Talk:Semiramis

Untitled

Added the Armenian legend accompanied with a picture. It's a very short summary, somebody more qualified could expand later.--Eupator 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Josephus mention Ninus? I would like to see the source. Summer Song 13:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

google search Agathoclea 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Forcing suicide?

"Ninus was so struck by her bravery at the capture of Bactra that he married her, forcing Onnes to commit suicide." -- Something is wrong with this sentence. Did the marriage so upset Onnes that he committed suicide? I suspect that's what is trying to be said here, but it needs to be worded differently to be clear. Aleta 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What is not clear? 79.106.203.97 (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

An Alternative Account from Diodorus Siculus

The account of the marriage of Semiramis to her first husband, Onnes, from Diodorus:

"5 1 Such, then, is in substance the story that is told about the birth of Semiramis. And when she had already come to the age of marriage and far surpassed all the other maidens in beauty, an officer was sent from the king's court to inspect the royal herds; his name was Onnes, and he stood first among the members of the king's council and had been appointed governor over all Syria. He stopped with Simmas, and on seeing Semiramis was captivated by her beauty; consequently he earnestly entreated Simmas to give him the maiden in lawful marriage and took her off to Ninus, where he married her and begat two sons, Hyapates and Hydaspes. 2 And since the other qualities of Semiramis were in keeping with the beauty of her countenance, it turned out that her husband became completely enslaved by her, and since he would do nothing without her advice he prospered in everything." (p. 363)

[ ... ]

"9 When the city had been taken in this way, the king, marvelling at the ability of the woman, at first honoured her with great gifts, and later, becoming infatuated with her because of her beauty, tried to persuade her husband to yield her to him of his own accord, offering in return for this favour to give him his own daughter Sosanê to wife.

10 But when the man took his offer with ill grace, Ninus threatened to put out his eyes unless he at once accede to his commands. And Onnes, partly out of fear of the king's threats and partly out of his passion for his wife, fell into a kind of frenzy and madness, put a rope about his neck, and hanged himself. Such, then, were the circumstances whereby Semiramis attained the position of queen." (p. 371)

Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, Vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library, 1933,

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/2A*.html

(Edited to add: I revised the text on the main page to include this account of Diodorus).

Estéban (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Melchizedekjesus

Asarelah, feel free to re-insert Melchizedekjesus's "controversial theory," but not in its current form please. Proper references need to be provided. For example: WHEN and WHERE did St. Augustine say that the cult of Venus and Cupid morphed into the cult of the Virgin Mary? And many others. Clean it up to meet accepted Wikipedia standards, then feel free to re-insert. -- 70.171.49.117 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute... aren't you the person who already cleaned it up, about a month ago? I thought you did a good job. Unfortunately Melchizedekjesus keeps deleting your cleaned-up version, and re-inserting his original version, without ever making any effort to cite sources properly. People who re-insert the same material dozens of times, without addressing legitimate concerns, get reverted and blocked. -- 70.171.49.117 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did clean it up and he did keep changing back. I suppose I'd better contact him and explain what I'm trying to do here. Hopefully we can get this straightened out. Asarelah 06:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand any part that needs "cleaning", I'm very sorry that I look so abrupt, but if you go back and look at the history no one started by asking me to improve it, or suggestions, each person would just revert my contribution, and say I was a chick follower, and that my info was bogus. I know that these sources are legit. I spent over 32 hours compiling data for a report on Semiramis for a presentation of a Genesis class at Bible College, my dad was surprised, and checked it out too. I used very expensive archive software at the college (Libronix). I have noticed that the people that point blank delete your work without a word, usually ask questions later, and not for correction, but to further challenge and contest the facts for sake of justifing their own biased opinion. As for St. Augustine someone else called him a "Catholic" Patriarch re-editing my work, I don’t have a problem with Catholics, or Christians, I just know the facts should be accessible to everyone. St. Augustine did not say the cult of Venus/Cupid morphed into the cult of Mary, he retells how the temple of Venus was changed slightly to accommodate Mary as a result many pervesions corrupted her identity, and you can read the rest. I don’t want to hear about how Augustine never existed, or his work was changed, or any other bogus tactics to suppress this very real controversy. sincerly, MelchizedekJesus

Let me first assure you that I have no agenda other than improving the article. The main problem here is that when people made edits attempting to improve upon the section you added, you continued to change it back again and again to your version, which I tried to improve upon not only because I thought that it was biased, but because, in my opinion, it was rather unclear and poorly written. When you add information to wikipedia, you agree to allow other editors to edit it. So let them. Furthermore, although Hislop's theory certainly should be mentioned in the article, you kept presenting it as the only "true" origin of Semiramis. There is no consensous among historians as to the origins of Semiramis, and to present this theory as being the only "true" one is heavily biased. Furthermore, at least one did try to get you to address your concerns on the talk page through mentioning it in the edit summaries. (such as the 23 December 2006 version by Codex Sinaiticus). I would be more than happy to include information on Hislop's theory, I simply want to make sure that it is unbiased, and I can't do that if you continue to reinsert the same flawed version of the section over and over again. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are found at the top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You put on a pretty face and reasonable attitude here in the discussion like you are putting on a show for sombody. All you have done, and anyone can look at the history, you would dump what I wrote, I would rewrite, and reinsert, then without a word you would revert it completely off, then someone else asked my for more neutrality, I complied as best as possible remaining true to the consensous of the historians I researched. You are out of order by dumping my work, you have several other sections on this page to lord over. So quit your act, your history speaks loud and clear.

What do you mean? If you examine the history (for example, the version I created on December 27, 2006 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Semiramis&oldid=96665978), I made repeated attempts to rewrite it, you kept reinserting previous versions. If you will not be reasonable, I will be forced to ask the administrators to intervene in this matter. Asarelah 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought she was queen of Babylon, not Assyria as stated in the first few lines. I am not a historian; I thought these two empires were mortal enemies. Was there ever a time when they were one? 75.9.35.38 (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Does it say both Babylon and Assyria in the article? Asarelah (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says she was a 'legendary Assyrian queen' in the first few lines. But later it is clear she is associated with Babylon. I'm just wondering if this is a mistake or if there is some historical basis for her association with both empires or for some precursor to them (of which I know nothing). 75.9.35.38 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

External link

I removed the link to Semiramis, Queen of Babylon. Writer Bryce Self takes the Bible very seriously indeed, accepting the Flood, Noah's Ark, Satan etc. as literal truths. The page could of course still contain valuable information about Semiramis, but I think such information should be taken from more reliable sources than that. Hexmaster (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt this was the right thing to do, but it would seem strange to remove references because a writer holds to the traditional Christian position on a number of issues.Martin Turner (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in a biology article, would you leave in references, as authoritative, that treated evolution as a hoax? Thnidu (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WHY ARE HEROINES ALWAYS VILIFIED?

It is SO fascinating to see that EVERY single heroine in history and myth has been turned into something cheap/harlot-like (and forgotten!). It is clear that Semiramis is a female heroine, and to these characteristics belong enjoyment of the senses, accepting seed to be fruitful etc.

Why do we never hear of these heroines, except for negative reasons ("she behaves like she was the queen of sheeba etc)

Cassiopeia, The Queen of Sheba, Salome, Semiramis... are all FEMINIBE HEROINES, who have been cast aside and fogotten!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.144.155 (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? Hexmaster (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

www.semiramisgarden.ro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorur (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My personal study of Astral Origins

TAMUZ is the date the sun crosses over Mars in 1770bc July 10. It is the Tau that produces the Thoth Marduk date Nov 9. Because this July 10 is also The Phoenix of Venus rising, the Nov 9 is also Thoth Phoenix. Biblical year Adam's 2256am called the Flood star because 600 years (599.5 Julian) is a half-cycle from 2369bc Jan 6. (150 leap days +30 drift days =180). This year is the death of 500-year old Narmer (Nimrod) in Abydos Egypt and its the birth of baby Judah in Syria. SEMIRAMIS would think means Shem The Ram or a reference to Venus in Aries as it is in 1869bc. However, online sources say Ramis means to honor, so Semiramis is to honor Shem (Shem-Ramis) who lived 600 years in a consistency with the 600 years of Venus (Phoenix). Ninus of Nineveh honored 600 years in 1268bc. It is very important that kings called Venus their wife or mother voice and so every Semiramis should not be regarded as human. The view that Nimrod observed (married) Semiramis is taken from the misnomer Eusebius and others gave claiming Nimrod was Ninus from 2059-2007bc(52 years of Nineveh = same first 52 years of Marduk Temple in Babel 2060-2009bc). There are two major Marduks, Jupiter which is 7 orbits every 83 years thus 249 years and 996 years; and Mars whose 780-day calendar is 52 years of 360 days because every 13 years is 6 orbits. A Marduk of Mars in the 360-day calendar (1656+366)for year 2022am counts to 6000; and a Marduk of Jupiter for 2016am (1656+360) counts to Julian 6000. Research finds these dates to be 2009bc Feb 26 before the Egyptian new year (Persian Pamenot 1 on July 11) and 2009bc July 8 as Noah's year 966. The Feb 26 is a result of Noah's new year 713 falling on Feb 26 in 2258bc 249 years earlier. And 480 Julian years returns that new year to Feb 26 on 1778bc as Noah's year 1200 (600 from 2370bc Oct 12). This is why Moslem 3600am is 8 years before Mayan 3600am for Babylon's Hamurabi. Semiramis is verified by Zecharia Sitchin as holding arrows (Eros) or he says missles because he says Shem means arrow or missle. But these arrows of war are contrasted with the dove-bird she holds. Thus this Venus of 1868bc is a dove-bird 98 years before Nimrod's death at 500 is a fire-bird. The interesting factor is that Shem is debated as 500 or 502 years after the Flood disputing his birth 100 0r 98 years before the Flood. Venus has a 502-year cycle of Gregorian dates (azimuth). The 243-year Julian cycle plus 8 years because of 2 leap days. Thus the 2369bc Jan 6 Venus is Gregorian 2370bc Dec 17 and in 1883bc is again Julian Jan 6 (1884bc G.Dec 19) but 8 years later is 1867bc Jan 4 (1868bc G.Dec 17) confirming the 502 years (twice 251). This 502 years applied to the Phoenix cannot mark Nimrod's birth but it can screw up concept of his last 250 years from year 350 to year 600 after the Flood. Venus as 251 (2021-1770bc) versus Marduk-Jupiter as 249 (2019-1770bc) because it must agree with a 2020bc Ptah and a 1770bc Tamuz Marduk. Semiramis therefore becomes the cause of reducing preFlood 1656 years to 1556 years by confusing Noah and Shem and Nimrod. All three who held titles as king of kings, king of righteousness due to longevity. 98.144.71.174 (talk)

A fascinating but unsourced section on Easter's origins...

Just rmoved this from the page:

==Origin of Easter== The origin of Easter dates back to ancient times, not long after the global Flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 of the Bible. Nimrod, a grandson of Noah, had turned from following his grandfather's God and had become a tyrannical ruler. According to the biblical record, as king, Nimrod created Babel, Ninevah, Asshur, Calla and other cities, all known for lifestyles that promoted unspeakable evil and perversion. When Nimrod died, his wife, Queen Semiramis, deified him as the Sun-god, or Life Giver. Later he would become known as Baal, and those who followed the religion Semiramis created in his name would be called Baal worshippers. They became associated with idolatry, demon worship, human sacrifice and other practices regarded as evil.

The origin of Easter involves the birth of Semiramis' illegitimate son, Tammuz. Somehow, Semiramis convinced the people that Tammuz was actually Nimrod reborn. Since people had been looking for the promised savior since the beginning of mankind (see Genesis 3:15), they were persuaded by Semiramis to believe that Tammuz was that savior, even that he had been supernaturally conceived. Before long, in addition to worshipping Tammuz (or Nimrod reborn), the people also worshipped Semiramis herself as the goddess of fertility. In other cultures, she has been called Ishtar, Ashtur and yes, Easter.

The origin of Easter goes back to the springtime ritual instituted by Semiramis following the death of Tammuz, who, according to tradition, was killed by a wild boar. Legend has it that through the power of his mother's tears, Tammuz was "resurrected" in the form of the new vegetation that appeared on the earth.

According to the Bible, it was in the city of Babel that the people created a tower in order to defy God. Up until that time, all the people on the earth spoke one language. The building of the tower led God, as recorded in Genesis 11:7, to confuse their tongues to keep them from being further unified in their false beliefs. As the people moved into other lands, many of them took their pagan practices with them.

Contemporary traditions such as the Easter Bunny and the Easter egg can also be traced back to the practices established by Semiramis. Because of their prolific nature, rabbits have long been associated with fertility and its goddess, Ishtar. Ancient Babylonians believed in a fable about an egg that fell into the Euphrates River from heaven and from which Queen Astarte (another name for Ishtar or Semiramis) was "hatched."

Legend, facts, et al.

Often difficult to disprove, approve or even discuss some issues pertaining to Queen Semiramis for obvious source scarcity and/or verifiability. However the following ref on page 4 is interesting:

Hydraulics of Sediment Transport By Walter Hans Graf Edition: 3 Published by Water Resources Publication, 1998 ISBN 091833456X, 9780918334565

She was directly responsible for 'okaying' the project (expensive) and it might help to draw the article into clearer waters regarding the nebulous cloud over her real life id, etc. Yes, its relevance is debateable within the article's context but all info helps to rebuild the past from spurious sources and the capacities of those invested with their interpretation.

Marc Block's analytical techniques always seem to guide and facilitate historical perspectives...but I am sure most editors here are more than familiar with said approaches! Cheers. Ernstblumberg (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And no offence to Encycl Brit - but the article on Queen Semiramis...what were they thinking? Ernstblumberg (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Suri

Is that supposed to redirect to Surma people? I don't see Indian (or Afghan for that matter) references, but I do see Ethiopia. So..just asking, since it's considered a legend. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Semiramis was married to the great king Nimrod who was a grandchild of the Biblical Noah. See: Genses 10.8, Jashers book, Josefus, 'Little Genesis', third apoclyps of Barduk, records of Ebla, the history of Armenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.50.229 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hislop / Jack Chick

Removed the 'some historians regard' -- this is weasel words. Which historians regard Hislop in this light, where is the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinTurner (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Armenian section really significant enough to merit inclusion?

I don't know why this section is included and at such great length. I don't see the significance of the Armenian perspective on the legend of Semiramis, especially given it appears to ascribe a certain Armenian character to the legend which is of no factual validity or cultural significance outside of Armenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.82.198 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

1 Queen, 2 pages

Can these two pages be combined? Shammuramat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalturbo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there is disagreement that these two are the same figure. Personally I don't believe the chronology works out: the figure called Semiramis is depicted in our sources as being about a millennium earlier than this Shammuramat. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hislop - notability

Is Hislop's an expert opinion on the subject of Semiramis? From were I sit it appears he's a tract writer, not an expert on ancient Asian culture and religion. Are there any secondary sources that mention him as an expert at all, or is this a fringe opinion? If the latter, I don't see why a third of the content of what should be a scholarly article is taken up by these suppositions which originate from an anti-Catholic tract. Ultra Venia (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with above, none of this content in the article contributes anything of value. I would support its removal.--Mevagiss (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Being a neutral project, we neutrally cover ALL the viewpoints that exist out there, even if you or the pope disagree with them. We don't cover up or censor viewpoints the pope doesn't like or disagrees with and pretend they never existed: that is the antithesis of npov and will not be acceptable and will be resisted. 172.56.23.46 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that Wikipedia covers all the viewpoints. That would be totally impractical. Content must be notable and it must come from a reliable or expert source, see WP:VERIFY policy. I am not stating that I disagree with Hislop's statements. Rather, they are not backed by anything except his own imagination and so belong on a website for his publications, not here where their inclusion gives the false impression of authority to readers--Mevagiss (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have been an influential fringe theory, with significant impact on modern Fundamentalist Christianity, so I think it probably should be in the article as part of the previous section, if reduced to something like :

Christian minister Alexander Hislop in his anti-Catholic tract, The Two Babylons (1853) claimed that Semiramis was an actual person in ancient Mesopotamia who deified herself and her son as Ishtar and Tammuz. Hislop claimed that this divine pairing was at the root of Roman Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary and that Roman Catholicism was, therefore, a form of Paganism. Hislop's claims continue to be circulated among some fundamentalist Christians today, in the form of Jack Chick tracts, comic books, and related media. Author and conspiracy theorist David Icke also incorporates Hislop's claims about Semiramis into his book The Biggest Secret, claiming that Semiramis also had a key role in the Reptilian alien conspiracy that he asserts is secretly controlling humanity. Ralph Woodrow, initially a major proponent of this theory, has repudiated it, arguing that Alexander Hislop was an exceptionally poor researcher who "picked, chose and mixed" portions of various unrelated myths from many different cultures.

Furius (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes that seems like an improvement, although I still think that Hislop has no noticeable influence on current religious thought--Mevagiss (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

merge

I think this 2 article Semiramis and Shammuramat, is about 1 person, but semiramis is greek name of Shammuramat --Muhib mansour (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Female children"

Is "a given name for [their] female children" appropriate? Or change it to "girls"? Why not use "girls"? Am I missing the intricacies of style, or is this a case of sexism?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Modifying section on The Two Babylons

I've been reading this book as part of some research I've been doing, so I'm familiar with the current subject matter. As mentioned in the section there are a lot of problems with his claims, however this paragraph is giving his actual claims. I'm definitely not catholic, so no conflict of interest there.

The first edit is for accuracy. It is more accurate the way I wrote it, as he does not claim that the Catholic Church as a whole is responsible, but rather only the Pope and those closest to him are aware of this "carefully guarded secret" and that it is the Pope who inherited the position of pagan Peter at some point.

The second edit is for clarity. It is irrelevant whether the Bible mentions this or not, as the author does not refer to the Bible for most of his historical data but rather to historians. So saying "even though the Bible doesn't say this" sounds like there is an inconsistency in his method when in fact there is no inconsistency because he wasn't basing it on the biblical record.

I just saw it and thought it should be edited. Feel free to revert again if you don't feel this sufficiently improves accuracy.

Arlen22 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arlen22: Is that your own opinion or is it what the WP:RS says? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: It's what the book itself says. I'm not saying the book is a reliable source for history. It's only mentioned because it's well-known. But it is definitely a reliable source for itself. Arlen22 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like people just go undo every single edit I make that tries to not be inflammatory. Almost as though it is somehow "high quality" to mention irrelevant facts. Arlen22 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

fact or alleged?

Article says: "The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus,[8] describe her . . . ." How does the editor know that DS drew from Ctesias? Are there 2 reliable contemporary sources (reported in modern secondary sources) which say so? Or is this statement a report of what DS says was his source? If it is just based on what DS claims, then would it not be better to change the language to "DS claims", instead of stated as fact? (FairNPOV (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC))

(1) Yes, Diodorus opens book 2 by saying "Now no historian has recorded the battles with each nation or the number of all the peoples conquered, but we shall undertake to run over briefly the most important nations, as given in the account of Ctesias of Cnidus" and he continues throughout his narrative of Semiramis to say "as Ctesias of Cnidus says" (or "reports" or "records") eleven times in the course of his narrative of Semiramis. That Ctesias was Diodorus sole source for book two is accepted by almost all modern scholarly works on the topic. See, in particular, the entries for Ctesias in Jacoby, FGrH and Brill's New Jacoby; Jan Stronk, Semiramis' Legacy The History of Persia According to Diodorus of Sicily (2016) in the section on "Sources, Books 1-5", C. Muntz, Diodorus Siculus and the World of the Late Roman Republic (2017) p. 23. Furius (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:PeacePeace comments striked/deleted and noted per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead Image

@Furius I disagree with having that image as the lead in this article. You said that "it's a good example of the reception of this mythical figure". WP:LEADIMAGE says that "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". I think this image fails on all of those counts:

•Natural and appropriate representations this being anything but. It can in no way be called "natural"; the style of clothing/armor is completely fictitious and unrealistic. It is some random obscure Italian's fanciful drawing.

•Illustrate the topic specifically the description itself says that this is some hybrid depiction of her as an Amazon warrior, so no

•Be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works not any that I've read. Those I've read would be more likely to use something like a tablet with her name or some artifact or stele or mosaic related to her. Something ancient, not modern.

She was not, as you said in your edit summary a "mythical character". She is not regarded as mythological, the current dominant view is that she is Shammuramat. Personally I think Shammuramat was more likely just someone who happened to have the same name and somewhat similar circumstances as a still-older figure that is known to us as Semiramis, but regardless I don't know of anyone who regards her as mythological. This image contributes little to nothing to someone's factual understanding of the topic and if taken seriously would lead to misconceptions. It's better to just get rid of it. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There are two citations for her mythological status in the first sentence of the article. It's possible that her name is derived from a historical figure but, like King Arthur, she's grown into a mythical figure totally distinct from any historical personage that may underlie (which is why we have a separate article for Shammuramat). "Misconceptions" would arise from using a photo of a tablet with the name Shammuramat or the like. Furius (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The first source, Travelling Heroes: Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer, is an exercise in circular reasoning to cite here: it says that a historian must be wrong when he reports about Semiramis because his foreign sources can't have really told him about her because Semiramis was "an invention of Greek legend only". In other words "we know Semiramis was made up because only Greek sources discuss her and we know only Greek sources discuss her because she was made up". It's also very important to note that it uses the word "legend" rather than "myth": legendary figures are generally less divorced from history than mythological ones. The Alexander Romance for example is legendary rather than mythological since Alexander the Great was a real person; the situation we find ourselves in with Semiramis is usually akin to if we only had the Alexander Romance as a source for Alexander the Great. (Though I believe the account by Movses Khorenatsi concerning her is generally accurate since he had Mar Abas Catina as a source)

Anyway, the second source says exactly what I'm saying: "it has become quite clear that the legend of Semiarmis, queen of Babylon, most likely refers to an Assyrian historical figure" and then that "Few dispute today some remote connection between Sammuramat and Semiramis"!! I have no idea who thought to summarize this as "mythological" but they were extremely confused. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A: "Some remote connection" - the figure is for all intents and purposes separate, which is why we have separate articles for the two figures. This article is about the myth (or the legend, if you insist), so it makes perfect sense to have depictions of the legendary figure. B: You don't get to second guess the scholarly sources. That's WP:OR and it's not how wikipedia operates. You are misrepresenting Lane Fox, who is talking about a historian claiming that Alexander the Great had been told something by locals, not saying that the historian claimed to have any foreign sources. Furius (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)