Talk:Odaenathus

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Odaenathus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow this was really fun to read, I had never heard of any of this stuff! Well-written and extremely well-research article, easily passes as a GA. I did some copy editing, so let me know if you disagree with any changes I made. I also left some comments below for further improvement. Good work!

• It's a little weird that that the bold text at the beginning of the article doesn't include the name Odaenathus; could you change it to something like, "Lucius Septimius Udaynath, also known as Odaenathus"?
• There are some verb conjugation errors in the probes, with sentences like "an inscription published in 1985...mention king Odaenathus." Since the subject (inscription) is singular, the verb should be mentions. I changed this and the same error in a few other sentences.
• I think you should talk more about Zenobia in the legacy section, since she led a revolt shortly after Odaenathus' death.
• In the paragraph King of Kings, I think Mlk Mlk should be spelled Malik Malik since that is the spelling used in the lead, unless there is a reason for the difference.
• I think the discussions of assassination culprits in the "Assassination" section and the "Assassination culprits" sections are redundant and could be merged. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Odaenathus is shadowed by his wife and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyral; she merely used what her husband built including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she get all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people

I will use your comments to improve the article, thanks for fixing the grammar. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ancestors

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)

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)

His origins

well almost all sources about his origins, says that he is of arab origins, and Rome and every one at that time called him an arab or a leader of Saracens. while his origins is a discussed subject than let's not make an assumption that he is aramean in origin, just because of "some" of his ancestors names (witch he had both arab and Aramaic names)... many many Arabs in the Levant in pre Islamic times had Aramaic names, they were still called Arabs, we should reach a ground in this point, cause him being originally aramean is absurd, and most sources goes against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabos (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What sources? You can find hundreds of general books but none of them will give you a source for the statement "Arab". Since no contemporary source mentioned him as an Arab (like they did to the kings of Osroene) and Rome did not call him an Arab or a leader of the saracens (that was John Malalas writing long after the destruction of Palmyra) and since no inscription from Palmyra mentioned him as an Arab, then we have to count on the works of the specialists and they constructed his background based on the etymologies of his name and the names of his ancestors which show a mixed origin. Can you present any source that states he is an Arab with a proof for this statement ?.

I am sure you can not because I tried to find those sources myself both online and in libraries. I also read what the archaeologists of Palmyra wrote, articles of Syerig and Gawlikowski..... no result.

The sources you presented (some of them are definitely not reliable to talk about such a complicated topic) throw the word "Arab" randomly with no explenation (since it is not a given fact that he is an Arab considring that no contemporary source called him that). No one can make assumptions; the name of his earliest ancestor (which appeared on his tomb inscription) is Aramaic, hence it was concluded that the family is of Aramaic origin. The king had an Arabic name, Palmyra had Arabs; obviously no Palmyrene was non Arab and no Palmyrene was non Aramean... all of them were just Palmyrene with both Arab and Aramean roots (hence your statement of him being an Aramean is absurd can be turned against you and someone might say that him being an Arab is absurd).

The sentence "most sources" have no weight here cause a source must have a concrete evidence and none of those "most sources" present us with an evidence. I would like you to mention a contemporary writer from the days of Odaenathus who called him a saracen or Arab (not even the Historia Augusta did and it is non contemporary by the way)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

literally all books i've searched for have said that he was of arab origins... while none i saw said that he was aramean.

Palmyra itself was situated in the Syrian-Arabian desert, and the people there were constantly called "Saracens" by the Romans, witch means Arabs. "Uthayna (Odenathus) is the founder of Palmyra, he himself was an arab, and Arabs formed the main power of his rule."

Yes I know all the book you searched said he was Arab, but did any of them included why they say that? Any of those books includes a contemporary reference or inscription like we see in the case of the kings of Osroene?. You can get hundreds of books saying he is Arab, but none of them will have the authority to offer this as a reality due to lack of proof.

https://books.google.iq/books?id=_qjXNs3q_dgC&pg=PA118&dq=Odaenathus+arab&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmrsS7qszZAhXChSwKHfAYCo0Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Odaenathus%20arab&f=false

This is the opinion of Alfred von Gutschmid and he have no proof.

as Gibbon the historian says: "the majesty of Rome, oppressed by a Persian, was protected by an Arab of Palmyra."

https://books.google.iq/books?id=B37-57oHfe0C&pg=PA10&dq=Odaenathus+arab&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0kc_WvMzZAhUKY1AKHbkxDcM4ChDoAQhBMAU#v=onepage&q=Odaenathus%20arab&f=false

And what contemporary source did Gibbon use to make this statement? And why is the opinion of a very anceint historian carry weight against what modern archaeologists and linguists say?

he was called "the leader of the Saracens of the region of Palmyra" as the people of Palmyra were Bedouins.

https://books.google.iq/books?id=AAeLDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Odaenathus+arab&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0kc_WvMzZAhUKY1AKHbkxDcM4ChDoAQhHMAY#v=onepage&q=Odaenathus%20arab&f=false https://books.google.iq/books?id=sgMIAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA7-PA2&dq=The+Arab+Prince+Odenathus+(Rome+and+Persia)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDyJrjrt7ZAhVTYsAKHSSPCbsQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=The%20Arab%20Prince%20Odenathus%20(Rome%20and%20Persia)&f=false

Your source say that Arab means a nomad not an ethnicity. First, the Palmyrene were not nomads and second, this source is using the words of John Malalas, a Byzantine writing 200 years after the destruction of Palmyra and the replacement of its people by the Banu Kalb tribe. He have no proof for this statement. I will not comment on the second book from the 19th century as it has no weight

"Gallienus, the man that had to fight the Roman Persian wars through an arab!."

https://books.google.iq/books?id=BEvEV9OVzacC&pg=PA412&dq=The+Arab+Prince+Odenathus+(Rome+and+Persia)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDyJrjrt7ZAhVTYsAKHSSPCbsQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=The%20Arab%20Prince%20Odenathus%20(Rome%20and%20Persia)&f=false ::https://books.google.iq/books?id=CMaY0_y6gK0C&pg=PA112&dq=Odaenathus+arab+arabian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr75nK-N3ZAhVLhywKHQBFAN0Q6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=Odaenathus%20arab%20arabian&f=false https://books.google.iq/books?id=TRP-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA324&dq=%22The+Arab+Prince+Odenathus%22+(Rome+and+Persia)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs5vDYrt7ZAhWHAcAKHTQ5D30Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Arab%20Prince%20Odenathus%22%20(Rome%20and%20Persia)&f=false https://books.google.iq/books?id=MG2hqcRDvJgC&pg=PA158&dq=Odaenathus+arab&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmrsS7qszZAhXChSwKHfAYCo0Q6AEIQTAF#v=snippet&q=The%20Arab%20Prince%20165&f=false?

Irfan Shahid provides no evidence. Firdausi, a persian living 800 years after the events who wrote a set of myths is not an authority on this. Beate Dignas, Engelbert Winter again provide no contemporary evidence or archaological one.

i can dig up thousands more! as that all what sources say about him...

Even if you got millions of books, those are not sources in this case, as we are dealing with a topic that has no concrete evidence and hence, you only have opinions and not sources. In order to say he was an Arab with trust, you need to present an actual evidence (well an author has to present such an evidence not us wikipedia editors).

his name is Arabic, his grandfathers name is Arabic, just because "presumably" his great grandfather was Aramaic doesn't make him aramean... you can say he was mixed, but originally aramean is still absurd!. i am 100% sure that you know just because he had arab names doesn't make you arab, or aramean names doesn't make you an aramean, basing it on historians is better in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabos (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Odanethus name is of Arab origin not Aramaic since it is a miniture form which is found in Arabic.

The name of his grandfather Wahb Allat is Arabic as well his greatgreand father is Nasor, an Aramean name due to the fact that Aramean culture was the prevailing culture then not so it is expected to have Aramaic names. Ibnismail2000 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As for the names, the source used is: A Journey to Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers. This was a work that saw the head of the archaeological team of Palmyra contributing in it; the discussion of his origin is being taken from the work of actual experts in Palmyrene studies who have access to Palmyra and its texts. This is why even a 1000 book by general historians wont be enough because none of them will give you an evidence. The name Nasor is Aramaic, and Nasor is the oldest known ancestor of Odaenathus, hence it is considered that the family is of Aramaic origin. You think its absurd, someone else might think its absurd that the king be presented as an Arab, so lets leave personal opinions aside

Comment Since his origin is debated, then you cant write in the lede that he was Arab or Aramean. Since the origin section gives credit to both the Arab roots and Aramean roots then what is the problem? Why isnt this enough for you? If the problem is about the statement that the family was Aramaic, then the scholars who say that actually provide an argument for it or refer us to the scholar who provided concrete argument based on archaeology and linguistics. While the historians who say Arab just mention it randomly without paying attention to his tomb inscription and the works of Gawlikowski. So, what exactly do you wanna see happening in this article and do you have sources enough to support what you want?. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

well then let's just say he was mixed and leave it that until more evidence concerning his ancestors show up, as we don't know who the father of Nasor is.

if you looked at the Emesa Royal family they were also arab who some of them had aramean names, that did not make them aramean, Nabateans are also another example, they were still called Arabs.

that was the language of that area and new comers have to adapt to it, plus i didn't know that arameans worshiped arab deities... they worshiped Mesopotamian gods and Canaanite-Phoenician deities, Arabs were the ones that worshiped arab gods, the guy that said that his ancestors were Aramean is because his great grandfather name is Aramaic, what's the difference between him and all the historians that called him an arab based of his name? also, doesn't that makes Nasor mixed as well? as his son name was Wahaballat, the grandfather of Uthayna (witch you didn't mention him in the article).

and the word "arab" refers to an ethnicity since the times of the battle of Qarqar...

also Oserone was called Assyrian, Aramean, Armenian on Wikipedia until recently some guy finally went and corrected it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabos (talk • contribs) 01:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not mind if he is an Arab. I wrote this article and I tried to find answers to any question a user might ask. Its just that I would like to keep this article a high quality one cause it took a lot of work and ethnic fighting on it will ruin it. I care about actual truth and if he is an Arab then this should be written. However, we have no contemporary sources for that; the family of Emessa were described as Arabs by contemporary writers, hence no one can object to this. It would be such a long discussion to do if we will talk about the Palmyrene pantheon, but Arabs are a Semitic people, and their gods have the same origin as the Arameans and Akkadians...etc hence, in Palmyra, it was normal for the Arameans to worship the Arab gods just like the Arabs worshipped Aramean gods. The Palmyrene Arab tribe of Bene Ma'zin were the custodians of the Aramean god Baalshamin' temple not Allat for example. I think this is the point Im trying to deliver; the Palmyrenes were not Arabs or Arameans... they created their own nation, a Palmyrene nation and people who didnt identify as Arabs or Arameans but as Palmyrenes. Nasor can be an Arab-Aramean as well ofcourse. As for the grandfather Wahb Allat, he is mentioned in the family section, specifically the subsection Odaenathus I. As for the word Arab, I dont doubt its an ethnicity. However, you brought a source that treated the word as referring to nomads in general and I just pointed it out. As for Osroene, its good that people corrected it using the right sources that included evidence for the Arabic origin (contemporary sources) but Odaenathus being an Arab has no such evidence.

Now that we have finished the general discussion, I will say you are right when you wrote this "the guy that said that his ancestors were Aramean is because his great grandfather name is Aramaic, what's the difference between him and all the historians that called him an arab based of his name?". Thats why we should present both views to maintain neutral point of view. Can you provide me with a source that state the origin of Odaenathus' family (not Odaenathus but the family since the problem here is about the family) is Arab based on his name? I mean a source that actually gives an argument. If not, then I will do a research and find such a source tomorrow or in the weekend.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

there are contemporary writers that described him as arabian or arab, some sourced there info from historians (witch you argued were not truthful...)

Who are they, name them please!

and Odenathus ethnicity as you said is a conflicting subject, but it's a fact that almost all sources about him says that he is an arab, Procopius for example (Persic. 2.5) said that Odenathus was a prince of a Saracenic tribe dwelling upon the banks of the Euphrates, the word "Saracen" was used to refer to all arab tribes, although i am not denying that some of his ancestors non arab names does argue there points.

Procupius is from the sixth century long after teh destruction of the city.............. So this cant be a source for a fact, just for a tale simillar to what Al-tabari wrote of Zenobia where the Romans dont even show up.

and it is normal for Arabs to worship an Aramean god as i said before that they were new comers to the region, but i haven't heard of any arameans worshiping arab deities.

If its normal for Arabs to worship Aramean then its normal for Arameans to worship Arab. Palmyra is an example. To think that Arabs kept their Arab identity in Palmyra would be in contrast of reality

and when i said that they based it on his name i meant that historians saw his name (Udhayna) was Arabic and have concluded that he was an arab.

but we have reached an agreement in this discussion, you said that "Nasor can be an Arab-Aramean as well of course", then lets just say that he is of mixed background, cause it's the only logical conclusion, as saying that he was of arab or aramean origins is absurd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabos (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So you suggest deleting a reliable source that includes an actual argument about the origin of the family! Why not just include an equal source that includes an actual argument for an Arab origin of the family (not just a random statement that he was an Arab with no further argument to a highly debated issue.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: To make things easier, I moved the statment of an Aramean origin of the family to a note as it would be almost vandalism to delete such a strong argument based on actual evidence. Now the section starts with saying that the king was Aramean-Arab while the note mentions that some scholars, based on the tomb inscription and the name of Nasor, prefer an Aramean origin of the family. When an equally reliable source is presented for scholars considring the family Arab based also on academic argument then this should be added to the note. Hope this is enough to resolve this discussion and avoid any edit wars.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Arabos. Can you provide a source that state that the name of Odaenathus grandfather is Arabic. You edited the article but provided no source for that statement and we must have a reliable citation for any info. You said earlier that I didnt mention the name of the grandfather but thats because i didnt find a source stating clearly that the grandfather of the king had an arabic name and SYNTHS is strongly rejected in Wikipedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

yes of course, because obviously the name is Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabos (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

well,you cant deal with obvious things here. You need a reliable source for everything.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment now that your problem is solved, do you have any reason to edit wikipedia except entering the word Arab everywhere? I mean are you planning to improve any article with non ethnic info or appeasing your national feelings is the sole reason for coming here ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment 2 When you are blocked, you are not suppose to edit again or demand changes. Sadly, I wasted time with a sockpuppet. When you plan on using suckpuppets, its important not to go back to the same articles that got you blocked or where editors know you are a blocked user cause this will make discovering you easy and will lead to the same usual results: blocking and undoing of edits.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Byzantine and Hairan

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Copy edit

Queries

• "In the Temple of Bel at Palmyra, a stone block with a sepulchral inscription was found" Do we know when it was found?

Many thanks for taking this Gog! The stone block was never discovered if we will be very accurate. It was always laying in the court of the temple for everyone to see. In the 1830s Charles G. Addison reported seeing it, but we cant say he found it for example. So I dont know how to edit the article to reflect this?

I have tweaked this a little. See what you think.

I think we have one problem. As it is now, the readers might think that the stone is still in the court. However, it was relocated to the museum of Palmyra and now, I dont know where it is sice ISIL creatures destroyed most things they could find and there is no information whether this stone was transfered to Damascus or left in Palmyra

How about "Prior to its occupation by ISIL the Temple of Bel at Palmyra contained a stone block with a sepulchral inscription …"?

Prior to ISIL, the museum of Palmyra contained this stone. When it was moved to the museum from the temple is not clear because Syrian authorities are not great in documenting! I will try to find out. Plus, we dont know if the stone survived, so if we write "prior to the occupation", readers will conclude that the ston is destroyed, which is something we dont know.

I think its better not to go into detail. I wrote that a stone block from Palmyra carried the inscription. In the Burial section I wrote that in the 19th century it was located in the temple. I think the sentences I wrote read bad though, and will need to be copy-edites. Tell me what you think

After more research, I found out that the stone block in the museum of Palmyra with the sepulchral inscription was moved inside the museum in 2007. Before that, it was left in the courtyard of the old museum for years, and in the 1980s it was still part of Ayyubid mosque (the cella of the temple of Bel). Its fate is unknown for now after the attack of ISIL. What is sure is that the image's description which I read when I visited the museum long time ago is correct. I have added sadly an un-academic source in the image on commons, which is the only one I found, and I will update the source with a higher quality one once I find it.

• "A few sculpted heads from Palmyra were identified by scholars as representing Odaenathus" As copy edited by me. Could you confirm that I have understood the sense of the source? Or not. Thanks.

Its one archaeologist actually. I expanded this part to be more clear

Much better, IMO.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Under "Relation with Rome" you write "who attributed the attempted negotiations with Shapur to Odaenathus' quest for power", but I can't find any mention to "negotiations" earlier in the article, which makes this statement hang a little oddly and unsupported.

Last paragraph of the Ras of Palmyra section has: Peter the Patrician says that Odaenathus approached Shapur to negotiate Palmyrene interests but was rebuffed and the gifts sent to the Persians were thrown into the river.[58][59][63]

"this combination of title and imagery". The earlier part of the paragraph covers "imagery", but not "title". As this is a new paragraph, I am not sure how to rephrase things to introduce the title aspect.

I edited the sentence. Is it more clear?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "increasing the numbers of the Palmyrene heavy cavalry units" Do you mean that the number of units increased, or the number of men within each unit?

the sources are speaking about troops, so its "men". We dont know how the army was divided. We dont know if the cavalry were divided into units each containing a certain number of men or if the cavalry was one body. Its better to eleminate the word unit altogether

• "Roman east"; "Roman East". You need to pick one - preferably one supported by a source - and standardise this phrase throughout the article.

It like when we use West to refer not to a direction but to Europe as a cultural unit, so we write West with a capital W. The Roman East is supported by sources (e.g. [1] and [2]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

An error in the the transcription of the inscription

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)

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)

Greek and Latin?

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)

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)

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)

Allat

An unreferenced sentence was added to the origin section about Vaballathus. First of all, regarding Odaenathus' ethnic origin, it is comprehensively discussed and there is no need for further evidence that he had Arab blood.
Second, regarding the name of Wahab-Allat, in the section it is already stated that it is Arabic and I quote: "his name, the name of his father, Hairan, and that of his grandfather, Wahb-Allat, are Arabic." Therefore, there is no need for repetition. Discussing the meaning of names aside from that of Odaenathus himself is out of the scope of this article.
Most importantly, mentioning that Palmyra was a centre of worship of Allat is erroneous. A centre of worship means that a city was a main "residence" of a deity (example, Manbij was a centre of Atargatis). If a diety is worshipped in a city, this does not mean that the locality was a centre of worship. If Palmyra is a centre of worship of Allat, then this needs a good academic source and in any case it does not belong in the article of Odaenathus, but the religion section of the article of Palmyra.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the sentence regarding his son, not his grandfather. He named one of his sons Wahb-Allat, which is not mentioned in the section, and it is relevant because it reveals his own cultural background and his view of it. The name not only has Arab form (Wahb/Abd/Taym + Deity) but also reveals Allat worship which is one of the most distinct Arab traditions. In fact all other mentions of people named "Wahballat" in inscriptions are assumed to be Arab without distinction, such as those found in Nabataea which are surrounded by other Arab names and considered the same stock. As for source, there's a need for a source that his son is called Wahballat? I can do that, but I linked to the wikipedia article of Vaballatus, which has ample sources on him. I will remove the Palmyra reference but if you're curious of a source see Healey, John F. (2001), The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus. Palmyra was one of the major centers of Allat worship, let's leave it at that.--Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the center, its doubtful. If it will be treated as a fact, then it needs academic consensus, which does not exist. For example, check Dirven, The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria, page 81: "Only Safaitic graffiti from Palmyra were found in the sanctuary of Allat, from which it may be inferred that the temple functioned as a place of pilgrimage for Bedouin groups passing Palmyra"- Also, Drijvers, Sanctuaries and Social Safety: The Iconography of Divine Peace in Hellenistic Syria, page 68: "A similar situation in Allat's sanctuary at Palmyra is likely, although it cannot be strictly proven". As for Vaballathus, his name reveals nothing about Odaenathus' cultural background and his view of it (I can call my son Abdullah and being an atheist because my father is named Abdullah and its tradition for me to name my son on the name of my father). He was a Palmyrene, and all of them worshipped Allat and the other 60 gods of different origins in the city. Vaballathus the son doesnt belong in the name and origin section. It is already mentioned that he succeeded Odaenathus in the succession section of the article and its redundancy to mention it that early. Please discuss here before editing this article, which is a featured article and isnt to be edited as casually as other articles (thats why every sentence needs an academic source here).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't know about the talk section first. My reasoning is that in the same section we have people who reasoned that Nasor has to be at least a "great"-great grandfather (not great-grandfather) due to the grandfather being named Wahballat. So it is relevant in the same section how someone's child name reveals traditions of the father. What you're assuming, that the name is not theophoric and could've been given to a son as a patronym is a possibility sprung from your own mind, and goes against the idea that Wahb-Allat himself changed his name from allat to athena. Either way there is no conclusion on the edit. It merely states a fact that his son was named as his grandfather and named something with Allat in it. People are free to conclude what they may. This short mention belongs in the family and background section moreso if you go the patronym route.--Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, you nailed it right. It is a possibility sprung from my own mind, just like in your mind you think readers will conclude that he considered himself an Arab because he named his son Wahab Allat. Thats why we (editors) cant have our opinions in the articles, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means we can only summarize what academics said. Therefore, if your reasoning is that Odaenathus thought of himself as an Arab because he named his son Wahab Allat, then an academic source is needed for directly using this reasoning. For example, the Nasor argument is attributed to the people who said it in the context of analysing the ethnic background of Odaenathus. Same goes for the sentence about the Palmyrene collective conscious (which, in the two sources provided, is argued directly in connection with the ethnic origin of Odaenathus). Thats why a mere sentence about the goddess Allat aimed at implying to the readers what they should think cannot be added without an academic scholar using this argument to support the notion that Odaenathus thought of himself as Arab because he named his son Wahab Allat.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a great point that I agree with but I don't feel is fairly represented on the page. See: "The origin of Odaenathus' name does not indicate that he identified as an Arab, or that his rule had an Arab character" This is very on the nose and biased and borderline irrelevant. If the section is about Odaenathus's ethnic origin then what does it matter what he identified as? Furthermore I have sources like Irfan Shahid who argue that his rule did have Arab character and that his war tactics were a precursor the Arab military doctrine of "karr wa farr". What should I do when sources contradict each other? This line should be removed since it's not relevant, we're talking about origin, and it never does actually define what "Arab character" means, and uses a misconception on the concept of Arabness. Nevermind that his rule was not identified as any other ethnicity's either. I can say "his ruled didn't have Aramaean character either" and use one of the sources who say he's Arab. What is your opinion on this line because it doesn't sound encyclopedia like?

There are two parts here: the origin of Odaenathus' name does not indicate that he identified as an Arab, or that his rule had an Arab character. In the section about origins, where several ethnicities are mentioned (Arab and Aramean), it is important to note the ethnic (or identity) realities of Palmyra and how its people perceived themselves. Therefore, the sentence "identified as an Arab" should remain. The words "Arab character" might be irrelevant. It can either be deleted, or you can add the Irfan Shahid source. When sources of scholars contradict, we ascribe each opinion to the scholar who produced it. (And its right, his rule didnt have Aramean character... No one argued for this).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As for Palmyra it seems you're passing off Arab presence as minor? Or am I misunderstanding you? The reason Palmyra became a major trade hub in the first place was due to Arabs, who monopolized and mastered camel breeding, using it on the path between Damascus and Mesopotamia (source: Jan Retso). We have evidence of Arab presence in and around Palmyra since the 8th century BC (source: Eph'al Israel's translations of Assyrian letters and inscriptions), and Palmyra was linked to Emesa, where shamsigramus i was its ambassador to Rome. The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization counts as consensus, no? Because in the definition of Palmyra it states that "Arabs, ... comprised half of Roman Tadmor’s population.” in page 566. What is Arab? A person with cultural traits such as Allat worship.--Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Arab presence is not our topic. There is not a single Palmyrene inscription that reveals any identity other than Palmyrene. No Palmyrene called himself an Arab, nor an Aramean. This city produced its own ethicity and culture and its not suitable to use it for nationalistic goals of the 21st century. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Note, can you provide the actual source of Israel Eph'al? (what article or book and what page). This way it can be added to the article of Palmyra itself since Palmyra was not mentioned in the 8th century BC as far as the available sources reveal.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Palmyra is not mentioned by name but him and another academic discuss the reasoning for Gindibu fighting against Assyrians in the 9th c. BC and link that with letters of Arabs living in the triangle between Damascus-Emesa-Palmyra in the 8th c. BC, concluding that Arabs must have lived in the desert east of modern day Syria since that time.

Actually, deleting the line from "the origin of Odaenathus name" to "in practice" wont change much. That line can be used as a counter argument for an editor who will write that Odaenathus identified as Arab, but since no editor is doing this, then the line can be deleted and the part explaining how Palmyrenes thought of themselves kept. Is that fine with you Julia Domna Ba'al ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes that'll be great. It's the line I have a big grip with since it's straight out of facebook and has a hidden implication behind it.

Actually its not from facebook. The source mentions it directly, but for the sake of maintaining the quality of the article and avoiding edit wars, a compromise is fine. As for the 8th century, Arabs certainly lived in that desert (the land of Laqe.. people carried northern Arabic names, and I think this is in the middle Assyrian period, so before 8th century BCE), but if they will be presented as inhabitants of Palmyra itself, then this needs concrete evidence.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand it's sourced but the way it is presented and its context within the section makes its inclusion in that manner in bad faith. Since other ethnicities were mentioned prior to it, then singling out his "non Arabness" is misleading. In any case I explained my point and you're reasonable and knowledgable so do what you see fit, I won't edit the article.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I won't add the Irfan Shahid statements since there's too much talk over this one singular issue; it was just meant to be a response to that paragraph's ending passage.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Julia Domna Ba'al, you turned to be reasonable as well. The line about not identifying as an Arab was added because another sentence was added about a Byzantine later historian calling Odaenathus king of the Saracens. Procopius lived in the Sixth century when Palmyra was a center of the Banu Kalb tribe, while the realities of the third centuries when Odaenathus lived are different. Procopius is not a good source to tell us with what Odaenathus actually identified himself and what was the actual social and ethnic situation of Palmyra in the third century. Therefore, I will be deleting this sentence as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Palmyrene Kingdom

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)

@Srnec: 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)

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 [[List of Palmyrene monarchs|Palmyrene Kingdom]] rather than pipe to Palmyrene Empire. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: 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)

How was it not a kingdom? It had three kings, a regent, and a territory corresponding to the Palmyrene region (I am not counting the Roman provinces under his control). 12 years isnt ephermal given the events that took place. As for a Palmyrene kingdom article, I believe the section with that title in the article of Palmyra covers this. Another option is to rename the Palmyrene Empire into the Palmyrene kingdom and expand it to include the reign of Odaenathus and Hairan and the political changes in Palmyra that signified the end of the council's authority and the coming of the monarchy.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

I really think the Palmyrene Empire is just those three years. if the words Palmyrene and kingdom must appear together, the "kingdom" needs to be uncapitalized. 12 years is definitely ephemeral and three kings in as many olympiads doesn't exactly say "island of stability" to me. Hitler lasted twelve years, established kingdoms last for one or two generations at least. We have already articles for Roman provinces and for Palmyra itself. GPinkerton (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"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)

Yes. A kingdom. Not The Palmyrene Kingdom. Was the Central African Republic really a Central African Empire under Bokassa I? GPinkerton (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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)