Talk:Sebastia, Nablus

Hellenistic?

"The ruins dominate the hillside and comprise remains from six successive cultures dating back more than 10,000 years: Canaanite, Israelite, Hellenistic ..." So not Hellenic just Hellenic-like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh? what are you proposing? It has Hellenistic buildings, periods and quarters. Hellenistic already means resembling a period of Greece per the 'tic' suffix so do you want it to say like Greek like? I just don't get it. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought OP took issue with "Hellenistic" as a sort of double "-ish"; since Hellenic is already an adjective, then Hellenistic would be "like the thing that's like the thing". I think, however, that the intent is to mark the ruins as dating from the Hellenistic period. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 08:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

City of Samaria

An article on the ancient city of Samaria seems needed. The history section of this article seems the logical place, and I may tackle it. The current article on Samaria purports to be an article on the region called Samaria, though it also includes some of the history of the ancient city. If I develop a history of the city here, I will delete it there, where it doesn't seem to fit. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC) I found the article on the ancient city, so I won't write another. I did change the link in this article to go to the ancient city rather than the region. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Several more (old) pictures can be uploaded, including one from David Roberts, from the 1830s here,

..and from the Matson collection, I and Matson collection, II

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible (1 Kings 16:24), as historical source

User:Davidbena: Sorry, we cannot use the Bible, Hebrew or otherwise, as an unqualified historic text. At most, one can say, "According to", etc Huldra (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, the Hebrew Bible is also an authenticated source for the early history of this land, therefore, I strongly disagree with you. As for your preference to keep the antiquated (non-reliable) figure of "dating back more than 10,000 years," citing its source as "proof," I would say here that there is a more reliable source about the period of time the Canaanites lived in this land. That reliable source would be: Drews, Robert (1998), "Canaanites and Philistines", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Besides, saying that it "dated back to more than 4,000 years" would NOT actually contradict the other source, but still be more accurate.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Israel Finkelstein agree with you? Anyway, the more good sources, the better. As for proper dating: only a survey could determine that. As for general surveys; Sebastia is far to north for the Finkelstein -survey; but I assume it is in the Adam Zertal-study; I will look for it there, Huldra (talk)

If we start citing the bible as a historical source we might as well give up on the encyclopedia altogether. Zero^talk 00:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible is a reliable primary source for the history of the Land of Canaan and the Israelite tribes, quoted by many chroniclers and historians, one of whom is Josephus. Would you prefer that I cite Josephus as a secondary source?Davidbena (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You can cite both of them starting with "according to". Both of them are argued about by scholars. Zero^talk 06:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a book which isn't argued about? Even so, Josephus is considered very reliable, excepting some of the dates which he brings down, some suspecting that some figures may have been tampered with by a second-hand. Still, no one casts doubt about Israelite tribes' migration into the Land of Canaan under Joshua. This has been historically proven to be accurate.Davidbena (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Josephus had his "issues", and should be attributed, so should the Bible. If "This has been historically proven to be accurate"...then bring the sources which say that. It is as simple as that. Huldra (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sebastia, Nablus. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/776/feature.htm

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} 03:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

Any reason not to merge Samaria (ancient city) to here? Both articles are quite short and referring to the same location. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Section for talk page merge from 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) Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

End of Section for talk page merge from Samaria (ancient city)

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

Merge Samaria (ancient city) into Sebastia, Nablus. It was done informally 6 months previously but has been reverted by another editor with reason "undiscussed" so here is that discussion. Samaria (ancient city), the same place as Sebastia, is a redundant fork of this article and is only 15K in size, so the content is better located here in the history of this place. Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Weak oppose It is my position that, if only for the historical significance the ancient city of Samaria has, the pages ought to remain separate, however, I also can't ignore the fact that the pages greatly overlap. I'm of the belief most of the relevant information ought to be moved back over to Samaria from Sebastia, as I tried to do before, that way both pages are able to exist independent of one another. Zhomron (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be one page, dont really care which is the page though. But it should certainly be a single article. nableezy - 16:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: Single location, single history, no reason for a POVFORK. Istanbul was Constantinople. Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople. Been a long time gone, Constantinople. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose On the point of Iskander that Constantinople is now Istanbul... there exist separate articles for both cities. Same with Smyrna which is today Izmir etc. If there exists enough info for an own article on the city, I'd prefer to see a trim on the section Samaria ancient city at Sebaste, Nablus to make the article better readable. A former capital of the Kingdom of Israel merits an own article, other cities in the category Hebrew Bible cities are much less expanded.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Would be ok with that too, the overlap should be dealt with in one way or another though. nableezy - 19:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Ha! How about that? That's actually a surprise. Didn't realise there were viable POVFORKs out there. Maybe that's the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif solution too. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Those are different names for the same thing, this is separating a settlement that ceased to exist for hundreds of years and then a new settlement was founded in the same location. That isnt a POV fork, and we have plenty of articles on depopulated Palestinian villages that have some new Israeli town built on its ruins. nableezy - 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree the names have become conflated, I would actually say there is a situational and temportal distinction, and that Temple Mount is more the name for the geographical feature below ground level (the mount), dubbed for the temple that once stood above two millenia back, while Haram al-Sharif is a term for the architectural structure that sits on it, in the present-day. Recent politics may have distorted this, but the Hebrew/Arabic terms for the site when it has a temple are in agreement as Bet HaMiqdash/Bayt al-Muqaddas - the modern POVFORK comes with one group naming the site for what it used to be, and the other group naming it for what it is, which is much the same as the epoch-based split between Samaria (ancient city) and Sebastia, Nablus, or ... Istanbul and Constantinople. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really relevant here. nableezy - 22:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

One way or another, all of these examples, and in fact, all of history, is something built on something else's ruins. That applies in absolutely all of the examples here. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That doesnt make them POVFORKs. nableezy - 22:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

TEMPORALFORKS? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• I think the way forward here would be dramatically downsizing the Samaria section here into a Sebastia is located where the ancient capital of the Kingdom of Israel and a brief recounting of its destruction, repopulation, and start with its history from its recreation in the classical antiquity section. nableezy - 19:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment aaargh: this is one that has been on my "to-do" list for ages. The problem about the Samaria (ancient city) is that it just about all about the ancient "Kingdom of Israel", but virtually all the remains are from the "Classical Antiquity" era, ie some 7-800 years later. One suggestion: all that is based on Biblical writings could be collected in the Samaria (ancient city)-article, while the rest, (including archeological finds), could be in this article? Huldra (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, that is untrue. There are important remains from the Israelite period there - including the Omrid palace, the famous ivories, and the Samaria Ostraca. Tombah (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  The usual Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Quite, the old story. I still think it could be an idea to "branch off" the Biblical story to its own article, though? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have no objection to that provided that if there is to be an article, then someone is actually going to work on it and turn it from an undersourced stub/redundant fork into something meaningful. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think we agree then, also: Samaria (ancient city) should be moved to Samaria (Biblical city); just to make it clear, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That certainly makes sense for the six paragraphs or so referenced solely to the Books of Kings. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then perhaps we can close this merge-request, and start a {{requested move/dated|Samaria (Biblical city)}} over at Samaria (ancient city)? -Huldra (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Zhomron: Are you OK with this way of proceeding? Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not particularly? No other biblical city has a page which separates its biblical history and historical antiquity? This is an incredibly obtuse outlook, not to mention too convoluted and completely against MOS. Zhomron (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I beg to differ, see: Shiloh (biblical city) (also in Samaria), Harran in the Bible - though I think the examples used to be easier to find. I have a feeling that biblical history has more recently been blended into many more articles for modern metropolises that have been renamed after biblical forebears - that is not the case here, however, where the situation more closely resembles the Harran/Şanlıurfa split - it seems unlikely that Turkiye will nostalgically recreate Urfa as a "new Harran". Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  City of David is another, slightly different, example. And the relevant category is Category:Hebrew Bible cities so I don't follow the objection at all, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Mormonism also has the likes of Zarahemla, Cumorah and more at the corresponding Category:Book of Mormon places. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose the ancient city of Samaria merits its own article, which should explore the archeological findings, biblical references, and other historical sources. Tombah (talk) 10:33, 29 July 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.