Talk:Samaritan script

I would like to use this script. How can I get it from UniCode?
GNU UniFont 5.1 (2008 Sept 7) does not appear to contain any code for the Samaritan x800-x83f page section. Is there a comprehensive UniCode font available that includes Samaritan? A good place to include this information, I think, would be in the UniCode section of this article. The UniCode section does not display anything nice without a Samaritan UniCode font installed and enabled in the browser. There are announcements that UniCode 5.2 standard has been released and that the 5.2 UniCode standard includes the Samaritan font section. I have yet to find any 5.2 UniCode comprehensive font. Howard McCay (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

From http://sourceforge.net/projects/culmus/files/ I downloaded AncientSemiticFonts-0.06-1-Win.zip (be sure to get the download most appropriate to your operating system), expanded the archive, installed Samarit.ttf, and set my browser to use as default font Hebrew Samaritan (in FireFox: Tools[menu]>Options[submenu]>Content[tab]>Fonts and Colors[section]>Default Font=Hebrew Samaritan[selection]). Then my browser correctly displays the first twenty-two (out of thirty-one) UniCode codes as the twenty-two Samaritan letters. I am not happy with this workaround as I imagine I will have to reset the default font every time I change to another alphabet not in the global UniCode font. Howard McCay (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Samaritan text still existent today
I've read the oldest Samaritan texts (i.e. in the Samaritan script) said to still be existent today (manuscripts, etc) are among the Samaritan community a claimed 11th century CE text and that scholars have and study from the 16th century CE.Historylover4 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
It is not given; it seems to be assumed that it is the same as that of the hebrew letters. --Manfariel (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the interleaving of historical vs. religious perspectives in the second paragraph consistent with best editorial practices?
I was surprised to see historical/anthropological views on the script's origin juxtoposed with religious interpretations in the second paragraph. Both views should be included, but I don't think it's normal to write things as [academic fact] followed immediately by [although some religions don't agree]. Normally I'd separate these into a dedicated paragraphs for the academic consensus, and for the religious consensus, and clearly compartmentalize and contextualize these two (very different and irreconcilable) notions of truth.