Jump to content

Talk:Samaria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samaritans are not Jews

[edit]

"It is commonly, though inaccurately, accepted that Samaritans are mainstream Jews.[9][dubious – discuss]"

The Samaritans are descended from the Northern tribes of Israel and are therefore not Judaean, or Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samaria is not part of Israel

[edit]

I was wondering how could you classify Samaria as part of Israel, when even Israel itself does not recognize it as part of it. according to international law, this is an occupied territory, and Israel is the military occupation authority there, and it has no rights to change the facts on the ground. By the way, what you call settlements are Jewish-only residential areas built for on Palestinian confiscated land for army soldiers and reservists (plus ultra-right extremist Jews for sure), and by this definition, these "communities" cannot be considered localities or villages, but they are either colonies or military camps or outposts. Atubeileh (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't mean that the Kingdom of Israel and the State of Israel are the same? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samaria was quite literally the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Yes, it was part of Israel. The Tribe of Manasseh was settled here. NetanelWorthy (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel are the same country but just with different governments, just like how China, France, and many other countries no longer have monarchs. However, Israel has lost much of its territory due to the Roman ethnic cleansing and subsequent Arab occupations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamIsaac (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[TWIIWT comment By archaeology the city of Samaria is the only local ancient city which even remotely resembles a city-state or kingdom which might match the description of biblical Israel or Judea. Rather it appears it was later incorporated into the Septuagint stories, given a posthumous Bris, and credit taken for it. That said the modern occupied "Samaria" does not match the Samaria being discussed here either as a city or a geographic region. As to the settlements, the are all war crimes under the Nuremberg tribunal and the Geneva Conventions. There is no more dispute over the territories being occupied than there is a dispute over a tomato being a fruit. end TWIIWT] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only an idiot like you would believe that the indigenous people of Israel returning to their homeland is somehow a war crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamIsaac (talk • contribs) 07:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samaria is a geographic region, and the Green Line between Israel and the West Bank does not leave all of it on one side. Also, I commented out a boilerplate "illegal settlement" line. The mere mention of the (linked) term Israeli settlement does not justify a mini-discussion of legality. Aslbsl (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"AbrahamIsaac" was very clearly a spammer.Historylover4 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

There seems like a huge gap in the history which I hope my sub-section labels have pointed out. There is no discussion at all of the Ottoman administration of the area. The crusades must be relevant here as well. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samaria (ancient city)

[edit]

Why have those three paragraphs about the city called Samaria under the history section? This is not the Samaria (ancient city) article, this is the article about the geographic region called Samaria. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any reason offered as to why this article should have those three paragraphs I'm removing them. Clearly the city is not the geographic region and the geographic region is not the city. The geographic region was named after the city, but lost of Nazareth's was names after Nazareth, yet we don't cover any other Nazareth then the one in Israel on the Nazareth article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why it has a section on Samaritans, either. Zerotalk 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the Samaritans were originally from Samaria. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern West Bank or Northern Palestine

[edit]
The West Bank (pink)
The Northern Kingdom (blue)

This article says that Samaria is "roughly corresponding to the northern West Bank" yet Judea and Samaria Area#Terminology says that "Samaria [...] roughly corresponds to the territory of the ancient [Northern Kingdom] of Israel" (i.e. northern Palestine). Even with a roughly, the northern West Bank is clearly a far narrower area than northern Palestine. Both statements can't be correct, unless definitions of Samaria vary wildly. So is Samaria the northern West Bank or northern Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions do vary widely, but the Kingdom of Israel as shown blue in your map is far larger than any definition I've seen, especially with regard to northern and eastern extents. "Roughly corresponding to the northern West Bank" is not like historic definitions either, and probably is a modern distortion. Often, but not always, it extended to the coast. Some examples of historic interpretations: an English map, a Hebrew map (the small green portion), a French map, another Hebrew map (green section). If you examine the Hebrew maps here, you will find that most don't mark Samaria at all. Zerotalk 10:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your maps seem to show Samaria as being roughly the northern West Bank, but including the western coastal areas. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a better approximation of the most common interpretation. Zerotalk 04:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more recent map in the pre the 1948 British mandate area, where the Samaria district was shaped as such [1](it was even larger in the beginning of the mandate when it included the Beisan sub district as well) I hope it helps.--Mor2 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

post 48

[edit]

The phrase Jordanian-held Samaria areas is, besides incredibly poor writing, anachronistic. So is Israeli settlements in the Samaria area. nableezy - 19:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can phrase it better, give it a shot. However, I have to object to the switch from the term 'Samaria' which is the focus of this article to 'west bank' mid article. Even if both areas roughly correspond, they are not the same area and this change only server to confuse the reader due to lack of consistency. IMO the articles 'Samaria' and 'Judea' should fall under the same convention as the Israeli Judea and Samaria administrative area article.--Mor2 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isnt a switch. And it doesnt confuse a reader, or shouldnt, as the lead defines Samaria as roughly corresponding to the northern West Bank and the sentence prior to the change says As a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, most of the territory was unilaterally incorporated as Jordanian-controlled territory and was administered as part of the West Bank. nableezy - 16:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources": A new interpretation

[edit]

OK, now we have a claim that any source published "a hundred years ago" e.g, before World War I, is unreliable. If so, then you will have to will go through all the articles on Israel/Palestine and delete everything based on such sources as the following - and many more like them - which are being used in dozens, if not hundreds of articles:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 24 January 2014

As the suitability of RS is dependent on the specific topic and content for which it is used I suggest we remain focussed on the point at hand and not other sources/topics. To wit, is it valid to use a hundred year old source for factual information about ancient Israel? In my view it basically boils down to whether the academic disciplines which focus on the ancient history/archaeology of Israel have changed significantly in the intervening 100 years or so that would make such a source unreliable for verification of this content. Dlv999 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason a 100 year old source should not be reliable, or even much older. If There are any changes in later academic literature, then those will surely mention the older source (and discuss and refute, if need be). Debresser (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a fine academic source. All Rows4 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. It is universally acceptable fact that Samaria was the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Remains of the royal palace built by Omri and Ahab during the Israelite period were found by archaeologists, as well as pottery fragments depicting Hebrew-character inscriptions.Marokwitz (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Therefore, Samaria served mainly as royal stronghold ( see Excursus ) only for the leader of mobile military kingship and its family and courtiers. The limited administrative personnel resided in the various royal functional cities rather than in Samaria where they had to do their jobs. For the Assyrians, Samaria is the residence of the ruling dynasty.45 But for Israel and its population, Samaria held no particular central position........Samaria was no traditional capital city.53 It was merely a mountain stronghold (hebr. ) for the court and family of a mobile warrior king. Other functions (military, trade, administration, and cult) were distributed among other specialized sites (Niemann 2006)." Niemann, Hermann Michael (2007). Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty. T & T Clark. pp. 198–200. ISBN 0567045404. Dlv999 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the examples Gilbrand gave are used predominantly for contemporary information. The 1922 census report for 1922 population, etc.. When it comes to claims about ancient history, we have to always be alert to the possibility that scholarly opinion has changed on the matter. That's true, for example, with many of Guérin's identifications of villages in his time with ancient villages. We try to determine if his identifications are still accepted and cite newer views if we can. As always, it's a work in progress. The same holds here. There's nothing wrong per se with citing a 100-year old book on a matter of ancient etymology, but your job as editor is not finished if that's all you do. If you want the article to be as good as possible you should try to determine if scholars today still believe it. Zerotalk 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State of Samaria archaeology site

[edit]

This AP article, which is given as the source for the BA article, provides a much more detailed account of the politics and its effect on the state of the site. Since most of it is in Area C, attributing all the neglect to the Palestinian Authority is a bit silly. Zerotalk 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is and doesn't reflect what AP says. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "and almost universally"

[edit]

Gilabrand removed "and almost universally". It doesn't make it "simpler" but it changes the meaning and doesn't represent what the source actually say. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No answer yet by Gilabrand. The removal doesn't make any sense at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the header.

[edit]

Can we please get rid of the "ancient" palestine. It's not subjective and it has no reference to the biblical or ancient history of the land in which this article concerns. At the time the land was known as judea&samaria. It's pretty simple. POV pushing needs to be remedied. Wiki is not subjective in concerns to the palestine/israel conflct. PLease stop editing out judea unless you have references referring to the land being called either palestine or palaestina before the roman renaming of 132 ad by any of the actual inhabitants of the region. 2601:D:9580:E47:5D2F:3438:15DF:C6B (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the WP:V policy document and then read the source cited next to the statement you keep changing. Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources. Editors can't just change things on a whim. Content has to comply with policy. That is why your change keeps being reverted. Nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I also went to the source. This is the first thing i came upon 

"ArticleWeb sitesBibliographyRelated ContentContributors

Samaria, Hebrew Shomron, the central region of ancient Palestine. Samaria extends for about 40 miles (65 km) from north to south and 35 miles (56 km) from east to west. It is bounded by Galilee on the north and by Judaea on the south; on the west was the Mediterranean Sea and on the east the Jordan River. The mountain ranges of southern Samaria continue into Judaea with no clearly marked division.Ancient Shechem (near modern Nāblus), in the centre of Samaria, served as the crossroads and political centre of the region.At the time of the Israelite conquest of Palestine"

I don't see how being published makes any source reliable just off of that merit if that was true i can link you to any number of racial supremacist books that have been published advocating the superiority of white men. Not only that but the source in question can be edited like wikipedia by any anon without backing it up with facts. Furthemore it refers to the land conquered by the israelites also as Palestine. The very page itself is only 3 paragraphs long if that and has no actual cited sources. I understand that wiki is about verifiable sources but did anyone actually take time and look at the source of that? i mean it's pretty obvious fallacy.

If you think you are more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, go and make your case at the reliable sources noticeboard. The link is WP:RSN. Or find a better source. Either way, don't change it based on what you think you know. That isn't a legitimate approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone with common sense is reliable then a half written article with no cited sources. I did find a better source. Multiple actually even a article from haaretz. But the first link goes into detail. The second one shows the transition from judea into palaestina. Also the Encyclopaedia Britannica the actual published book in my last link refers to it as samaria. 2601:D:9580:E47:5D2F:3438:15DF:C6B (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


http://books.google.com/books?id=Z2cCZBDm8F8C&pg=PA259&dq=judea+and+samaria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A8jGU-jhO9GpyATN7IKQAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=judea%20and%20samaria&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=zlToSqE0k_cC&pg=PA197&dq=judea+samaria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o8zGU6ecCsOMyASX8IGwBQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=judea%20samaria&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=XDNPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134&dq=judea+and+samaria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A8jGU-jhO9GpyATN7IKQAQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=judea%20and%20samaria&f=false http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.578726 http://books.google.com/books?id=oDi5dU8f_OsC&pg=PA266&dq=judea+and+samaria+name&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Pc7GU86sHoq0yATa8YCwDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=judea%20and%20samaria%20name&f=false

/* In the header. */

[edit]

Can someone remove the "ancient" palestine, it does not direct to judea.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

[edit]

Can we please get rid of the "ancient" palestine. It's not subjective and it has no reference to the biblical or ancient history of the land in which this article concerns. At the time the land was known as judea&samaria. It's pretty simple. POV pushing needs to be remedied. Wiki is not subjective in concerns to the palestine/israel conflct. PLease stop editing out judea unless you have references referring to the land being called either palestine or palaestina before the roman renaming of 132 ad by any of the actual inhabitants of the region. This is not NPOV and it comes off as extremely biased. Instead lets add either judea or the kingdom of judea which is verifiable. Loveandpeace=happy (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the Amarna correspondence, which predates the bible's account by several hundred years. I can see no reference among the 150 letters in it that relate to Palestine of, 'Judea&Samaria', understandably so since the hapiru, an ethnic mix which, centuries later, helped coalesce into the Hebrew tribal confederation, hadn't yet heard from Yahweh up on smokey Mt Sinai about how to name the provinces they would assume control over centuries later, nor had the Old Man tipped Moses off about the details of those texts which, given his omniscience, he must have known about, a terrible oversight. And read the article on Palestine, which will tell you that everything else you mentioned (132 CE etc) is dead wrong. Thanks for making me yawn. It is close to beddy-bies over here.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: You are not required to use {{edit semi-protected}} template to initiate a discussion on article's talk page. If you want to bring some change in the present article, please propose it in "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going by the biblical account, further more the amarna correspondence does not state anything about "palestine" or Israel either for that matter due to the fact neither existed during this time. Palestine is the Anglicization of palaestina taking from the philistines who had not yet even arrived in the region if you're going that far back using conjecture i can also say according to my views the jews built the pyramids in use the sumerian tablets to state no one ever heard of any other enslaved people so obviously the only viable source is of course the bible. Habiru or Apiru or ˁpr.w* which are what i believe you're referring to are not remotely connected either biblically or historically to the hebrew people, "Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium inscriptions mentioning the Habiru there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews of the Bible. Anson Rainey has argued that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking." The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary states that Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure." I actually got that off of Wikipedia. Anyway none of this has anything to do with the main discussion of which predates which. Wow the wiki article on palestine that can be edited, added and over saw by anyone including people biased due to political sensibilities that makes like so much since bro. Like i should really just jump on that article in believe what's written on the internet as fact.

− − Sorry i am attempting to get the protected status removed or atleast add a change to it. In i did add a request for it.Loveandpeace=happy (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main effect of the Israel-Palestine conflict in some circles has been the avoidance of the word "Palestine". It is you who is supporting this trend, contrary to centuries of scholarship. Nevertheless, "Palestine" is still the most common historical geographical designator used for this region by scholars, including Israeli scholars (when writing in English). Zerotalk 02:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has wikipedia really fallen to this?

[edit]

I've tried before to get a simple change. Can we remove the name "Palestine" a current political designation which has no relation to the history of the region and only shows why academically using wikipedia is a no no. I understand regardless of the history or facts people considers themselves Palestinians, this is a very strong emotional and political hot topic but this is not about politics i'm not about to get into some pov war i just want a simple change to reflect well established history. Either the name of israel or judea can be used but if you want a completely non pov lets just say Canaan? since that is the oldest and most well known name of the region.


The name Canaan first appears in documents from the 15th century B.C.E. and was variously written: Akkadian: Kinani (m), Kinaḫḫu / i, etc.; Egyptian: Knʿn·w and P-knʿn; Ugaritic: Knʿny ("a Canaanite"); Phoenician and Hebrew: Knʿn. Most scholars connect the name with the Hurrian term kinaḫḫu meaning (reddish) purple. Support for this is found in the similarity between the Greek Φοῖνιξ meaning reddish purple and Φοινίκη meaning Phoenicia. Those who derive the name from the Semitic root kn' consider it either a name for the conchiferous snail which yielded purple dye, or a term for the western nations, because the sun set in the west (see also Astour 1965). Since purple cloth was the chief export of Phoenicia, the term Canaan also appears in the sense of merchant (Isa. 23:8; Zeph. 1:11; Prov. 31:24; et al). The land of Canaan is also known in ancient sources as, variously, ʿAʾmu-ḥryw-šʿ ("'Asiatics' who dwell in the sand"), Amurru, Retenu, Hurru, and Hatti (for the first see Helck in bibliography). Apart from one instance of the mention of "thieves and Canaanites (who) are in Rahishum" in an 18th-century B.C.E. text from *Mari, the earliest written records mentioning Canaan are Egyptian from the late 15th and 14th centuries B.C.E., respectively a booty list of Amenophis II mentioning the deportation of Canaanites and the *Amarna letters. Mention of the Land of Canaan predominates in the Bible in the four books of Genesis, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges, but less so elsewhere.

B. Maisler (Mazar), in: BASOR, 102 (1946), 7–12; A. Van Selms, in: OTS, 12 (1958), 182ff.; Aharoni, Land, 61–72; R. de Vaux, in: JAOS, 88 (1968), 23ff.; J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records…, 1 (1927), 142, no. 311; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Aegyptens… (1962), 17–18; E.A. Speiser, in: Language, 12 (1936), 121–6; idem, One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts (=AASOR, 16 (1936), 121–2). ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: M.C. Astour, "The Origin of the Terms 'Canaan,' 'Phoenician,' and 'Purple,'" in: JNES, 24 (1965), 346–50; K.M. Kenyon, Amorites and Canaanites (1966); B. Mazar, Canaan and Israel: Historical Essays (1974); B. Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan (1983); J. Tubb, Canaanites (1998). http://www.academia.edu/949670/The_Amarna_Letters_from_Canaan this also references canaan.

Ancient Records of Egypt: The nineteenth dynasty in this book the name "Canaan is repeatedly mentioned" James Henry Breasted The University of Chicago Press, 1906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Loveandpeace=happy (talk • contribs)

You can search for the phrase "ancient Palestine" (including the quotes) at Google Scholar and see that it is extremely widely used in academic writings. It's a lot more common than "ancient Canaan", though that phrase is also ubiquitous. Your claim that this is a "current political designation which has no relation to the history of the region" is not supported by the evidence; it is just your opinion, that the scholarly community by and large disagree with. Instead of creating multiple sections on this page to try to get your preferred version into the article, you should throw away your preconceptions and look at the sources with an open mind. Zerotalk 02:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even the article of Izre'el you cite uses "Palestine" as a geographical designator at least 10 times. Zerotalk 02:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect map

[edit]

I am removing this map from the article because it doesn't show Samaria at all. What it shows is the region populated by Samaritans in the Persian period. It says so right on the map. Although "Samaria" and "Samaritan" are words with a common etymology, they are not the same. The map description at Commons was incorrectly edited by some anon and will be fixed. Zerotalk 11:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis, although it seems to me that the map may still be informative for this article if labelled correctly.
Here is the description of that map from the original source. In it, Smith cross-refers to another of his books, here [2] (or full pdf [3]). It includes some useful information, such as:
  • "Thus we have not one, but three possible frontiers across the range: south of Bethel, the line from the head of Ajalon to the gorge of Michmash; north of Bethel, the change from table-land to valley, with deep wadies running both to Jordan and to the coast; and, more northerly still, the Wady Ishar. None of these is by any means a 'scientific frontier,' and their ambiguity is reflected in the fortunes of the political border. The political border oscillated among these natural borders."
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dothan

[edit]

The article needs to explain why there is an image of Dothan, as Dothan is not mentioned in the text.
BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous statement

[edit]

User:Zero0000, Shalom. I saw your recent edit on the main page, but still the current paragraph is problematic. It erroneously states: "Following the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 1967, the Israeli right began to refer to the territories by their biblical names, etc." In actuality, as proven by my source from 1932, Jews had already begun to refer to the towns and villages in Palestine by their biblical names. This, in itself, warrants a better, more accurate editorial. Can you not see a more balanced edit, where the tone is more neutral, and does not "smear" or disparage Israel? There must be some neutral ground that we can take in editing Wikipedia articles.

What exactly do you see wrong with rewording the sentence in this way?

As early as 1932, Jews who fondly embraced their ancestral heritage have sought to restore the original place names of villages preserved by the ::Arab ::populations, often in their "corrupt" form. To this end, a select committee of renowned archaeologists suggested to the British Mandate Government of Palestine how these same towns and villages should officially be called, arguing their case on ::historical, ::religious, nationalist and security grounds.[1][2] One of such suggestions was to ::restore the old namesake of Shomeron to as-::Sāmirah (Samaria) and Sabastya (Sebaste).[1] Davidbena (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTES:

[1] (cite book |author=Alan Dowty |title=Israel / Palestine ::|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3FcUslKPRsQC&pg=PA131 |date=11 June 2012|publisher=Polity|isbn=978-0-7456-5612-0|pages=130–131}}</ref><ref ::name=BMaisler4>List of Geographical Names, (A Memo of the National Committee to the Government of the Land of Israel on the Method of Spelling ::Transliterated Geographical and Personal Names, plus Two Lists of Geographical Names), Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and ::Cognate Subjects, Benjamin Maisler, Tel-Aviv 1932, p. 67)
[2] (See p. 67 in: [cite journal |last=Maisler |first=Benjamin |title= A Memo of ::the National Committee to the Government of the Land of Israel on the Method of Spelling Transliterated Geographical and Personal Names, plus Two ::Lists of Geographical Names|journal=Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects|accessdate=21 February 2017 |volume= ::4|issue= 3|pages=1-92 |url= http://www.jstor.org/stable/24384308 |date=1932|registration=yes |via=JSTOR)

You are right that some efforts in this direction were made before 1948, though it is hardly more than a historical footnote since the British were obviously unable to accede to it. Beyond that: (a) "Jews who fondly embraced their ancestral heritage" is unencyclopedic language (what, compared to Arabs who didn't embrace their heritage?). (b) Who says the archaeologists were renowned? (c) I think it is referring to the city, later village, of Samaria which is the subject of a different article, not to the region which this article is about. You can correct me on that. Zerotalk 04:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I can concede that it might not be "encyclopedic language," but can you not sense in the previous edit which you restored a more subtle "disparaging" tone? I mean, "the Israeli right." Are they the only Jews in Israel who aspire to call towns and cities by their original Hebrew names? Therefore, the current edit ought to be changed too (IMHO).Davidbena (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Zero0000, you are right. The etymological reference of Shomron in this article was referring to the city, later village, of Samaria. It is true too that the article speaks only in general terms of the vast area known as Samaria. Do you think then that it is still necessary to retain the current edit that reads: "Following the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 1967, the Israeli right began to refer to the territories by their biblical names and argued for their usage on historical, religious, nationalist and security grounds" ??? I mean, while it is true that Jews (whether of the far-right or left) have referred to ancient places in Israel by their original Hebrew names, should this article mention this at all? In my view, it is unnecessary. If, on the other hand, one wishes to mention it, let's not limit this phenomenon to "the Israeli right," since using such an expression reminds one the Nazi "right-wings" or some other negative pejoratives. Jews who are good and lovers of their own culture and heritage, and who do not bear animosity towards the Arabs, also prefer to call ancient cities by their original Hebrew names (such as Shechem, instead of Nablus; Hebron instead of al-Khalil, etc. etc.) This is also true of the Jewish left. It has, therefore, nothing to do with the "Israeli right."Davidbena (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: I can see your point here, but there is also a point that the two sources are correctly making. From 1967 onwards, and even today to a large extent, one could identify the political position of Israelis by whether they said "West Bank" or "Judea and Samaria" (or "Yesha", including Gaza). The wording is bad and has to be revised. The point isn't that the biblical names existed and were used, but that after 1967 they were used specifically for the occupied territories which are geographically a rather poor match for the biblical regions. Zerotalk 11:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here, my good friend, User:Zero0000, as an Israeli Jew who lives in Israel, I strongly object to your statement, since I do not know of any Israelis (whether of the right or of the left) who refer to any part of this country - including Judea and Samaria - as the "West Bank." This terminology is found mostly in the Left media, and used chiefly by American or western Jews who live outside of Israel, but as for Israelis, they do not usually use the term. If they want to go to a certain place that is in the West Bank, they simply mention the place that they want to go to. You see, while all Israelis know that Arabs also inhabit this country, we do not see the country as being two countries, or divided. The security apparatus that is now set in place with the Palestinian Authority, and the restrictions imposed upon Israelis travelling to certain places in Judea and Samaria do not make the country divided into two separate States, viz. the West Bank and Israel. We still see the country as one country, with special security concerns. Having said that, the current edit is problematic for two primary reasons: (a) it supposes that only the Jewish right make use of original Hebrew place names (which is not true); (b) it uses the words "Israeli right" as a pejorative, to demean certain people in Israel, when the article should be concerned only about Samaria in the generic sense.Davidbena (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, I have yet to hear from you regarding my previous proposal, but if I might now amend my proposal, can we both agree to a rewording of the text in the section on "Etymology," and where the sentence will be perfected to read: "Israelis often refer to the territories by their biblical names, arguing for their usage on historical, religious, nationalist and security grounds," instead of: "Following the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 1967, the Israeli right began to refer to the territories by their biblical names and argued for their usage on historical, religious, nationalist and security grounds"? Wouldn't you say that this revised edit will bring more neutrality to the paragraph?Davidbena (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of era convention

[edit]

I noticed that there is a mixture of using BC (mainly) and BCE (just a couple) convention in the dates in this article and I understand that the Wikipedia policy is not to mix them up, so I made them all BC because as far as I can make out that is what the article has mostly or only used from the start. However, someone else is contradicting me. Can I get a third opinion?--193.62.184.140 (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, a quick look at the edit history of the article shows that you are correct and the other editor is not correct to challenge and revert you. I shall restore your version.--Mevagiss (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samaria. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samaria. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need more detail on the boundary towards Judaean Mountains

[edit]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Judaean Mountains#We need the boundary to Samaria, or so I hope. Please post all comments there, to keep it centralised. In short: one marker (Ramallah), quoted from Britannica, is far too imprecise and insufficient. In concrete cases one still doesn't know if a whole bunch of particular locations lie in the Samarian or Judaean hills. See you at the other talk-page, Arminden (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: the [| Hebrew article on Mount Baal Hazor] claims that that mountain is at the border. Or so it seems via Google translation. It also seems to place it both in Benjamin and Samaria, and I thought Benjamin is considered to have been part of Judah. Maybe it depends on the period - or the author. Arminden (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the HISTORY is blank

[edit]

We need a lot more material in the History paragraph. The History of ancient Israel and Judah article sticks to the correct definition and stops dealing with Samaria around 722 BCE. All the rest should be presented here. We have nothing on

  • Babylonian period
  • Persian period
  • Hellenistic period
  • Byzantine period
  • Early Muslim period
  • Crusader period
  • Mamluk period
  • Ottoman period

and hardly anything on the

  • Roman period
  • Jordanian period.

Even on the

  • Israelite tribes & kingdoms

we hardly have anything coherent, really. Just disparate bits & pieces.

The Samaritans need by far more mention: they were the main population from around the Assyrian period through to at least the Byzantine period and probably for longer, so well over a millennium (!). Arminden (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Israel?

[edit]

In the lede, 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, bordered by Judea to the south and Galilee to the north. The RS https://www.britannica.com/place/Samaria-historical-region-Palestine actually says that Samaria is the central region of ancient Palestine. It does not mention the Land of Israel. Is this an edit I can make, to replace Land of Israel with Palestine, or does it come under the Israel/Palestine restriction for new editors? If it does come under the block, then it can either be added by someone else, or a new RS found that refers to the Land of Israel, or maybe both terms can be used? Pngeditor (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical reference

[edit]

Should we really be using a text that talk's about angles and demons. The subjugation of women, the persecution of gay people. That condones child mutilation and glorifies genocide as a reliable historical reference point 94.173.17.182 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to use it even if we don't like it. It is just too important. However we don't use the bible as a source of facts but (should) always qualify it as "According to..." or similar. Zerotalk 02:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SHOMRON in Hebrew; Samaria is Hellenised adaptation

[edit]

Folks, get it right pls: SHOMRON is the ancient Hebrew name of the city and region; Samaria is the Hellenised adaptation, so the Greek name, which by definition arose some 550 years later (880 vs. 332/31 BCE), unless Herodotus had a go at the local Semitic names a century earlier. This has nothing, nada, zero to do with modern settler ideology. This is so basic, that whoever doesn't know or get it, isn't fit to edit here. Arminden (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samaria&oldid=1254192154"