Talk:Odaenathus

message: In the ancestors section of the page, it states Odaenathus's ancestors, Hairan, Wahb Allat, and Nasor as his father, grandfather and great grandfather respectively. Shouldn't this information be sourced? And if they are, where does it exactly state his father's name or any of his ancestors? Thanks in advance. Jadd Haidar (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced. what section exactly are you refering to ? Every sentence in the article is followed by a small square with a number in it, that is the source. All the info about his ancestry and where it was found is followed by a source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestors 

message: My edits were mostly cosmetic, normalizing the citation style. As for Hairan, I put the remark about Nabatea in a note since there seems a consensus that its an Aramaic name. Words like "however", "some" etc are discouraged. I removed Malalas and kept Procopius; believe me, if you want to prove something, using Malalas will make your case weak. I hope not to engage in any edit wars and that we can discuss changes here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In all honestly I was hesitated to include Malalas. You've saved me the trouble, however the remark of Hayran Arabic origin is definitely crucial and of great importance to the article and is supported by an authoritative source. The author did not say "it could be", in fact it couldn't be more explicit in his statement. Both views should be equally presented per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Since it was published by a reliable source, I will edit it as the following, with minor alteration: "However, Lucinda Dirven state that Hairan, attested in Nabataean personal names, is of Arabic origin that means "good" or "excellent"." Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dirven was direct, but others assert differently and thats why her opinion was in the minority. I will edit again, this time I will write that Hairan is an Arabic name in the view of the majority. The sources already in the article have it as Aramaic, but more specialized ones have it as Arabic. Since it is stated that the name is Arabic, I guess there is no need to mention Nabataea anymore or the meaning of the name since this article is about Odaenathus.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, I think both claims should be presented equally. The Aramaic linguistic extraction of Hairan should be included in the body and not as a note. Obviously without the inclusion of conclusions that was not reached or stated by the authors. The rest on the readers.. so shrug. Great job on Palmyra btw, I noticed it was extensively edited by you. Nabataeus (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that the Aramaic etymology is weak, and no author who assert it mention an argument or etymology, so it doesnt deserve the spot light. A note shall be enough in my opinion. Thanks for your words btw, hope to see you writing great articles soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine and Hairan 

message: There is an error in the latinized version of the inscription. It doesn't say MDNH' ('the king of the entire EAST') but rather MDYT' ('the king of the entire PROVINCE').  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.134.245 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcription is provided by a specialist source. If you have a stronger reliable source wich have the "correction", then you should provide it here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  An error in the the transcription of the inscription 

message: A cluttering of Greek and Latin transliterations was added, but I do not see the justification for this. The Arabic transliteration have several forms but we wont add them as it will be visual pollution that serves no purpose. Aside from this, why would Odaenathus have a Greek or Latin transliteration despite him not being Greek or Roman? the fact that few Palmyrene inscriptions were in Latin, or that we have bilingual Greek and Palmyrene inscriptions doe not warrant such a prominent place for the Greek and Latin transliterations in the lead. Aramaic was used by the Parthians but we dont have the name of Parthian monarch in Aramaic, nor do we do that for Indian monarchs who used Aramiac in many inscriptions. 
Also, the lead doent not need citations: they should be in the body of the article and the Name, family and appearance section cover this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is useful to have the info somewhere, I think. Perhaps in a note or incorporated into the infobox? Having the actual Greek somewhere seems justifiable for those coming to this subject from reading Greek sources like Zosimus. I agree that listing all the variants is ugly - especially given that we know they are corruptions. Furius (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the appropriate place will be a note in the "Name, family and appearance" section. I added a note, is that suitable in your opinion?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek and Latin? 

message: This term remained unlinked in the first sentence because apparently the article Palmyrene Empire is limited to the period after his death. This doesn't make sense to me. Should the whole history of the Palmyrene state under him and his successors be in one article? Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No! Odaenathus did not claim to be emperor and was nominally nothing more than a generously empowered client king. I mean, yes, it should be in one article, but that article should be Palmyra's, not the Palmyrene Empire, which is an ephemeral thing of a handful of years like the French Directory rather than an enduring thing like France. GPinkerton (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He did claim to be king of kings. My concern is that we say "Palmyrene Kingdom" like its a thing, but we have no article on it. Is it or isn't it a thing? If our article Palmyra is supposed to cover it, then we should just say king of Palmyra and not founder of the Palmyrene kingdom. But in fact he was the founder of a kingdom and its the one that became an 'empire' in 270. My point has nothing to do with titles, but topics. Which is why I judiciously said "Palmyrene state" and introduced the link Palmyrene Kingdom rather than pipe to Palmyrene Empire. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "Palmyrene dynasty" is a safer bet. It wasn't a kingdom in any sense besides that of territory ephemerally belonging to a particular king. "King of Kings" was applied liberally in Late Antiquity and need not mean a superior position to the emperor. Hannibalianus, a relative non-entity, had the job in Constantine's day. GPinkerton (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

text: The latter is what I was thinking: expand (and, if we have to, rename) the empire article. But I am okay with the current approach given the quality of the Palmyra article. I just think we should be careful with the phrase "Palmyrene Kingdom" if we are decided against an article dedicated to it. Srnec (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its more accurate to have an article about the kingdom as the "empire" was just the last stage of it. Im willing to expand the article and rename it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

text: "last for one or two generations at least". Who came up with this criterion?? A kingdom is a state ruled by a king, be it one king or a hundred, and whether it lasted an ephemeral year or a 1000. Just a quick search will show that many academic works use the term to indicate a kingdom established in 260 and ended in 272, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

text: If his empire included several nations (not tribes) covering central africa under his rule then yes, it would have been the central african empire. In the case of Palmyra, it was the Palmyrene Kingdom, the state the ruled the Palmyrene region for 12 years.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palmyrene Kingdom