Talk:Zenobia

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. These Arabic references should be removed. They appear to have been added for reasons of Arab propaganda of the "Jesus was an Arab" school. Zenobia did not speak Arabic but a dialect of Aramaic and was known to be sympathetic to Jews.68.111.71.197 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: With respect there some Arabs living in levant before Islam like Ghassanids, tanukhids and importantly nabateans 174.65.225.68 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab Proaganda

message: 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)
thread_title:  The second paragraph... 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not "well out of period." The author is quoting Malalas who specifically used that word shortly after, which is important given Malalas's own background and what the word meant in his time. User:Attar-Aram syria if the article mentions Al-tabari then shouldn't it also include Malalas calling her Saracen, in the "early life" section??? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to the third century, it is "well out of period" for the inhabitants of the Syrian Desert, as the term was introduced to mean those inhabitants in general at the end of the fourth century (as explained by Retso). Now the main issue is Malalas. He calls Odaenathus king of the Saracens and Zenobia a Saracen. These statements are contradictory with the contemporary or near contemporary sources dealing with Palmyra and its dynasty. When Malalas was writing, Palmyra was no more. It was a mere small settlement around a Roman castra who lost its distinctive culture and language, and also its identity (the only identity you see in Palmyrene inscriptions is Palmyrene). I.e., Malalas was writing according to the facts of his time when Saracen meant a desert dweller and Palmyra was pretty much just a desert settlement, nothing like the metropolitan Zenobia ruled. Therefore, including Malalas to give readers the impression that Zenobia was a Saracen (which is not identical to Arab in the period of Zenobia) is misleading, and if he will be included, then a long paragraph will need to follow explaining all the realities I mentioned earlier, for which I will use Jan Retso, who goes in depth discussing just how shitty Malalas is for knowledge about events preceding him and the difference between an Arab and a Saracen in the time of Zenobia. So tbh, my only qualm against Malalas is that I will have to write a long paragraph that will just lower the quality of this article by bringing it within the scope of the very deconstructive struggle to prove that "this woman is Arab, those people were Arabs, that kingdom was Arab....etc". For Zenobia's Arab blood, the article is very clear that as a Palmyrene, she was Arab amongst other things, but to use Malalas to portray her as a woman with an Arab identity or just pure Arab is misleading (by thinking that by Saracen, readers will understand "Arab"). As for Tabari, unlike Malalas, his account is the most known in the Arab world (at least before al-Ababeed TV series). Thats why he is mentioned here, mainly for Arab readers confused between the Tabari's story and the actual history of Zenobia. This can’t be said about Malalas whom no one knows outside Academia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Great source, thanks. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her death 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you have better images, please put them forward, rather than delete this one. Your removal of this image and the rationale appears to be part of a WP:POINT campaign originating from Talk Muhammed. Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 14:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yours seems to be originating from the same drive to push your anti-Muslim POV. Aliibn (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Sigh* the victim card comes out once again. Don't you ever tire of silly racism accusations? •CHILLDOUBT• 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ahh, 'victim card', the standard right wing talk radio putdown of any complaint or criticism by anyone not white, male, north European, or judaeo-Christian.  A _very_ revealing comment indeed! Aliibn (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Hehehehe. Thanks for the laugh regarding what you believe my politics to be - Being wrong seems to be a bit of a speciality for you ;-) ...Lets try and keep our discussions to wikipedia issues shall we...? •CHILLDOUBT• 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Looks good to me. The only question I might have is the licensing for the image.  Ill upload this image to the article now, and add the rationale. If there are any problems, Ill give you an alert so we can come up with another source or another way round it. Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try this one 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family, ancestry, etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed line about the treatise on the Sublime 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vaballathus from Arabic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marcellus Petrus Nutenus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vaballathus : gift of the "goddess" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If no other modern sources mention this, it can be removed based on WP:fringe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its just planted in anceint concepts but not supported by any evidence. However, we can wait for the editor who introduced the info to participate in the discussion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, yes, I in fact used Bryce's book to source this info, it states in the book (precisely p. 304) that Zenobia crowned herself Queen of Egypt. Now I don't have a stance regarding the book nor its writer's credibility, but if you are uncertain or doubt the reference's credibility and/or accuracy, feel free to remove the title from the infobox. And sorry for any troubles. Jadd Haidar (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen of Egypt

message: 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:
*Her name was Aramaic
*No contemporary source described as an Arab
*She spoke Palmyrene, an Aramaic dialect
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)
thread_title:  Arab Zenobia 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those editors are wrong in their edits. I gave you a link to Wikipedia verfication policy. The Gallic empire article is not of high quality. This is a featured article that needs verfication to everything contreversial and what Zenobia meant with her imperial title is certainly contreversial. Your argument regarding the The Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World New Revised Edition is SYNTH. You cant give her a title she did not claim. It is easier to give her the title queen of Palmyra since thats what she ruled, but harder to know if she meant Rome or the East (like her husband did with his king of kings title) with her Augusta title. As for the talk page, you need to first get a consensus then implement your edits, not the other way around. Hence I will revert you again until you present a reliable source containing evidence that she meant Rome, or Palmyra with her title Augusta. Our opinions dont matter... thats why there is no need to make a long discussion about them. Note, Maeonius is a fictional character, and have zero evidence that he ever lived.. I have no idea how you gave him a title......... but I dont care for its low quality article as it need to be re-weitten anyway.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: @Slapnut1207: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World NRV is not a reliable source. Its author seems to be an amateur and generalist, with no specialist background or qualifications (such as a doctorate in Ancient History) relevant to the subject. His work may be entertainingly written, well-informed, and based on respected sources (I've not checked whether that's the case). It might even be "correct". Fortunately, that's not for us to decide. We rely on scholarly opinion of the work. Unless it has been published by a recognised scholarly publishing house and reviewed by academic peers (neither case applies, as far as I can tell) we shouldn't use it. Sources that fail to meet strict academic criteria are scattered throughout Wikipedia, usually by well-meaning editors not fully informed of Wikipedia's policies. That doesn't mean it's OK to use them in any article, certainly not in a Featured Article. By the way, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. Haploidavey (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: And a quick PS: your rather long, speculative post in this section seems to embrace several different-but-related topics. It's all speculative; you seem to be making inferences and drawing your own conclusions. You seem to have blended source synthesis and original research. Discussion of problems and possible improvements should be based on the accurate representation of what's said by reliable sources (QED). Haploidavey (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  TItles 

message: Apparently, the word "Bat" is also spelled "Bath"?
* "Zenobia (Septimia) or in Aramaic Bath Zabbai, one of the great women of classical antiquity (PLRE 1. 990 f.). The second wife of Septimius Odaenathus of Palmyra, on his death in ad 267, in suspicious circumstances, she secured power for herself in the name of her young son, Septimius Vaballathus. As long as Zenobia kept the east secure, Gallienus and Claudius (II) Gothicus were prepared to accept her regime, including its bestowal upon Vaballathus of his father's Roman titles, and hence of the claim to be more than just king of Palmyra. However, in 270 Zenobia exploited the political instability that followed the death of Claudius to expand beyond Syria by taking over Egypt and much of Asia Minor, and further to enhance Vaballathus' Roman titles, while continuing to recognize Aurelian as emperor. When Aurelian finally moved against her in 272, her forces failed to stop him at Antioch (1) and Emesa, and—now calling her son Augustus and herself Augusta—she was cornered in Palmyra. She was captured while attempting to escape, shortly before the fall of the city. She was spared. Many tales were told of her subsequent life; little is certain, though it is likely that she was paraded in Aurelian's triumph." -- John Frederic Dobson (2012) "Zenobia". in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.) '. Oxford University Press.
* "Zenobia (Palmyrene Bath Zabbai) (240/1–272 or after 274), Queen of Palmyra (regent 266/7–272). Born in Palmyra (Syria), thought to be daughter of Julius Aurelius Zenobios, a city strategos at about the time of her birth. Of Aramaic or Arabic stock, her family were Roman citizens and Zenobia nurtured a taste for Graeco-Roman culture, summoning from Athens during her reign the rhetorician Longinus to improve her Greek. Gibbon extolled her learning: ‘her manly understanding was strengthened and adorned by study’. Her political career sprang from her marriage to Septimius Odaenathus, an aristocrat who pursued a successful relationship with Rome, becoming its most powerful citizen in the East and the self-styled King of Palmyra. On his death in 266/7 in a dynastic struggle whose circumstances are unknown, Zenobia became regent for their eldest son, Vaballathus, and was the force behind the subsequent emergence of the Empire of Palmyra. When the Romans had reversed her remarkable territorial gains and were at the gates of the city in 272 she fled with her entourage but was captured near the Euphrates and sent to Rome. Tradition divides on her fate: one story is that she died en route to the city (Zosimus, I, 59), another that she was paraded there in Aurelian’s triumph and thereafter lived out her days on an estate in Italy (HA Triginta Tyranni, 30, 27). The rapidity of Zenobia’s rise, her reputed bravery and beauty, and her status as a female ruler who challenged an imperial power ensured an enduring fame. A leader of distinct learning, ability, and ambition, she marked the history of the Empire like few other women." -- Shane Brennan (2018). "Zenobia". in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity . Oxford University Press.
- LouisAragon (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey LouisAragon, sorry for the late reply. Many historians are using the rendering "Bath", but I havent seen linguists who use it. The name consists of two words: Zabbai, and Bat. The latter is written in Palmyrene using two letters (as vowels are not normally written in Semitic languages): B (Palmyrene Unicode 10861,  "BETH") and T (Palmyrene Unicode 10876  "TAW"). The latter is pronounced when appearing in a word as the English T. If the end of the "Bat" part of her name was going to be pronounced "Bath", then the second Palmyrene letter should be Ṯāʾ, which is a sound that (as far as I know and Im not expert at all) does not exist in Palmyrene. Since Im no linguist, then all what I wrote is just my own "or", but Im tempted to wait for an argument by a Palmyrene specialist in a reliable source for the usage of the sound "th" instead of "t" before appearing in the article. (You can download and read the Palmyrene unicode from this link.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bat[h]-Zabbai 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cognate?

message: 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.
* Eliminate redundancy in phrasing and improve prose.
* Merge duplicate content into a section that covers both and is easy for readers to follow and be consistently maintained (compare Titles and Empress.. to see existing issue) and reduces the length slightly given that it's over 129kB big (WP:AS, WP:CHOKING, WP:TOOBIG).
* Separate "Governance" (and its sub-subsections 'Culture' and 'Religion') into its own standalone section. But keep "Administration" in its place in the parent section , as it includes information that is part of the chronology of her Expansion to Downfall whereas the aforementioned subsections are a sidetrack that is better suited as a standalone. See my example before revert:  (Ignore the "Judaism" heading which blended into the paragraph, I intended to fix that). Note that "Captivity and fate" and "Evaluation and legacy" are already sections. —DA1 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC for miscellaneous edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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:
* a "use American English" hatnote, and
* I brought back in, in capitals, the transliteration of the original abjad version of Zenobia's name: "BTZBY, vocalized as" [Baṯ-Zabay]
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,  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)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding, right?