Talk:Solomon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Solomon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sex scandals

BobKilcoyne is correct. These are not sex scandals; they are idolatry scandals. --WLBelcher (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Solomon's numerous marriages and disobediances of Yahweh's rules certainly count as sex scandals.--2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not correct: As per the text: the biblical narrative notes with disapproval that Solomon permitted his foreign wives to import their national deities, not that his multiple marriages themselves were at issue or scandalous in relation to sexual actions. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

His father David was also polygamous, without notable disapproval in the Biblical text. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry folks, this is OR. We should be looking at how those episodes are characterized in RSs rather than attempting to classify them ourselves. "Sex scandal" is a term with specific usage, mostly limited to the modern era. Not every scandal involving sex is called a "sex scandal" in books on history or religion (I would guess that most aren't). Eperoton (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solomon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621060530/http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/temple-mount-excavation.htm to http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/temple-mount-excavation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Christian bias?

Most Jewish and Muslim communities regard Solomon as a magician and exorcist, most Christians outside of Protestants as well, Catholic and Orthodox priests speak of it. Not "fringe circles of magicians" that came later as the article states, all of the information is stated plainly in the Tanakh, apocrypha, Talmud, Mishnas. In Judaism we are taught that all of that magic is the actual basis of the religion. Religions had an outer order and an inner order and its explored thoroughly in comparative religion and religious anthropology. The inner orders had ceremonial magic traditions often akin to the apocryphal texts of Solomon. This is true in Greco-roman mysteries, Sufism, Shia Islam, Druze, Zoroastrianism, Yazidi, Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and ancient folk traditions of Egyptians, Chaldeans, Mesopatamians, Phoenicians, Persians, Indians, the Levant. Recently anthropologists have argued the same was true of the Chavin religion in Peru. It has been argued the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca's name meant "smoking mirror" and he was associated with folk traditions where a black mirror is placed in a "Triangle of Solomon" to conjure a spirit with similarities to the Jewish apocrypha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.177.119 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll bite whose folk traditions associate an Aztec god with Solomon? Doug Weller talk 22:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019

This edit request to Solomon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It says he died at around 60 years of age. He really died at age 52. EigeinValue (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to find quite a few reliable sources stating this as a fact, and I don't think you can. By reliable I mean mainstream academic. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

King of Israel

Silveter David was anointed king at Hebron, but he did not reign over Israel until Ishbaal's death per Schmidt's source. Before, David ruled over Judah at Hebron was seven years per Campbell who also states David became king of Israel once he captured Jerusalem according to Chronicles. He too reiterates the same as Schmidt's view that David was King of Israel after Ishbaal died. David became the third King of Israel then Solomon the fourth. I also removed the content because it was already mentioned in the lead starting with the second paragraph "The Hebrew Bible credits him...etc.". JudeccaXIII (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Schmidt, Werner H. (1983). The Faith of the Old Testament: A History. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 133. ISBN 9780664244569.
Campbell, Antony F. (2005). 2 Samuel, Volume 8 of Forms of the Old Testament literature. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 15, 30, & 45. ISBN 9780802828132.

Silveter I'm withdrawing from the discussion. There won't be any reverts from me. JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please remove or rephrase this sentence in opening that is nonsensical or too open-ended to understand

"In the New Testament, he is portrayed as a teacher of wisdom excelled by Jesus,[8] and as arrayed in glory, but excelled by "the lilies of the field".[9]" (excelled by??? lilies of the field??? the reference tags don't provide context or meaning.) --184.20.10.253 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Doh, as they say, you have to read the Bible and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy because people reference them all the time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No way Solomon was 40 when he took the Throne.

David only reigned 40 years total and only 37 from Jerusalem. Solomon was the youngest of Bathsheba's sons who David married when he'd been in Jerusalem for awhile already. I think Solomon may well have been only 15 or 16 when he took the Throne.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It was not sourced and I am taking the liberty of changing it to 990. This source has 991. St Anselm (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the fact he could not have been 40 but note Solomon was not Bathesheba's youngest but second-born by David, with who she had 3 further sons.Cloptonson (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we even have primary sources on how old Solomon was during his usurpation of the throne? The relevant passage from the Books of Kings, Chapter 1 is rather vague. To summarize

1) David is old, he feels very cold, and might be dying. His servants bring a woman called Abishag to warm David's bed.
2) Adonijah is the eldest surviving son of David and the legitimate heir. He makes preparations to rise to the throne.
3) Bathsheba, wife of David, receives warnings by dissidents who do not want to see Adonijah on the throne.
4) Bathsheba tries to convince David that he has already promised her that Solomon should be his heir.
5) The still living David makes preparations to officially declare Solomon as the new king.
6) Solomon is declared king, Adonijah's supporters flee, and Adonijah seeks refuge to survive Solomon's expected retaliation.

In Chapter 2, David finally dies, following a reign of "forty years; seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem." Solomon immediately executes Adonijah, then proceeds with a purge of Adonijah's supporters. The most prominent of them being Joab, David's main general.

The relative ages of Adonijah (older brother) and Solomon (younger brother) are not described in the text. They may not even be adults. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Adonijah was born while David Reigned in Hebron, so he must have been over 37.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

He might’ve been forty, though in the USA the youngest a president which I consider equal to a king from the Bible is 35. Zeeshan7tfInd (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is there listed exacted dates as if it is known?

The table of years of reign etc should be removed since it falsely give the impression that we know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.34.244.166 (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The dates are sourced, so to remove them, you'd need to contest the source. Second, the dates are noted as "circa", which indicates there is some uncertainty. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

When taking dates from fiction, they are literally gospel. It should be noted these do not represent times in the past but in the story.2601:182:4381:E60:B000:7837:1B64:1474 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a warning not to confuse with Salomon?

Salomon is just an alternative spelling in some languages. The Salomon page just links to bunch of people named with that spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorens (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Historicity

For David we have a much later inscription with "bytdwd" (House of David). For Solomon we don't have any consensually uncontested archaeological evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It should probably just be made clear that this is about the fictional King Solomon and not linked to any historical person. The lack of evidence for a King Solomon existing in the past means there is not much to say about such a person. The details here are taken from literature and should be regarded as such.2601:182:4381:E60:B000:7837:1B64:1474 (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There no consensus anyway: neither that he was real, neither that he was fictional. Of course, larger than life stories about his empire are fictional.

The Ancients defined knowledge as true belief based upon evidence. It might be true that Solomon has existed, but there is no evidence about it.

Or, to put it otherwise: I believe that Solomon has existed, but there is no evidence about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Shorten per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Leadimage

King-Solomon-Russian-icon 18th century

There is a disagreement on which WP:LEADIMAGE the article should have. Pedro Berruguete's has been with us for a while, but two editors have recently been changing it to one by Gustave Doré. Both are of course artistic musings based on the artist's whatevers (preferences, employers etc). More versions at Category:Solomon (Biblical figure).

These 2 are both ok. I guess both can be considered Christian works. My personal preference is Berruguete, it's much older, which I like for this kind of topic, and the colours are nice. To me, Doré's looks like a generic old man with a big beard.

Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Posting a few more alternatives. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I prefer Dore, looks more realistic and without so much religious paraphernalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:503:124A:0:0:4D0:B16 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What religious paraphernalia does the Berruguete have? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, come on. In Berruguete he looks like a Saint, a Pope, or a Medieval King. The artist wasnt even trying to make it seem plausible, which is the way most artists from the rennaisance period depicted biblical figures, in anachronistic fashion. Look at the infoboxes of Saul, David and other important characters from the Hebrew Bible. They are represented with realistic depictions, not medieval/early modern ones. Leave Dore alone. By the way, there's a colorized version of the painting, but I'm not sure whether it's more appropriate for this article or not... Your call I guess: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colorized_King_Solomon_in_Old_Age.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:503:124A:0:0:4D0:B16 (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The current paintings used as leadimage at Saul and David (both have changed since last I looked at them) seems about equal to the Berruguete in "fantasy-ness". I do not like the colored Doré. seems to be a recent work by a netizen and IMO it looks awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, both the current Saul and David shows them doing something they're known for doing, Saul dealing with a headache and David psalminating. Something in the Category:Judgement of Solomon direction could be a good choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so let's leave the current Dore for the infobox. Do you have a specific objection to that depiction? It seems nice, like most of Dore's works (I also like Tissot) and at least it tries to look realistic when portraying ancient biblical characters. Of course, we will never know for sure, but without a doubt I can tell you they didnt wear those stupid gloves and clothes, which belong to the early modern period (so does the huge crown). Maybe you can add Berruguete somewhere else in article or in another Solomon-related article. I'm sure there's enough space in Wikipedia for both images. But Dore must stay in the infobox. I have a strong opinion on this.

Consensus will be what it will be. No, Doré must not stay in the infobox, but maybe he will. I like Tissot too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the original image. Jerm (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not the original. It was added in September without discussion or consensus, replacing the long-standing image on the "judgment of Solomon": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1044971821

Also you haven't addressed the arguments and objections to your image presented above. Please don't do that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:501:9033:0:0:659:991F (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You never received consensus to change the inbox image, and if you keep switching from IP to IP instead of sticking with your registered account Dalaufer, you can be blocked from editing per WP:SOCK. And your arguments have no bearing as no one knows what Solomon actually looked liked, plus Dore's image is of low quality. Jerm (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Grabbergs, I think we might need to start an RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:500:6F79:0:0:65D:53A4 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you (never actually started one myself), but I'd like to give the discussion a week or three first, there's no hurry, and there are holidays going on. I've WP:APPNOTEd at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#Talk:Solomon#Leadimage and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#Talk:Solomon#Leadimage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I have full-protected the page for three days to stop the edit warring - and to prevent the need to block any of you for edit warring, but be warned, that could happen if the warring resumes after the protection expires. Keep discussing here, or start an RfC and see if you can reach consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Why no mention of the OTHER Solomon, Son of David?

The other Solomon Son Of David was the son of Bathsua, daughter of Ammiel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:370C:1480:ACBA:34A8:DE5F:43CC (talk • contribs)

Any WP:SOURCES thereupon? I mean: who cares that David had two sons called Solomon? This article is about the purported king Solomon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The disambugiation page does not mention David had another son named Solomon.

And as there is a "not to be confused with" link, so THIS is definitely a character you wouldn't want to confuse king Solomon.

The page about king David neither mentiones this OTHER Solomon, son of king David.

The list of biblical characters doesn't mention it either, despite every nitty-bitty-useless character without a single interrest can be found on wikipedia.

So yes, definitely needs to be mentioned.

And how about OPEN THE DARN BIBLE, and reference THAT, huh? I think THAT is bloody reliable when it comes to THE BIBLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:370C:1480:B925:4AE8:E6:8A3B (talk • contribs)

The Bible is not a reliable source, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bible is not reliable about anything. It is a mythology book. Do you have secondary references? Dimadick (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. I'm sure you know, as an eyewitness. 82.40.222.249 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course he isn't an eyewitness to writing the Bible. He is nevertheless a reader. And readers notice there are problems with the text of the Bible. According to a Bible professor:

When there's lots of solutions, that means there's a problem to be solved. ... Rabbis were like all over all of this and they pointed to all of these things and they came up with explanations for them. But again the fact they needed to explain something indicates that there was a problem. ... You can see later biblical authors and texts reading the Pentateuch and trying to figure out what they're supposed to do with contradictions in it.
— Joel Baden

Source: Did Moses Write the Torah? Interview with Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Cedar balks

According to https://biblereadingarcheology.com/2016/06/28/the-vanished-cedar-forests-of-lebanon/ , there were cedar balks dated to the 9th century BCE, but these are not evidence of the existence of a huge temple built by Solomon. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

...excelled by Jesus of Nazareth, and as arrayed in glory but excelled by "the lilies of the field"?

I have very little Biblical knowledge, but the wording of this sentence is just awful. Must we use "excelled" to mean "surpassed" twice in one sentence? Could this not be accomplished by saying that Solomon's wisdom was so great that it was not surpassed until Jesus of Nazareth? And is the reference to the lilies of the field strictly necessary? What is Wikipedia's policy on quoting scripture in such a way as to remove all poetic nuance from the original text? This edit has stood for nearly six years and, as far as I can tell, has never been the subject of the talk page despite it being either irrelevant or poorly worded. 19acomst (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Salomon"???

Salomon is how Solomon is spelled in the LXX, it is certainly not a completely independent name with no connection. KuudereKun 11:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Solomon and the two mothers made by Oladejo Emmanuel with the knowledge of charis international college

Solomon was the king of isreal

102.88.35.8 (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of his Arabic name or significance in Islam

In the introduction of the article, it says how Solomon's name is said and pronounced in different languages, but they do not include Arabic. Additionally, it says that he is the son and successor of David according to the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, but it doesn't mention that that fact is also true according to the Quran. NINJAHSTERco (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A verse of Quran is cited to support that Solomon reigned over the Kingdom of Israel, but the verse does not have any mentions of it.

The verse is later mentioned in the article: And they followed what the devils taught during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but it was the devils who disbelieved. They taught the people witchcraft and what was revealed in Babil (Arabic: بَـابِـل, Babylon) to the two angels Harut and Marut. They did not teach anybody until they had said "We are a test, so do not lose faith." But they learned from them the means to cause separation between man and his wife. But they cannot harm anyone except with God's permission. And they learned what would harm them and not benefit them. Yet they knew that whoever deals in it will have no share in the Hereafter. Miserable is what they sold their souls for, if they only knew.

Where above does the verse say that Solomon reigned over the Kingdom of Israel? NINJAHSTERco (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't. There should be secondary sourcing for this really, but, as it stands, that material also failed verification against the primary source anyway, so it's been removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

BC vs BCE

First off, the world still uses BC generally, second off if your dealing with something religious can we just use BC? Use CE on science articles if you really care enough, but the whole world still loves BC and AD 2A00:23EE:16B8:7482:4543:2CFA:2942:9009 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"second off if your dealing with something religious can we just use BC?" Why, to intentionally offend Jews? Jesus is not their Messiah, nor their Lord. Dimadick (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The historical Solomon and the Song of Songs

The Song of Songs was composed centuries after the death of Solomon. It is not a source of historical information about the historical Solomon.

Same as the Book of Revelation does not have historical information about the skin color of Jesus.

Therefore, the Song of Songs had no way to know the skin color of Solomon. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Same as the Book of Revelation does not have historical information about the skin color of Jesus." But the Book of Revelation was not composed centuries following the death of Jesus. Most estimates place its composition date in the 90s CE, about 60 years following Jesus' supposed death in the 30s CE. While probably not composed by anyone who personally met Jesus, the book could reflect the oral tradition of the 1st century. 13:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Article presents Solomon as real from the outset

Would it make more sense for Solomon to be described as a ‘mythical king’ at the very start of the article so as not to confuse people into thinking he was 100% historically confirmed as existing? Cf. King Arthur, Romulus & Remus et al. 81.151.113.76 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus of archaeologists is that Solomon existed. But direct evidence is lacking. So, he probably existed, but he wasn't a great king, he was in control of a little town and its surrounding pastures. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Follow clear guidelines

We should be on the clear on this issue by now, and significant article such as this should be edited by following WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:PORTRAIT. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PORTRAIT is an essay and goes against a long-standing consensus to include an infobox image here. St Anselm (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There can be no longstanding or any other kind of consensuses on breaking one of more important MOS guidelines. There is only one longstanding consensus on issue of "fantasy" depiction of historical bio's in Infobox and LEDE and that's consensus is reflected in WP:LEADIMAGE MOS and explained in WP:PORTRAITE essay, which is a good and informative essay, by the way, otherwise who is to decide which fantasy depiction is better, which painter's imagination is more vivid and true - there is a reason we have agreed on this MOS guideline on Infobox and lead images. At this point I am going to ask you to revert yourself, which would be really nice move and a sign of ethical editing; I encountered editors who are referring to these articles as a sort of "precedent" to include all sorts of fantasy depictions into Infobox, but they are usually reverted and repealed because there is no "precedent" in our project and we have a longstanding consensus not to use such images per guideline. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a long-standing consensus to include such images. What is it in MOS:LEADIMAGE that you think goes against it? St Anselm (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, please, tell me where is that consensus reached, I want to read a discussion, then we can waste time on discussing obvious. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You can start with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ: "When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions." St Anselm (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There have also been countless discussions concerning the Jesus infobox image, since it is an FA. St Anselm (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

See especially Talk:Jesus/Archive_126#New_image. St Anselm (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You reject an essay on WP:Portraits and then offer Talk:Muhammad/FAQ in return - but the Muhammad FAQ is irrelevant as we can see from: Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad? A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.

and so is reference to Jesus - unlike Solomon, David and Jonathan, Jesus is usually depicted in universally recognizable way, in many cases in depictions so old that we have no info on artist, while artist who never saw and heard of each other's works and who worked in different geo locations and eras would be able to depict Jesus in almost identical fashion, which means that all of them had adopted universally accepted image of the man - something we can't say for any of the persons from our dispute ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, be that as it may, virtually all biblical characters have an image in their infobox - including a number of GAs. St Anselm (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But that simply is wrong, because then the case could be made for any historical person whose contemporary or at least universally adopted image depiction does not exist on the basis of this persisting breach of MOS:PERTINENCE and MOS:LEADIMAGE as explained by WP:PORTRAIT essay. It makes no sense to use these guidelines as we pleas. Maybe this needs to go through some broader discussion with RfC or on dispute resolution board then. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - it would potentially affect hundreds of articles. St Anselm (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Better to affect hundreds than to encourage editors to use this case as a strong pretext to start disregarding guidelines and start including "fantasy" portraits all over the wikipedia on thousands of articles about historical figures who don't have their contemporary portraits. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For this particular article, see Talk:Solomon/Archive 2#Leadimage. St Anselm (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That was mostly one editor talk on the choice of the lead image and dispute over the particular prefs, which ended in page protection, while nothing of relevance was said on the MOS itself. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But the consensus was to keep Doré. St Anselm (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it was consensus reached between editors who were really blind to MOS - that's wrong. It is improbable situation but one can imagine couple of Holocaust deniers agree to include Holocaust denier pseudo-scholarship into the article on Holocaust denial. That's not consensus. This is RfC stuff, I will prepare something if not immediately then in the next day or two and I will include you into discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that such image removal is also being done at Saul. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

May I ask if you are following me and trying to canvas support there from participants of this discussion? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Santa, if you are doing this in multiple articles it is fair enough that people follow you. St Anselm (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We always do multiple articles - but even if editor follow another like this that still doesn't make it right to leave this kind of casual comment that to me seem like canvasing for support elsewhere. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding his existence not being proven

I think it is funny how it is mentioned that there is no proof that he existed outside of the scriptures. As if the scriptures are not proof itself. If any other person had written books or built the greatest most beautiful temple in that time, and had not been in the Bible, that would be proof to all he existed. But because he was the wisest king who reverently and worshipfully feared the Lord, there is no proof he existed. It is so sad. 71.29.77.158 (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

First, the majority view of archaeologists is that Solomon did exist. Second, that view in itself does not amount to evidence that he existed, it is just an educated guess. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourced Jerusalem page

Used the etymology section of the Jerusalem page since Solomon and Jerusalem share and etymological root. Please do not change unless unless there is consensus at the Jerusalem page also. IncandescentBliss (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @IncandescentBliss. When you copy material from one page to another please use the {{copied}} template to note this clearly on the talk page. It is not necessary though to find consensus on that article, if anyone wants to make changes to this article. The two pages are free to fork apart as appropriate for their respective subject matter. — HTGS (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Minority presented as majority?

The article cites works of Finkelstein and Lester L. Grabbe to claim that the consensus among scholars is that: regardless of whether or not a man named Solomon truly reigned as king over the Judean hills in the tenth century BCE, the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is almost surely an anachronistic exaggeration. However, this review of Grabbe's book seems to contradict that claim:

Grabbe outlines Finkelstein’s low chronology which dates the finds and events of Iron I and IIA a hundred years later than most archaeologists. This chronology has had a major impact on the historical study of the period. One implication of this is that buildings which had been associated with the united monarchy are dated later. With this issue and many others there is no unanimity of opinion.

P. J. Harland states that there is no unanimity of opinion in many topics related to the historicity of the United Monarchy, but he also states that Finkelstein’s low chronology (also followed by Grabbe) is not accepted by most archaeologists. Isn't the lead of the article giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion as if it represented a (supposed) scholarly consensus? I will wait for other editors' responses. Potatín5 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re more than welcome to add the Garfinkel and Dever sources and quotes back into the article. I think it’s appropriate for those two articles to be at the top. I’m not sure why the reverter removed those refs. (I think you can do that now since those were already there and only one reverter didn’t like them there.)

I agree there is not consensus on the extent of the United Monarchy and those are important voices to have. I think the wording is more or less accurate though. That was already the summary of the Historicity section, I just moved it up.

The wording of “anachronistic exaggeration” I think still works though. That point is about the details of the *extent* of the kingdom as portrayed in the Bible, which both Garfinkel and Dever is not accurate. I’m open to finding more neutral language for this if people deem that necessary.

I’d add that we need to make sure that the body of the article aligns with any changes which achieve consensus. IncandescentBliss (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

One easy solution would be to just add these two sentences from to the sentence already in the lede from the Historicity section of the body, which already have presumed consensus:

”As for Solomon himself, scholars on both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology generally agree that he probably existed. However, a historically accurate picture of the Davidic king is difficult to construct.” IncandescentBliss (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The language seems appropriate and representative for an encyclopedia. IncandescentBliss (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that these two sentences are a better summary for the lead. Potatín5 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. Would you like to add it and add appropriate sourcing? I think the group of sources (I think there were 7) from before the recent revert seem like a good, wide range of perspectives from archaeologists and biblical scholars. Maybe we can have them as a note instead of 7 consecutive citations? IncandescentBliss (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we can combine the presumed consensus sentences:

“While the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is considered to be exaggerated, a historically accurate picture of the historical Solomon is difficult to construct.”

Dever and Garfinkel are very intentional about noting they don’t think the *full* biblical description is accurate. IncandescentBliss (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose the following synthesis:

"Scholars on both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology generally agree that a historical Solomon probably existed. While the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is considered to be exaggerated, a historically accurate picture of Solomon's life and the territorial extent of his kingdom is currently debated."

Then we can add sources from both sides. Potatín5 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds great! Good synthesis. Thank you. Appreciate your collaborative efforts. IncandescentBliss (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

However you choose to phrase it, the problem with Solomon's historicity is his absence from any written texts found so far from the Iron Age Levant. Archaeologists argue whether some of the uncovered buildings of the region can be attributed to Solomon or the Omrides, but we can not be certain without relevant inscriptions. Dimadick (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. More about the inscriptional evidence should be included in the article. IncandescentBliss (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Shalim. Let’s work toward consensus

Regarding the “his” in the name see “Shalem” entry in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Arguing in favor of the “shalom” reading, the author says,

”the name Selomoh indicates 'His (David's?) Peace', or, more probably, 'His (the deceased's) Healthiness' (STAmM 1980:45-57).”

The “his” is clear in the Hebrew. What’s contested is what follows. I’m happy to just have it as a both sides debate in the article. I haven’t had a chance to look at the more recent literature yet. The above DDD should be included in the article too. Lots of good info on Shalim.

I think this article should have maybe 4 sentences on etymology.

@Sinclarian @Potatín5 tr IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

STAMM* IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Though I will say a “both sides” conversation should take into account that the consensus reading of the etymology of Jerusalem is in relation to Shalim at the Jerusalem page. Seems like they should align. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Potentially helpful sources regarding Shalim from Jerusalem and Shalim pages:

N. Na'aman, Canaanite Jerusalem and its central hill country neighbours in the second millennium B.C.E., Ugarit-Forschungen Vol. 24 (1992), pp275-291.

L. Grabbe, Ethnic groups in Jerusalem, in Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (Clark International, 2003) pp145-163.

John Day, Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan, Sheffield Academic Press 2002, p180

G. Johannes Bottereck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, (eds.) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, tr. David E. Green, vol. XV, pp. 48–49 William B. Eeerdmanns Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge UK 2006, pp. 45–46

Ringgren, H., Die Religionen des Alten Orients(Göttingen, 1979), 212. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Romer, The Invention of God, chapter 7 also IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the article on the god Shalim, his name indicates the " "completion" of the day, "sunset" and "peace" ". Shalom is a Hebrew term for "peace". Dimadick (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)