Talk:Julius Bassianus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is most likey that Julius was an Aramaen rather than an Arabian. The "Arab" identiy had not been invented back then. It is a modern construct. There were Nabatean Arabian tribes further down South, but the Syrians at the time were Phoenicians on the Coast and Aramaens in the hinterland. All probably speaking Aramaic unless displaced by Greek in the large cities. My vote is for Aramaen speaking Aramaic, Greek, and Latin in the city of Homs.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article Royal_Family_of_Emesa which has more detail that this one confirms the Aramaic nature of the Royal family. The author of this bio article just conflated the modern Arab construct which is a 20th century construct with past history. I will make the changes to harmonize the two articles.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab descent

In this edit, Will changed "Arab" to something else while keeping the same reference. You cannot do that unless you actually checked the reference and read that it did not say "Arab". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable point, Pieter. I think you should follow your own logic and restore this article,[1] to the cited source.[2] Otherwise it's just blatant hypocrisy. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)