Talk:Shechem
| WikiProject Biography | (Rated C-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Judaism | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Dina?
This description of Shechem does not mention Dina. Should it?
Ok all about the Bible, What about the REAL history which is supposed to be based on scince and archeology. accourding to my readings there is no evidence about the life of what so called Jacob in the archeology of Tell Balata. The only evidence is that it was distroyed by some berberians called "Chabero" in the year 1367 B.C.
[edit] Merge?
Why is this article separate from Nablus? Tomer TALK 11:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Because "Nablus was built in the year 72 by the emperor Titus as a Roman city named Flavia Neapolis ("New city of the imperator Flavius") west of the site of the Biblical city of Shechem." As the opening of the History subsection makes clear the two cities are not just stages of a single city that flow together, such as the history of Aleppo, among many similar examples. --Wetman 13:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Shechem is an archeological site. It is not part of Nablus. Merging this article with Nablus would put a lot of needless archeological information in the article. Therefore, I agree with Wetman that they should be separate. It seems that the only reason people have for merging it with Nablus is that in Hebrew, Nablus is called Shechem. Here's a source [1] that confirms my view.Heraclius 18:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio
I removed the first paragraph of text because it was copy and pasted from a variety of copyrighted sources.
See Talk:Nablus#Possible_Plagiarism for details and links to the original sources. -- Jebro 04:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Joshua
Was this city a city of refuge according to Joshua 2006-05-26 17:27:31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.173.122 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Problems
This article needs fixing. It lacks inline citations and needs better secondary source referencing. The biblical information about ancient Shechem needs to be treated separately from the archaeological information attesting to its present day location. As far as I know, no evidence of Shechem has been found at Tell Balata. Its modern day location has yet to be definitively determined. I'll try to clean up a bit myself, but I have limited time, so extra hands would be welcome. Tiamuttalk 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] About template
An About template has been added to the top of the article. Reason: the Hebrew language lacks a distinction between "Shechem" and "Nablus," and it would be helpful to make the distinction clear at the top of the article. Please comment here if you feel the template should be worded differently or is altogether inappropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Map
Given that the history of Shechem well predates the terminology associated with Palestinian statehood, it would make much more sense to use a general map of Canaan or Ancient Israel as a graphic context for the infobox. If there are no objections or better proposals, the map below - perhaps with some cosmetic modifications - will replace the one currently being displayed.—Biosketch (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. Similar problem with the maps at Smyrna, Antioch, etc. which show the boundaries of the modern Turkish state rather than ancient Lydia or for that matter the Byzantine Empire or the Ottoman Empire. The problem in all these cases is which base map to use. Your proposed map apparently depicts the situation in the 9th century BCE, but the city of Shechem predates the Kingdom of Israel according to our article (and according to the Hebrew Bible, if I'm not mistaken). Then again, it continued through the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, and Ottoman periods.... So I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is. Maybe just use a base map which is a physical map, not a political map? --Macrakis (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it could be determined when Shechem experienced its cultural acme, or which of its historical periods is considered most important, a map portraying the political landscape of that time would be appropriate. Otherwise, yeah, a purely physical map would make the most sense. I don't know enough about the subject to say what's best. I just know the current map is exceedingly misleading.—Biosketch (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Unacceptable non-neutral language and dubious datum
I've lifted this from the text, which violates most of the rules.
We may therefore admit unhesitatingly that Sichem stood on (St. Jerome, St. Epiphanius), or very close to (Eusebius, "Onomast.", Euchem; Medaba map), the site occupied by the town of Nablus, the Neapolis, or Flavia Neapolis of early Christian ages.
Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Headings
The October re-arrangement has left the headings in a confused state. After a casual look, I suggest "Geographical position" and then "History" with its three sub-headings, but I see there are some strongly-held views around. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
