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Boing! said Zebedee hi, can this also be done to Domna's son Caracalla, and sister (Julia Maesa)? There is incessant disruptive editing over the exact same issue. Especially Caracalla. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Julia Domna Ba'al: Yes, I think that makes sense. I'll go do it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Векочел: Who got it to GA class and I assume knows a lot more than many on the subject. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I can’t see why there would be any dispute over whether Julia Domna was Arab. Векочел (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As an aside it has been Arab for a long time, including through two reviews so it should obviously stay there until there is consensus to change or amend it. I understand your frustrations, but trust me most editors involved now are not going to let unsourced, or poorly sourced, ethnic changes stand and anyone who persists will be dealt with. Things take a while to work out here, but they usually end up where they should be. You just need to be patient. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The GA review in the talk section says "Syrian origins" in the lead. It linked to the page Syrians, which is a pseudo blog post guised as a wikipedia page, using non historian sources as references and trying hard to make "Syrian" an ethnicity, then linking anyone who lived in Syria with this ethnicity, regardless of actual ethnicity. It was linked to from Domna, Philip the Arab, Iamblichus, Ibn Nafis, etc. They are converging readers to that page and then denying the Arab element. When a historian calls someone Syrian (geography or nationality) they link to that page. It's a very slimy act. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
OK its been 24 hours, more then enough time to produce at least one source. As far as I can tell ALL rs say she was an Arab, not one say she was not (not even non wp:rs compliant ones). Thus even to say her ethnicity is contested fails wp:or and wp:fringe, let alone changing it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


### Warning
Stop the personal attacks and ethnic fighting. If I see any further attacks, accusing each other of being haters or whatever, I'm going to start blocking people's accounts. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article based on what reliable sources say. If you believe a change needs to be made to the article and that change has been contested, please present reliable sources here on this page to support the change you wish to make. In this case, that would be reliable sources regarding the ethnicity of Julia Domna herself - not sources that cover general ethnicities of people occupying various lands in historical times, not personal reasoning as to what you think her ethnicity was, not personal opinons of who you think lives where, and not deductions based on nationality or place of origin. Oh, and if I see any more edit warring, I'll be issuing blocks for that too. And I will consider any continual arguing that's not based on reliable sources as disruptive, and I will also block for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add the following template to the article:

 2601:241:300:B610:C072:E2FF:A43F:6722 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Julia Domna succeeded in proving her loyalty to her son by accepting his rule and abiding by the damnatio memariae and, as a result, during his reign she enjoyed more influence and power than she ever had reign under Septimius Severis. Julia Domna was responsible for going through Caracalla's mail and deciding what was worthy of his attention and what was unimportant and was also responsible for protecting the treasury, so she took care of his affairs and resources. addition to his corespondence and treasury, Julia Domna was in charge of receiving petitions and holding receptions for prominent men, which was only the responsibility of the emperor. 5.31.249.124 (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Julia Domna succeeded in proving her loyalty to her son by accepting his rule and abiding by the damnatio memariae and, as a result, during his reign she enjoyed more influence and power than she ever had reign under Septimius Severis. Julia Domna was responsible for going through Caracalla's mail and deciding what was worthy of his attention and what was unimportant and was also responsible for protecting the treasury, so she took care of his affairs and resources. addition to his corespondence and treasury, Julia Domna was in charge of receiving petitions and holding receptions for prominent men, which was only the responsibility of the emperor.
During reign of Caracalla: Julia Domna succeeded in proving her loyalty to her son by accepting his rule and abiding by the damnatio memariae and, as a result, during his reign she enjoyed more influence and power than she ever had reign under Septimius Severis. Julia Domna was responsible for going through Caracalla's mail and deciding what was worthy of his attention and what was unimportant and was also responsible for protecting the treasury, so she took care of his affairs and resources. addition to his corespondence and treasury, Julia Domna was in charge of receiving petitions and holding receptions for prominent men, which was only the responsibility of the emperor. 5.31.249.124 (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add the category Category:Mothers of monarchs 2601:249:9301:D570:A465:A50F:784C:ED3B (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Dimadick (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

In the first section change the text below please :
"Domna committed suicide in 217 upon hearing of Caracalla's assassination"
Please change to 
"Domna killed herself / took her own life in 217..."
The term committed suicide is not used Meow2277 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It means she took her own life, there is no issue with that text. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)