Talk:Al-Samakiyya

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Al-Samakiyya village = Tel Hum = Capernaum? Really?

"Al-Samakiyya was a Palestinian Arab village .... located at Tel Hum, which has been identified with Capernaum."

Really? The ruins of pre-749 Kfar Nahum were bought (from whom? Essential!) by the Franciscans, those of the post-749 town by the Greek Orthodox, for all I know with no dwellings of any kind on the respective plots of land. The only map attached to the article shows Samakiyya village well north (NE) of both. On the map "Telhum" is located away from the ancient site, which might be inaccurate.

Altogether, a very shaky case of equating the three locations as one. Arminden (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Tel Hum on a modern map. Abright asserted Tel Hum = Capernaum. Es Samakiya and Kefar Nahum are adjacent, within 200m. Zero^talk 11:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: hi. Not really. The 1870s map has Samakiyeh as name of a (tribal?) area and Tell Hum as a site at its southern end. The 1940s map has Samakiya once in large letters as a tribal area (or was it 'Arab es-Samakiya? Cropped!) and EsSamakiya in small letters as - what? No map legend! - with "Talhum" metres away, southeast of it; SW to NE: Franciscan plot with monastery & main archaeological site -- Greek convent -- EsSamakiya & Talhum. So we're left with several issues:

Is the small-letters EsSamakiya the main Bedouin site? If not, where is that main site?
Was it a village? The fact that the Franciscan and Greek monks, who lived each separately and outside any village, are counted in in 1940, proves that the census deals with a territory, not a village.
IF there is proof for the small-letters EsSamakiya being the main Bedouin site: both Jesus'-time town ("polis") of Capernaum (Franciscan compound), and even the closer Greek compound (8th-11th c. village, "madina"), lay OUTSIDE this EsSamakiya place.

There was a Bedouin as-Samakiyeh tribe in the area, on whose tribal grazing territory we now have two convents with their archaeological sites, plus modern Amnun and Korazim far up on the hill. On that territory the Bedouin had some magazines in the 1870s (actually not sure: Ghuwayr Abu Shusha is some 7 km SW of Tell Hum, probably not anymore on Samakiyeh lands), and then built some 2 dozen houses by 1948 - in one place or spread out, this we don't know from the article.

The editors who wrote the article should please go back an work out the basics:

Was there a built-up area of the as-Samakiyeh tribe by the time of their expulsion by Operation Broom?
If so, where? Up the hill, on the slope, on the lake shore? What was the location vs the Orthodox compound?
Description of what was there & of lifestyle in 1948: nomadic, seminomadic, fully settled? School, public building?
If Korazim is built on Samakiyeh land, we have an apparent contradiction with Khirbat Karraza there, described as "populated by the Zanghariyya Bedouin tribe." How does that work out?
Where did the Samakiyeh people end up after 48?
Was fishing one of their activities? Goes to whether picture of fishing boats is appropriate. The coves along the shore have always been used by fishing boats from Tiberias, not clear if there's any connection with the Bedouin tribe.

Nomadic tribes and their tribal grazing grounds absolutely deserve representation on Wiki, but in an appropriate manner distinct from felaheen in their villages.

As it is now, this is a thoroughly POV stitch-up. You cannot define a village from disparate map croppings with their legends cut out, with names meaning various things interpreted in one single POV-driven way, with disparate sources not matching each other glued together as if they created a consensual narrative and continuum. This is "original research" at best, and a made-up counterfactual item at worst. Doesn't maybe B. Morris deal with Samakiyeh? At least Khalidi, doesn't at least he connect some dots?

I'm not the type to ask for article deletions, but this is a clear case of "not yet ready for publication on Wiki." Arminden (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samakiya was both the name of a bedouin tribe and the name of a village. In the 1948 Gazetteer of Palestine, there are two listings: "Arab as Samakiya, ta." and "Samakiya (Talhum), v.", where ta=tribal area and v=village. This is as authoritative as it gets. The ruins of the village houses are marked on multiple maps up to the 1960s. The population figures in the 1945 village statistics are for village lands, not just for built-up areas. The site identified as Capernaum is a few hundred meters south-west. Zero^talk 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zero0000. That's good for me to know, but it's nowhere to be seen in the article.

A few hundred metres away from a hamlet of maximum 330 people (and this you write was the entire tribe, not just the village dwellers) means: it's not part of it. So the Capernaum article has no reason to have "The village subsequently became known as al-Samakiyya; it was depopulated" etc. in it, not in the lead, not anywhere. Tribal lands are something else, don't know how that worked legally, but both the Franciscans and the Greek Patriarchy have bought the lands they own and aren't being challenged on that. I don't know if even the Greek church and "monastery" can be seen as "within the village". It only has one monk-priest, one building next to the church, access to the lake and a piece of land around it excavated by Tzaferis on its SW side, all fenced in, partially with a stone wall. Monasteries don't mingle. But the site known as Capernaum, the Franciscan-owned one, most certainly wasn't within the village. They bought it before the Greeks, with no buildings on it, just empty land with columns poking through. I'll remove that sentence. That point is clarified. The wider Samakiyeh story (if Amnun & Korazim on their land but Kh. Karazza not, then their border with the Zangariyeh must have been very twisted indeed) is still unclear, as is the wide issue of Bedouin tribal lands in general. The Hula population is a good study case, they were a combination of downtrodden people who came together in a malaria-infested area not wanted by anyone else, and it would be interesting to see when and how under the Ottomans presence & use turned into legal deeds. The whole Bedouin tribal lands comeplx should have a well-researched article all by itself. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]