Talk:Samaria (ancient city)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

is this article trustworthy?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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