Talk:Samaria (ancient city)

is this article trustworthy?

the footnotes are attached to statements that are peripheral to the meat of the article.76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This article references the bible as though it is a factual document. It even contains at least one footnote from the bible regarding an important date - an embarrassing inclusion for any scholar. Archaeological evidence only please.196.23.147.204 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus for region

As far as I can see it, the relevant naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) and "Samaria" is incorrect. TrickyH (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. What did you see there that seemed "inaccurate" to you? Please explain.Davidbena (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Read points 3-5 of the convention...TrickyH (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the title of this article is "Samaria (ancient city)", we're obviously talking about a period of time BEFORE the first century CE. Section # 1 of the Naming Conventions states explicitly: "References for antiquity follow sources and use Judea and Samaria for the period up to the first century CE." It's as plain as can be.Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but that info box is about the prestonpresent position, and that is the West Bank, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Still, in item # 5 it speaks about the general administrative area, either Judea or Samaria, and that is really what I had in mind. Sorry about misleading you.Davidbena (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please take the covention seriously. There's no grounds on which you could argue these sites in the West Bank need to be located in an infobox in the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, which is perhaps relevant if discussing neighbouring settlements. West Bank is to be used.TrickyH (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

When people look at these articles, the information box gives them general information, some of which they may be genuinely interested in learning about, such as its "administrative area." There's nothing to be taken-aback about having it there. All is relevant.Davidbena (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The sites under discussion all have nothing to do with the Judea and Samaria Area administration, which point five indicates should not be used without qualification as you have done. Their physical location, as incidated in point four of the naming convention, is the West Bank. TrickyH (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No mention when was the city abandoned and/or destroyed

I think it is important to add that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Picture?

What is a picture of Roman-period columns doing illustrating a city from 8-9 cent. BCE?? Seriously...

Also, this whole article is in desperate need of some RS. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge?

Any reason not to merge this with Sebastia, Nablus? It's same place and both articles are quite short. I asked at the other page and no-one replied, I will go ahead and do it shortly if no-one objects.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Samaria (ancient city) → Samaria (biblical city) – Suggested during merge proposal Talk:Sebastia, Nablus#Merger proposal. Relevant category is Category:Hebrew Bible cities. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: the ancient history of the biblical place in the supposed 8th/9th centuries BC is quite separate from the later history of Sebastia. There is a void of 400 years between the biblically theorized entity and the 331BC destruction of a settlement in its supposed location, and another 300 before the founding of Sebastia. No reason to mix the fact and fiction here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm now neutral on this. The biblical narrative is actually fairly readily teased apart from the scant genuine historical and archaeological facts, and I can see the case for having everything on "Samaria" in one spot, so everything on the settlement that was once a capital, then destroyed in the 8th century, then an Assyrian administrative capital, and destroyed again in the 4th and 2nd centuries, all together. The Roman-era history of the area and the city of Sebastia is meanwhile quite distinct. It's unclear if Sebastia was even a 'rebuilding' of anything in any conventional sense - taking place more than 100 years after the previous destruction of a settlement at the site, it could quite possibly simply have been a greenfield newbuild close to the ruins of the former settlements in the area - again, unclear. The histories of this Samaria and Sebastia are certainly more distinctive than Constantinople and Istanbul - a split apparently allowed and not considered a POVFORK or any other issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: I opposed the merger before, but this move is fine with me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see the grounds for this move. It was an ancient city long before the Bible existed, so I think it should stay where it is. The proposer is clearly pushing a pov, when they characterise the biblical narrative as "fiction" and quite an extreme one, really. I mean, sure, it's a later probably doesn't describe the events very accurately, but the idea that there wasn't really an Assyrian conquest (even though Assyrian sources say that there was) and that the city didn't actually exist in ancient times (even though there's archaeological evidence for 9th/8th C settlement on the site) is bonkers. There is no "void" between 720 BC and 331 BC, because the site was continuously inhabited and served as an administrative centre throughout that period. Furius (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar is not the proposer, I am. And the suggestion came from Huldra in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the misattribution, but you have provided no rationale for this change here and very little in the merger discussion either, so I responded to the person who had actually said something. Furius (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad you have now taken the trouble to read the proposal and the related prior merge proposal. Samaria is in the category Hebrew Bible cities, is it not? Is it your contention that it should not be in that category? Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support; We have:

Gibeon (ancient city) <--> Al Jib

Ai (Canaan) <--> Et-Tell

Likewise, I think we should have:

Samaria (biblical city) <--> Sebastia, Nablus; Huldra (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

How is this like those other examples? It's "Gibeon (ancient city)" not "Gibeon (biblical city)" Furius (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Shiloh (biblical city) is another. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Seems like splitting hairs more than anything, honestly think “ancient” does the job fine. Zhomron (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see that a rationale has been given. Srnec (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: This article is clearly about the Biblical city, so the change in title proposed makes total sense. Dan Palraz (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment I don't really understand the objection to the proposed title, if you read the History section, most of it is biblically sourced, isn't it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this now. I think a 'biblical narrative' section does the trick of addressing any confusion between the archaeology and fairy tales, and I think it's sort of reasonable to address all of this in one place. As I've noted above, the history is sufficiently patchy that I'm increasing unsure how genuinely related ancient Samaria and Sebastia even are. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

But there is no reason for it to only be biblically sourced or to only concentrate strictly on the biblical period. "Ancient" is broader than "biblical" and so better since there is no reason to artificially restrict the scope to what the Bible says or when it covers. Srnec (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If I look at Samaria it says there "Samaria (/səˈmɛəriə/; Hebrew: שֹׁמְרוֹן, romanized: Šōmrōn, Arabic: السامرة, romanized: as-Sāmirah) is the ancient, historic, biblical name used for the central region of the Land of Israel". Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

And when I look up the article "Samaria" in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, it is described as a "site located 56 km north of Jerusalem and west of the Ephraimite watershed, rising to a summit height of 430 m above sea level near the center of the Northern Kingdom of Israel." That article has two sections: Archaeology and History. In that 2,939-word article, the Bible is directly mentioned once and the word "biblical" appears nine times. The name Samaria is not restricted to the Bible. Srnec (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with a source claiming that either of Samaria or the Northern Kingdom of Israel exist. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It also says "Its biblical names Samtr (jfgs.10:1-2) and, somewhat later, Someron (1 Kgs. 16:24 et passim), mean "watch" or "Watchman." Both designations stem from an original *qatil participle and reflect successive changes in the pronunciation of that verb form (*samir-v —>*somir —* somer). The name of the site's earliest recorded private owner, Semer, represents a secondary nominal formation from this verbal antecedent." Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Samaria is also in List of biblical names starting with S. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're "impressed" with the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. It is a WP:RS. The idea that these places didn't exist at all is a fringe position. Furius (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I never said that, I said it was "biblical" and I think I have demonstrated that is in fact the case. The "RS" also says it's biblical. And its in List of modern names for biblical place names as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You literally said "I'm not impressed with a source claiming that either of Samaria or the Northern Kingdom of Israel exist" in response to Srnec's citation of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. I don't dispute that Samaria is in the Bible, but it is also attested in other texts (Assyrian records, Hebrew inscriptions) and by archaeology, so it is not appropriate to present it as being just a biblical place or to have what the Bible says about it in a separate article from what those other sources tell us about it. Furius (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You literally said "I'm not impressed with a source claiming that either of Samaria or the Northern Kingdom of Israel exist" because it is written in the source in the present tense that Samaria is a "site located 56 km north of Jerusalem and west of the Ephraimite watershed, rising to a summit height of 430 m above sea level near the center of the Northern Kingdom of Israel." In any case, I am not discussing the existence of Samaria, I am discussing whether it is "biblical". It's not my fault the article is written the way it is, we have been trying to clean it up, you could help, perhaps. Selfstudier (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Biblical" should be used only if the city is primarily or exclusively attested to in the Bible (e.g. Aphek (biblical), Shiloh (biblical city)) vis-à-vis other historical sources. What is the case here? —  AjaxSmack  00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Samaria is attested outside of the Bible, e.g. in the Annals of Sargon II. Secondary sources are legion, e.g. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study. I am flummoxed by some of the nominator's remarks in this RM. Srnec (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then please edit the article to demonstrate that a majority of sourcing is not "biblical". I didn't write this article, it is not my fault if it is written as if it were biblical, Iskandar and I have been trying to clean up the mess, why not help. If it turns out that there is substantive archaeological evidence as well as biblical then we can rename it Samaria (archaeological site) instead, like City of David (archaeological site).

  Many sources, books, press, refer to the place as a "Biblical city" in addition to our internal wikilinks:-

  Israel Biblical Sites Bible Companion Dr. Todd M. Fink "the biblical city of Samaria"

  Archaeology in the 'Land of Tells and Ruins' "the biblical city of Samaria"

  "Sebastia is the Biblical city of Samaria, which served as the capital of the kings of Israel for hundreds of years."

  "the Sabastia archeological site is considered to be the site of the ancient Biblical city of Samaria."

  "but also at the site of the biblical city of Samaria with John and Grace Crowfoot"

  "that takes place 3,000 years ago in the biblical city of Samaria/Shomron, which was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel in the 8th and 9th centuries BCE."

Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• If it turns out? The article already cites ten academic works on the archaeology of the site (Hennessy; Tappy 1992; Tappy 2001; Reisner et al.; Lyon; Crowfoot & Crowfoot; Crowfoot, Kenyon & Sukenik; Crowfoot, Kenyon & Crowfoot; Finkelstein; Pienaar; Zayadine). The point is that the place is attested by a range of sources. The case is not analoguous to Aphek (biblical) which is known only from the Bible, or to the City of David (archaeological site), where the identification of the archaeological remains with the biblical evidence is controversial. I'm not going to add material to the article page while there is an active discussion on the talk page concerning what the article is about. Furius (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have provided multiple sources demonstrating that the site is frequently referred to as a biblical city and multiple internal wikilinks referring to it as a biblical city. I will leave it to the closer to decide whether that is sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would also like to see a non-biblical source for the name, so far all I get is variations on Shemer, Omri bought it for two talents of silver (I Kings 16:23–24). Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Samaria is not a "Biblical city", but rather an ancient city that is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible... Many of what we know about Iron Age (IIB) Samaria comes from the archeological record, which confirms that Samaria was once a royal city, as evidenced by its palatial complex, the famous ivories, and the Samaria ostraca. It is mentioned in other historic sources, and continued to go by the name of Samaria for centuries, until the first century BCE. Quite a bit of extra-biblical history there. Tombah (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tombah and others already said most of what I would. I'll add that "biblical city" to many people is going to imply "mythical city that probably didn't really exist".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment True enough. The Bible is so full of fairy tales, that it comes as a surprise that it mentions a few real-life cities and persons. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  I admit that if one can disambiguate Tirzah (ancient city) then this can be so as well. The third of the Samarian "cities", Samaria's predecessor, Schechem is not disambiguated at all even though it says without embarrassment at the top "This article is about the biblical city of Shechem" and even though it is apparently mentioned in the Amarna Letters. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a city of historical significance not dependent on being mentioned in scripture. Favonian (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.