Talk:Semiramis

message: Added the Armenian legend accompanied with a picture.
It's a very short summary, somebody more qualified could expand later.--Eupator 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: google search Agathoclea 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Ninus was so struck by her bravery at the capture of Bactra that he married her, forcing Onnes to commit suicide."  -- Something is wrong with this sentence.  Did the marriage so upset Onnes that he committed suicide?  I suspect that's what is trying to be said here, but it needs to be worded differently to be clear.  Aleta 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is not clear? 79.106.203.97 (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Forcing suicide?

message: The account of the marriage of Semiramis to her first husband, Onnes, from Diodorus:
"5 1 Such, then, is in substance the story that is told about the birth of Semiramis. And when she had already come to the age of marriage and far surpassed all the other maidens in beauty, an officer was sent from the king's court to inspect the royal herds; his name was Onnes, and he stood first among the members of the king's council and had been appointed governor over all Syria. He stopped with Simmas, and on seeing Semiramis was captivated by her beauty; consequently he earnestly entreated Simmas to give him the maiden in lawful marriage and took her off to Ninus, where he married her and begat two sons, Hyapates and Hydaspes. 2 And since the other qualities of Semiramis were in keeping with the beauty of her countenance, it turned out that her husband became completely enslaved by her, and since he would do nothing without her advice he prospered in everything." (p. 363)
[ ... ]
"9 When the city had been taken in this way, the king, marvelling at the ability of the woman, at first honoured her with great gifts, and later, becoming infatuated with her because of her beauty, tried to persuade her husband to yield her to him of his own accord, offering in return for this favour to give him his own daughter Sosanê to wife. 
10 But when the man took his offer with ill grace, Ninus threatened to put out his eyes unless he at once accede to his commands. And Onnes, partly out of fear of the king's threats and partly out of his passion for his wife, fell into a kind of frenzy and madness, put a rope about his neck, and hanged himself. Such, then, were the circumstances whereby Semiramis attained the position of queen." (p. 371)
Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, Vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library, 1933, 
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/2A*.html
(Edited to add: I revised the text on the main page to include this account of Diodorus).
Estéban (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: An Alternative Account from Diodorus Siculus

message: Asarelah, feel free to re-insert Melchizedekjesus's "controversial theory," but not in its current form please.  Proper references need to be provided.  For example: WHEN and WHERE did St. Augustine say that the cult of Venus and Cupid morphed into the cult of the Virgin Mary?  And many others.  Clean it up to meet accepted Wikipedia standards, then feel free to re-insert. -- 70.171.49.117 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did clean it up and he did keep changing back. I suppose I'd better contact him and explain what I'm trying to do here. Hopefully we can get this straightened out. Asarelah 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me first assure you that I have no agenda other than improving the article. The main problem here is that when people made edits attempting to improve upon the section you added, you continued to change it back again and again to your version, which I tried to improve upon not only because I thought that it was biased, but because, in my opinion, it was rather unclear and poorly written. When you add information to wikipedia, you agree to allow other editors to edit it. So let them. Furthermore, although Hislop's theory certainly should be mentioned in the article, you kept presenting it as the only "true" origin of Semiramis. There is no consensous among historians as to the origins of Semiramis, and to present this theory as being the only "true" one is heavily biased. Furthermore, at least one did try to get you to address your concerns on the talk page through mentioning it in the edit summaries. (such as the 23 December 2006 version by Codex Sinaiticus). I would be more than happy to include information on Hislop's theory, I simply want to make sure that it is unbiased, and I can't do that if you continue to reinsert the same flawed version of the section over and over again. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are found at the top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean? If you examine the history (for example, the version I created on December 27, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semiramis&oldid=96665978), I made repeated attempts to rewrite it, you kept reinserting previous versions. If you will not be reasonable, I will be forced to ask the administrators to intervene in this matter. Asarelah 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that I'm aware of. Does it say both Babylon and Assyria in the article? Asarelah (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly says she was a 'legendary Assyrian queen' in the first few lines.  But later it is clear she is associated with Babylon.  I'm just wondering if this is a mistake or if there is some historical basis for her association with both empires or for some precursor to them (of which I know nothing).  75.9.35.38 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melchizedekjesus 

message: I removed the link to Semiramis, Queen of Babylon. Writer Bryce Self takes the Bible very seriously indeed, accepting the Flood, Noah's Ark, Satan etc. as literal truths. The page could of course still contain valuable information about Semiramis, but I think such information should be taken from more reliable sources than that. Hexmaster (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: It is SO fascinating to see that EVERY single heroine in history and myth has been turned into something cheap/harlot-like (and forgotten!). It is clear that Semiramis is a female heroine, and to these characteristics belong enjoyment of the senses, accepting seed to be fruitful etc.
Why do we never hear of these heroines, except for negative reasons ("she behaves like she was the queen of sheeba etc)
Cassiopeia, The Queen of Sheba, Salome, Semiramis... are all FEMINIBE HEROINES, who have been cast aside and fogotten!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.144.155 (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being? Hexmaster (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY ARE HEROINES ALWAYS VILIFIED? 

message: Often difficult to disprove, approve or even discuss some issues pertaining to Queen Semiramis for obvious source scarcity and/or verifiability. However the following ref on page 4 is interesting: 
Hydraulics of Sediment Transport
By Walter Hans Graf
Edition: 3
Published by Water Resources Publication, 1998
, 9780918334565
She was directly responsible for 'okaying' the project (expensive) and it might help to draw the article into clearer waters regarding the nebulous cloud over her real life id, etc. Yes, its relevance is debateable within the article's context but all info helps to rebuild the past from spurious sources and the capacities of those invested with their interpretation.
Marc Block's analytical techniques always seem to guide and facilitate historical perspectives...but I am sure most editors here are more than familiar with said approaches! Cheers. Ernstblumberg (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And no offence to Encycl Brit - but the article on Queen Semiramis...what were they thinking? Ernstblumberg (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend, facts, et al. 

message: Is that supposed to redirect to Surma people? I don't see Indian (or Afghan for that matter) references, but I do see Ethiopia. So..just asking, since it's considered a legend. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suri 

message: Removed the 'some historians regard' -- this is weasel words. Which historians regard Hislop in this light, where is the citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinTurner (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hislop / Jack Chick 

message: I don't know why this section is included and at such great length. I don't see the significance of the Armenian perspective on the legend of Semiramis, especially given it appears to ascribe a certain Armenian character to the legend which is of no factual validity or cultural significance outside of Armenia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.82.198 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Armenian section really significant enough to merit inclusion? 

message: Can these two pages be combined?
Shammuramat  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalturbo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is disagreement that these two are the same figure. Personally I don't believe the chronology works out: the figure called Semiramis is depicted in our sources as being about a millennium earlier than this Shammuramat. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 Queen, 2 pages 

message: I think this 2 article Semiramis and Shammuramat, is about 1 person, but semiramis is greek name of Shammuramat --Muhib mansour (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Is "a given name for [their] female children" appropriate? Or change it to "girls"? Why not use "girls"? Am I missing the intricacies of style, or is this a case of sexism?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Female children" 

message: I've been reading this book as part of some research I've been doing, so I'm familiar with the current subject matter. As mentioned in the section there are a lot of problems with his claims, however this paragraph is giving his actual claims. I'm definitely not catholic, so no conflict of interest there. 
The first edit is for accuracy. It is more accurate the way I wrote it, as he does not claim that the Catholic Church as a whole is responsible, but rather only the Pope and those closest to him are aware of this "carefully guarded secret" and that it is the Pope who inherited the position of pagan Peter at some point. 
The second edit is for clarity. It is irrelevant whether the Bible mentions this or not, as the author does not refer to the Bible for most of his historical data but rather to historians. So saying "even though the Bible doesn't say this" sounds like there is an inconsistency in his method when in fact there is no inconsistency because he wasn't basing it on the biblical record. 
I just saw it and thought it should be edited. Feel free to revert again if you don't feel this sufficiently improves accuracy.
Arlen22 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that your own opinion or is it what the WP:RS says? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   It's what the book itself says. I'm not saying the book is a reliable source for history. It's only mentioned because it's well-known. But it is definitely a reliable source for itself. Arlen22 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  Sometimes I feel like people just go undo every single edit I make that tries to not be inflammatory. Almost as though it is somehow "high quality" to mention irrelevant facts. Arlen22 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying section on The Two Babylons 

message: Article says: "The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus,[8] describe her . . . ."  How does the editor know that DS drew from Ctesias?  Are there 2 reliable contemporary sources (reported in modern secondary sources) which say so?  Or is this statement a report of what DS says was his source? If it is just based on what DS claims, then would it not be better to change the language to "DS claims", instead of stated as fact? (FairNPOV (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Yes, Diodorus opens book 2 by saying "Now no historian has recorded the battles with each nation or the number of all the peoples conquered, but we shall undertake to run over briefly the most important nations, as given in the account of Ctesias of Cnidus" and he continues throughout his narrative of Semiramis to say "as Ctesias of Cnidus says" (or "reports" or "records") eleven times in the course of his narrative of Semiramis. That Ctesias was Diodorus sole source for book two is accepted by almost all modern scholarly works on the topic. See, in particular, the entries for Ctesias in Jacoby, FGrH and Brill's New Jacoby; Jan Stronk, Semiramis' Legacy The History of Persia According to Diodorus of Sicily (2016) in the section on "Sources, Books 1-5", C. Muntz, Diodorus Siculus and the World of the Late Roman Republic (2017) p. 23. Furius (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Sockpuppet of User:PeacePeace comments striked/deleted and noted per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact or alleged?