Talk:Sebastia, Nablus

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Єlєvє<SMALL>N</SMALL> єvє<SMALL>N</SMALL>||<BIG>и</BIG>эvэ <BIG>и</BIG>эvэl<BIG>э</BIG> 08:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Hellenistic?

message: 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)
thread_title: City of Samaria

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Read points 3-5 of the convention...TrickyH (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, but that info box is about the prestonpresent  position, and that is the West Bank, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section for talk page merge from Samaria (ancient city) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: That doesnt make them POVFORKs. nableezy - 22:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: TEMPORALFORKS? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal