Jump to content

Talk:Palmyra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image and name

Can we return this beautiful shot (which doesn't have much hard visual information) when there is enough text to balance it?

I'm going to merge the article at Tadmor, Syria in here as that makes sense. Does anyone feel that the main article for this city should be at Palmyra instead of here? Gareth Hughes 19:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's no nonsense about not calling Palmyra 'Palmyra" in any of the other language Wikipedias. We have so little text I'm moving this pretty image here, so we don't forget it when there's room. --Wetman 14:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tadmor and Palmyra

Coming from a recent trip in Tadmor AND Palmyra I can tell that Syrians use "Tadmor" as the name of the modern city. Palmyra is more a name used by tourists with direct references to the ancient city now in ruins. I myself knew the word Palmyra long before Tadmor. Unless one wants to write something specific about Tadmor I would not change the redirection as I found it earlier today. --zelidar 16:38, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

You're right: that is the current state of affairs. However, both names are properly the name of the city. Palmyra is the Greek name for the place, and just as many ancient, abandoned sites are known by a name from the past, old Tadmor/Palmyra is called Palmyra. --Gareth Hughes 19:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know little to nothing about the modern city. If you have numbers such as current population and other statistics maybe we could put that in the first paragraph. Right now the article is mainly concentrated on the ruins and the history of the city. I'm also thinking of adding another section that describes each ruins site in detail:possibly the Temple of Bel, the Decumanus, the theatre. Maybe then that sunset image will fit in nicely :).Yuber 19:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Strongly agree that this should go to Palmyra; it's far more common as an English-language name of the place. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmiro (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Chaos!

There are obviously too many images jammed in this article, which is quite small. I will rearrange the images and add the other images to a gallery, which will make the article look quite neater. --Anas Salloum 13:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No Map?!

This article really needs a map of the area--at least one of Syria with Palmyra indicated. I haven't been able to find one...-DMCer 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The german article has one --62.224.184.102 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)29 March 2009

Errors!

The example, quoted from the article below, makes no sense. The example interchanges the "r" and the "d" - the text interchanged the "t" and the "d". Which is correct?

"(sometimes interchanging the letters "t" and "d" - "Tarmod" instead of "Tadmor")."

Ambrose M 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Palmyra and Rome

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 11 for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What impact did Palmyra have on ancient Rome? Gothicus 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it had an impact far beyond the confines of Rome, Gothicus; and next time you celebrate Christmas Day, if you do celebrate Christmas Day, you might care to give passing thanks to Palmyra and Queen Zenobia!
A rich trading centre, Palmyra was also vital to the defence of Rome's eastern provinces, especially after Ardashir created a new Persian Empire on the ruins of the Parthians. It was Prince Odenathus of Palmyra who drove back the Persian invasion of 262AD, for which he received the title of of totius Orientis imperator from the grateful Gallienus in Rome. But Zenobia, his wife and successor, was altogether more ambitious. Mindful of the decline of Roman power, she constructed the Palmyrene Empire, an echo of that of an earlier Arab queen, Semiramis. Palmyra under Queen Zenobia was the centre of many cults and religions; but standing above all was Sol Invictus-the Unconquered Sun. This cult had previously come to Rome in the form of Elagabalus Sol Invictus. It was discredited, to some degree, by association with the decadent Emperor Heliogabalus, though it never entirely went away. After Aurelian defeated Zenobia he built a huge temple to Sol Invictus on his return to Rome, a celebration both of his triumph and a way of harnessing the power of this supreme God. It was the first serious attempt to create a unifying religion for the whole Empire, a way of binding the fragments together after the prolonged Crisis of the Third Century. Aurelian was god on earth and the Sun was god in heaven. In 274AD the Emperor declared that the annual festival of Sol Invictus would fall on the winter solstice-25 December. And it was thus that Christmas came on a star, from the east and in the company of a Queen! Clio the Muse 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tadmor and not Tadmor?!

"(sometimes interchanging the letters "t" and "d" - "Tadmor" instead of "Tadmor")" should read "(sometimes interchanging the letters "m" and "d" - "Tamdor" instead of "Tadmor")" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Siegel (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing chronology

The first paragraph under the ancient history section does not fit chronologically. Also, it's not clear whether the first century is CE or BCE. For reference, the paragraph is (In the mid-first century, Palmyra, a wealthy and elegant city located along the caravan routes linking Persia with the Mediterranean ports of Roman Syria and Phoenicia, came under Roman control. During the following period of great prosperity, the Aramaean inhabitants of Palmyra adopted customs and modes of dress from both the Iranian Parthian world to the east and the Graeco-Roman west.) Wakablogger (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

new polish discoveries

This article needs to be augmented by the new discovery of the 1200 year old large christian church by the polish team --173.33.216.123 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Was there a Lebanon at the time?

In the section "Islamic Rule" the paragraph says:

In the 16th century, Qala'at ibn Maan castle was built on top of a mountain overlooking the oasis by Fakhr ad-Din al-Maan II, a Lebanese prince who tried to control the Syrian Desert.

As far as I know, Lebanon only became a distinctive entity in the 20th century, and before that there was a 'Great Syria' which included the modern Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.

Could someone verify this please? I'm not good in history.

Ai.unit (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Lebanon" was carved out of "Greater Syria" since it had [until the 1950s] a Christian majority. The French knew that the Muslims in neighboring regions would just love to oppress the Christians that they sought to prevent that by creating Lebanon. To bad it failed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.242 (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Arabs?

The inhabitants of Palmyra weren't Arabs, they were Syriacs, which at the time were the majority in Antiquity. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


Actually, they were a mix or Arabs, Arameans & Armenians Omar amross (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Tamara reference unclear

The text says, "Flavius Josephus also attributes the founding of Tadmor to Solomon in his Antiquities of the Jews (Book VIII), along with the Greek name of Palmyra, although this must be a confusion with biblical 'Tamara'." The word "Tamara" does not appear to be a place in the Bible. Can this be clarified? ChangMei (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

name transcription

The Hebrew name does have -ta at the end, but the Syriac does. The Arabic version clearly has a short vowel between 'm' and 'r', while The Hebrew and Syriac write a long vowel. Pamour (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the name given in Hebrew? Where is the connection that justifies that? Why not in Persian or in Turkish or in Armenian or even in French, since France once was the colonial patron of the area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.180.195 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Russian air base

According to [1]: "Moscow, which has in Syria an important air base in Palmyra". Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? The base is likely notable in its own right. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean Tiyas Military Airbase? 188.210.92.138 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Date of founding even in the first few paragraphs

Has anyone considered giving the date of it's founding? Jeez!

Rewriting

I rewrote this article, I think that I covered everything that could be said about the city.

Now there is a point I'd like to stress :

I wrote in the lead : SEMITIC city, this city had Arabs and Arameans, not just Arabs or just Arameans. I added the citations needed, I was very careful to find the best reliable sources, so I got published books by universities written by specialized scholars and peer reviewed. I hope this will stop any nationalist (Assyrian or Arab) from disturbing this article...move on with your lives, the Palmyrenes were mixed ! so dont change the lead to insert Aramaic speaking or anything of that sort, Congo speak french but they are not french, normally a country is identified by its ethnicity and since this city is mixed and they are both Semitic then Semitic city is the most suitable.

If anyone have any notes, please share them here, I will nominate this article to a Good article today, so I hope that I get any notes and insert any necessary changes before I nominate

cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'll take this one, may take some time fr me to finish the review thogh, will add a little as I read along. Some initial observations below: FunkMonk (talk)
Thanks
  • Very well illustrated, but I'd consider enlarging the infobox picture, it is very hard to see it at this size.
I picked it because it give a preview of the whole site. Changed now--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done
  • "saw Palmyra's turning into a prosperous settlement" We talked about lack of genitive s during the Mari, Syria review, here it's the other way around, one too many!
Fixed, well that was embarrassing, I will master the genitive s soon--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "when an amateur video was posted, which shows Syrian soldiers carrying funerary stones" Was there any indication that they were looting, and not just saving the artifacts? Why should they steal from a museum belonging to their own government?
The article doesn't say that the soldiers were looting, just that they were carrying artifacts which raised fears from looting. A second point, back then the site wasn't in danger and the museum of Palmyra is still intact with no artifacts being taken to safety in Damascus, so there wasn't any justification for playing with those artifacts. To keep it neutral, I wrote that this video doesnt confirm that it is a looting operation, just as the source say in its end France 24 report in English --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, by the way, very nice that you're documenting all these historical sites of Syria, before it is all ground to dust... FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I try to keep my mind away from thinking that this will happen, I'm already dying inside to hear that ISIS is getting close to Palmyra after they took control of Al-Sukhnah.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are there three points in the locator map?
The current site is strictly historic and abandoned just like Mari, Syria, its an archaeological site while the modern city is outside the historic one.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Could it be clarified in the caption somehow? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok.
Ok, get well :) --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Done
  • "Archaeological sounding in the Tell beneath" What is meant by sounding?
They use sound waves to determine the depth and levels of the site, Archaeoacoustics. I linked it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok, could you "unhide" the link, as most readers may not click on it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done
  • "n 217 BC, a Palmyrene force led by a Sheikh named Zabdibel" Was the term sheikh used at the time?
It is written in the sources though 1 2, so he is identified as a Sheikh but the sources dont tell if he was titled a sheikh during his lifetime.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "was found 75 kilometres to the northwest of" Why italics?
No reason ! I cant remember why did I wrote it in italic, fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "establishing colonies in many of the important trading surrounding cities." Not sure what is meant here.
maybe I should have wrote : surrounding important trade centers, fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Still some "s" issues, but I'll take care of it as I go along.
Thanks, I'll try to catch them as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The city also included a Jewish minority" When?
during the pre-Roman destruction period, I removed the sentence to the first paragraph which talk about the period before Aurelian conquest.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "for by the second century, any notion of a clan lost its importance and disappeared in the third century" Not sure which century is meant here.
During the second century, clans were still mentioned but had not importance. During the third century only the four tribes were mentioned and clans disappeared. I changed the sentence into this : disappeared in the following third century.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "and Pliny account over Palmyra's political situation is dismissed by modern scholarly" Pliny needs genitive s, and "scholarly" should be "scholars".
Done
  • " (Polis).[210] The concept of citizenship (Demos) appears in an inscription dated to 10 AD, describing the Palmyrenes as a community.[211] In 74 AD, another inscription mentions the Boule (senate) of the city.[210] The military units of Palmyra were headed by the Strategoi (generals),[212] while the Boule managed the civic responsibilities,[213] and appointed two Archons (lords) annually." Are there reasons for why the Greek terms here (and in the rest of the Government section) are capitalised?
Since they are not in English I treated them like we treat names. Is it better for them to lose he capitalization ?, anyway I fixed them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Foreign words are sometimes italicized, but capitals should probably only be used if they are in the original language. But since the Greek alphabet is completely different, it would be kind of pointless. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just like the Egyptian or Mesopotamian gods, they are Syrian deities from the Levant and concentrated there. See this where Bel is described as Syrian, normal 123--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I mean it seems Palmyrene gods are mentioned as different from Syrian gods, I guess that is because Palmyra was considered a distinct entity at the time, or how? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was seen as Syrian, but since it had its own deities (the three ones, malakbel, aglibol and yarhabol), we need to write Syrian to indicate the deities that were general in the whole of Syria region. For example, the levantine general deities of Ebla are Syrians but Ebla also had Kura and Nidakul worshipped just in the city. A big indication that Palmyra is also just part of normal Syria is that the main deity Bel was a levantine, its just the Baal of the city like all the Baals of other Syrian cities, but had its name changed to Bel because of a Mesopotamian influence due to trade while keeping the characters of the other Syrian baals.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add "wider Syrian deities" or some such then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Done
  • Terms like Jinn, Ginnaye, and Genius should probably not be capitalised. They are not names.
Done
  • "approximately 1000 hectares of irrigable land" As above.
Done
  • "goes back as early as Hadrian reign." Missing s.
Done
  • "and Rome to name a few" Seems a bit too informal, perhaps "among others" is better.
Done
  • "who paid the entire cost of emperor Hadrian visit in 129" Again s.
Done
  • "however, from the information gathered, it is impossible to determine whether pillaging was taking place" Why italics?
Because this is a direct qoute from the source, is there another protocol when Im using the exact same words ?4 Anyway, I edited it and wrote that it is according to France 24, then the quote in italic.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The normal way would be to use quotation marks, "it is impossible to determine whether pillaging was taking place". Also, attribute the source in the text when directly quoting. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Done
  • "the Diocletian's era rebuilt walls surrounded only the northern bank" Not sure what is meant here.
The walls built during the reign of Diocletian encompassed only the parts of the city north of the wadi, while the walls of Palmyra of Zenobia encompassed parts northern and southern of the wadi, I clarified the sentence--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "n 1751, an expedition led by Wood and Dawkins" Why not full names?
Fixed--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Its gone now, I didnt want to write it on the first place but I was afraid that a reviewer will say that the intro should summarize every single section of the article, and since I wrote an etymology section, I wrote the disputed etymology in the intro.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, then all looks good, passed! Keep up the good work! FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Extent of damage

The current extent of damage is unclear. What exactly is meant by the "temple facade had a large circle caused by a mortar bomb". Does "circle" mean a hole in the façade, a hole in the ground (more likely given the cause) or something else?Royalcourtier (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The façade had a hole not the ground. This is what the source say.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a National Geographic article that may be of use, with statements from various authorities: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150516-syria-palmyra-islamic-state-ISIS-ISIL-ancient-Rome-destruction-world-heritage-archaeology/ FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Greeks

Three sources were used to support that Palmyra had Greek minority or even worse, that the Palmyrenes were a mixture of Greeks and Semites. The sources are old and dates from before Henri Arnold Seyrig conducted his excavations. Some are written by none experts, who thought that the Palmyrenes were Greeks because of the architecture ! and they contain huge mistakes.

  • 1- The first source is practically a travel guide written in 1914 which claim the Palmyrenes were a mix of Semites and Greeks ! with no base ! The assumption is solely based on the Palmyrene tomb sculptures !!!! Baedeker's Constantinople. Funny enough, those sculptures are more influenced by Parthian art.
  • 2- The second is this : Ingholt, Harald (1954). Palmyrene and Gandharan Sculpture: An Exhibition Illustrating the Cultural Interrelations Between the Parthian Empire and Its Neighbors West and East, Palmyra and Gandhara. Yale University Art Gallery. p. 2. OCLC 27414699. : Both the characteristic linearity and frontality may thus well be "Parthian" contributions to Palmyra, in the sense that they are due to the mixed Greek and Semitic population in Parthian Mesopotamia.
as it is noticeable, the writer is talking about Parthian Mesopotamia's population not Palmyra which is not even a part of Mesopotamia.
This last one contain the next mistakes :
1- Damascus was an actual all Greek city !
2-The Palmyrenes had a strong Greek element and the royal family of Palmyra had Greek heavy infusion !
3- Christianity flourished in Palmyra

Now : No modern source agree to this, at least not after the excavations and the reading of Palmyrene inscriptions.

1-For the claim that the Palmyrene were a mix of Greeks, it is known that Palmyra had 14 or 17 clans, all except for one are with Semitic names Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia's Revolt Against Rome. University of Michigan Press 1994 The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria 1999 and Trevor Bryce indicate that at least half of Palmyra and half of the personal names read are Arabic Ancient Syria: A Three Thousand Year History. Oxford University Press

Only one tribe have a none Semitic name, but it is not Greek, it is Roman ! the Claudia tribe which is dated from a later period of the city prosperity Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia's Revolt Against Rome

2- The claim that Palmyra was a christian paradise : Absolutly no evidence for this is dated before the Byzantine period. However, Zenobia did tolerate the Christians in Sryia and especially in Antioch. But there is no evidence for Christianity in Palmyra itself A Journey to Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers 2005. BRILL Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Adolf von Harnack is claiming in his book that Christianity in Syria prospered in the early days whenever Greeks existed. He is using this to claim Palmyra had Greeks because according to him Christianity prospered there ! which is false.

3- The claim that the royal Family had Greek infusion ! : Odaenathus ancestry is Aramaic and Arab with no Greek names The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 12, The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337 2005 A Journey to Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers 2005. BRILL

Zenobia could have been descendent from an Arab sheikh Ancient Syria: A Three Thousand Year History, Oxford University Press 2014 and some claimed her to be a descendant from Cleopatra VII or the Queen of Sheba !!! which is described by Warwick Ball as apocryphal Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, Routledge 2002

So, we need a specialized source from actual historians and based on solid evidence to claim Palmyrene were mixed with Greeks. Keep in mind that Palmyra up until the first century AD was a minor camp and began to prosper after the demises of the Greek rule in Syria 64 BC.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tessera

the tag "dubious" was added for the use of the word tessera. The reason is : Quoted work does use the term, but common use, as well as WP article, define it as a mosaic stone, which does not bear drawings or other depictions.

However, academics knows better than WP or what someone think is a common use. Stones bearing drawings and depictions are called tesseras by many Scholars including the most brilliant one :

Move the Excavations section?

Just a thought that some of the earlier excavations, particularly those referring to the now-lost temples could be moved up into the history section? perhaps between the Ottoman era and the Civil war?--ERAGON (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The excavations section needs to come after the layout and buildings sections because those sections explain about those buldings first so the reader will understand what the excavation section is talking about.
Excavations don't belong in the history of a site. This goes throughout Wikipedia (examples Volubilis, Sparta, Baalbek, Hattusa, Troy, Nimrud and others)
After the war, excavations will continue and moving the excavation section to between Ottoman and civil war will mean that after the war, a second section for the excavations needs to be created to talk about the post-war excavations !
Splitting the excavations section and moving the info about the lost temples to their own section will create a short 2 lines section that will get re-merged to the excavation section.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, just a thought.--ERAGON (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Annotated map proposal

Dear friends, I just wanted to let you know about an image which was recently uploaded to Commons and can be used as the base for an annotated map of the main landmarks in Palmyra. In case you think it can be useful for the article! (I also thought about using it in a Palmyra archeological site navbox, but couldn't get it to look acceptable.)

--M.L.WattsWatts up? 19:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Just uploaded this

If it's any use:

Remains of lost empires: sketches of the ruins of Palmyra, Nineveh, Babylon, and Persepolis, with some notes on India and the Cashmerian Himalayas by Myers, P. V. N. (Philip Van Ness), 1846-1937

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image suggestion

Any thoughts for replacing the current image the infobox with this one. It's more zoomed in on the site (including the former Temple of Bel), the image is clearer because it was taken in the daytime, it is a Featured Picture (in Persian wikipedia) and last but not least there's a herd of camels grazing in the foreground among the ruins. Granted, the current infobox picture gives a better idea of the shape of Palmyra's site, has a scenic look with the sun shining on the ruins before it sets (or during sunrise?) and it shows the orchards of the oasis in the background.

Suggested infobox replacement picture
Current infobox picture
I cant say that I prefer any one. I just chose the current one because it shows the entire site.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not inclined to change it until we get some more input here. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I dont think we are going to get more input. So I support you to change it. Now we have a consensus :) .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that's a shame, but certainly I'm used to it with Arab world topics. I'll make the change and if other editors disagree we can discuss again. Also, maybe the current (now previous) image could be kept somewhere in the article. I'll leave that up to you. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Palmyra arch was not Roman. nor a triumphal arch. Comment

Per an editor's edit note: The Palmyra arch was not Roman. nor a triumphal arch.

Could this fact be explained in the text?

I read news articles that state the Arch of Triump is a Roman triumphal arch,for example: "the triple arch built by the Romans to celebrate a victory over the Persians" in http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/world/middleeast/isis-syria-arch-triumph-palmyra.html which may be a misconception. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What victory ? are they talking about Odaenathus ?? because he is the only one under the Romans to defeat the Persians during the period that Palmyra was still prospering. Odaenathus was leading a Palmyrene army which is sourced in the article. Rome didnt control the city during the time of the "victory" because the victory was scored by Odaenathus who became stronger than the Emperor and achieved virtual independence which is also sourced in the article
But anyways, Nytimes isnt an academic source. This is Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia's Revolt Against Rome .University of Michigan Press. It says : " The great monumental arch was built between 193 and 211 to link the main street and the Temple of Bel".. So this wasnt even a triumphal arch and wasnt built to celebrate any victory nor does it have an inscription to tell why was it built.. Only that it was built during the reign of Severus. Keep in mind that there was no "Persians" during the period which saw the erection of the arch. It was the Parthians not the Persians.
Here Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome, you have an explanation about the job of the arch :"An elaborate example is the Monumental Arch at Palmyra, which marks a change of 30° in the orientation of the central Colonnaded Street".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Then this WP article is wrong stating the arch is a Roman arch, and should be corrected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumental_Arch_of_Palmyra CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the (extensive) Parthian artifacts from the city

Regarding the extensive (in a relative, historical point of view) Parthian materials, artifacts, statues, and what-not that were found at Palmyra; am I missing something or is this already covered here? There's no doubt Palmyra is mostly known for its Greco-Roman influenced character (then again; which is not that insanely different from Parthian art itself), but shouldn't this, in some way, be covered here as well? Its part of what makes Palmyra as well, and therefore should not be omitted. For GA status at least, I believe this could perhaps be a valuable addition to this article. Any opinions? If its already covered, it would be great if someone could link me it. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There are no Parthian artifacts. They are Palmyrene artifacts and this is the problem with Parthian art, as it is a murky concept advanced by Michael Rostovtzeff and supported by Schlumberger mostly, but it is widely debated if the term "Parthia" can be applied.
We dont know if this art was the work of Parthia or the middle Euphrates Syrian regions as the most characteristic feature of the "Parthian" art is frontality (which is also the major similarity between Palmyra's and Parthia's arts) which is not a special feature of Iranic or Parthian art.
Frontality is one of the most debated themes regarding Parthia and Palmyra'a arts and it is what make that art exist. This frontality could have started in Parthia but also the other way around (from Palmyra to Parthia)
The article reflect this in the Art section when it says : "According to Michael Rostovtzeff, Palmyra's art was influenced by Parthian art.[86] However, the origin of frontality that characterized Palmyrene and Parthian arts is a controversial issue; while Parthian origin has been suggested (by Daniel Schlumberger),[87] Michael Avi-Yonah contends that it was a local Syrian tradition that influenced Parthian art.[88]"
So, the Parthian art article is linked and mentioned so that anyone who want to expand can go to it. But the article of Palmyra should focus on the city and its already very big and shouldn't get bigger as it would affect the FA nomination.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State again

Islamic State Militants Re-enter Syria's Historic Palmyra. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sad. The ISIL are still fighting and we dont know if they will win. This article is about the historic site, while ISIL is still in the city of Tadmur. We should wait until they enter Palmyra before mentioning this event.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I was thinking, why is there both a section about the Syrian war and desctruction by ISIL? Wouldn't it be better to put the info together in the first occurring section? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
First it was a one section but then I separated it. I think that the destruction section should be merged not with the civil war but with the "Site" section as it is talking about what happened to that site and not focusing on the fighting (which is the scope of the civil war section). What do you think?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it seems a bit distached from the rest at the very end of the article, so I'm for any merge that makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I did it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, less sensationalist... FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-English names in opening

The purpose of an opening is to tell the reader what the subject of the article is and why it is notable. See MOS:BEGIN for examples of appropriately structured openings. A list of names in various languages distracts from the purpose of an opening. As a result of this edit, the name of the city in ancient script currently appears in a very outstanding way. "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses," per MOS:FORLANG. An image should appear in the article in only one, appropriate place. This one already appears in the infobox. Pandas and people (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it that important to you to remove this particular element!! Is it this harming in your view!! Please dear, dont teach much older editors about wiki regulations, we know them. This isnt a case of a list of names, this is the official language and alphabet of Palmyra and so it is closely associated. No one uses latin today, but you will read the name of the Roman Empire in Latin in the article about that empire. How about improving the article such as adding a legacy section or explaining the role of priests instead of focusing on such a damaging edit.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This is one of the first things a reader will notice about the article, so I think it is worth discussing. Here is yet another rule that it is violating: "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image," per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Pandas and people (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes one of the first things and it will benefit him/her to see how the ancient Palmyrenes wrote the name of their city. Since the rule say "almost" then nothing was violated. Now tell me how removing the Palmyrene alphabet writing in an article about Palmyra will make this article better ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with this image beyond that it should be in an appropriate location. Why do we need it twice? The problem with putting it in the opening is that it is distracting if you want to read the text, which I assume at least some people want to do. Pandas and people (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, most people want to read the text, which is why I spent two months writing it. However, this small picture is hardly a distraction. An article about Palmyra should have the name of the city in its native language written and shown in the lead. The other option would be using the Palmyrene characters which no computer can project, meaning that they will appear as squares, which wont help the readers (to give you an idea, see the Coptic characters in this article, they are text but unhelpful). Wikipedia and its rules are meant to spread knowledge, not to make them sacred laws for the sake of them being laws.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Coptic "Ⲡⲁⲡⲁ Ⲁⲃⲃⲁ Ⲑⲉⲟ́ⲇⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲓⲙⲁϩ ⲃ̅" (Papa Abba etc.) displays correctly here on 3 different browsers. The Palmyrene (Unicode block) letters "" (Taw-Daleth-Mem-Waw-Resh from right to left) however show squares in these same 3 browsers. I guess this depends on the local setup of our computers' operating systems. I agree on the use of an image for the sake of usability here. 188.210.92.138 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A solution here could be to look at how other languages have been dealt with in other featured articles about similar subjects. Also, note this already passed FAC, so it is a little late to propose drastic changes; if it was accepted during FAC, it lives up to the MOS, and you'd need a large consensus and good arguments to remove existing text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That shouldn't be the standard. Poor style on one article doesn't justify poor style on another article. Good writing is in line with what published encyclopedias, reference works, and textbooks do -- and in line with what the style guides recommend. That implies avoiding non-English text, especially non-Latin script. Pandas and people (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Poor style in your opinion, not according to any guideline, it would seem. Again, the fact this passed FAC should be enough to establish that there was prior consensus. So if you want to change it, you need to establish a new consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
You think everything is relative? It's in the opinion of the people who know about these things, write style style guides or copyedit for major publishers. Here is Strunk and White, the best selling style guide of all times: "Some writers, however, from sheer exuberance or a desire to show off, sprinkle their work liberally with foreign expressions, with no regard for the reader's comfort. It is a bad habit. Write in English." (p. 76) Pandas and people (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I think WP:consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No strong opinion either way, but I would lean toward keeping it where it is. I wouldn't call the inclusion of Palmyra's native name in the introductory sentence of the article an example of "sheer exuberance". I think it's interesting and a testament that this city was the capital of its own empire and had a language of its own. At the end of the day, regardless of whether one finds it interesting or not, the Palmyrene name barely takes any space and I don't believe including it is controversial or poor style. If the article was filled with Palmyrene script, I would view things differently. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

Size

Although the data seems to originate from UNESCO, the size of 0.36 hectare is way too small to be true. 188.210.92.138 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

if a reliable source says so, then our judgement have no place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/23 - for me, this is clearly a typo... 3600 square meters? come on and look at it yourself! 188.210.92.138 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:Civility imposes me to shut up now. 188.210.92.138 (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Not really, shutting up isnt the way to go, but its also recommended to seek a consensus before deleting a sourced info. You were right, the city is 80 hectares. I am sorry for my aggressiveness though--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry i was impulsive. Thanks for becaring the common good. 188.210.92.138 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Palmyrene letters

First, there are no regular Aramaic letters (unless we will speak about the original ones from the 9th century BC). Second those are not MY "Palmyrene characters". Palmyra used those characters.

A source is given in the picture itself now (the same one I counted on, so its not self drawn.) Its by Israel Wolfensohn (also known as Israel Ben Zeev), a professor in semitic languages who taught in Egyptian universities (For information about him, read here in a book by Donald Malcolm Reid and published Cambridge University Press). In the end of page 118 (I provided a link) of Wolfensohn's book, you will find a drawing of a Palmyrene inscription that record the name Tadmor in Palmyrene characters (not my characters). The inscription is composed out of 5 lines and you will see Tadmor in line 4. Pass the first 2 characters from the right and Tadmor (composed of 5 letters) will start. The inscription is then translated and explained in page 119--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Very good. This is a good reference to establish that the Aramaic name of Palmyra was spelled tdmwr. We would still not use an inline png to convey this information. Most readers cannot parse this, and those readers who can will be served just as well with the transliteration tdmwr or ‎‎ר‎‎ו‎תדמ. Anything beyond this is just about "font variants" (letter shapes, not name forms or even orthography). I hope we agree that the point is to report the Aramaic name of the city and not the details of the letter shape in a specific type of Aramaic epigraphy.

The interesting point here is that the Aramaic name has a waw and the Arabic name does not. Do you have anything on this? --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I really oppose removing the Palmyrene alphabet. We had a long discussion about it and the result was to keep it. Just because no font can show the letters doesnt justify writing it in Hebrew alphabet or removing it alltogether. The city had its own alphabet. As for Arabic, its right that you dont write the Waw but you spell it nonetheless. In proper Arabic writing you would write تدمَر not تدمر. Notice that there is a little mark over the mim which indicate that you must spell a waw (or O).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not opposing the inclusion of "non-English names", that's not the issue. I am opposing the use of png graphics to spell Aramaic. You already have three choices: use transliteration, use the Hebrew alphabet, or use the Aramaic block provided by Unicode. Legacy systems will not properly display the Aramaic letters, but any reasonably recent system displays it just fine. But the alphabet is perfectly isomorphic to the Hebrew one, so it is not unusual to use standard Hebrew characters instead. I have no opinion on which is best, but you really should not use images to spell words unless you want to discuss the details of the "shapes of the letters", which is clearly not the issue here.
the name tdmwr was written during more than a millennium using Old Assyrian, New Assyrian, early and late Aramaic as well as Hebrew characters. What on earth is the point in showing the name in the article intro as it is drawn on one specific inscription you happened to screenshot? --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the point is that this was the alphabet of Palmyra, the center of this article. This is the native alphabet that the Palmyrenes themselves used. It doesnt matter how the Assyrians (or any other people aside from the Palmyrenes) wrote it in Akkadian really. The discussion about the non english name also discussed the use of a picture and the result was keep. Hebrew will not work as it wasnt the alphabet of the city.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
ok, how is the alphabet of Palmyra the center of this article? The alphabet of Palmyra is a variant of the Aramaic alphabet, used with the Palmyrene dialect of Aramaic spoken in the early centuries AD. This is the article about the city of Palmyra, c. 2000 BC to AD 1930. The use of the "alphabet of Palmyra" is just random brief period more or less from the middle of this history. The name Tadmor was attested roughly 2000 years before this particular alphabet was used. I honestly do not see the relevance. If you want to discuss the alphabet of Palmyra, you should introduce your material into the existing Palmyrene dialect page.
Otoh, if you have a reference for the Old Assyiran spelling of the name, this information would be of great relevance for the "Etymology" section. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Palmyra is the center of the article not its alphabet. And since the city had its own alphabet, then this alphabet have the upper hand over any other alphabet regarding how was the name written in Aramaic (of which Palmyra had its own dialect and alphabet). This small period you talked about is the most important period and takes most of the space of this article (before that period, Palmyra was just a camp).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew spelling

The transcription of the Arabic تدمَر (with ḍammah) has the transcription tadmur (not "tadmor"). Interestingly, the Biblical Hebrew has תדמר just like the Arabic, but modern Hebrew, just as epigraphic Aramaic, appear to have תדמור, i.e. tdmwr or "Tadmor". I would be interested in more references on this. I understand waw was used as a vowel marker even for short vowels in Aramaic epigraphy(?); the question would be how was the name spelled in Old Assyrian cuneiform? --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ta-ad-mar--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Etymology section

This article is the result of years of research. It was comprehensively reviewed several times during GA, Peer reviewed and FAC. The etymology section was butchered and referenced parts of it arbitrary deleted with no reason (while a totally out of place sentence about the bible was inserted!- note, the bible and its tadmor were mentioned in the history section). In the FAC, more explenation was demanded on the name not summarization

Its a fact that this city was famous and is important solely because of the period of its history when they used its own alphabet. Using the Palmyrene alphabet to show how was the name written in Palmyrene in the article of Palmyra already have a consensus and is the most obvious thing to do.

When it comes to how Palmyra derived from Tadmor, there are 2 possibilities: 1- Alternative. 2- Translation. Hence, this form of the paragraph is wrong: i.e. the supposed meaning of the city's Semitic name. Each possibility have its supporters. Alternation and translation are different things. Those deletion made some ideas missing, ideas important to understand the process of the name's evolution.

A clarification was asked for (Schultens argued that it is written "Tamor", and in the margin "Tadmor"). How can we clarify that ? Schultens is saying that in the bible, the city was named Tamor and the margin of whatever bible he was reading, it was Tadmor. So, I clarified that we are talking about a bible

And, the lede of a featured article doesnt need a citation in it. The Wolfensohn citation was moved to the etymology section.

Lastly, there is no further info in the Palmyra (modern). Its just an old version of the etymology section of this article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palmyra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoration

After months of claims from Syrian ministers and many articles regarding the restoration of the site, a recent article from CounterPunch "confirms" the restoration saying that after months of agreements and deals the site will be restored as soon as peace is assured in the historical site. They've already began some minor restoration work, as in March Italian scientists restored 2 damaged funerary reliefs and now are brought back to Syria after spending some time under the hands of restoration professionals.. So, thoughts on the situation? And what buildings are probably going to be restored? And is CounterPunch even credible? Jadd Haidar (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The arch will probably be the first to be restored. CounterPunch is a very partisan site, but since the reporter was apparently invited to Syria and spoke to officials then his words hold weight. We can say that the restoration began yet. Oh, Jadd Haidar, can you participate in the discussion in the page of Zenobia here. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done, the Queen of Egypt title has been removed. Regarding Palmyra, I'm curious to know what will be of the completely blown up buildings, would they even allow the Temple of Bel be left to ruin? I mean rebuilding razed building from the ground isn't anything new, and the temples I think hold way too much historical and heritage value for the government to allow its probably most cherished historical site, the Pearl of the Desert to be left in ruin after being blown up by frenzy jihadists. That's what I hope. Jadd Haidar (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palmyra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Restoration

I see that this section is reading like a newspaper article now. It is larger than many other sections now and contain long unnecessary quotes. Lot of things were destroyed in Palmyra and they are all going to be restored, and if every time something is restored a new paragraph about it and a long quote by someone will be added then very soon this section will constitute half of the article. The lion of Allat's restoration didnt deserve a whole paragraph. Readers need to know it has been restored but this is too much. Many parts of the restoration section can be summarized and not everytime someone commented on the restoration, his comment should be mentioned here. Either we summarize this section or we create a new article for it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been two weeks since I wrote this. Does anyone oppose the summarizing of the section and removing all those quotes and fancy titles which made it look like a newspaper ? If not I will start the editing soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: anyone has any notes before I summarize that section ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Summarized

So, I waited two month and no one indicated their objection. I summarized the section by removing trivial quotes and celebratory language. I removed the part about the Czech museum because the sources do not mention anything about Palmyra's restoration in particular.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for any work you did. As a historian, the destruction from ISIS and Al-Quaeda and all these other maniacs have caused to historical sites in the M.E. can make one have sleepless nights. The restorations will never be as good as the original ruins, but documenting them here (within reason) is a great addition to these articles. One of the extreme tragedies in the Iraq War was the damage and looting that happened in museums that the government did not take the proper measures to protect even when they knew what was coming. Same thing happened in Germany, Japan, etc. Cultural destruction is as old as civilization - so much information has been lost for all time. The sacking of Palmyra by the Romans was completely unnecessary. If someone has written a paper on that particular event with as much detail as is known, that would make for good material for the article? 50.111.9.62 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jews in Palmyra

I saw no mention of Jews or Judaism in this article. In particular, I saw no such mention in the sections on religions of Palmyra and the peoples of Palmyra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.28.198.5 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Andrew De leon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.15.246 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Nevermind - someone quicker than me has dealt with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.15.246 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palmyra/Archive_1&oldid=1249526204"