Talk:Julia Domna

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: OK so do we have an agreement to change it to "Syrian born Arab"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Damnatio Memoriae

message: "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)
thread_title:  The word "Domna" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Syria was inhabited by people of many ethnicities, including Arabs. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: A source has been provided, here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oh, and I presume you mean convenience rather than connivance ;-) - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Cheers, now its the other sides turn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh! That explains everything. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  , How about now? (check history) Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, I think that makes sense. I'll go do it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: As requested:
:Cheers, now its the other sides turn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh! That explains everything. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  , How about now? (check history) Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, I think that makes sense. I'll go do it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources (and a convenient break)

message: 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)
thread_title: Warning

message: Please add the following template to the article:
 2601:241:300:B610:C072:E2FF:A43F:6722 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2022 

message: Please add the category :Category:Mothers of monarchs 2601:249:9301:D570:A465:A50F:784C:ED3B (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dimadick (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024