Zenobia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 17, 2017 Featured article candidate Promoted

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 23 December 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Arabic references should be kept as she is routinely referred to in the classical Arabic histories (9th-10th century) which give us a great deal of information about her and her activities. Her conflict and alliances with Arabic speaking nomadic tribes (and the settled Arabic speaking dynasties of the Lakhmids and Ghassanids - clients of the Persian and Roman empires respectively) are strong evidence for keeping the references to Arabic. Let's keep the Arab-Israeli conflict out of this.

BTW - I corrected the transliteration of the Arabic version of her name as it is given in this article but I can't verify it from the sources. From my experience, she's usually called al-Zabba' (in the medieval sources).

---

In 260, her forces were responsible for an unprecedented victory against Rome: not only were Roman forces defeated, but the emperor Valerian was captured and taken back to Zenobia's court. This was the only such occurrance in Rome's history and it demanded a reply.

I took the above out, because she wasn't yet reigning in 260. Also, the source I have says that it was King Sapor of Persia (not Zenobia's husband Odenathus of Palmyra) who defeated and captured Valerian in 260. -- Marj Tiefert

Argh -- you're right -- Zenobia and Odenathus defeated Sapor...but Valerian was still made into a footstool...! JHK

---

Are we sure about the birth name? It would make more sense if "Septimia" derived from her husband's being "Septimius Odanathus," and I can't find "Bathzabbi" anywhere. -- isis 24 Aug 2002

---

Okay, I'm reading Gibbon's "Decline and Fall . . ." (which I HIGHLY recomend, BTW), and he has the following description of Zenobia (starting in year 272, ch. XI, Vol 1)

She claimed her descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt, equalled in beauty her ancestor Cleopatra, and far surpassed that princess in chastity and valour. Zenobia was esteemed the most lovely as well as the most heroic of her sex. She was of a dark complexion (for in speaking of a lady these trifles become important). Her teeth were of a pearly whiteness, and her large black eyes sparkled with uncommon fire, tempered by the most attractive sweetness. Her voice was strong and harmonious. Her manly understanding was strengthened and adorned by study. She was not ignorant of the Latin tongue, but possessed in equal perfection the Greek, Syriac and the Egyptian languges.

About the removal of the Category:Ancient Roman women: I see a conflict of that with the Cat:Ancient Roman enemies and allies. But if somebody is terribly keen of having both cats in, that ok with me. muriel@pt 09:41, 26 Nov 2004 (U

The references to Zenobia being Arab are blatant pan-Arabist/Arab nationalist revisionism. They even go so far as to refer to al-Tabari's fictionalized "history", in which the Romans, their legions, and their empire simply did not exist. Are Baathists now being given free reign on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.209.126 (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed the only sources mentioning her Arab origin are from Arab nationalists. The about.com info regarding her "Arab ancestry" lacks reliability since it is authored by a web moderator with a BA in management. As far as I know she was a native speaker of Aramaic as her native name (בת זבי Bat Zabbai) suggests. Ball describes the medieval Arabic sources that cite her Arab ancestry as apocryphal.--Rafy talk 16:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ball described the traditions that relates her to the Seleucid as apocryphal and describe the tradition of connecting her to the queen of sheeba as apocryphal, but he didnt mention that al-tabari is apocryphal ---- what we know is next : she spoke Aramaic, she wasn't christian, her ancestry is much debated, Palmyra had Arabs and she could be either an Aramean or an aramized Arab like the royal family of Edessa, lets offer all the views and let the readers to decide what to believe, this book Ancient Syria is by Trevor R. Bryce, published by Oxford University Press, in it the writer concludes that she could be at least of partial arab ancestry and the likelihood of her being a descendant of an arab sheikh, so lets keep it to the readers to decide without implying anything. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic is just a language, not a people. Arabs wrote in Aramaic as well as Arabic dialects in the Aramaic alphabet. What I see is prejudice and hatred for Arabs and an attempt to steal their history. Palmyrene Empire their names and gods were Arab, but the populists are afraid of everything Arab. Reem898 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so @Reem898, Aramean are an People An Culture an Language an History , you (Arab) are stealing that history by claiming Zenobia and Palmyra as Arab , I see you doing the victim "what I see is prejudice and hatred for Arabs" giving true history to other people is not Hate and Prejudice you are doing your victim and all the source that Claim Zenobia to be Arab are Apocryph she did not even speak Arabic Also you say that Populist are afraid of Arab like Populist have anything to do with Arab , you say that It's an Attempt to steal their history while you are stealing the history or Aramean and other's minorities like Phoenician(Maronite) in Tunisia and Lebanon , Mesopotamian(Assyrian) in Irak Egyptian(Coptic) in Egypt and Aramean in Syria to finish we did not found Arab name in Palmyrene Empire even Vaballathus name is Debating you can see a discussion about it on Wiki , Tadmor , Bat-Zabbai , They were Aramean with a little influence from Arab people who came during the first Centuries , Centuries After Aramean ! To finish I conclud that your vision of history is brainwashed by Baathist and Pan-Arab propaganda doing the victim and claiming everything that was great I used to be Pan-Arab so I know what I'm Talking about ! Aram le Palmyréen (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Are there not gravestones in Southern Italy of people claiming descent from her? And isn't the only source claiming her beheading notoriously unreliable? And the use of the word "Saracen" is well out of period. This article used to have quotes about her life in Naples; where did those go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:440C:1410:B800:107A:CE90:71FC:8A40 (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great source, thanks. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And yours seems to be originating from the same drive to push your anti-Muslim POV. Aliibn (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* the victim card comes out once again. Don't you ever tire of silly racism accusations? •CHILLDOUBT• 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)JagoWoodbine[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you mean the Aramaic language? Is this your personal opinion or do you have a source for that? Preferably a published one. Dimadick (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Nofi (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If no other modern sources mention this, it can be removed based on WP:fringe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. French Bernard Simiot "Secret Papers" stated Zenobia as an Arab from her own Diaries. For those saying it is "fictional", Bernard Simiot himself didn't state that his Published Book were in any way fictional. The only place it says fictional is from an Arabic translated version of the book were the translator stated from his own mind that it is "fictional" providing no evidence.

"Her own diaries".... who said so? who is Bernard Simiot to state this? It doesnt matter if he didnt describe his work as fictional, it is still fictional. I can write a book about Cleopatra and pretend its from her diaries but this wont make my book academic and contain real info.

Well, other than Bernard Simiot, many mentions of Zenobia being an Arab rather than Aramaean. While other mentions suggest that she is Arab & Aramean.

As well as the Palmyrene Empire

[1]

[2]

and many more.
Any references of her being fully Aramean that you can provide since the wiki page doesn't have one, i'm searching for one too.

And does any of those others have an evidence ? You can bring hundreds of books mentioning her as Arab that you find through entering keywords on google books search, but you can not bring any source by a specialist that would say she is an Arab because specialists know better than to ascribe a woman from a mixed city to one ethnicity. I dont need to bring a source for her being just Aramean because no source can provide evidence for this, and no source can provide evidence for her being Arab. Evidence mean an iscription by Zenobia calling herself an Arab, or a contemporary source from an ancient historian calling her an Arab. Do you know of any such a source?

2. The "Secret Papers" were heavily detailed and described every encounters and historical events that Zenobia faced very precisely and accurately , Hence it is impossible for the "French" Bernard Simiot to be the one writing the diaries!

"very precisely and accurately"... how did you know ? Were these encounters recorded in contemporary sources?? how do you know they actually happened? It is actually impossible that Simiot wrote anything but fiction because you have no contemporary solid source for any of the imagined events written by Simiot. You seem to be arguing from this facebook page

3. Zenobia's son name Vaballathus is a clear giveaway ; The name وَهْبُ اللَّات (Vaballathus in Greek) meaning: Gift of Al-Lat. Al-Lat(اللات‎) is an Arabian Goddess originated in Central Arabia and is worshiped by Arabs solely.

It is not a give away, Allat was not worshipped just by the Arabs. Allatu was worshipped by the Phoenicians in Carthage, Allat was also a godess of the Chaldeans, and Elat was the name of El's wife. Not to say that Allat is not a goddess of Arabs but she obviously did not originate in Arabia. It is known that Palmyra worshipped over 60 deities and some of them were Arab gods while others were Canaanite or even Mesopotamian. This means that a Palmyrene would have no problem naming his son as the gift of Allat, or the gift of Nabu or whatever. Its a religious name in this context just like you will find pakistanis named Abdullah. The Arabs existed in Palmyra but they integrated with other populations in it and there is no way you can ascribe one ethnic origin to any Palmyrene. They were just Palmyrene and had Aramaic and Arab and Amorite blood in them. Note, it is mentioned clearly and neutrally in the origin section of the article that Zenobia had Arab blood in her ancestry

"Wahab" "al-Lat" is purely Arabic, I know Al-Lat is worshipped in many regions BUT not in its Arabic version (al-Lat) which is the female equivalent of الإله worshipped by Arabs only.

From your name i presume you speak Arabic. Any idea why many Palmyrene officials(or high class, ruling family etc) names are Arabic, Odaenathus(أذينة), Hairan(حيران), Worod(ورود), Ogeilo(عجيلة), Vaballathus(وهب اللات)?

It is not purely, unless a specialized linguist would say that. And the Akkadian version have exactly the same pronounciation. Im just making a point that you need to stop nit picking in order to get what you want. For every Arabic name you give, I can give 10 Aramaic and some Canaanites. Anyway, it can be purely Arabic, so what ? his mother's name is Aramean, and if you take a tour in Palmyar in the year 260 you will find within one family people with Arabic and Aramean name which goes in hand with what we know about Palmyra as a mixed city where no modern nationalist can claim that his ethnicity is the only inheritor of Palmyra's legacy. BTW, Hairan is Aramaic and Worod is an indo-iranian name. As for why we see Arabic names, again, because Palmyra had Arabs, because the city was mixed, and because the only NPOV approach is not to ascribe any Palmyrene to any single ethnicity; those people where Palmyrenes, and they didnt care about what some modern nationalists feel.

Lastly, isn't the name Zainab more likely to be Zenobia since it contains all the letters and make perfect sense rather than Bat-Zabbai (which isn't even a name)MWahaiibii (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to decide what is logical. The name Zainab did not occur in Palmyra when mentioning the queen. Only the name Bat-Zabbai. If she was named Zainab then her own inscriptions would have mentioned that

Bat-Zabbai is not a name,Daughter of Zabbai

According to you maybe, but specialists say otherwise.

• Lastly, about those "diaries". We need to ask the following questions:

1-Where were they discovered and by whom ? since they belong to Zenobia then they date to 260 AD.. So who is the archaeologist who found them

2-Where are they kept?? in a museum?? which ?

3-Who read them ? a linguist no doubt, and Simiot was no linguist. So who read them???

4-How did Simiot, a novalist, had access to such precious documents not recorded in any academic source???.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Attar-Aram syria I did this just like what editors did for the Gallic Roman Empire since the Emperors there had the title of Emperor of the Gallic Empire. The Gallic Empire is just a conventional name and I simply just did that except for Empress instead of Emperor and Palmyrene Empire instead of Gallic Empire. The book The Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World New Revised Edition states that she declared herself Augusta since if she did not. The Roman Legions of the East would probably be more likely to support Aurelian then Zenobia. If you declare yourself Augusta, you imply that you are the legitimate Roman Empress. It doesn't make sense for her to be called Augusta if she didn't give herself the title for being a claimant to the Imperial Purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: In this section of the Palmyrene empire Palmyrene_Empire#Evaluation_and_legacy, you can read why we cant know what she meant with her titles. Since it is a debated issue between scholars, and since we have no actual evidence from the days of Zenobia, then calling her with any title, that can cast a shadow of authority on Rome, which she did not specify, is not possible.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of the Gallic Empire being not high quality is just opinion. It makes no sense for you or Wikipedia to censor my opinion on Empress of the Palmyrene Empire. She was the Empress of her Palmyrene Empire. So why did she declare herself Empress, was it for a sign of independence? No in my opinion. It was so that she could get the support of more Romans in the East since if she did not declare herself Augusta, the Romans would have though her as a foreign enemy much more. Why can't this article state the opinions of mine and your scholars. Even if he was a fictional character, he still had the title of Emperor (self declared). The naming conventions are just like the Byzantine empire and Eastern Roman Empire name debate. The title of Emperor/Empress of the Palmyrene Empire has logic since she was a Empress. Because the title of just Empress is so vague. We can at least add the she was a Empress of the Palmyrene Empire since she had the title of Augusta and ruled it in name of her son. The Palmyrene Empire had people that spoke Latin. Roman Officials, Roman Migrants and Roman soldiers lived there or were stationed there in the East. Zenobia mostly likely had Roman soldiers in her command. (Either wise her army would be smaller or filled with inexperienced conscripts) The controversy on titles is just a debate about bias on one side and the bias on others. At least state my opinion on that page. Since this article is full of biased opinions that aren't mine. The title of Empress makes it look like she was a Empress of nothing. i did not give him a title. The story says he possibly declared himself Emperor, so I added the titles of Roman Emperor. Because the only state that had the position of Emperor in that area was the Imperium Romanum. it doesn't make sense for her and him to declare herself and her son Augusta and Augustus if she was not claiming the Roman Purple (Position of Empress and Emperor of the Roman Empire) At least give them the titles of Usurper of the Roman Empire since they were proven Usurpers (also neutral on this debate since they were usurpers) at least. Because if they wanted to rebel against the fury of Rome, they would have to take over the entire Empire. Ether wise the mostly Latin speaking Legions would have still destroyed the so called Palmyrene Empire as well. This talk is too full of scholar opinion, so I will just leave it to the bias scholars since scholars usually have a hint of bias in them. Because I want actual scholars to debate this and decide in their opinion whether or not they should be given the title of Emperor/Empress of the Palmyrene Empire. Which they should be since they had the title of Augustus, Augusta and they ruled the Palmyrene Empire. Also The title of Usurper of the Roman Empire would be correct since they had Roman citizenship. I would be okay and happy with the position of Usurper of the Roman Empire.I will not talk on this anymore and I hope that wikipedia doesn't punish for just for adding reasonable titles that have logic since scholars use logic as well besides just the historical sources made in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this time he added a source that does not support his edits as he wants to call Zenobia either Empress of Rome or Empress of Palmyra and his source did not contain an evidence for both!. Actually I changed the titles from Roman Empress to Empress of the Palmyrene Empire just to be more accurate and friendly to the modern conventional name of the Palmyrene Empire. That's the only reason why. Is the book Roman Emperor Aurelian Restorer of the World NRV not accurate of a source for this period? Chapter six of the book explains some of the reasoning on why she declared herself Augusta and also the war between the two Roman factions.. They had 11 or possibly 10 legions under the command of the Palmyrenes but those legions (Most of them at least) apparently weren't in the civil war. The Palmyrenes possibly ordered them to guard the Empire in possibly remote locations. Vaballathus also had Roman Victory titles and the Palmyrenes also had a custom of aligning their administrative titles with Roman ones as well. Oh well, just read the book if you haven't. I just added this to justify some if not all of my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: The discussion was continued here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Attar-Aram syria: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Attar-Aram syria: Sometimes users make major overhauls to articles without seeking consensus; I've also dealt with it and it can sometimes be irritating because it's hard to tell if there's any mistakes or bad-faith edits as it's obfuscated in the stream of edits. But I made no overhaul or major content changes. Seeking consensus beforehand just to make general edits can become tedious as consensus is something that can take weeks or months. I've been editing WP for well over a decade and I've only come across something like this once or twice. Nevertheless, my intended edits were the following:

• There are two to three lines back to back using the same citation ref at various points in the article. That is redundant and can be merged.
• "According to the historian" does not sound better than simply "According to historian", especially when these are contemporary scholars.
• I added 30em to the reflist template, as the existing double columns makes the article longer than it needs to be. This auto creates additional columns which reduces space.
• The "Governance" sub-section and it's 'Culture' and 'Religion' sub-subsections can stand on its own. The overall main section is bloated and these sub-subsections are a sidetrack. Note that I left the "Administration" sub-section in the main section because it bridges the chronology of information that tells her story from Expansion to Downfall. The 'Culture' and 'Religion' sub-sections are entirely separate from that chronology.

Another edit I intend to make but which I haven't yet:

• The "Titles" section is redundant to the "Empress and open rebellion" sub-section. I will merge the two in a manner that doesn't lose information. As it stands now there are many things that are duplicate and some which are missing from one or the other (thereby readers miss out depending on which section they choose). Merging it fixes both problems.

You stated in your revert that "...Also, deleting that her chastity impressed male writers renders what they wrote context-less" (in reference to "Her reputed chastity impressed some male historians;")

• I removed that line because that should have been obvious from the context itself and from the preceding line "Zenobia's chastity was a theme of these romanticized accounts; according to the Augustan History,.." Hence, keeping the additional line didn't make sense to me because: 1. That topic was already underway, 2. Everyone in that paragraph is already male, pointless to state these points twice which readers can discern for themselves. So we're left with one word "impress" but that should already be obvious from the use of "romanticized accounts".

–DA1 (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ofcourse no one has to ask for permission, but a featured article is the result of a community consensus and much work has been spent on it. There are sets of rules and conventions that wikipedia editors adhere to. When it comes to featured articles, Im gonna copy two of those conventions:

1-Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.link

2- While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner LinkFA-star.png) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. link

Hence, while "Seeking consensus beforehand just to make general edits can become tedious as consensus is something that can take weeks or months." is true for normal article, it is not for a featured one.

As for the points you mentioned:
1-Redundant citations is a fair note (though the rational was that every sentence that end with a . has a citation)
2-"According to the historian" is better than "according to historian" and it was noted in an FA review. A historian should be qualified, as you dont go to one and call him: historian Rolf, how are you. Title are not encouraged, and should be descriptive.
3- 30em to the reflist template (restored)
4-As for re-ordering the sections, I totally disagree. They are part of the chronology, which is logical: first we start with how she became queen, her expansion, how she governed, then fell. Her cultural and religious policies are definitely part of governance. If you feel so strong about this, and because a featured article is the result of consensus, then you can attempt to change that consensus by attracting more editors to comment or starting an rfc.
5- the titles section is meant to give a chronological development of how her titulary developed. I am against a merge. The empress section is about historical events, while the titles section is about, the titles!
6-"should have been obvious from the context itself"-This is subjective.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Attar-Aram syria:

Regarding point #5: Both sections give a chronological development of her titles. There are details missing from the "Title" section that are present in the other that should be in it given the topic of that section. Nonetheless, it still is matter of fact that there's redundancy which can be merged in a manner where no information is lost. The problem with redundant sections much like redundant articles is that over time one or the other is overlooked and outdated compared to the other.

Regarding point #2: Can you please share the link of the FA review; did it specifically instruct use of "the historian" over simply "historian"? Nonetheless, the absence of 'the' does not mean the latter is un-qualified. What gives you that impression?

Regarding point #6: You did not address this point with any counter-points. That line is still redundant and reiterating. The disconnected mention of Boccaccio's quote at the end of the paragraph when it could have been made earlier on when he is first mentioned (which is what my edit did) seems like slightly poor writing to me. An article might have been FA, but it can always be improved. I've seen examples of FA articles completely decline in quality over the years, so FA certainly aren't perfect or infallible, they can be worked on to be even better.

Regarding point #4. Of course they're part of "Governance". I moved the Governance section as its own standalone; Religion and Culture were sub-sections of it. Please compare the text of the articles/edits before you revert.

–DA1 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to point #6: Back to back repeated mentions of "According to the Augugustan History..." is also redundant:

Zenobia's "staunch" beauty was emphasized by the author of the Augustan History, who ascribed to her feminine timidity and inconsistency (the reasons for her alleged betrayal of her advisers to save herself). The queen's sex posed a dilemma for the Augustan History since it cast a shadow on Aurelian's victory.[236] Its author ascribed many masculine traits to Zenobia to make Aurelian a conquering hero who suppressed a dangerous Amazon queen.[236] According to the Augustan History, Zenobia had a clear, manly voice, dressed as an emperor...

The Augustan History is the clearest example of an ideological account of Zenobia's life, and its author acknowledged that it was written to criticize the emperor Gallienus.[234] According to the Augustan History, Gallienus was weak because he allowed a woman to rule part of the empire and Zenobia was a more able sovereign than the emperor.

My edit would replace the bolded examples to simply "In it," (at least in the last one). Here, too, the context should be obvious given the preceding line of the respective paragraphs. –DA1 (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 2:

1-For the FA, it was that of Demetrius III, see here. Anyway, we have an article for False title.
2-Regarding point #5:What is missing in the titles section could be added to it to complete it. The point is still there: the titles section serves a different function. I cant see the redundancy you are talking about. It is helpful to collect such technical information in one section.
3-Regarding point #6: I didnt address it because it cant be addressed. You are saying that it "should have been obvious from the context itself", but thats your subjective opinion, and not all reader will get the point. I realize you can improve FAs, and that some of them go down in quality, but thats exactly why I keep an eye on this article and all the featured articles I created. Improvements can be discussed to see if they are really improvements or just a personal taste of an editor. An FA is the result of a consensus, and everyone is welcomed to edit, but if this raise questions then a consensus should be reached first.
4-Regarding point #4: Okay, then I should have wrote that Administration is part of governance.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you please quote the line(s) you are referring to? I am not reading an entire thread just to find that one example. I searched "the and historian and found nothing. I'm sure there's something analogous you are referring to, but simply dropping a thread on me is not helping. The false title article says it's widely used in American English and is since popular worldwide, so I'm not sure what you're hinting at.

2, 3. You are being very possessive of this article down to minor changes. My issues with the redundancy remains.

4. And "Empress" is part of "Titles" is it not? Your arguments are subjective in themselves. Half of that former section is around titles she/he used. You are nitpicking my edits, but we could do the same to yours. Just as there's redundancies in this article, we could add more redundancies, because why not reiterate Y if we're already reiterating X?

You can have two sections discussion the same subject but I can't separate Governance from Administration, even though mine has no redundancy? Admin and Gov are not identical. Administration can be used to mean specifically bureaucracy (i.e. administer) and governance can be used to mean everything else (i.e. govern...cultural and religious groups). In that sense my separation made perfect sense. DA1 (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A search of "According to historian" yields countless results on Wikipedia. I go to Jesus and it has many examples of "According to [name]". I go to Texas Revolution it has "According to historian Paul Lack" and "According to author Will Fowler". I go to Sesame Street it has "According to children's media experts Edward Palmer and Shalom M. Fisch". I go to Antiochus XII Dionysus it has "According to historian Alfred Bellinger". I go to Vladimir Lenin it has "According to historian Petrovsky-Shtern" and "According to historian Nina Tumarkin". These are all FA examples. –DA1 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 3:

1-I gave you a diff, so its highlighted, you will see two additions by the reviewer, read the second one.
2-Im not possessive, I just dont agree with some of your edits which you find are imporvments while I dont. You can seek consensus on that from other users.
3-Empress is a title but the section of empress isnt meant for a title but to discuss the establishment of a new regime, i.e. independence
4-Antiochus XII Dionysus: oh, its not my habit to write according to historian, I should change that. False titles are widespread, but they shouldnt. They are ridiculous (and thats my subjective opinion). Anyway, I will copy that comment from the FA as you asked:

"It's right to introduce your experts at first mention, to put them into context for the reader, but the false title is an inelegant, not to say lumpen, way of doing it, fit only for tabloid newspapers, and is easily avoided. Instead of writing, say, "In 2010 art expert Fred Smith wrote…", just add a definite article: "In 2010 the art expert Fred Smith wrote…", or turn the phrase round: "In 2010 Fred Smith, an art expert, wrote…". The New York Times, which holds out against the widespread use of the false title in American prose, recommends the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4-Antiochus XII Dionysus: oh, its not my habit to write according to historian, I should change that. False titles are widespread, but they shouldnt. They are ridiculous (and thats my subjective opinion).

So this is what it all comes down to; how you wish to maintain and write articles? Everything is molded to that.

the "Good morning" test: if you can't imagine yourself saying "Good morning, art expert Smith", don't turn his job description into a title"

I can't imagine how "Good morning, the art expert Smith" sounds better; neither does "Good morning, Smith, the art expert." DA1 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not come to anything. As for good morning historian Ian, or the historian Ian: you dont use both, but the first is silly, and the second is a description of a job. Dr is a title, historian isnt, and to present it as such in a featured article is really poor writing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the user who made that 'False title' instruction you referenced. He's not an administrator. He's an older gentlemen and he's from England. You're using someone's personal opinion, combining that with your own, and putting a roadblock against good-faith editors. Him preferring a certain style does not make it law. This is a long, tedious, fruitless discussion. DA1 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer in an FA process which achieved a consensus version. Your edits seems to be of low quality. I dont understand why you are emotional: you didnt make any effort in this article, neither did research, nor improve the quality of information, but you act as if you know better than the FA reviewers and the writer, hoping to edit the article to match your own personal taste!. I suppose we can stop the discussion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3], 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: [4] (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)[reply]

Discussion

• I think there is too much going on in this RFC to actually respond, and what you're asking isn't very clear. I was summoned here by a bot but I don't know if I have it in me to read the 2300 odd words above. An RFC should be a neutrally worded question with the options laid out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on RfC: @DA1: I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish. You should probably initiate separate proposals/discussions on case-by-cases basis. Then, if proposals are seriously disputed you may ask for more eyes to look at per WP:DISPUTE. This RfC is rather preliminary. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OldSyrian500front.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhomron: 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, Attar-Aram syria 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)[reply]