Talk:Emesene dynasty

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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV[edit]

@Recruos: this version fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Iamblichus being called "Phylarch of the Arabs" by Cicero is not the reason why scholars consider them Arabs. Also they are considered by majority of respected sources as of Arab extraction. In fact their Arab origin is not contested, but other scholars call for caution, so it should be phrased accordingly per WP:WEIGHT as: "The dynasty was of Arab origin but other scholars call for caution.."

Since you edited this article @JDHaidar: thoughts? Nabataeus (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Recruos: You’re welcome to participate to this thread instead of warring. As far as i’m concerned, Nabataeus’ proposal sounds perfectly fine for me. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure). Xain36 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal family of Emesa → Emesan dynasty – Per WP:CONCISE. Between "Emesani dynasty", "Emesan dynasty" and "Emesene dynasty", I am getting 365 hits, 181 hits and 229 hits on Google Books, respectively. "Emesan dynasty" gives me the most bolded results between the first two. 'Emesan' is slightly Anglicized yet close to the former; names ending with -i tend to be replaced with an -id in most English scholarship (e.g. Ghassanid, Lakhmid, Abbassid). DA1 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 'Dynasty' is a usual qualifier in Wikipedia for royal lines. 'Emesan' looks the most natural modern English adjective. Variant spellings can (and should) be redirects to help in searching. Narky Blert (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although Emesene is more natural to me. "Emesani dynasty" looks wrong. This calls it the dynasty of Emesa. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kropp, Andreas 2010[edit]

This source claims "since some of their attested kings had Aramaic names like Sampsiceramus and Iamblichus". This is incorrect to any Arabic speaker and is refuted by pretty much every reputable academic. "Samsi" is clearly Arabic, sun related ("Arab" itself means sunset in Akkadian), and we have evidence of an 8th century BC Arab queen with that name, while both ceram and geram are Arabic words meaning venerate and love. A simple dictionary refutes this, let alone the opinion of academics which are featured just before this sentence. Next is "Iamblichus", which is not Aramaic either, and is related to the Arabic names Malichus of Petra and Yamlichu of Palmyra, clearly from the semitic root (which also exists in Arabic) M-L-K, meaning King, and the end of name identifier "-u", which was used exclusively in Arabic names. It's simple stuff.

Therefore this claim is categorically wrong. I laid out the reasoning but ignoring all this the names are considered Arabic by reputable historians. I suggest deleting the sentence altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a manipulation of sources in this article:
In the article its written that: "Sampsiceramus is in fact Arabic: Samsi (arabic: شمسي) - My sun, which is also the name of an Arab queen mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, while ceramus comes from the Arabic root k-r-m (arabic: كرم), meaning to venerate."-- This sentence is refrenced with: Rome in the East, Warwick Ball, p. 37. However, Ball wrote: "Samsigeramus derives from Shams, the Aramaic for sun, and geram related to the Arabic root k-r-m meaning decide or venerate". So, where did this relation with queen Samsi came from? We need an academic source, not our instincts as Arabic speakers.
As for Kropp: he is also a reputable academic, and there is no justification for the deletion of his intrepretation. Morever, there is no academic consensus for the origin of the name Samsigeramus. Not only Kropp consider it Aramaic, but also Resto: "the name of the first one, sampsiceramus, looks more Aramaic than arabic". So, why would we delete the sentence?
Lastly Julia Domna Ba'al, you added the following sentence: "and clearly comes from the semitic root "M-L-K" with the Arabic end of name identifier -u." It is correct the connection with M-L-K, but you added no reference, and especially for the Arabic end of name identifier -u. Maybe this source will help you: Yamlik (Iamblichos) is said by Retso to display a typically Arabic -a- prefix vowel (to an mlk root); it is a variant of the name Malik (king/ruler). I urge to cite the sentence you introduced (regarding the -u), or replace it using the source I provided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi there. No manipulation of sources. Ball wrote in page 37 in the source mentioned (2002 edition):

"The names of the Emesene kings were theophoric: Samsigeramus derives from Shams, the Mesopotamian name of the Sun god, and geram is from the Arabic root k.r.m. meaning ‘decide’ or ‘venerate’. The name thus means ‘the Sun god had decided’ or ‘the Sun god is venerated". On Iamblichus he says in the same page: "Iamblichus is more problematical, with the root Yamlik-El being postulated,40 Yamlik deriving from the root mlk meaning ‘king’ or ‘reign’, El being the same well-known Semitic root that is found in Elah Gabal meaning ‘god’ (e.g., El, Ba’al, Allah, etc.). The name occurs at Palmyra as Yamlichu. Iamblichus, therefore, may mean ‘the rule of god’." He references Chad, Baldus, and Shahid.

Shams means sun in all semitic languages. Come on, it means Sun also in Arabic, not just Aramaic. Looks like he corrected his earlier claim when he said it's Aramaic in the source you posted, probably getting faulty information like the Kropp article, but you and I know Shams is also Arabic. Are dictionaries a good source? https://www.google.com/search?q=sun+in+arabic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t

OK I will use the source you provided on the name ending instead of the unsourced sentence, thanks.

As for Kropp, I read the article he wrote and it's full of strange logic, such as considering only Arabic speakers as Arabs, when Arabs spoke a variety of Aramaic dialects while having their own traditions and religions (similar to how Jews spoke Aramaic while not being Aramaeans). This is a source for the -u ending: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abgar-dynasty-of-edessa-2nd-century-bc-to-3rd-century-ad by JB Segal, although I believe Retso also talked about it, as did linguist Jallad and MCA Macdonald, but on other dynasties like the Nabataeans and Abgarids. Incidentally it also explicitly states that Arabs in Hatra, Singara, Osroene, and Saracene were ethnic Arabs but spoke Aramaic, which goes against what Kropp defines as Arab. And even if Kropp is reputable this is simple logic, it's words in a dictionary. Shams is not exclusively "Aramaic". That's a fact we don't need PhDs to correct. Surely editors have to take common sense into account and reject grossly inaccurate claims even if they're sourced, right?Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Shahid in Rome and the Arabs, also says: "Porphyry, whose Semitic name was "Malik" before he assumed his Greek name, could possibly have been an Arab. But such a name as Iamblichus, that of the Neo-Platonist and of ·his namesake, the writer of the novel Babyloniaca or Rhodanis and Sinonis, is certainly Arabic, and both the philosopher and the novelist were Arabs. In this period, Arabic names could have been assumed only by Arabs, unlike the Islamic period when, with the prestige of Arabic names, non-Arabs assumed such Arabic- (and Islamic-) sounding names that it is impossible to argue from the assumption of an Arabic name to the Arab nationality or origin of its holder"

He was an academic who knows Arabic (and wrote poetry in the language), surely his opinion overcedes Kropp.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yes, it is Shams in Arabic and Aramaic, no one will argue with that. However, dictionaries are not enough, especially when specialists say otherwise. Anyway, I did not add the word "Aramaic" when I corrected Ball, but the Shamsi queen part is a manipulation. You said: "Surely editors have to take common sense into account and reject grossly inaccurate claims even if they're sourced, right?" The answer is No. We dont have this liberty unless we are dealing with known pseudo-historians. We can just present the opinions of academics and make sure each opinion have its due place. For Kropp, I dont think we are qualified to claim that a professor have "faulty information". We are qualified if we are actual academics and we publish our hypotheses in an academic source, but other than that, we cant "correct" specialists. I also find Kropp's logic when it comes to viewing language as the sole criteria flawed, and maybe I will challenge that if I manage to get a PHD, but we dont need to give ourselves more work than necessary since Kropp's comment regarding the language isnt being used in the article, only his interpretation of the name Samsigeramus. Its not only Kropp who suggest this Aramaic name (which wont affect that Samsigeramus was Arab), but Retso as well. Therefore, and since we should present all opinions, the sentence cant be deleted. If you want to balance it, you can present a counter argument. I can help you there: try for example Anton Baumstark, who suggest that sampsiceramus is a name "formed in Arabian style" (source: URANIUS OF EMESA by Richard Delbrueck. The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society Sixth Series, Vol. 8, No. 1/2, 1948, page 29). Also, good you found a source for the -u, but it does not mention the Emesenes, nor Iamblichus, so it cant be used as it will be considered SYNTH. As for Shahid, yes, a great professor, but his opinion doesnt overcedes Kropp: its not for us to decide. Anyway, Kropp's opinion is counter-argued, so why do you want to delete it? MLK is a Semitic root, not solely Arabic, just like the Shams thing, and while Shahid say its Arabic, others say its Aramean (Iamblichus, De Mysteriis: see note 22). I also find this logic as flawed as that of Kropp: "Arabic names could have been assumed only by Arabs", but thats not our topic. As it is now, the section "Onomastics" is balanced, while the style its written with is un-encyclopaedic and editorial, which needs to be fixed someday.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the section, tell me if it's good now.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deceiving the readers.[edit]

Using the source "Temporini, 2, Principat: 9, 2, Volume 8, p.201", which is a shortened reference to: Sullivan, Richard D. (1978). "The Dynasty of Emesa". In Hildegard Temporini; Wolfgang Haase (eds.). Politische Geschichte (Provinzen und Randvölker: Syrien, Palästina, Arabien). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 198–219, an editor inserted false information.
Its claimed that Samsigeramus I was a son of Azizus the Arab, while they were allies and we dont know the name of Samsigeramus I's son. Also, the editor wrote that Samsigeramus I was a Phylarch of the Arabs like his father, and again this is lying as we dont know his father. This is a link to the cited page: https://books.google.com/books?id=sYOoDwAAQBAJ&pg=201 Given how grossly this article turned into a battleground, I will be re-writing it soon in a neutral language with sources that can be traced immediately and turn it into an encyclopaedic article instead of a playground for nationalists.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What battleground? I edited the onomastics section and before that the article hadn't been meaningfully edited in over a year. User "Wikaviani" apparently meditated the last edit war. Take it easy.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think this is aimed at you? Its aimed at whoever inserted false claims.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Severan Dynasty?[edit]

Should the article have a section on the Severan dynasty considering the line of succession passed on through the female line of the Emesan family following the death of Caracalla? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a family tree using a wikipedia grid template thingie, it shows the emperors at the end which is enough for now. Will check wikipedia templates and see if it's possible to edit it better.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emesan dynasty → Emesene dynasty – Best attested name in historical sources. See for example on Ngram or on JSTOR ("Emesene dynasty" vs. "Emesene dynasty"). WP:COMMONNAME. 92.184.112.56 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comment in the previous RM. Srnec (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bassianus needs adding[edit]

wherever that cognomen came from and whatever it was trying to mean. — LlywelynII 01:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]