Talk:Samaritans

Reconciliation of a paragraph in the lead section

Nishidani, Iskandar323, nableezy, Tombah, Drsmoo, Selfstudier, Dimadick
I would like to achieve a proper consensus on the matter. TL;DR, in the following paragraph, revert "Palestine" back to "the land"

The paragraph in question:

Samaritan tradition states that they descend from the northern Israelite tribes who were not deported by the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). Samaritans attribute the schism between them and Judaism to have been caused by Eli, who they say created an alternate shrine at Shiloh, in opposition to Mount Gerizim. Samaritans consider Mount Gerizim (near both Nablus and biblical Shechem), and not the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to be the holiest place on Earth. They believe that Samaritanism is the true religion of the ancient Israelites, preserved by those Israelites who remained in Palestine during the Babylonian captivity; and regard Judaism, the ethnic religion of the Jewish people, as a closely related but altered and amended religion brought back by Judeans returning from Babylonian captivity.

The sentence previously changed to "Palestine" from "the land".
This has been disputed because:

(a) the sentence refers to what Samaritans believe

(b) Palestine as a popular geographical toponym among scholars in the last 2000 years contains modern connotations.

A question has been raised: "How do Samaritans refer to their land?". I couldn't find a solid answer to this question. With that, it was agreed by several editors to change it to something neutral such as "Samaria" or " their homeland".

I would suggest reverting back to "the land" since it has already been stated at the beginning of the paragraph that they believe they are from the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), so it is clear that "the land" refers to the territory of that kingdom.

This does not mean that the Palestine toponym has no place in this article because clearly, it does! Palestine is the common English name for the land. It is convenient to use "Palestine" and it is no problem when describing Samaritans from an academic perspective. Therefore, in the next paragraph where it says:

In the 12th century, the Jewish traveler Benjamin of Tudela estimated that only around 1,900 Samaritans remained in the regions of Palestine and Syria

We need not change anything, because "the region of Palestine" is strictly an intuitive toponym for the land. "Land of Israel" is clearly not a proper name to use in English or from an academic perspective, unless we are strictly speaking about people who use this term (which is apparently not the case).

Please state whether you support my proposition, agree in principle but have a different proposition, or disagree.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There seems like there is the possibility of bypassing the issue altogether by simply saying something like: "...preserved by those Israelites who were not taken to Babylon" (the short and simple option, which also avoids the double usage of the phase 'Babylonian captivity') or "...preserved by the Samaritans of the northern kingdom, who, unlike the Judahites of the southern kingdom, were not displaced to Babylon following the fall of Judah to Nebuchadnezzar II." Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Bypass is good and I'm OK with the first one of those. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I apologize if people here, stressed, feel that a bypass is in the offing for all and sundry to avoid a drastic drop from (un) natural causes in the Wikipedia IP constituency of editors. I go by sources, several of which say a population was taken from the area of Samaria and replaced by a foreign population which was relocated in the Assyrian province of Samerina (in Palestine, because it has a larger extension than the Biblical 'Samaria'). (2) People have forgotten that we have a template that allows for details - direct citation of the references used - to be placed in footnotes. (c) I think editors should think twice before creating an I/P precedent for the thesis some maintain here: that Palestine is unacceptable as a neutral descriptive term for Middle Eastern articles on history prior to the Roman conquest - which is utterly bizarre. Were that precedent established we would have a crowd of three of four POV pushing warriors rushing in to mechanically erase the term from hundreds of articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record then, this is a strictly local consensus (if one is reached) not applicable to any other article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This particular statement is already couched in terms of "They believe that ..." and does not imply objectivity. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

As implied in the initial statement, this does not change the legitimacy of the term "Palestine" anywhere else, but simply in the place where it says what Samaritans believe. I agree with Selfstudier that this is a one-case matter and not strictly a precedant. Seemingly we have a unique case here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"preserved by those Israelites who were not taken to Babylon" Entirely misleading phrase. The Israelites were not relocated to Babylon. The article on the Babylonian captivity states that only a percentage of the population of the Kingdom of Judah was relocated, and that there is no evidence for a wide disruption in the population of the area.:

• • "Although Jerusalem was destroyed and depopulated, with large parts of the city remaining in ruins for 150 years, numerous other settlements in Judah continued to be inhabited, with no signs of disruption visible in archaeological studies." Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't know why we are confusing events in Samaria in 720 BCE with events in Judea well over a century later. The only nexus is that Judah was an ally of the Assyrians in the earlier period, an alliance forged after Israel/the northern kingdom of Samaria attacked Judah a decade earlier, and Tiglath-Pileser 111 intervened to defend Judea against the Israelites of the north.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that, if we are to bypass by rephrasing, it should be constructed from scholarly work. This is why I suggested a consensus only for the "Palestine"->"the land" matter - not becuase it is very important, but to prevent edit-warring. The whole paragraph can be rephrased alltogether.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The phraseology of "who were not taken to Babylon" is just the mirror image of the current "who remained in Palestine" - it was just a proposed editorial fix to the current imbroglio. I did not say it was perfect, or that it precluded further fixing: both are equally vague on the actual populations involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that they were supposedly deported by Assyria and not Babylon. This is why I suggest just changing it back to "the land", which as implied earlier in the paragraph is the territory of Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree and all this is a distraction anyway, allow Nishidani to continue his interrupted good work on the article and then deal with this and anything else that's contested. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely of this opinion now that it seems possible that the article has some potentially glaring contradictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm really confused now - I thought the Samarian narrative was all about remaining in place when the Judahites got taken to Babylon, and therefore remaining truer to the version of the religion that came before whatever religious experience the exilic lot had in the courts of Mesopotamia - does Samaritan tradition derive from not one, but two nexus points - the Assyrian invasion AND the Babylonian one - or is it just the Assyrian one as suggested above? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as Samaritans are concerned, the Babylonian exile of the Jews was a nexus in Jewish history. The Samaritans sat back and watched events to the south unfold. It's important to them because Samaritans trace those features of Judaism that differ from their own religion to the Jewish Babylonian exile period.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, anachronism. Do you want a shovellode of quotations stating that before 400 the use of 'Judaism' is an anachronism. apart from a thread showing the egregious errors I n what you wrote are based on unfamiliarity with the topic? The Babylonian exile was one that affected Judeans, who earlier had 'sat back and watched as the Samarian Israelites' fought Assyria. Judah was a tributary state and ally of Assyria in the first of the Samaritan deportations in the late 800s. Proof once more than people air their 'knowledge' on the basis of glimpses over related wiki articles which are worthless as summaries of contemporary scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

According to Samaritans, it was not a nexus point in their own history - they just carried on through that period. Samaritans - as outside obsevers - consider it a nexus point in Jewish history as they trace certain dissimilarities between the two religions to this point and the influence of Babylonians. The Assyrian invasion however was a nexus point for Samaritans as at this point they were (part of) the remainder of the subtraction of exiles from (Northern) Israel.Romomusicfan (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the point of all this. All the page is interested in is what reliable scholarship states or argues. Unless editors can cite chapter and verse from that source, they are opinionizing, as here. It's not a forum.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I was originally replying to Iskandar323's question. Come to that, my second post on this thread was also basically a further reply to Iskandar323. But never mind. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I do think it’s interesting that Samaritan Chronicles and other histories don’t reflect much on the Babylonian exile. I’m not sure what justifies it being in the lead at all. I added the bit about the Samaritan view attributing the schism to Eli, which does appear to be prominent in Samaritan understanding. Drsmoo (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed re. Eli and Chronicles. The Jewish return from Babylon is regarded by Samaritans (as outside observers of the phenomenon of Judaism) as one stage of several in the (d)evolution of Judaism away from what they would regard as proper Israelitism (i.e Samaritanism). Romomusicfan (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Second suggestion: Just remove "preserved by those Israelites who remained in Palestine during the Babylonian captivity;" altogether - the summary works absolutely fine without going into any detail on the (surely complex) circumstances in which Samaritanism and mainstream Judaism became differentiated. OR, the last portion "brought back by Judeans returning from Babylonian captivity" could also be removed while still leaving a perfectly adequate summary, rendering, with a little further editing, something like: They believe that Samaritanism is the true religion of the ancient Israelites, and regard mainstream Judaism as a closely related but altered religion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, definitely in favour of the removal of the anachronistic use of "Palestine" to refer to the Babylonian Cisjordan. (I have no objection to any other references to Palestine in the article, just that one.) Romomusicfan (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• The process of differentiation may be better not oversimplified, and the lead is already overly long relative to article length. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This is fine to me. This whole paragraph has big claims and lacks proper sources. I didn't see it repeated in the article. Per WP:LEAD.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In Judaism, I find this: 'Judaism is considered by religious Jews to be the expression of the covenant that God established with the Israelites, their ancestors.' Compare and Contrast with the wording you have suggested for this article. They believe that Samaritanism is the true religion of the ancient Israelites, and regard mainstream Judaism as a closely related but altered religion. I suggest that this article as a whole should use phrases such as 'Samaritan traditions state that' or 'Samaritans consider' rather than the presently over used phrases such as 'believe' and 'claim'. This will help ensure NPOV in the rival claims of the two groups, and religions, in which wikipedia can have no stance. Therefore the wording I would suggest would be closer to Samaritans consider their religion to be the true religion of the ancient Israelites, regarding mainstream Judaism as a closely related but altered religion. RegardsPngeditor (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed re. "claim" but I don't see anything too wrong with "believe".Romomusicfan (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Well it's been sorted now. Thanks one and all.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan revolts

There material on the Samaritan revolts needs a lot of work and better sourcing, both here and on the Samaritan revolts page. In this diff, material on the aftermath of the revolts was added to the lead, but I checked and the body barely mentions any of this and certainly not with these words. The last paragraph of the section of the page on Byzantine times comes the closest, but this is unsourced, and the material is only covered in a marginally better manner on the main page. As I mentioned in my edit summary, there's some way to go before we can stand up the removed statement. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Sanballat and Mannaseh

"In the eighth chapter of Antiquities, Josephus tells the story of the priest Manasseh, the brother of the high priest at the Jerusalem temple. Manasseh was married to Nicaso, the daughter of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria.12 Due to the prophet Ezra’s reforms regarding the marriages to Gentiles some Israelites had entered into during the Babylonian captivity,13 the elders in Jerusalem were not willing to allow Manasseh to continue in aiding his brother in the Jerusalem temple because he was married to someone outside the covenant. The returning Jews from Babylon did not believe that the Samaritans worshipped YHWH, but this was likely not the case.14 Accordingly, the elders told Manasseh that he must either divorce his wife, or never work at the altar in the temple again.15 Manasseh told his father-in-law, Sanballat, that although he loved his wife, he would not allow himself to be deprived of working at the altar to stay with her. Sanballat promised Manasseh that if he would not divorce Nicaso, then Sanballat would supply Manasseh not only with a temple to work in but a high priesthood position as well.16 Josephus wrote that this interaction between Sanballat and Manasseh took place contemporarily with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Near East around 332 BCE.17 However, in Nehemiah 13 this event is also alluded to when referring to the marriage of Levites to foreign wives. “And one of the sons of Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliashib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; I chased him away from me.”18 This offers two separate dates for the initial construction of the Mount Gerizim temple based on three separate literary passages: around 332 BCE during the conquests of Alexander the Great as told by Josephus: a century earlier, during the time of Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, as shown through the passage in Nehemiah; and in the fourteenth century CE writings of Abu’l Fath. The strong archaeological evidence shown by Magen’s excavations makes an earlier dating preferable and shows the growing contention between the two peoples, because the temples would be going up at the same time." [1]

Why no mention of Sanballat or (the later) Mannasseh in the article? I shall leave this alone for a while to give people a chance to speak on this thread or forever hold their peace.
If no one has any objections forthcoming, I will post my own rewrite of the above text into the Josephus section with the above URL as a reference.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"But whether one opts for the view that Josephus’s Manasseh-Sanballat story is a midrash on Nehemiah 13:28 or the view that it preserves an independent and historically accurate tradition — or at least a kernel of it, Josephus uses it to depict the Samaritans, their temple and their priesthood in a negative light: the Samaritans were Cutheans and their first high priest was a renegade Jew, who married a foreigner and whose ambition was the reason why the Gerizim temple was built in the first place." (more before and after, 54-56 Pummer 2016.) Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We already have enough material on Josephus's views on Samaritans, and I don't think we need to add this Sanballat - Mannasseh material.Pngeditor (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We have only one line on his views and he is hardly a fringe figure. He is not marked as an unreliable source on Wikipedia so the Sanballat/Manasseh story should either go in his section or else in the "Samaritan Temple" section as one explanation for the origin of the ruins on Mt Gerizom which match pretty accurately how a good replica of Zerubabel's temple should be.Romomusicfan (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not that he is fringe, it is that he is considered unreliable when it comes to the Samaritans ("a prejudiced witness hostile to the Samaritans") so we should not accord his views undue weight. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy does that quote come from? Unless Josephus has been specifically declared a deprecated sorce on a page similar to WP:DAILYMAIL he remains a reliable source on Wikipedia and you can't just make a unilateral declaration otherwise. He was prejudiced about EVERYONE except his Roman masters and earlier generations of Jews who lived before the revolt. There is no grounds for doubting the basic historicity of Sanballat and Manasseh 2, only the slant Josephus puts on the story. Throwing our hands up and saying we have no idea of where the remains on Gerizim that match Zerubabel's temple come from is just plain silly.Romomusicfan (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Here are some actual Wikipedia policies that are perhaps relevant to this discussion

- WP:BIASED - "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." -

[2] - "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. " Romomusicfan (talk) 11:42, 89 September 2022 (UTC)

The main problem with Josephus is not that he is biased (a given for ancient historians), but that he represents a primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, a published edition of Josephus (eg Penguin Classics? ) should be cited or else a third party commentary on his work such as the article linked at the top of this section.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS requires a consensus for inclusion of challenged material and currently there isn't one. Bias may not mean that it should not be included but merely because material is verifiable does not mean that it ought to be included. It is possible that the bias here may extend to unreliability in the given context. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying for one second the soap opera stuff with Nicasso warrants a mention. All that is required in the article is something along the lines of "Josephus attributed the building of the Gerizim Temple to Sanballat, governor of Sameria, as a favour to his son in law Manasseh, formerly a priest in Jerusalem." Just the bare bones how and why a source says the Samaritan temple came into existence.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That might work, we should see if there other views and include those. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a section here Romomusicfan (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The page doesn't have any other reference to the likely date or reason for building the Temple at Mt Gerizim, at present. Shouldn't we prioritise the general consensus view first rather than Josephus's view? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gerizim has this. A Samaritan temple dedicated to Yahweh was built on Mount Gerizim during the 5th century BCE.[23] Excavations at the site were initiated in 1983 and continued until 2006 and yielded tens of thousands of finds. Remnants found there identified that a Samaritan temple existed atop Mount Gerizim by the mid-5th century BC, and that it was eventually destroyed and rebuilt in the early 2nd century BC, only to be destroyed again in 111–110 BCE by Jewish forces under the orders of the Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus.[31] We can use these sources and add Josephus as a side mention.Pngeditor (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree priotize the existing date (while briefly and approcimately mentioning Jospehus's date as a minority view.) The identification of Sanballat as builder of the Gerizim Temple and Manasseh 2 as his beneficiary by Josephus is the only proferred opinion in ciculation on who the major characters were in the buildiing of the Temple. Romomusicfan (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible model section for a Sanballat/Manasseh section on here. Also I would query if the dating of the Samaritan temple from the Persian peroid was down to such techniques as carbon dating or simply down to analysis of the architectual style. If the latter, then it is hardly any surprise if Sanballat's Temple, reportedly a replica of the (Persian-era) Zerubabel's Temple in Jerusalem, itself shows up as being "Persian Era" - only a century or so earlier anyway. Romomusicfan (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan and Jewish relationship to Israelites

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews we have this Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, ISO 259-2: Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation: [jehuˈdim]) or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and nation originating from the Israelites and Hebrews And in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites The Jews and the Samaritans are descendants of the ancient Israelites. Therefore I cannot see why this Samaritans article should have this Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ‎,romanized: Šā̊merīm, transl. Guardians/Keepers [of the Torah]; Hebrew: שומרונים, romanized: Šōmrōnīm; Arabic: السامريون, romanized: as-Sāmiriyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group who claim descendance from the ancient Israelites. In both cases, NPOV and consistency between articles should result in the rewording as follows. Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ‎,romanized: Šā̊merīm, transl. Guardians/Keepers [of the Torah]; Hebrew: שומרונים, romanized: Šōmrōnīm; Arabic: السامريون, romanized: as-Sāmiriyyūn) are an ethnoreligious group who descend from the ancient Israelites. AND Samaritans descend from the northern Israelite tribes who were not deported by the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. Evidence for both Jewish and Samaritan claims to their origins needs to be treated the same.Pngeditor (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In all instances, the language of 'originate' is probably the more appropriate, since 'descent' is a murkier concept and probably needs the 'claim' caveat. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Britannica uses the phrasing: "belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient ... Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I replaced descend with originate, as suggested.Pngeditor (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this edit might be taking things too far. There are some possible euphemisms for claiming descent, but simply treating their views as unchallenged "Samaritans descend from ..." is simply taking up a non-NPOV for the Samaritans, which is not the same as NPOV, esepcially as there are other points of view (Jewish version, secular scolarship etc) 2.24.71.91 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit, and, as noted in the summary, I think 'originate' works well in the first paragraph, but the second paragraph starts with several claims and assumptions, not a single simple one about descent, so I think the original wording of 'Samaritan tradition claims...' is preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Iskandar. Samaritan traditions should be respected, but they shouldn't be treated as unchallenged fact. 2.24.71.91 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan traditions should be treated in exactly the same manner as Jewish traditions.Pngeditor (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done, everyone. The skepticism over Samaritan traditions of origin stems from ancient Jewish, dismissive polemics against a people they competed with. While in the article Jews (untouchable in its POV sacrality) we have for decades the lead stating:

Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, ISO 259-2: Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation: [jehuˈdim]) or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group[10] and nation[11][12] originating from the Israelites[13][14][15] and Hebrews[16][17] of historical Israel and Judah.

which repeats a claim (As any rabbi competent in modern historiography will confirm, Jews have their origin in Judaism, not in an ethnos) as a fact, this cannot be tolerated for Samaritans and we are now adopting language which makes them less authentic than Jews, their historical religious adversaries. This is particularly comical because the best genetic evidence suggest that, to the degree that method can allow valid historical deductions, Samaritans bear lineages that indicate a pre-Assyrian Israelite lineage. Congratulations.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Both articles now use similar 'origination' language in the first paragraph. What are you proposing? A change here, there or in both articles? The main point raised in this thread was about consistency, and it seemed a fair one. While both groups may have originated in a religion, not an ethnos, did not the religions themselves originate in an ethnos - therefore whether or not the ethnos now remains the same ethnos as then, via the conduit of faith, does not the origin remain? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The 'ethnos' was formed by the 'religion'- not in our modern sense of the word 'religion' -and not the other way around. The religion itself required a millennium to find its definitive formulation. Ethnos is widely used of course, but to my ear it is a word which neatly retains, euphemistically, while eliding (the German word is aufheben) the idea of race, is very much a modern notion. Dozens of clan-structured tribes roamed, settled, mixed and fought throughout the earlier period over this porose territory, Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Ivri, Canaanites, Israelites etc.etc. - the Bible is perplexingly full of them - and what they shared was a basic north-western Semitic language, with dialect differences. Language is what counts, not an ethnos in the erratic common acceptation of a genetically uniform people. At one point, several groups coalesced under a Yahweh/El credo, residually polytheistic nonetheless, with a specific lifestyle in part dictated by dietary discriminations and were united under some kind of polity which broke into two regional 'houses', like that of Omri or perhaps 'David'. Exogamy was particularly favoured by the latter, and eventually a specific Judaean identity in Judea formed, mostly defined by a priestly elite with a prepossessing concern to make their own exile, with all that implied, the defining myth of their place, and compulsively, all those who looked to them for guidance, in the world. They started the idea of pure line of descent that still afflicts our thinking, and the Samaritans resident in the former northern Israelitic kingdom formed, in this biblical and rabbinical mythopoetic thinking, the foil against which this new Judaicness was to be defined, hence the material of the 'mongrelization' of their adversaries, the Samaritans, all the more intense because of the profound affinities. As Mason pointed out 15 years ago, 'The Ioudaioi (strictly speaking 'Judaeans' not Jews) of the Graeco-Roman world remained an ἔθνος: a people associated with a place and its customs—no matter how far, or how long, they had been away from Judaea.' (Steve Mason's Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History, Journal for the Study of Judaism 2007 38(4-5):457-512, p.511-512) I.e., the culture and its territorial cult determined their identity, not their 'ethnos' (in the modern sense), which in any case has always been polymorphic, and a very substantial part of the modern Jewish populations did not originate from there except if you are inclined to believe that one ancestor in antiquity with a Middle Eastern background, trumps all others who via marriage in the long line of descent ended up under the Jewish umbrella, and that single hypothesized primal ancestor among hundreds must be the definer of who you really are, if you are a Jew, while the other ancient contributors to one's ancestry, from different ethnoi, don't count - a ubiquitous but infantile argument. If anything, the Samaritans have far stronger claims to 'originate' from Israel/Palestine than anyone else there. They all appear to have practiced strict endogamy for millennia, dying out when they didn't, unlike the Jews, whose success perhaps also lies in their diasporic promiscuity. But this is waffle and this is not a forum. The point is, there is a dyscrasy between the two pages dealing with two peoples associated with Judea/Israel, in a context where Jewish polemics about Samaritan ethnic/racial inauthenticity dominate to challenge their foundation myth, whilst this doesn't hold for the Jewish narrative, which is just as much mythical, when not sheer rhetorical and emotional confusion Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Converts

I noticed a mention of members of Brazil in the article, but seems it should be noted these appear to be very recent converts?[3] FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good find, FunkMonk! I remember you from Benghazi in 2014. And I've seen your bot around occasionally. Yes, you are correct. The origin of the community in Brazil seems to be a result of something that sociologists are calling "religious transnationalism". It has been the subject of study since 2000 or so, but mostly as it pertains to Hinduism, Islam, Christianity,and Buddhism. Here's a little more about it in general, although I don't know if it is useful as a WP:RS. The article you found is a good source.--FeralOink (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Bot and Benghazi? I think you might have confused me for someone else, but yes, there seems to be going something on with Internet based conversions that is rater unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the bot, I was thinking of Monkbot, which is not your bot. It belongs to Trappist the Monk not Funk the Monk. Sorry about that! Regarding Benghazi, I was thinking about your comments and my (overly sincere, 2 years late, cringe) reply on this talk page. As you said later (I wish I had!) Låwl. Some of those IP editors were terribly rude to you. They shouldn't have been so mean-spirited. Take a glance at the table of contents while you're there. Wikipedia was more fun back then.

Back on topic now. I found a lot of WP:RS information in The Good Samaritan: What was his religion and does it still exist? An entire issue of a scholarly journal dated 2020 was devoted to matters pertaining to Samaritans. This was the most useful source for my purposes in editing WP, From Religious to Cultural and Back Again: Tourism Development...among the Samaritans. Minimal critical theory mumbo jumbo! Description of modern-day Samaritans from journal source follows.

"Kyriat Luza, their small village located on Mount Gerizim, attracts more and more tourists each year, particularly on the occasion of the Samaritan Passover, during which about fifty sheep are sacrificed... the ceremony brings together Palestinians, Israelis, and many foreign tourists curious to attend a ritual supposedly representing a centuries-old heritage... Samaritans are perfectly in line with... globalized societies. They export their tehina, amulets and liturgical chants, promote the digitization of liturgical manuscripts, organize conferences on Samaritanism... [At the Samaritan Passover], speeches, both those that the Israeli and Palestinian political representatives present and those of the media, portray the Samaritans as living remains of biblical history... tourism in Kiryat Luzah has been accompanied by the emergence of new practices... internet, guided tours, informative leaflets, spectacularization of rituals... development of a restaurant “The Good Samaritan” and a visitors’ center. [For Passover] plastic chairs are placed for Palestinian and Israeli political and military figures. During the ceremony, a special time is given for official greetings and handshakes between [them] and the Samaritans... Samaritan representatives declare their aspiration to become a “bridge for peace”. They have perfectly incorporated the imagery and expectations of tourists seeking an “authentic” experience."

About those Brazilian Samaritans. I have some doubts about the sourcing. A lot of it comes from the same website that uses redirects so that it seems like different landing page URLs. That's how I found this, Brazil and Sicily have New Israelite Samaritan Communities. From the journal article, see Section 4, we have some well-sourced facts. There are a lot of people eager to “convert”. They like the “authenticity” and “purity”. Emphasis mine below.

"....groups of people who express the desire to become Samaritans have emerged abroad, especially in Brazil. This phenomenon is particularly unusual since it involves the development of transnational communities without migration. The Samaritans refuse to use the term “conversion” because the formal process that characterizes conversion does not exist in Samaritanism. The “entrances into Samaritanism” in Brazil, which began in 2015, now number approximately 300 people."

That source is dated 2020, of 300 people, so 20,000 seems unlikely. The name for these new believers is Neo-Samaritans.

“Neo-Samaritans” from Brazil and elsewhere are perceived as more valuable if they remain outside the borders of Israeli-Palestinian territory. Their existence then contributes to legitimizing the Samaritans’ self-designation as keepers (shômrîm) of the authentic tradition. Moreover, their active participation on social networks integrates the process already initiated by cultural entrepreneurs... one of the steps in changing the identification of Brazilian Samaritans is to photograph oneself beside a laminated amulet containing a biblical verse in Samaritan Hebrew. The photograph is then published on social networks such as Facebook."

You get the idea. This isn't new, btw. Apparently, Europeans tourists have been casually looking for authentic religious experiences in the Holy Land since the mid-19th century. That journal article describes the history; also, interest has dropped off in the past 15 - 20 years. There are lots of Norwegian and American Lutheran scholars who are VERY interested in the idea that Samaritans are the REAL Jews. One of them is cited in the WP article. Okay, I've said enough.--FeralOink (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I corrected the number of neo-Samaritans in the article, so that it agrees with the source.--FeralOink (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

All of my edits were removed for "copyright" without further explanation.

Administrator @Diannaa fully removed all of my edits for "copyright" violations, on the same day that another user, @Regioncalifornia removed my edits as "propaganda", copy-pasted below:

05:55, 13 October 2024 Regioncalifornia talk contribs m 135,250 bytes −5,428‎ removing unsourced propaganda thank Tag: Manual revert

I just want to politely ask for a more thorough explanation for the removal of my substantial edits, in order to improve in the future. Gamalny (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:Copyright Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I already have, and reflected on which of my edits may not have upheld the copyright standard. You can see my reflections on my talk page. Gamalny (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I just spoke and clarified the issue on copyright with @Diannaa. Also, @Regioncalifornia, I would love it if we can discuss the issues that appeared to you in my edits that seemed like "propaganda", so we can come to a mutual understanding. Gamalny (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi good evening! I didn't report the copyright issue, it seems like it was automatically detected and removed from the article's history, so, I can't discuss the deleted content because I can't read it. From what I can remember, it seemed like an attempt to erase the persecution and oppression Samaritans experienced during the Ottoman rule, which is described by themselves as the worst in their history. An example of the non-removed history: "the ulama of Nablus (who resented the privileges that the Samaritans received under Egyptian rule while the Palestinian peasant population was disadvantaged through conscription and other means)" that sentence sounds like a justification, specially when you removed the link to Capital punishment in Islam. But most important, you didn't reference correctly. You must point out where exactly the information you add is written (which pages, for example) and quote the authors. If the information is referenced correctly, so everybody can read and check it, then I don't think there would a reason to revert it. Regioncalifornia (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback. I'm stepping away from editing this article right now, but once (or if) I come back to it, I will keep your points in mind and consult with you. Gamalny (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)