Talk:Philip the Arab

Untitled

The caption of one of the figures says "Rock-face relief at Naqsh-e Rustam of Shapur I (on horseback) with Philip the Arab and Emperor Valerian kneeling in surrender to the Persian king.". However this is historically impossible, since Philip was emperor from 244 to 249, and Valerian was captured by Shapur in 260. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRZH (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In fact, nowadays most scholars think that Gordian was wounded in the battle against Sapor and died shortly after. So, Philip did not kill him. Very piously, he built a huge mausoleum to his emperor. See D. Macdonald, "The Death of Gordian III. Another Tradition", Historia, 30, 1980 ; B. Bleckmann, "Die Reichskrise des III Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken, etc.", München 1991 ; X. Loriot, "Les premières années de la grande crise, etc.", ANRW II, 2.

---

Why was he called "the Arab"? Anyone knows? --Nahum 21:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He was of Arab ethnicity. Kuralyov 03:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) 75.90.18.177 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)The same reason why anyone called an Arab; Arabic was his mother tongue. It was already a common language of the region.

No, no , no. They call him arab because they do not want you to know or even to think that he was in fact a black man. Look at the guy's hair. He has an early 80's afro. Arabs usualy do not have one. They call him arab to decieve, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.88.6 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Afro? Nearly everyone looks like that on busts with short hair. However, his facial features do make him to resemble more of a black person a la Denzel Washington than any Arab I've ever seen.StevenJac (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Allknower identified!

The text says:

The uprising was crushed and Philip nominated Gaius Messius Quintus Decius as governor of the province. Future events would prove this to be a mistake. Pacantius' revolt was not the only threat to his rule: in the East, Marcus Iotapianus led another uprising in response to the oppressive rule of Priscus and the excessive taxation of the Eastern provinces.

I underlined what I consider rubbish. You cannot predict anything in retrospect unless you made a documented statement beforehand, that proves that you already predicted beforehand. Otherwise it becomes just a matter of imagination. It could very well be that Phil knowingly made a bad decision because the alternatives were worse, or that events that none could foresee, created the new rebellion (however unlikely). If we weren't there ourselves, we can't in retrospect evaluate acts and motivations of other people that had other facts available, unless we go there and simply ask them. Said: Rursus 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Philipnote.JPG

Image:Philipnote.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oracle

I've moved the following bit to the talk page:

"Arabic oracles speak of a local Sheikh, Uthaina, who was reported to have risen from the ranks to command the Eastern armies of the Roman Empire. This strengthens the possibility of Philip's Arab descent to some degree."

The information was added by an anonymous user quite a while ago and has been challenged but unreferenced for four months. If anybody has heard of what those Arabic oracles went on about, please feel free to add the ref. Trigaranus (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is: Zahran, Yasmine. 2001. Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice. The Arabian library. London, UK: Stacey. ISBN 9781900988285

I don't think this is relevant to the page however. Many historians agree he was Arab since... he was born in an Arab city, and the epitaph is pretty revealing. No need for this oracle business. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Just a heads-up. I've been working on a "Philip the Arab and Christianity" article in my userspace here. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to mainspace now. It's at Philip the Arab and Christianity. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Philippus I Arabs?

What is the source for this spelling? It does seem to occur in German texts, apparently as an abbreviation for Latin Arabus, but there does not appear to be a real citation for the use of this form in English. But even were it a legitimate German form, we should no more describe it as an English form than Philippe l'Arabe . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing German about that spelling there. The inhabitants of Arabia were called Arabes, sg. Arabs in Latin; a variant with vocalic ending was also sometimes used (Arabi, Arabus), though more rarely, for all I know. The word and the people probably entered Roman vision & vocab via Greek, in which the word is Ἄραψ, -βoς. (Greek did not normally use an -oς / -ου variant, as far as I know, as αραβος was a pre-existing Greek noun meaning "rattle" or sth. similar.) Trigaranus (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I do not want to have to source that thing. It's a word, you will find it in a dictionary. Trigaranus (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you've seriously peed on my leg there, Mr Anderson. I had been sitting in my room, waiting for my pizza dough to rise, and got guests coming in an hour or so. Because of your great sense of "Let us manly defend WP against all that Latin", I had to take the bloody first book on the Roman Near East in my room that I could get my hands on and bloody check the index!

If you are unsure (and if you are still feeling... raw about it), go and have a look at Henry Innes MacAdam, "Geography, Urbanisation and Settlement Patterns in the Roman Near East", Aldershot, 2002 (ISBN 0-86078-877-6, Library of Congress Control No. 2001098289), p. 255. But I do NOT want that quote or any other in the article text itself, and neither should you.

There is a line to what information we should consider problematic / disputable enough to require a source, and that line is drawn far, far beyond common Latin words that anybody (including yourself) could check in their dictionaries. So you initially believed this to be a "Germanism" because you hadn't seen it before. No big deal. I even appreciate your being bold about these things, but you can also trust those people who have been looking after this article the past few years to have some common sense in them. We do most definitely not need a quotation for this. What is the idea? Do we have to source the fact that Ptolemy I was called "Soter" and not "The Saviour"? I can tell you right now you are going to find both forms in English scholarly prose, just as with Philip the Arab and Philippus Arabs. Trigaranus (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I see where the problem lies: it's the numeral! In Latin times of course, he was called Maior and his son, Philippus II, Minor. So if you want to get rid of the numeral, be my guest. I thought you had taken umbrage at the Latin ethnonym! Trigaranus (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Latin (or rather Greek) ethnonym without the numeral is verifiable, although it is a Germanism; Arabus is also found. Both are uncommon; and I have edited to fit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think Trigaranus has a point that if anything it's more of a Graecism (ἄραψ) than a Germanism. It's no abbreviation, and considering just "philippus arabs" vs. "philippus arabus" I get a 17100:174 disproportion on Google Books. So unless I'm missing something I'd tend to the conclusion that Arabs is the better form. Wareh (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from in this article, I had never even seen him called "Arabus" anywhere. I actually thought "Arabus" was normally only an adjective, to be honest. And it's not even a Graecism, the inflection is perfectly straightforward Latin third declension. Trigaranus (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They're both adjectives - ethnonyms are by nature adjectives in the classical languages; Romanus is still an adjective when used in Clemens Romanus. Latin endings on Greek words are customary: consider Aeneam - but in both cases there are exceptions: Ovid uses a Greek form: palmiferos Arabas Panchaeaque rura relinquit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Latin form "Arabs" (but without Roman numeral) appeared in the first sentence until September 2017: then it was changed anonymously to "Arabus". See new discussion "Arabs/Arabus" below. Andrew Dalby 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced material

This article has a number of statements that I cannot verify in any published source. These include:

• "he had family who had originated in the Arabian peninsula, and who were believed to be distant descendants of the prestigious Baleed family of Aleppo";
• "it is documented that Rome used the Ghassan tribe from the Azd of Yemen as vassals to keep the neighboring northern Arabs in check";
• "according to numismatic evidence they had a daughter called Julia Severa or Severina, whom the ancient Roman sources don't mention";
• "Philip became a member of the Praetorian Guard during the reign of the emperor Alexander Severus"

Unless someone can provide some reliable secondary source that confirms these statements, I shall delete them in the coming days as I am updating the article very shortly. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much doubt there are. I've checked for two of them ([1] and [2]) and it of course turned out that they were added by the extremely helpful anonymous contributors to the article. (Yaay.) The one with the Praetorian Guard does not seem unreasonable as a career, but I don't think there is any ancient author confirming this. Trigaranus (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I thought as much. Agree about the Praetorian Guard, but making the claim that it specifically occured under the reign of Alexander Severus is something that should have a specific source or be deleted. I mean, it may have equally occured under the reign of Maximinus Thrax or even Gordian III, if it happened at all. Oatley2112 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job, thanks! Trigaranus (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Historia Augusta sourced material

One of the references cites the Historia Augusta, Since the Historia Augusta is a hoax, we probably need to remove claims sourced to it, directly, or indirectly. I'm not sure how to identify secondary sources using the Historia Augusta, but they ought to be removed as well. [One place the RS standards get in the way - having both PS and SS for each source would help]. 71.191.233.216 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)"

It's not that simple. While the Historia Augusta (HA) is a hoax, there is still enormous debate amongst historians about how much of the material is based upon legitimate sources, and without doubt there are nuggets of truth buried within it - even someone like Ronald Syme, who takes the minimilist position, acknowedges that much, and his position is by no means accepted by all historians. And there are certain things which we take as fact that are only mentioned in the HA, such as the Antonine Wall being built by Antoninus Pius. So we cannot completely dismiss the HA as a source. That being said, it should be treated with extreme caution, and should be used only when verified by a secondary source. In the case of Philip, the lack of any other primary material makes a reliance upon the HA somewhat unavoidable. However, there is currently only one reference to the HA in the article, which is Philip's use of men and creatures from Gordian III's planned Persian Triumph for the one thousand year anniversary of the foundation of the city. I don't believe this fact is disputed by any current historian. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bas Relief Error

The bas relief depicting Philip the Arab and a supposed Valerian is erroneous - Valerian's capture came almost 20 years after Philip's death, so any suggestion that the bas relief depicts Philip's handing over of Valerian in some form is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.138.237 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Arabic Translation Exists for a Reason......

Somebody keeps deleting the Arabic translation, or at least does so from time to time.

I seriously do not think I would have to post this, but I will do so before getting into a edit war.

Arabic may not have been the official language of Syria at the of Philip the Arab's reign, but Philip the Arab was an ARAB, and is a noted figure among both Arab World history AND Roman History, regardless of whether he spoke Arabic or not and even I highly doubt that Philip ever spoke Arabic or a dialect of it since Arabs in the Roman Empire were very Latinized people.

Arabic is the language of Syria, TODAY and Philip the Arab is AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FIGURE IN SYRIA. So an Arabic translation for one IS necessary not to mention that its Wikipedia tradition to post people's names in the respective language of their ethnic group or even nationality (in this case). PacificWarrior101 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

But Philip the Arab was not an Arab. What the Romans called Arabs were actually Syrians. Ancient Syrians were not the same people as modern Syrians. Modern Syrians are descended from the Bedouin tribes of Arabia, whereas ancient Syrians were descended from Nabataeans, Canaanites, Aramaeans, Assyrians, etc. The descendants of the ancient Syrians who are still alive today are the Assyrian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.24.158.132 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen. Romans knew the difference between different populations and knew what an Arab was, and according to both written and epigraphical evidence much of Syria was inhabited by Arabs, starting in the 9th c. BC and becoming a major ethnic element by the late first century BC. During Philip's time Arabs were living in many Syrian cities and had done so for centuries, and just below Syria the province of Arabia was described as the country of the Arabs. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact Arabs were among the native Syrian populations who defended AGAINST the Assyrian Invasion of Syria. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Nabataeans are descended from the Arabian Thamud, so that makes them ARAB. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

You can say whatever, though. That's why we require all claims to be sourceable and citable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Til Eulensipegel History tells us that there were a people known as the nabeteans who lived in Syria and the jabal druze area infact during Alexanders empire greek Scholars mentions a king named Obed who fights him from the nabatae who fought the greek invasion off and another thing Evidence shows That there was an Admixture between the Arabs and the Syrians at that time period kingdoms like hatra were around so please don't lie ok thank you?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip the Arab. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080521191250/http://www.ancientsites.com:80/aw/Post/1049415 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1049415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Throne"?

We don't usually refer to the emperors sitting on thrones, do we? I'd suggest changing the name of this section. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Philip the Arab

The source used in this article by Bowersock clearly indicates that the Emperor was of Arab background so there's clearly a contradiction between what this article states and what Bowersock says. GoulGoul1 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of massive vandalism from ahistorical anti-Arab editors. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip the Arab. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210101342/http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac54phi.html to http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac54phi.html

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) 18:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

"According to Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. VI. 34), Philip was a Christian ..."

Eusebius writes: "It is reported that he, being a Christian (κατέχει λόγος Χριστιανὸν ὄντα)", "It is said (λέγεται) that he obeyed" but not "he was a Christian". Pilot Pirx (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Eusebius references Philip in FIVE different passages, the first three of which explicitly call him Christian. In any case there's a whole separate article for this. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That sentence has been analyzed by many historians, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab_and_Christianity Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources cited really say Philip the Arab was an "ethnic arab" and the disruptive edits on ancient personalities of Syro-Phoenician descent will be reported

Philip the Arabian is cited in his wikipage as being an "ethnic arab" and five sources are cited that supposedly say Philip was an ethnic Arab but when you look up those sources none really say that.

Source 1 on page 121 does not say that, it actually just says that he was an "Arab" not an "ethnic arab", https://books.google.se/books?id=L4NBigJ3NF4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bowersock,+Glen+(1994).+Roman+Arabia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj687b3h7PvAhVus4sKHau2AoIQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=Philip&f=false

Source 2 on page 418 actually says "It is unlikely that Philip felt in any way "Arab" in the modern sense of the word" https://books.google.se/books?id=73-JAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA418&lpg=PA418&dq=both+the+Severan+emperors+and+Philip+the+Arab+often+depict+Syrian+deities,+such+as+Hadad+and+Atargatis),+it+is+impossible+to&source=bl&ots=nSMhFS2tBL&sig=ACfU3U18NJ1bWW-zQx-jZy7UOX0BeEJ3QQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiS_-_-iLPvAhUupIsKHRyHBUAQ6AEwAHoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=both%20the%20Severan%20emperors%20and%20Philip%20the%20Arab%20often%20depict%20Syrian%20deities%2C%20such%20as%20Hadad%20and%20Atargatis)%2C%20it%20is%20impossible%20to&f=false

Source 3 in page 36 the author says "If Septimus Severus was part Arab and part Christian, Philip was wholly Arab and wholly Christian" https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc=y&id=W4H97SA6pMAC&q=Philip#v=snippet&q=Philip%20Arab&f=false which is totally inaccurate since Severus was not part Arab and the author is mistaking Arab with Punic-Phoenician here.

Source 4, the least credible of the sources since Britannica Online here https://www.britannica.com/biography/Philip-Roman-emperor does not cite an actual author/historian cited for such claim, says "Philip was of Arab descent" (although the claim that "Philip was of Arab descent" doesn't necessarily mean Britannica is saying he was an "ethnic Arab" but of "Arab descent")

Source 5, on page 88 says that Philip was an Arab from the Transjordan area in https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc=y&id=sP_2-y9zKfgC&q=Philip+Arab#v=onepage&q=Philippus%20Arab&f=false but it also doesnt actually says he was an "ethnic Arab"

Not only do none of these sources really say Philip the Arab was an ethnic Arab or even that he himself identified as an Arab, but other sources that are not cited claim he was of Syro-Phoenician descent:

Various historians affirming that his cognomen "Arabus" has nothing to with him being an ethnic Arab/ethnic Bedouin or him ever identifying as one such as page 284 in https://books.google.se/books? id=fXzC52bDVdgC&pg=PA284&dq=Julius+Philippus+native+of+Bostra+Arab+Bedouin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihpKiog7PvAhXRK3cKHVhEDtsQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=Julius%20Philippus%20native%20of%20Bostra%20Arab%20Bedouin&f=false

and page 271 herehttps://books.google.se/books?id=WJcxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA271&dq=Julius+Philippus+Roman+Arabia+Syrian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjinfzAhLPvAhXGAxAIHazwBOcQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=Julius%20Philippus%20Roman%20Arabia%20Syrian&f=false

In page 18 of the book "Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice with link https://books.google.se/books?id=MmdoAAAAMAAJ&q=the+epithet+Arab+is+joined+to+Philip+slaves&dq=the+epithet+Arab+is+joined+to+Philip+slaves&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO2sO9hrPvAhXBlYsKHb9vAycQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg author Yāsamīn Zahrān states and I quote:

"The epithet 'Arab' is joined to Philip's name in a pejorative sense. The word was a term of abuse, had unpleasant connotations to a civilized man, and was a common name for slaves. 2 In the Sibylline oracle, Philip is called 'Syrian' instead of 'Arabian', disregarding the Roman administrative units: Coele Syria"

This source on page 70 identifies Philip the Arab as ethnically Syrian are https://books.google.se/books?id=5-MJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA70&dq=Emperor+Philip+the+Arab+Syrian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixpO2Ph7PvAhVOtIsKHbAkB2gQ6AEwAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=Emperor%20Philip%20the%20Arab%20Syrian&f=false

This source in page 50 also says Philip the Arab was the son of a native Syrian https://books.google.se/books?id=xTVmAAAAMAAJ&dq=Emperor+Philip+the+Arab+Syrian&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Philip+Syrian

User User: Julia Domna Ba'al is going around cherry picking sources violating WP:CHERRYPICKING and distorting what the sources the user adds to cite her disruptive edits actually say violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR in order to push her Arabist/Arabism agenda and get away with her cultural appropriation of ancient personalities of Syro-Phoenician descent/origin to make it seem as if it is an ethnically Arab legacy. In almost of all the "citations" the user does, the user doesnt link the source so that it can be verified easily and the disruptive editing less easily seen and reported.

User: Julia Domna Ba'al and other meat puppet editors and tag teammates of this user have done the same on a lot of the personalities of Phoenician/Syro-Phoenician descent from Hellenized Phoenicia and Roman Syria/Roman Phoenicia for quite a while now by taking away their Syro-Phoenician ancestry from their Wikipages and/or adding that they were "Arab", "ethnic Arab", "Nabatean" or "Syrian" (while linking it to todays Syrians which is not the same as Syro-Phoenician) while adding "sources" that supposedly say that as can be seen as well many many of their edits.

All the personalities from Hellenized or Roman Phoenicia and of Phoenician, Punic, Sabian (which has been established they were originally from Mount Lebanon and Baalbeck by plenty of authors) on which this "Arab", "ethnic Arab", "Nabatean" or "Syrian (linking to todays Syrians not Syro-Phoeniians) is being added by User: Julia Domna Ba'al and the user's teammates are also being listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians#Notable_people and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrians#Leaders_and_politicians as if their ancient Syro-Phoenician ancestry is the same as todays Syrians which is incorrect and disruptive editing to steal the ancient Syro-Phoenician legacy and achievements for their Arab and today's Syrians friends.

This disruptive editing on these ancient personalities Wikipages have been going on for quite a while now and User: Julia Domna Ba'al and the other editors making this WP:DISRUPTSIGNSand WP:OR violations are being reported. Chris O' Hare (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

---

• :Sources call him Arab, you say that doesn't mean he's an ethnic Arab (despite Arab being an ethnicity). Yet when a source calls him Syrian (a geographic designation), you force it to be an ethnicity.
• :The books at the end are not published by reliable sources according to wikipedia standards anyway.
• :You lied about the sources. Severus was not called Arab. He was explicitly called Phoenician. His wife was an Arab, and her family was Arab, so his children were "part" Arab (from their mother's side, not Severus'). The emperor who was part Arab and part Christian was Alexander Severus, not Septimius Severus. You did not read the book you just quoted, you got that from google and only reading one sentence.
• :You are frantically googling and cherry picking sources that agree with your preset results, instead of examining evidence and reaching a conclusion. Your editing and motive is cynical, and you've been warned before - Wikipedia is not about speed and forcing POV; it's about deep exegesis of strong, reliable, sources. It's not as simple as copy pasting one sentence from one source that you misunderstood.
• :You made a long rant misrepresenting me and you went to the admin board to attack me personally and call for me to get banned. I can easily flip this on you and not just for the personal attacks, but you're a sockpuppet and you and/or your friends (talking via email and outside wikipedia) have been harassing me for over a year now (completely turning me off from editing), and I have evidence of it. I will let this one time slide because I don't want to spend more time than I already have, so please don't make me do it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a forum of editors fighting its each other for years. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry but I just read the whole thing. You are lying. I always provide sources and engage in discussion. Philip has five verifiable sources. Domna has over a dozen (overkill). Same for Emesan dynasty. I never touched articles like Alexander Severus and Julia Mamaea adding to them the Arab element, even if it's easy, because I don't want to get into arguments. This is what wikipedia is now, ethnic fights and who has more time to waste arguing instead of adding accurate information. If I truly had an agenda why wouldn't I add to these articles the Arab element (using the same sources that are wikipedia compliant)? I was harassed. My facebook account was found and I was threatened of being doxxed, I've been attacked on gender and racial grounds. I never broke wikipedia rules. In ALL the discussions I have no one was with me while I was talking to 5-10 people (actually 1-3). The only time anyone stood by me was admins who agreed and who banned the other "side" for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. You are taking things you do and wrongly applying them onto me. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

---

ok you've just been banned for a week. I hope you learn how to read what you post next time. For example "Philip the Arab: A Study in Prejudice", which you use as a main source, says: "The rise of Philip, an Arab of a peripheral tribe in Arabia, to the throne of the Ceasars in the millennium of the birth of the Roman Empire, was a momentous event in Islamic history". Needless to say this is not even close to being a reliable source. Wikipedia is more than writing what you WANT to be true on google then copy pasting whatever shows up. See you later.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think that block will affect me You must be living in a fantasy, i have literally tons of extended confirmed user accounts. If you think I will let you continue your disruptive Pan-Arabist Pan-Syrian agendas in this platform and also stealing the Lebanese/Phoenician legacy you’re living in fantasy. your inferiority complex is pathetic. BTW your Facebook account will be hacked this week. Sidoc (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Openly admiting to socking and threatening people isn't exactly going to make anyone want to side with you.★Trekker (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would anyone "side" with them even before that? Rhetorical question, I know why, and you do too. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I honestly have no familarity with this subject. I just felt I had to express my facepalming at Sidoc's stupid comment.★Trekker (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

★Trekker, You don't need to know anything about the topic to recognize obvious trolling, POV pushing, and disruptive behavior. The only reason people are pretending to be balanced is because they want him to be right since this involves an Arab figure. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone related to the Greece and Rome Wikiproject has been in agreement with you throughout the trouble with this page. Furius (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That's really cool. I'm glad. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What on Earth has Philip got to do with Phoenician identity? Hacking my FB? LOL. you'd be doing me a favor, delete your simping in my inbox when you do. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the sentence "It is accepted by historians that Philip was indeed an ethnic Arab." is needed at all. It's written just before that he was born in Syria, in the province of Arabia. The sentence above looks like it was written to make a point. T8612 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is needed since it's the #1 question on google about him. And because the ethnicity of every other emperor (or person) is clearly laid out. Also being born in Arabia is not the same as being Arab. And his city was only incorporated into Arabia during Severus' time, when Arabia expanded at the expense of Syria, meaning if he was born 30 years earlier he would've been born in the province of Syria. Hawran was only made part of Syria in the first place due to geographic reasons (same reason it's part of syria today), but then in spite of that became part of arabia due to its strong Arab element (which preceded the birth of Philip by over a millennium). Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

While I am not very well-versed in this issue, it is relatively clear that Chris O'Hare/Sidoc is really insulting and is here to WP:RGW. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Arabs/Arabus

The Latin name "Philippus 'Arabus'" appeared in the first sentence. Since this spelling seemed likely to be an error, I checked a Latin source and found, as I expected, "Philippus 'Arabs'". I see that the 'u' was inserted anonymously in 2017. I've made the correction in the first sentence and footnoted the source I used. There could well be other Latin sources confirming it, but this is the one I found.

It strikes me that it might be better to repeat this Latin name later in the article and attach the footnote to it there. After all, noting the discussion above, there would be a reason to say exactly what the Latin textual evidence is ("Arabs" is a Latin ethnonym) in the course of discussing what modern authors say about his ethnicity. Andrew Dalby 15:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Much to be improved in the citations, & the explanatory footnotes can be split into their own section

Many of the citations are inadequate as the books lack ISBN & OCLC numbers, & there are URLs missing from at least one citation for a TV program. Additionally, there are extensive quotes that should have been explanatory footnotes with citations rather than citations with long quotes. I plan to rectify these. Peaceray (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The term Arab designates a way of life of lawless nomads, not an ethnic group.

The term Arabic seems to disturb you because you sincerely believe that it designates an ethnic group. Outside, the Arab word designates a way of life of nomads without faith or law. It wasn't until centuries later that the term was ethnicized to make up a history of Islam. In the Middle Ages, the word was often used as an insult to a group of people. https://apuleius.net/the-origin-of-the-arabian-people-in-islamic-history/ Adbouz (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Birthplace

User:Trigaranus

I recently changed the birthplace from Philippopolis to Bosra as there was no such place called Philippopolis before Philip could found it and name it after himself. The primary source Joannes Zonaras, Compendium of History extract: Zonaras: Alexander Severus to Diocletian: 222–284 listed at the bottom article states "He came from Bostri (Bosra) where during his reign he built a city bearing his name naming it Phillipopolis." While I accept it is plausible that he came from a small village outside of Bosra that would become Philippopolis, the name of this village is unknown to us and it is thus more correct to state his birthplace as Bosra as stated by the primary source. I see in the early life section there is a citation on a sentence about his birthplace which I unfortunately lack access to, if anyone could provide the direct quote on his birthplace it would be very helpful. Gazingo (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

I just wanted to let you all know that someone was arguing with me on Reddit after I mentioned how Philip was likely what we would call an "ethnic Arab" in modern times, and they were claiming Philip wasn't ethnically Arab (I was getting hints that they were the "saying Roman Emperors may not have all been European is woke DEI nonsense" type), and at the exact same moment he was arguing with me (and referencing the Wikipedia page in doing so), an unknown user without an account edited the article to change it from saying Philip was likely an Arab to saying Philip's ethnic identity was unknown. I wanted to let you know about this possible vandalism (and thought it was pretty funny someone would actually edit a Wikipedia article to try to win an internet argument on Reddit of all places). Spiderduckpig (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)