Talk:List of Syrian monarchs

Inflating
Hello User:Yvarta. Monarchs lists articles should not be inflated with detailed information about their reign and how they came to power...etc.

The notes section is only for very important info and should not be a summary of the king full reign. This is standard for all such lists articles. Examples: List of British monarchs, List of French monarchs, List of German monarchs, List of Swedish monarchs, List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire, King of Italy....etc

The notes should be much shorter and not detailed like they are now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you for the polite message. I will work to keep them shorter. In all honesty, with the Syrian page, right now I am simply trying to make sense of the Queens, as they are almost entirely left out - and some of the detail has been sneaking in in my attempt to reference and make sense of things. I will in the future keep it down to one sentence, maybe two at most per description. Would this seem too much for you? I can aim for shorter, although in this case since many of the reigns overlap, I personally think years on who came to power help explain quite a bit. Or perhaps a solution is creating a separate section explaining the timeline for the queens and co-regents, separate from the kings. Yvarta (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for replying. It isnt up to my viewing really, Im just trying to follow the standard of other pages as I want to make this a featured list. So, the existence of (citation needed) tage will destroy any chance for this article. You can see here how it used to be before. But you are right, the queens are missing and complicated. There is no need for their own section, but maybe a queen field in the list. I will make it now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Yvarta, I've created a field for queens and filled it. You can edit the notes as you find appropriate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I don't want to interfere in making this page tip top, so don't hesitate to let me know anything else. I would like to keep working on making sense of the reign changes for a time - maybe it will just take me a few days at this rate? Perhaps I can make the first three entries for now be "perfect" as I can make them - you can alter those three if you want to hint I should change my pattern, and then at the end, I can fix any other messes I've made to match the examples you're happy with. Yvarta (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Syrians
Comment - none of the monarchs are Syrian in present sense. This list is WP:SYNTH of Seleucid and dynasty a Roman Emperor dynasty originated from Roman Syria (who had never been named "kings of Syria"), linked to the only King who can be Syrian - King Faisal. He should therefor be the only guy in this list.GreyShark (dibra) 20:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Those monarchs were Syrians as they used the title "King of Syria" just like the Bulgar khans are called Bulgarian monarchs even though they were Turkic while the Bulgarians are Slavs. This article is well sourced and not a SYNTH. Tens of academic sources confer the use of the title "King of Syria" and "Kings of the Syrians", and if the Seleucids called themselves as such and ancient writers called them as such, then your opinion about what is a Syrian and what is not has no weight.
 * None of the monarchs in the List of Jewish monarchs was Jewish in the modern sense (meaning different peoples, of different racial backgrounds, adhering to Judaism and claiming an Ethiopean Jew and a German one are the same ethnicity). Some of those "monarchs" are legendary and none of them left us an inscription calling himself Jewish which is not the case with the Seleucids who did call themselves, and were called by their contemporaries, Syrian monarchs.
 * And why (always in your opinion) would the Hijazi Faisal be the only one that can be called Syrian.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if moving the page to List of monarchs of Syria might straighten up the issue nicely? Yvarta (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Queen?
I understand Seleucid does not equate to Syrian, but was wondering in with this queen: Stratonice of Syria. The page refers to her as a Queen of Syria. I assume they are insinuating either that her second husband (who had smaller dominion than her first husband) ruled a region considered to be basically Syria, but that is rather vague on the page. That, or it simply could be a mistake. Yvarta (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Yvarta, sorry for my late answer, was away for a time. Im planning to work on the article soon but was doing some research and collecting sources. I will answer here to all your points on my talk page and the above discussion.


 * For the title of this page: it doesnt have to be changed in order to make any compromise. Sources support the calling of those kings "Syrians", not just kings of Syria. This is specially true for the Seleucids who are explicitly called by ancient writers as Syrians. (Faisal I, even though he came from Hijaz, called himself a Syrian in one of his speeches).


 * For the queens: Stratonice is probably called like this as a matter of tradition. The Seleucids could actually be called kings of Syria after 200 BC when they took control of the entirety of the region. We cant make every Seleucid consort a queen of Syria.


 * As for the points you raised in my talk page: reaching a "good" article status needs the article to be accurate. For example, Dikran of Armenia is not a king of Syria as no source mentions that he assumed this title and he werent called as such by the ancient writers. Also, we cant have Cleopatra Selene cause this page is about the monarchs who were de-jure kings. Selene did not rule in her own right unlike Cleopatra Thea. Another point is Mavia who was never a queen of Syria and never controlled the entirety of the region; her inclusion can not be supported by sources despite her great power


 * Also, the kings of Aram-Damascus are not automatically syrian kings. The bible apply the term Syrian mostly to Aram-Damascus but not always which can be seen in the case of Laban (Bible) who is a "Syrian" from Paddan Aram. So, only kings explicitly mentioned in the OT as Syrian kings should be included.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is great. Don't worry about the response time, and don't rush yourself with your research, I can always find areas to work on in any length interim. As a thought, do you think do you think you might find it possible to source and reword a shortened version of the post you've written above, to help explain the extent of the term to readers on the page? An overview might also help explain the nuances of the list parameters to other editors, saving future discussion. If not the lead, then maybe a 'Scope of the term'-esque section would be a good place for it. Your choice on that. I may at some point feel confident working with the references to source a section like that myself, but would definitely be a process.  Yvarta (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed monarchs or other figures
Moving certain "quasi-monarchs" here for reference, as they are removed from the live page for not meeting list parameters.

Palmyran monarchs
I might be wrong, but shouldn't Palmyran monarchs be considered 'Syrian' too? The Palmyrene Empire (at least in the reign of Zenobia Bat-Zabbai) controlled all of modern day Syria and most if not all Palmyrene monarchs from the house of Odaenathus were Syrian? I am aware that there is a list of Palmyrene monarchs, but I was wondering why the house of Odaenathus wasn't classified as 'Syrian'. Jadd Haidar (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Palmyrenes were considered Syrians in Roman sources but the problem is: Odaenathus and his successors did not use the title King of Syria. All of the monarchs mentioned in the article used the title or were mentioned with it, and we cant add the Palmyrenes if we have no evidence for them using the title.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, what I'm trying to say is, Zenobia for example, was the queen of Palmyra, thus she ruled in Syria, doesn't that make her a queen of Syria, regardless of her using the title or not? Same with her ruling in Egypt and etc.. I'm not entirely sure about it, and was just wondering if that was enough for her to be classified as a 'Syrian queen'? Or this page is only for the monarchs who used the title? Jadd Haidar (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dont get me wrong, I would be very happy to list them as Syrian kings specially that they are the only native ones. But, if we add them, someone will come and delete them citing that we have no sources calling them Syrian monarchs. I looked a lot for reliable sources that consider them kings of Syria but to no avail. Normally, monarchs lists pages here mention the monarchs who used a title or are considered monarchs of a certain region by an academic consensus. The Palmyrenes lack those criteria--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand. You're Syrian, right? You know how here we consider Zenobia our national hero and take pride in her glorious reign. Thank you for taking the time to respond and sorry if I wasted your time! Jadd Haidar (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I am, and I consider Odaenathus my personal hero. I actually wrote the articles of Palmyra, Zenobia and Odaenathus from scratch as I study Near-Eastern history in university. Thanks for your kind words.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that they are worth mentioning in the article, even if we don't include them in the main list. Any internet search for 'queen of Syria' is going to turn up several mentions of Zenobia. JECE (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)