Talk:Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)

Awkward phrase

Does anyone know precisely what this means and if it is NPOV or not? --Dante Alighieri 01:24 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

line 80

Our system does not need the introduction of many arbitrary co-regencies and overlappings between rulers.

Makes no sense to me. What system are we talking about, and what's wrong with including co-regencies and overlapping rulers if they're true? -- Zoe

I modified the article in the sense I felt was intended. Feel free to modify or even revert my changes. It found it easier to modify there than to answer here. FvdP 01:39 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Chronology

I am kind of confused by this chronology. As you admit, it is not the standard chronology. I think that the commonly accepted chronology should be given equal space (actually, I think it should be given priority, but I am willing to go for equal space), with comments given as to why certain of these dates are disputed.

That said, certain assumptions of this chronology do not stand the test of contemporary scholarship. We have independent corroboration of certain kings, and we can assume that some of the dynastic histories are accurate from a certain point. Unfortunately, we have no corroborative evidence that Solomon actually existed or ruled an empire. All that we know about him appears in the biblical texts. Given that, the division of the kingdom between Rehoboam and Jeroboam is a questionable historical event as well. In fact, most contemporary scholars will argue that there were always two kingdoms with certain common cultural traits, which merged with the collapse of Israel (the North) in 721/722 (by merged I mean that an influx of refugees caused the two societies to consolidate, and it was therefore necessary to recreate a common mythological history for them out of disparate but similar traditions).

In other words, the earlier the dating, the more questionable it becomes. Danny

Whoa there, Danny. :) I think you might be the only one who has any clue as to the actual content of this article. As I understand it, FvdP, Zoe and I were just talking about the formatting and language involved. You don't have to convince us if you'd like to change the text, go for it! --Dante Alighieri 01:56 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. FvdP 02:03 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

LOL! Actually, this is pretty much my field. I just seem some pretty strange dates, which someone is arguing are more accurate, but I am not really clear on why. Danny

Well dig in! The Wikipedia loves experts! Feel free to alter the text to make it more NPOV or to change information which you know to be false (providing documentation is nice) or to merely offer more paragraphs explaining just why it is that some of the OTHER paragraphs are problematic. Best of luck! --Dante Alighieri 02:08 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

As I said a long time ago, the Easton stuff is so hopelessly outdated that it really doesn't contribute much to a field (biblical studies) that is undergoing some major revolutions thanks to recent archeological, philological, sociological and geographic/geological discoveries, among other things. Nor do I want to get into POV arguments with people who pick up on unorthodox new theories without having the slightest background in the traditional scholarship (in other words, people who read one funky book or article on a subject and think they're ready to present their "findings" at the next international symposium). Been there, done that. Maybe over the weekend. Too tired tonite, though. Danny

This article has been compromised by an amateur speculative chronology; it has no academic support at all. There are no references, no journals, no research supporting. It is an amateur idea, made by someone using this entry as a support piece to publicize his iconoclastic views. Encyclopedia entries on history and chronology should be based on the latest and best available peer-reviewed historical research, not on personal speculation. This chronology is best deleted from this entry entirely. RK

This entry is an unnecessary duplication of the already extant, and well-written article, History of ancient Israel and Judah. Can we just delete this article, and redirect it there? RK

Actually, the Kingdom of Israel is a subject that deserves an article. As for the chronology, it is unorthodox, but I would like to get a better look at it and see what the points of difference are and why they conflict with the more conventional chronologies. Who knows? It may have some good points too. Like I said, I'm too tired to do that now. Gimme a couple of days. Meanwhile, let's put the chronology back. Danny

Hebrew

This is the English Wikipedia. If we keep the Hebrew lettering, which I dispute, can we make it secondary to the English? And can we use the English spellings and the correct links to the articles about all of these kings? RickK 20:59, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Hebrew

In what way do you dispute the Hebrew - it's inclusion or it's accuracy?

In view of the cultural aspects of the region under discussion I am convinced it makes an interesting addition to the knowledgebase, and as to whether it should be placed before or after the English (which is in any case quite distinct on the page, regardless) is a point of preference only, and being the one to take up this edit, I have invoked my own, albeit subjective, preference.

I am considering also using the ancient Hebrew forms as well.

Look out for my forthcoming editions of the Arabic/Slavic/Japanese and ancient Egyptian pages also. --JohnArmagh 21:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why there are problems with including the extra linguistic information in appropriate articles (and this is). Where possible, I include relevant Irish language terms (in italics, secondary to English, or with English explanation) in articles about Ireland.

Zoney 10:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support Zoney in his use of the Irish language in appropriate articles.

So that makes two in favour - one against, so far

--JohnArmagh 11:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whatever about your dispute about including the Hebrew in the first place - it makes NO sense to include it without the transliteration / pronunciation guide. Zoney 00:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou Zoney - the point that RickK is missing is that it is precisely because this is the English Wikipedia that where non-roman characters are used they are accompanied by the transcribed text. RickK has said he considers putting this issue as a Request For Comment - I hope he does so - I would certainly do so if I could.

--JohnArmagh 05:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment RickK 04:52, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Good. --JohnArmagh 05:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I approve of the Hebrew versions of the names. They are useful for people who can read Hebrew, and do no harm to other readers. Inclusion of foreign scripts is fine as long as the article follows Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Articles on many subjects with names from Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and other languages use English words or transliterations followed by the original term in the foreign script. If it's a good idea for Chinese, I don't see why it isn't a good idea for Hebrew. Just put the English transliteration first. Gdr 22:27, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

I have NO problem with the Hebrew script -- it's the non-standard transliterations from Hebrew into non-English which I am objecting to. RickK 22:29, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You didn't make that clear in your comments above. Does Wikipedia have a standard for romanization of Hebrew? I did a brief search and couldn't find one (Hebrew language has an ad-hoc romanization scheme). Is it possible to accurately romanize names from Ancient Hebrew? Gdr 23:06, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Yes, they're Saul, David, Solomon, etc. RickK 23:07, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is then, that the Hebrew is not actually pronounced 'Saul, 'David' or 'Solomon' etc. So to transcribe them as such is would not only be inaccurate but would present this inaccurate information as fact.

'Shaul' is the transcription, whereas 'Saul' is the Anglicization of the name, which is already listed under the Common/Biblical name. --JohnArmagh 04:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, Saul, David, Solomon etc. are already in the article. But those are the English names for the kings, not accurate transliterations from the Hebrew. In other languages it's not controversial to have three versions of a name: (1) the English name; (2) the name in the foreign script; (3) an accurate transliteration of the name. For example the Mt. Fuji article has (1) "Mount Fuji", (2) 富士山 and (3) Fuji-san. Gdr 09:47, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved: see User_talk:RickK. So I removed this page from cleanup. Gdr 21:32, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Historicity of Israel

This article reads far too much like a biblical commentary, and rests far too much on biblical texts as historical citations. The Jewish scriptures are not historical documents and cannot be used unsupported as historical evidence. As I'm sure people interested in this subject are aware, the historicty of the Kingdom of Israel is being called into question by opponents of modern Zionism. This article must therefore base itself in sound historical scholarhip. I would like someone familiar with the historiography of this topic to rewrite this article accordingly. Adam 10:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

<>

Fat chance. You want an ACTUAL historian to TOUCH the "Israel" wikiproject, and NOT Zionist "scholars"? That's a good one.

I have to say (and speaking as a Christian) that my thoughts were the same as yours upon first reading the text. It does have a theologocal aspect rather than a strictly historical one. Not that there is not a place for such an article, however I feel that the narrative of article should be more consistent with the style of other state histories. --JohnArmagh 04:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should correct something I said in the above comment. Of course the Jewish scriptures are historical documents - what I meant was that they are not documents written by historians. [Really? I guess the 969 years of Methusellah sounds "historical", or the virgin birth of Jesus, or the resurrection of Lazarus. Oh, sure, EVERY country's "history" oughta be based on such sound historical "facts".] They are historical sources, but cannot be used on their own as conclusive evidence. The history of the Kingdom of Israel will take the Jewish scriptures into account, but must also be grounded in archaeology and whatever other sources are available. If the Jewish scriptures are the only evidence for the Kingdom of Israel then its historicity will indeed be called into question. Adam 05:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick historiographical note: As historical sources, they can be used on their own, if there are no other sources. But all sources need to be taken into account. But thanks for the effort of correcting yourself. Str1977 14:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The biblical account of the ancient existence of Israel as the name of a federation and then a kingdom is supported by Egyptian, Moabite, Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. The instances where names of Israel's and Judah's kings are mentioned in the various inscriptions largely correspond with the biblical records. Fire Star 14:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The hebrew names are all wrong. How can I correct them?

In response to the update by 80.230.142.96: The Hebrew used in the table is from A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm which uses the vowel-less text extant at the time (though the alphabet used is contemporary Hebrew rather than the ancient Hebrew of the time). --JohnArmagh 14:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me at all that this article is complete mythology. There is no archaeological evidence for any of this so called account of the "kingdom of Israel. For a nice overview of the subbject you can check out the following website: http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/arch/davies5.htm AllTalking 01:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is based on historical scholarship using historical sources (including the Bible) and archaelogical evidence as well (but not only archealogical evidence). Inflammatory rhetoric in tags doesn't help the issue either. Therefore the tag is not justified. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is a historical source?... lol ... sure.. hey.. don't forget to check your brains at the door and pick up the crayons... I leave you with a quote by a great and wise man "Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people." Thomas Edision 24.6.23.248 10:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article fails the NPOV and verifiability criteria for Wikipedia, as well as failing to cite sources. I've added the appropriate tags. Hopefully someone can completely rewrite this and the material can be presented in a more appropriate manner. EllenS 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As to AllTalking's assurtion that "There is no archaeological evidence for any of this so called account of the "kingdom of Israel." In fact, there is plenty. Omri, Ahab, and, in fact MOST kings of Israel during the divided kingdom have left steles attesting to their existance. This has been known since the 19th Century. Granted, racists and some biblical minimalists deny that there were ever any Jews in the middle east, the archeological record shows otherwise. Take the Western Wall for example. Who built THAT, hmmmmmm?Ericl 14:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit that any non-expert looking at this article and the citations and references would think it's just a Bible story. Please add your archaeological evidence. Fourtildas (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that despite the "plenty of archaeological evidence" the majority of citations are still biblical; and as the books cited are thought to have been written anywhere from 100-400 years after the events they describe source is unknown. It could be contemporary or it could be 'what X's grandfather remembers his grandfather telling him'. As a result this is like citing Historia Regum Britanniae for a chronology of British kings. FlipC (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Divided Monarchy, few scholars disagree about the major details the Bible provides, with plenty of archaeology for whatever issues the nay-sayers are having here (e.g. A. Mazar, 'Archaeology of the Land of the Bible'; Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, 'MacMillan Bible Atlas', etc). Mazar's book provides plenty of evidence archaeologically even for the United Monarchy. What archaeology are you guys missing here? The Bible has plenty of history as it was compiled from historical annals as was the custom in those days (1 Kings 14:29 and many more), for those of you who ignorantly assume that it's merely a religious book. Cornelius (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Map

Any chance anyone has time to create a map, this article could use one? Falphin 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• There is a map now, but Jerusalem (in Hebrew) is mispelled in it (yod missing between lamed and mem).

I think 'yerushalem' (yod resh shin lamed dalet) is the way it was originally spelled. Check in any Hebrew bible and it's always spelled that way. Itzar

Jehu 841 BC date

The dissenting scholars point out that all Israelite kings were called "son of Omri", whether they were of the Omrite dynasty or not; that the date of the inscription is in question; and that Assyrian kings frequently "stole" accomplishments from their predecessors to increase their own glory in the eyes of history. The obelisk is the earliest depiction of an Israelite in ancient history.

I'm not sure that this should be in here at all. The first argument doesn't seem like an argument to me at all. Jehu was not of the Omrite dynasty, so I don't see how him being called son of Omri makes the identification more questionable. The rest of it seems like special pleading - I am not aware of any actual mainstream scholars who dispute the 841 BC Jehu synchronism. john k 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Font

At the start of the article there is the text: Standard Hebrew Malḫut Yisraʼel, Tiberian Hebrew Malḵûṯ Yiśrāʼēl). In my browser I see squares between the "l" and "u" and "a" and "e" of the Standard Hebrew version, and similarly for the Tiberian Hebrew version. I think I have the most common set-up (certainly I use Internet Explorer). Could someone change the font to make it legible to more readers? Thanks in advance, jguk 07:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE - reminder of sitewide de facto compromise

Just my 2 cents on the BC/BCE discussion. WTH is BCE? and why would you use it if you want people to undertand the article?

First, BC is not Christian-centric (as explained on other pages ad infinitum), and is perfectly neutral in sense - no-one thinks it means anything other than a device to show dates. And besides, this argument has been discussed in great detail elsewhere on Wikipedia. The only form of consensus that has been able to retain the peace is to not change articles from BCE to BC or vice versa. No participant in the great Wikipedia BC v BCE debate is entirely happy with that compromise, I am sure - but it is all we've got to keep the peace. That means all sides respect it (both those that, for whatever reason, prefer BCE and those who, for whatever reason, prefer BC). In the case of this article the "no change" compromise means that it should stay using "BC". Please respect this in the interests of wikipeace, if nothing else, jguk 06:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is Christian-centric and, having denominationally neutral and commonly accepted alternative Common Era (BCE/CE), your insistence on inserting Before Christ/Anno domini (BC/AD) into articles related to Jewish history is offensive. Why spill this talk here? Continue at Talk:Kingdom of Judah#BCE/CE again. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

HS - can you point to any policy in defense of your position? I agree, though, that there's no good reason to pollute this talk page with this poisonous discussion, as well. john k 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CIV ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a policy which has no relationship to whether or not we can put BC/AD into articles. john k 23:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not POV to have B.C. and A.D. in there there was a big debate in June about this which voted something like 90 votes to 60 to keep the policy of both being used. Besides B.C.E. is the exact same thing as B.C. There is no difference. It should be noted that Kingdom of Israel is part of Jewish, Christian, and to a lesser degree Muslim history. It really doesn't matter. Falphin 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Kingdom of Judah#BCE/CE again. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I realize that discussion took a long time but I'm sorry as pointeed out by Jguk the current wikipedia policy is to not change it one way or the other and B.C. is no more christian centric than the months and days of the year being Roman centric. Falphin 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope we are not going to have to reproduce the discussion from Talk:Kingdom of Judah#BCE/CE again here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue with that compromise is that it wasn't site wide, and should of been sent through village pump but wasn't. While some articles do deserve special privelages or restrictions I don't see how Kingdom of Israel or Kingdom of Judah would. I'm not in opposition to the use B.C.E. as long as Jguk agrees(to prevent edit war; if he doesn't then the status quo of BC/AD remains by default) because it means the same thing. The point is to avoid getting in an edit war. And as part of the discussion it was agreed that BC/AD is not biased so it would be incorrect to label it as so.(just a clarification of my above point.) Falphin 23:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - but the "no change" compromise is the best one we have at present. I edit in accorance with it (my edits over at Jerusalem were an error on this point), I urge every other user to accept that compromise too, jguk 06:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The compromise was created to stop edit wars. And it was also decided that it is not "CHRISTIAN CENTRIC" I really wish people would stop suggesting that, it is no more christian centric than the callendar being used is Roman centric. If you really wanted to be neutral we should use the Jewish calendar instead of the roman one. The no change wasn't really a compromise but a policy in place that remained intact. Falphin 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I have adjusted the article back to how it was before Humus sapiens's amendment of the date style, jguk 07:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the BCE campaigners would be interested in a brief history of the style on this page.

• Date notation first used. All "BC" - 31 December 2001 [1]
• Date notation changed - 4 December 2002 [2]
• All date notation removed - 5 December 2002 [3][4]
• Date notation partially changed back to BC - 3 April 2003 [5]
• Consistency restored on BC notation - 1 December 2003 [6]
• Inconsistency restored - 23 December 2003 [7]. Throughout this period of inconsistency, BC remains the dominant form
• Consistency restored on BC notation - 24 October 2004 [8]
• Notation changed to use BCE notation - 9 May 2005 [9]
• Notation changed back - 11 July 2005 [10] [11]
• Present edit war commences - 1 October 2005 [12]

As can be seen, essentially this article has been stable on BC for much of its time, and it was quite stable before the recent edit war, which started after User:Humus sapiens changed the style on 1 October.

In total Humus sapiens has made 10 edits to impose his preferred style on the article, reverting at least 3 editors in doing so. Sortan, which has been identified as a disruptive pro-BCE role account by a number of individuals, has reverted once to support Humus sapiens, Briangotts has made one revert to add BCE, and CDThieme two. These people have been reverted two times by Codex Sinaiticus, twice by John Kenney, and myself eight times.

All this hasn't gotten very far, and has not improved the article one bit. Last week I pulled out of the argument to the weekend to allow the pro BCE-ers to reflect on the WP "no change" policy - it is unfortunate that they have continued to ignore it, especially as their preferred notation is hardly known amongst the general public either. I will make one more edit and then lay off till the weekend. I have suggested that all sides accept the "no change" compromise, and noted that whilst that would mean this page remains on BC, others will under than compromise remain on BCE. I don't see what other compromise we could have at the moment without increasing these battles sitewide. I urge everyone to accept it, jguk 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion of compromise does not match your edits. Earlier today you removed CE notation from Khazars; the stated reason was "rv - as noted before, WP:MOS apparently mandates this change, which helps improve the readability of the article too)". Of course, MOS states nothing of the sort; indeed, it states explicitly that appending CE to a date is acceptable.

What is apparent is that you are promoting your POV by changing dating system in a wide array of articles; in each case you assert a reason that seems to work for you in that situation. A quick look at your edit history turns up a diverse array of reasons for such revisions that you trot out depending on the situation. [13]

-Briangotts (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm told that the MOS mandates that where an article only relates to events occurring after 1 BC, that neither AD nor CE should be used. That is why the edit to Khazars is justified. Anyway, are you willing to go for the "no change" compromise? jguk 19:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's telling you these things? Little voices in your head? The same voices saying that policy mandates the removal of Common Era from articles [14]?

You claim I'm a disruptive troll, yet you have eight times as many reverts as I. Why don't you just leave this article alone and let the editors of this article adopt whichever style they prefer, as allowed by the MOS.

There is also ongoing discussion (two incident reports) regarding this guy at WP:ANI, and I would encourage people to comment there. Sortan 19:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk: Please see [15], as I urged you to do in the Talk:Khazars page. You will find that there is no such convention. Whoever told you that such a convention exists was either mistaken or lying. Moreover, I find it odd that you would make changes to articles based on MOS without checking to see if indeed you were following Wikipedia policy.

As regards the "compromise", your conduct in the past makes it difficult for me to assume good faith in your upholding your end. However, with respect to this article I will defer to those who, like Humus, have worked on this article far more extensively than I. --Briangotts (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit I can't understand the actual text of the page you refer to, so have to rely on what others say it means. I suggested that it was reworded on the talk page, but your fellow BCE-ers decided that as they could understand it, it was ok and emphatically blocked any attempt to reword it so that those not versed in BCE terminology could understand it - so I don't really think I can be blamed for not being able to understand something I don't understand and have asked to be changed so that I do understand it. I only found out that some thought the text supported having no date notation for articles dealing with events that were all after 1 BC when I proposed that as an amendment, only to be told that that was already what policy was.

If you want resolution, you need to hold out the arm of trust (and believe me, my trust of Humus and Sortan is incredibly low too). Are you willing to accept the "no change" compromise (as noted above, it would mean that this page remains on BC, but many other remain on BCE)? jguk 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You refer to BCE/CE notation as if it were some arcane science that only a select few can understand. You should not need to be "versed" in the terminology, but I am happy to "verse" you here. The issue is not complicated at all. Scholars around the world have largely switched to using BCE/CE as opposed to the Christian BC/AD (which requires a user to affirm that he is living in the "Year of OUR Lord" (Our lord, of course, being Jesus). BCE=BC and CE=AD in all other respects. The issue is quite simple and I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that you are not pretending otherwise disingenuously, even mockingly.

Are you saying that when I use BC/AD, I am affirming that Jesus Christ is my Lord? As a non-believer, I find that to be offensive. I'd imagine that many of the numerous other non-believers and non-Christians who use BC/AD might find this assumption offensive, as well. (Anno Domini, by the way, literally means "Year of the Lord," not "Year of our Lord.") I do agree with you that Jguk's insistence that BCE/CE is some sort of arcane, incomprehensible terminology is also silly. john k 20:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

John, not sure what is so offensive. Nobody is telling you not to use BC/AD if that's what you want to do. Many non-Christians feel that using "Year of THE Lord" (thanks for the correction) while referring to a date assigned (mistakenly or not) to the birth of Jesus is inappropriate and constitutes a declaration of the divinity of Jesus. If you want to use BC/AD while simultaneously not beliving in that divinity, who's to stop you? The issue is what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, not individual preference. --Briangotts (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My position is that Wikipedia should use uniformly BCE/CE. However, it's not worth my time and effort to fight you on every single article. I will always use BCE/CE in articles I draft or substantially overhaul, and your attempts to change that notation will be reverted.

As far as your compromise proposition, I believe the evidence demonstrates you are behaving disingenuously. As I have neither drafted nor substantially overhauled this particular article, I will let those who have deal with you and make whatever compromises they see fit. --Briangotts (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have trouble understanding the MOS perhaps you should stop revert warring in order to "enforce" it, eh? Sortan 20:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are far from helpful. If we're ever to find a way forward, the pro-BCE-ers need to show a bit of leeway and make some concessions. I have stated my position - and, quite frankly, I invite you to look at my edits in recent months, where you will find that apart from one mistake (on the Jerusalem article) I have already been fully adhering to the compromise.

Let me also teach you that BC notation is by a long, long way the most dominant form worldwide, and is the only standard used by the general public worldwide. Religious leaders who have cared to comment have said they are not offended by it. It carries no religious significance nowadays either. You will not see BCE in British museums, almost all popular British history books, on British TV or on British radio - it, quite simply, is not used. We are not writing for academics, we are writing for the general public. We should adapt our styles to them, not expect them to adapt our styles to us.

Anyway, it seems, unfortunately, that you prefer discord over harmony. I continue to encourage all users to accept "no change" as a compromise. As I note, that is already what I have been following, jguk 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your little "clarification" was opposed because I feared (correctly, as it turns out) that you would use it to further your style war by having the MOS explicitly call for the removal of all dates styles past 1 CE. See [16] Sortan 20:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sortan, you are a role account that hides behind complete anonymity, and makes edits which you know are disruptive and have no benefit to WP. If you want me, or anyone else, to take you seriously, at the very least you should tell us what your normal WP username is. Until you do so, I will refuse to address any comments you make, jguk 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

How convenient for you. Resort to ad hom attacks when you can't explain yourself. Color me surprised. Sortan 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We have had this discussion before, Jguk. This is an encyclopedia. As such it should conform to scholarly standards in all respects. To pretend that Common Era notation is not used by anyone is further proof of your disingenuousness here. See [17], [18], [19], [20] for proof that BCE/CE notation is not unknown in fair Britannia. Please cite some sources for your assertions that non-Christian religious leaders find AD acceptable. Then see [21], and [22]. -Briangotts (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, here are some links from the British Museum that use BCE notation. [23], [24]. Briangotts (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever been there? I go there a number of times each year, and have never seen them use BCE - not for anything. Also, all the books they publish and sell in their bookshop also use BC notation, jguk 20:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We've had a British student come forward to say he has used BCE/CE in school. We've had examples from British newspapers given. We've had numerous other examples posted, but this is ultimately a waste of (our) time in trying to convince him. Oh, and cue standard religioustolerance.org rant, and rant about how using BCE caused utter outrage in New South Wales. Sortan 20:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you've had time to read ALL of the books published by the British Museum. Don't they publish hundreds of books every year? Impressive. In any case, I never said that those sources use BCE/CE exclusively. You asserted that Common Era notation is virtually unheard of outside the US and I am demonstrating to you that that is patently false. --Briangotts (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen enough books by the British Museum Press to know what their house style is. I've also been to the Museum enough times too. I also disagree with you very strongly that we should use what you term "scholarly" language - instead I strongly believe that like any other publication we should use the language of our readers, the language they would expect to see.

Now we can continue the arguments, but we are not going to agree on this point. I am not going to suddenly change from my view that I would prefer all articles to use BC/AD notation, and you are not going to change from your view that you would prefer all articles to use BCE/CE notation. I have suggested a middle ground of "no change", which you appear to reject. What would you suggest as a potentially acceptable middle ground (and bear in mind that it is not just us two who would have to agree to it, it is virtually everyone)?, jguk 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have resisted the spilling of this discussion into many places, but if you insist... From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk:

3.1.2 Style guide

1) Wikipedia has established a Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see [130]. The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." [131]. Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

3.1.3 Optional styles

2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

In his urge to impose the BC/AD notation, Jguk deliberately misconstrues the ArbCom decision by picking only the parts he likes, ignoring the requirement to be "consistent within an article" and "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". I don't have anything against British spelling or BC/AD notation in general, but just as "it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject", in this case it is inappropriate to use Christian-centric notation having a viable neutral alternative. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read it as well, but there is no need for change. The callendar we use is Roman-centric by your definition and therefore using what your saying we should use the Jewish callendar instead so that we remain neutral unless your opposed to that to. Falphin 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1) "there is no need for change" is your POV, and I recognize your right to hold it. Please acknowledge that others have different opinions and sensitivities. 2) Nowhere I said we should adopt Jewish calendar. Are you trying a strawman argument or you are simply unable to distiguish betweeen calendar systems and date notations? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your opinion and respect it but I am unable to see how there is a "need for change". When I mentioned the Jewish calendar I was merely pointing out that there is no significant difference between the calendars but the dates. B.C. and B.C.E. are identical which is why they can be used interchangebly which from my understanding is the sits current policy. If you could show me how it is necessary for this article to be different than the rest, I would be willing to change my position. Falphin 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about different calendar systems but rather only date notation: BC/AD (Before Christ/Anno domini) is a Christian-centric notation, while BCE/CE (Before/Common Era) is denominationally neutral. Both styles are acceptable per WP:MoS. Having an alternative, some consider BC/AD inappropriate for certain articles. Almsot all articles deeply related to Jewish religion & history use BCE/CE notation and there is no problem. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, thats my point claiming that A.D. and B.C. are Christian-centric is false. BC/AD is justa system used, just because B.C. stands for Before Christ doesn't make it Christian-centric it just means before Christ. Very few anymore realize the background its just something everyone uses. Now, I believe my real problem is your suggestion that it is necessary to change BC to AD this article is about a historical kingdom. Another kingdom from the same time is the Assyrian Empire which uses BC/AD. Kingdom of Israel isn't solely a Jewish article like Judaism or Jewish captivity but instead its about a historical kingdom thats religion was Jewish. A traditionally Hindu/Jainist country(India) uses BC/AD. Therfore its completely NPOV to keep BC/AD. Now, it also is compltely ok to use BCE/CE if the author of the article wrote it that way, but in this case it was not and therefore I don't think it should be changed, I'm not going to revert your edits if you do because its really silly to get into this big of a debate over simple dating. Falphin

We have already had long discussions on this, Humus sapiens. Please see Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting where a number of proposals were defeated. I'm 100% sure that the ArbCom did not intend to overrule community decisions. You are arguing that something is a "substantial reason for a change" despite the community explicitly rejecting the proposal. Your attention has been drawn to this before as well. "Substantial change" is not an invitation to a free-for-all where debates can recommence on any article a particular editor wants. It must refer to changes that have clearcut community-wide consensus. At present, the community has adopted no consensus on the matter, which means at present no "substantial reasons" have been established, jguk 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As if we needed any more evidence, here is just another demonstration of Jguk's complete disregard of the ArbCom's decisions. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, a basic issue here - the claim seems to be that using BC/AD notation somehow means that Wikipedia is acknowledging Jesus as the Lord. The evidence for this is that some people (as far as I can tell, usually religious Jews or Muslims) believe that if they use BC/AD, they are acknowledging Jesus as the Lord. When I and others have pointed out that we do not believe Jesus is the Lord, but nevertheless prefer to use BC/AD, we are told that it's a free internet, and we can do whatever we like. But nobody is forcing anybody to use BC/AD. Is the idea that if people see wikipedia using BC/AD, they will assume that Wikipedia endorses the divinity of Christ? That's completely ridiculous. If by using BC/AD, I am not necessarily endorsing the divinity of Christ, why should we assume that wikipedia is doing so by doing the same thing? It is not wikipeida's job to prove that we don't believe Jesus is God by using BCE/CE. The quest for BCE/CE is not a matter of not offending our readers at all. It is a matter of not offending editors. The problem is not that Jewish (or whatever) readers might be offended by (horror of horrors) having to read an encyclopedia article that uses BC rather than BCE (because, let's face it, it is only on rare occasions that we use AD/CE). The problem is that Jewish (or whatever) editors are offended by the fact that articles use BC/AD. And, to be honest, that's nonsense. john k 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

religioustolerance.org, CS UC Riverside, languagemonitor.com and many other reputable sources are hardly WP editors. Why insist on the notation that some consider inappropriate when there is a neutral alternative? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that religioustolerance.org, etc. use BCE/CE is neither here nor there. The UC-Riverside site actually uses AD rather than CE (even though it mentions that people might be offended at use of BC/AD). The third link you give from the Language Monitor notes a study which found that in the worldwide electronic and print media, and on the Internet, the current convention of A.D. and B.C. was found to be nearly 50 times as prevalent as that of the C.E. and B.C.E. convention. Anyway, the point is, BC/AD has been specifically found to not be POV or Christian-centric. That some people might not themselves want to use it because they feel it would be acknowledging Jesus is irrelevant to what wikipedia should do. religioustolerance.org's decision to use BCE/CE is also neither here nor there - it is a different site from wikipedia, with a different purpose. There are all kinds of choices that we make which someone might theoretically find offensive. It is a waste of time to constantly worry about these things. The official wikipedia policy is that neither BC/AD nor BCE/CE is preferred. Your problem is not with what notation this article uses, but with that policy itself. Go fight about it somewhere else instead of starting endless edit wars. john k 23:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand you but respectfully disagree. OTOH, you seem to be unable to even allow alternative opinions, even when presented with evidence that they exist. Whatever the intentions are, the BC/AD is Christian-centric notation. Intentionally or not, I was using it myself until I was pointed out that for certain topics, some may consider it inappropriate. Per ArbCom, if "it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject", then of course it should be acceptable to use the neutral notation in a few articles such as this deeply related to Jewish history. Besides, why should we accept Jguk's persistent bullying and misconstruing of policies: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk, WP:ANI#Jguk I, WP:ANI#Jguk II or this anon's changes: [25]? Where is the date police when it suits their POV? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's of Christian origins, but it's not Christian-centric to any meaningful extent. Are the names of the planets Ancient-Roman-religion-centric? Does referring to the fifth planet as "Jupiter" indicate that one is worshipping other gods than Yahweh, and thus offensive to Jews and Christians? And I'm really sick of "some may find it offensive." Do you find it offensive? Apparently not, since you were willing to use it, despite (presumably) knowing what it stood for. Can you find me anyone who themselves finds use of BC/AD offensive, rather than imagining that somebody else might, and taking offense on their behalf? As to being "deeply related to Jewish history," I will once again point out that Old Testament history is also "deeply related" to Christian history. Jguk's behavior is not relevant to me here, because it is you who not only decided to change the date formats, but did so with an offensive edit summary that was sure to incite conflict. You were clearly trying to start a fight. Well, congratulations, you've succeeded. Anyway, basic point - what cheeses me off about BCE/CE is that it is based on a completely unsupported notion that there are lots of people who find BC/AD offensive. But none of this large horde of people seems to actually exist, except in the imaginations of overly PC editors (and others outside wikipedia, of course). I want to find some evidence that BC/AD is actually considered offensive by somebody in the real world, rather than in the imaginations of its advocates, who never seem to be particularly offended by it on their own behalf. john k 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that using "Thursday" (named for Thor) or "July" (named for the "divine" Julius Caesar) or referring to the planet Mercury is not at all different from stating that a year is "the year of THE LORD", the Lord being Jesus? Can you see no distinction there?--Briangotts (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're kind of getting to why many see changing BC to BCE as offensive. First is the false etymology (the change is just wrong). Words do not maintain their original meaning - Thursday no longer means "Thor's day" any more than "AD" is a statement about it being "in the year of our Lord". "Thursday" is just a name given to a day of the week, "AD" is just date notation. The second point is that you are singling out Christianity and saying that because something has Christian origins, it is wrong. Which carries with it a number of unpleasant overtones.

Anyway, on another note, I briefly chatted to Mark Pellegrini (Raul) on IRC yesterday and he confirmed what I very much thought the situation was, that the ArbCom ruling of "no change" is meant very much to be that, "no change". I'll give a little time to the weekend in case anyone wants to doublecheck that with him, and then, if it hasn't been done by someone else in the meantime, revert the recent attempts to change the style to BCE. In the meantime, I continue to urge all editors to accept the "no change" approach, jguk 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.", therefore the no change approach would violate it.
2. There is no acceptable English alternative for Thursday, therefore this comparison is invalid.
3. There is no reason to spill this discussion here. See Talk:Kingdom of Judah. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is my perspective:

1. The community as a whole rejected the notion that BCE/CE is obscure and should not be used.
2. The community as a whole rejected the notion that BC/AD represents a "Christian" POV.
3. Some editors personally prefer to use BCE/CE, for whatever reason (BC/AD is a Christian POV, stylistic reasons, etc)
4. Some editors personally prefer to use BC/AD, for whatever reason.

Trying to rationalize what people choose to take offense at is, ultimately, pointless. The swastika is deeply offensive to some, yet to others it is an ancient Hindu peace symbol. BC/AD is offensive to some, yet holds no meaning to others. What we have to rely on is some civility that we at least respect others, within the bounds of the MOS. In the first case it means not deliberately using a swastika in a Jewish center, while in the second it means not deliberately following around other editors who do choose to use BCE/CE and changing them to BC/AD with the clear knowledge that you are offending and provoking them. It doesn't mean that the BCE/CE should never be changed to BC/AD (or vice versa), but that changes should only occur with the consensus of the article's editors, and by editors involved with the article, not by someone whose sole agenda is in promoting BC/AD.

Now, given all the above points, and noting that the MOS explicitly allows both forms, it is up to the editors of a particular article to adopt whichever form they prefer, for whatever reasons. It seems to me to be perfectly appropriate that if the editors of this article decide they like BCE/CE, then this article should use BCE/CE, without some bully coming in, mis-quoting whichever "policy" suits him at the moment, and demanding that editors conform to his wishes. Sortan 05:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sortan, the problem is that "the editors of the article" is a completely nebulous concept. The basic issue is that this article has been mostly BC for some time, and when dates were first inserted into the article, they were BC. Humus Sapiens violated an existing truce by coming in and changing the article to BCE. If anyone is being a bully and misquoting whichever policy suits him at the moment, it is HS. Changing this article to BCE was a blatant violation of a very tenuous compromise. Neither you nor HS nor Jguk has ever edited this article except in relation to date format arguments. In terms of substantive edits to this page, I believe that I am the only person involved in this dispute who has made any contribution to the article (I added Galil's dates to the table, and removed some dubious apologetics about the Jehu/841 BC synchronism.) HS's original edit contained a dubious and inflammatory edit summary (Please use denominationally neutral and commonly accepted BCE at least in articles directly related to Jewish history) and contained exactly one change which was not date related - changing "reached a boiling point" to "increased". The actual editors who have created this article over the past few years have mostly been satisfied with leaving BC in place. Your claim seems to be that it is okay for HS to come here, violate a truce, and change all the dates to BCE, but that it is wrong for Jguk to come and do the opposite. This is rank hypocrisy. john k 06:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you would read my post again, I'm not defending Humus Sapiens, just stating that changes would be appropriate if it was so decided by the articles editors.... (and if the editors at Kingdom of Judah want to change to BCE/CE and the editors here want to remain with BC/AD, that would be fine). And if you would read my post you would note point two, which acknowledges that claiming BC/AD is Christian pov is not supported by policy. Perhaps it might be helpful if you would revers BCE/CE for BC/AD as I meant what I said to apply to both equally (although the bully part was directed at User:Jguk, whose history in this regard is unmatched). Sortan 06:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And I fail to see how you can accuse me of hypocrisy when you are so quick to defend Jguk, especially when he goes about making changes to BC/AD because "its the only worldwide standard". Sortan 07:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk was the subject of an arbcom ruling on this matter, and seems to have mostly behaved himself since then (at least, this is my general impression - correct me if I'm wrong). He was certainly in the wrong in many instances in the past. In this particular instance, I don't think he was, simply because he was not going about changing on his own this time - he was responding to a similar action by Humus Sapiens. I was certainly not trying to defend Jguk's conduct in the past, which I agree was not acceptable. And I'm not defending his silly argument that BCE/CE is obscure and incomprehensible. I am, however, sorry that I misunderstood you - and I should have noted that I mostly agree with the earlier part of the post. That said, I'm not sure what the practical import of your comment is - this conflict has clearly risen above the normal editors of this page (most of the substantive editors of this page have not weighed in here, perhaps because they don't care). So this doesn't really give us a procedure for resolving this, does it? john k 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, during his arbcom case he pretended to leave, then came back as an ip editor to remove/convert BCE/CD to BC/AD in over 300 articles (see here). After his "return" he stalked User:Sunray on Fu Hsi, and after Sunray made this edit, followed it up with a demand for "consistency" (which is particularly galling since it was he who originally changed styles here). He went on to wage a revert war there against every other editor, and against the clear consensus on the talk page. Just today he did this. This pattern is repeated accross many articles. I really can't explain his actions, except as deliberate attempts to provoke people. Anyway, this is getting off topic here, but there is further discussion at here. Sortan 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how my comment Please use denominationally neutral and commonly accepted BCE at least in articles directly related to Jewish history can be interpreted as offensive, but I can assure you it was not meant to be. I wonder why you keep ignoring the anon changes: [26]. As a compromise, can we all agree to say here and at KoJ something like: "All dates are BC/BCE"? I don't like it, but I do not enjoy this silly dispute either. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not offensive as such. But it's a lightning rod. the anon edit happened in July. As Jguk has noted, there's been a lot of movement back and forth over the months. However, signed in users who know what they're doing have a much greater responsibility than unlogged in users. If you do not enjoy a silly dispute over date formats, why did you start one? john k 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I plead guilty to making my edit without closely watching the Era discussion and not being a part to the ArbCom dispute against Jguk. I do genuinely believe that making this article consistent with others in series related to Jewish history would do no harm and I reject any accusation of my conjectured vile intentions.

JK, you seem to reserve exclusive right to be offended (even as you admit that my comment "is not offensive") but keep insisting on an alternative that others explicitly say is inappropriate. When the anon's inconspicuous changes and Jguk (talk · contribs)'s repeated violations were in line with your POV, that wasn't "a lightning rod". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The question of whether BC/AD is inappropriate is one which goes well beyond the scope of this article. But this has been repeatedly addressed. There was an enormous vote on the subject. And the outcome was that BC/AD is not considered to be inappropriate. Just because you still consider it to be inappropriate does not mean that you have the right to continue flouting wikipedia consensus and the arbcom.

As to the anon's changes - they weren't a lightning rod because, well, they weren't - nobody responded to them. This is presumably because there was no edit summary to alert anyone to what he was doing. And obviously Jguk's repeated violations were a lightning rod - they were massively disruptive and led to an arbcom ruling against him. I didn't take much of a personal interest in the case, it is true. But I don't see how I have to take a personal interest in everything that goes on on wikipedia. If you can point to me actively supporting policy violations, feel free to use that against me. But I am not paid to be on wikipedia (as none of us are), and I don't feel I have any obligation to keep to some absurd level of consistency where I have to take equal offensive at every possible violation. This violation I happened to notice (thanks to your edit summary, natch), and it annoyed me, in part, I'm sure, because I prefer BC/AD. But I can't think of any instances where I've argued in favor of someone violating the truce in the other direction. There have been some times when I've made facetious arguments that we should use the Seleucid Era for all dates, on the basis that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are Christian-centric dating systems, and that only a dating system named for the beginning of the reign of a long defunct, barely remembered Macedonian dynasty can be properly NPOV - the first year of the Seleucid Era is equally unmemorable to people all over the world! But that's about it. john k 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Usually I provide detailed and honest summaries of my changes and assume good faith. According to you, "the anon's changes ... weren't a lightning rod because ... nobody responded to them." - and when someone finally did, that made you furious. Correct?

Finally, I don't think Jguk's continuous bullying helps his and your joint cause. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the ArbCom result was a wash - no-one won, no-one lost, there was no ruling either for or against anyone. It did, however, confirm that WP policy is "no changes" and made that clear to all participants in that dispute (and implicitly to all other WPians). Some, in this instance, argued that the ArbCom decision was not clear, but the position was clarified by myself in a brief chat with one of the Arbitrators who decided that case, and I have left those who may still be unsure a brief period to double-check with an Arbitrator who heard the case if they wanted. In line with the discussions above, I have therefore restored the original date style in line with WP policy. Please do not change it, jguk 06:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk - do you think we could get some kind of formal clarification from the arbitrators on this point? I think it is fair for HS and others to ask for a specific statement, rather than relying on your word for it. Trust but verify, I always say. And sorry I implied that you had been disciplined by the arbcom - I probably should have said that you were admonished by them, rather than that there was a ruling against you. Would this be a fair summary of the result? john k 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If people were interested, I think we might persuade them to make some formal clarification - but if there's a desire to go down that route I think a quite word on talkpages or an email requesting clarification, what we want clarifying, and free of arguments (they've heard them all before!) would work much better. The ArbCom absolutely hated this case, and really have no desire to revisit it - a quiet announcement to head off future problems might suit them.

The outcome of the case was that everyone involved in the dispute, which from memory was about eight or so of us, including me, was admonished to follow policy, which they said was "no changes". There was no other sanction on anyone other than that (and it's arguable whether that's really a sanction anyway). I'd pretty much been following what they ultimately ruled since the beginning of the year anyway, except for one unintentional slip-up, jguk 08:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

David's accession

Rob117 corrected the date of David's accession, saying "David's reign-only 33 yrs in Israel, 40 yrs in Judah)". I don't know what the scholars given as references (table heading) say (and the figures given here should match what they say, or the table should be changed). However, Rob's edit summary is mistaken. David ruled 40 years, 7 in Hebron and 33 in Jerusalem. So 7 years after his accession in Judah he conquered Jerusalem and made it his capital. It didn't take seven years for him to be accepted as king of all Israel (he just was still residing in Hebron) - Ishbaal reigned for two years and after his death, the (non-Judean) Israelites accepted David as king. I have changed the figures accordingly (with the caveat that I don't know what these scholars say). Str1977 14:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I got confused on the dates.--Rob117 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ishbaal son of Saul

on that note, I added him. He was king of Israel for a couple of years. Ericl 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

New page

Perhaps the list of kings should be incorporated into a new page, possibly List of kings of Israel. Lemmy Kilmister 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman State

Why is there no discussion of the Kingdom of Israel as a state of Rome, or under Greek domination? It was the fall of Rome which led to the ultimate undoing of the Kingdom of Israel. Jon Jonasson (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Kingdom of Israel under that name ended with the Assyrian conquest of ca. 721 B.C. Subsequent Jewish kingdoms were known as "Judea", not "Israel". Also, I'm not sure what relevance the "fall of Rome" has -- Jewish kingship ended basically with the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D., while the Roman or Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire continued to rule the region for more than 500 years more... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Elementary my dear friend, the fall of the Western Roman Empire, followed by the reduction of power in the Eastern Roman Empire, essentially eliminated the Pax Romana. This left Israel/Judea vulnerable to external attack and domination by masters even less pleasant than the Romans. We need not name them. Jon Jonasson (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for this thesis, the Romans themselves actively eliminated all relics of Jewish sovereignty in this area as a result of the First Jewish Revolt of ca. 70 A.D. and the Second Jewish Revolt of ca. 135 A.D., long before the western Roman empire started to fall. Furthermore, some Jews, at least, welcomed the medium-term consequences of the Muslim invasions of the 630's A.D., since they found Arab rule to be less oppressive towards them than had been Byzantine rule. The Christians fell under suspicion as coreligionists of a state permanently at war with the Arab caliphate, while the Jews were considered militarily and politically harmless by comparison... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no diaspora under the Romans. The diaspora was the ultimate undoing of the homeland. Jon Jonasson (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, after 135 A.D. Jews were prohibited by the Romans from living in Jerusalem or its general vicinity, "Judea" was renamed "Palaestina", Jerusalem was renamed "Aelia Capitolina", and a temple to Juppiter Capitolinus was established on the site where the Jewish temple had been destroyed in 70 A.D. I find it very difficult to ascertain what you're really trying to say, but it seems unlikely that it will have much relevance to improving the article Kingdom of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have lowerered the level of discourse to "Dude", that probably says it all. Jon Jonasson (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since none of your comments has any relevance to improving the article Kingdom of Israel (which is the dedicated purpose for this page in the first place), there was little point in you adding them here. AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map that appears at the top of the article appears to have a typo, referring to a Kingdom of Maob. Is this supposed to be the Kingdom of Moab? --198.179.142.6 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This can actually be fixed rather easily - First sentence: little is know of _ , outside of passages in the bible. Then subsum all bible information under a = according to the bible = header. Oh, and PLEASE remove bible quotes from references. That is just funny. --*DuckundWeg* (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

States in the map

The map is not accurate: "Kingdom of Egypt" should be specified in place of "Arabu tribes". The most of this map presents states, not tribes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.101.29 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheba?

At the top of the graphic, it shows a "Sheba" as having reigned over Israel at the same time (?) as David. If there's no source for this, I think it should be edited out. Are there any objections? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Editors agree that the current title is not ideal, but don't agree about which (if any) new title would be preferable.  Sandstein  12:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) → Kingdom of Israel (Northern) – Title is misleading, it could be misunderstood to imply that the it consists of Samaria, rather then that it's capital was Samaria (ancient city). The map clearly shows that it consists of of northern Palestine, not just Samaria. --Relisted. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support The phrase "northern Kingdom of Israel" gets hundreds of thousands of hits at Google Books, whereas the phrase "Kingdom of Israel" plus Samaria gets fewer than 50,000. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest Israel (northern kingdom). Kingdom of Israel (Northern) implies the existence of a Kingdom of Israel (southern). Kauffner (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Israel (northern kingdom) would have the same problem, the implication that there is an Israel (southern kingdom). I would prefer Northern Kingdom of Israel [currently a redirect to Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)], thus differentiating it from Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) and Kingdom of Judah. Editor2020 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. Biblically, this state is given as simply "Israel." Ahab "reigned over Israel" (1 Kings 16:29) -- no "kingdom of" or "northern." Kauffner (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

However, if there are separate articles on the unified kingdom of Israel and the northern kingdom of Israel, then it would be good to distinguish them. AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Would support some general shift from "Samaria" to "northern" in the article title, but "Kingdom of Israel (Northern)" has several problems (starting with the capital "N")... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely needs a new title which includes 'northern' but not Samaria, but like AnonMoos I'm not sure what. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Rename somehow. Neither the present name nor the target are satisfactory. According to the Bible, the Davidic kingdom was split into Israel and Judah after the death of Solomon. However, "Kingdom of Israel" has multiple meanings, so that a disambiguator is needed. Israel (northern kingdom) would contrast with Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) and the modern state, not to mention vague theological concepts about kingship over Israel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest a move to Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom). It's hardly parsimonious, but it seems to best reflect various the alternative usages. I'd consider Kingdom of Israel (northern kingdom) or Kingdom of Israel (Northern) to be acceptable (and preferable to the present title), also. 84.203.36.112 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Israel (northern kingdom)" is semi-stupid, but it's the best of those three, and I don't have a better suggestion... AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Harsh, but very likely fair. :) My preference for "Northern Kingdom" (over "northern kingdom")as the "disambiguating term" is because in that form it's a viable alt-title, as it sees some use in that form. "Kingdom of Samaria" could be argued on the same basis, but seems less common. I'm not sure on what basis one chooses between a less-common "natural name" and a more-common "parenthetic term", but Northern Kingdom of Israel could also be argued on the former basis. 84.203.32.193 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Northern kingdom" is not a proper name, and can often appear in lowercase if prefixed by the definite article (i.e. "the northern kingdom"), so that Wikipedia style would suggest not capitalizing... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My cursory googling indicates it predominantly is capitalised in running text (but not universally, with the occasion "northern kingdom", or indeed "northern Kingdom") -- just as it is in the text of this article, particularly where it's introduced as a bold alt-title. That implies to me that it is being used as a proper noun. (Unless it all can be ascribed to the Excess Capitals one Often Sees in various Biblical Topics for no sound reason of Good Style.) 84.203.41.69 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• All these alternate proposals seem a bit too complicated. Northern Kingdom and Kingdom of Samaria are both unambiguous enough to already direct here without hatnotes. They're terms "often" used by historians. So why not choose one of them? As a bonus, we don't even need a diambiguating term. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Samaria" isn't what it called itself, and only appears somewhat marginally in the Bible (the expression "king of Samaria" appears 2 or 3 times, but rather inconsistently -- see 1 Kings 21, etc.). "Northern kingdom" on its own (without any geographically-localized word) is extremely generic, and could have a number of historical meanings... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it really doesn't matter what the kingdom called itself, as long as we use a name that's supported in reliable sources. Northern Kingdom may sound generic, but if there are any other topics with a claim to that name, you wouldn't know it from Wikipedia. Again, that title redirects right here without a hatnote. So does Northern kingdom. There's no dab page or anything. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

One would if one looked at the Arnor article. Admittedly, it doesn't bold-alt-title the term, nor has anyone made the case (or the edits) to turn the redirect into a disambig, but it's would not be beyond plausibility to do either. It's not unambiguous by a stretch, so this amounts to saying it's sufficiently so to be the "predominant sense". "Kingdom of Samaria" seems to actually fail the "proper noun" test (much moreso than "Northern Kingdom"), if googling for it is any indication: most running text usage I'm seeing is simply "kingdom of Samaria". (The article text currently asserts otherwise, mind you.) Each of these is distinctly marginal as "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English", in the latter case on "name" grounds, as well as "commonality". That there would be no need for a disambiguator isn't a bonus -- it's the only reason for choose one of these at all. 84.203.34.28 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Difficult. Agree that the current title is not ideal, but the proposed title is worse, and the alternative proposals so far are no better. The current title may even be the best we can do. This may well be a case where the rules are wrong, although I'm not convinced of that. Certainly if we just count up the easily available reliable sources and regard this as a vote, Northern Kingdom (undisambiguated) will win, because there's so much theology and bible commentary on the WWW. But that doesn't mean that this title is recognisable to readers (WP:AT of course). Most readers have absolutely no exposure to this wealth of Christian scholarship. So Northern Kingdom used in this sense is far more esoteric than it would appear to be by a simple count of ghits or even of Google Scholar hits, and should be avoided. Andrewa (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Bible Unearthed

Would whoever keeps adding this book under See Also please stop it? There are literally hundreds of books that are relevant to the subject of this article, and no reason at all to set one up as being above all the others. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As it's used in the article and someone for some reason added a who tag, I've replaced the tag with the authors and the book. That seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Name of the Kingdom

"House of Joseph": One of the referenced verses, II Samuel 2:10, does not use the term (and wouldn't, since it is before the division of the kingdom). "Israel in Samaria": the referenced verse, 1 Kings 22:51, says "Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria", which means Ahab reigned in Samaria. It's not calling the kingdown "Israel in Samaria". This is made unambiguous in some translations e.g. the Contemporary English Version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.79.118 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Baalism (repressed)?

I try to stay out of religious discussions, but the characterization of the Kingdom of Israel's religion as "Yahwehism" and "Baalism (repressed)" has it backwards. Most commonly, worship of Yahweh in the northern kingdom was an underground activity of the people and it was repressed, often severely, by the King. Travel to Jerusalem was immediately suppressed by Jeroboam, who built golden calves and Asherah poles so that his subjects would not be traveling to Jerusalem and coming under the influence of Rehoboam.

Just as one outstanding instance, Ahab and Jezebel murdered every prophet of Yahweh they could find; Obadiah saved 100 by hiding and feeding them, and Elijah hid in a cave. There was no time at which "Yahwehism" was the state religion of the Kingdom of Israel. At maximum, Yahweh was included among the panoply of gods in polytheistic Israel, and at minimum, worship of Yahweh was ruthlessly repressed by the state. Apollo (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

chronology

What is the basis of this revised chronology? What support does it have, outside of the people who created it? The way that it is presented, it appears as if it is being claimed that virtually no one accepts this. If so, why does this chronology predominate in this entry? Shouldn't speculative theories have their own entry? I am not against discussing this topic, I just want to know why a speculative topic with (it seems) little outside support is the only point of view here. (Or maybe I am missing something.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.160.138 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2002 (UTC)

The revised chronology *is* controversial, but the article in its current form does not use any extra-biblical sources to verify its chronology or the existence of a united monarchy. Archaeological and textual critics have supplied enough evidence to challenge the idea of a united monarchy. Under Wikipedia's guidelines, the article should not present information from the bible as if it were established fact. The article on the History of Israel and Judah give a much more detailed perspective of Israel's history before the time of the Omride dynasty, which archaeology now indicates constructed the previously assumed Solomonic sites at Megiddo, Samaria, Jezreel, and other places. I'm not arguing that the biblical narrative should be removed, but given the challenges posed to it by archaeology and textual criticism, and the obvious biases involved, the physical evidence itself shouldn't be treated as an irrelevant fringe theory. The article should at least be clear that the only attestation of a united monarchy comes from the bible and treat it as any other religious source. As it is, it doesn't give equal weight to the merits of this scholarship. As there isn't another article about the *Historic* kingdom of Israel, it would be inappropriate for this article to assume the united monarchy theory is correct. For a breakdown of some of the issues, read away. This is by no means the only source for the theory, and other sources are cited in this article:

http://www.academia.edu/1070727/A_Great_United_Monarchy_Archaeological_and_Historical_Perspectives

I am flagging the article for its use of a religious text as a primary source. Until this and some of the issues above are resolved or addressed, please do not remove the flag and work with me to reach a solution that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropyandvodka (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

entropyandvodka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropyandvodka (talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Introduction Non-Neutral, Unhistorical Error

The third paragraph of the beginning of this article reads:

Modern scholarship, including textual criticism and archaeology, has challenged the biblical account that the northern kingdom of Israel broke off from a united monarchy with the southern kingdom of Judah, suggesting instead that the northern civilization of Israel developed independently of Judah, a comparatively small and rural area, and that it first reached the political, economic, military and architectural sophistication of a kingdom under the Omride dynasty around 884 BCE.

This is completely untrue and the archaeological evidence suggests virtually the exact opposite. For example, the rapid, unprecedented urbanization of Palestine in the 10th century BC isn't to be explained by the "two independent states of Judah and Israel" theory. In addition to Palestine, the Negev becomes littered with 40+ fortresses out of nowhere in that same (Solomonic) time-period. Finkelstein's objection to this is that Judah isn't as urbanized as Israel until the 8th/7th centuries BC - this is irrelevant since as he points out, Israel had far more resources, and the urbanization began in David's time: towns had virtually no walls except the outer walls of houses on the perimeter, replaced by actual walls in Solomon's day.

The reason Judah has very few built structures in this time period is because they were ravaged in David's time (p.374), and rebuilding doesn't happen within a generation. Shishak's campaign left the north pretty devastated and as Judah would have taken much of their resources (their whole complaint to Rehoboam and why they broke off), it isn't until the 9th century BC that they become an urbanized kingdom. Makes much more sense than an originally independent, affluent kingdom that for some reason only precedes Judah's urbanization by a century or so, spoke the same language as Judah (a different dialect as Finkelstein admits), and had religious ties (Jehu's wiping out of the Omrite dynasty in the name of Yahweh, for Yahweh prophets; religious pilgrims into southern Judah as late as the 8th/7th centuries BC! [references in Amos, Isaiah as Leslie points out in his book, The Old Testament in Light of its Canaanites Background [1936]]). The placing of the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan - opposite ends of Israel's southern and northern borders - by Jeroboam, the founder in the late 10th century BC, makes much more sense as a rebellion politically and religiously from Judah than an independent arisal, because there would have been a centralized cult, as in Judah, rather than a defensive one as if the kingdom was fighting off an earlier influence. The Tel Dan Inscription would have never mentioned a House of David. Finally, the capital would have never switched so many times - evidence of a disorganized new kingdom out of a revolt. Compare with Judah which had the capital move only twice in 50 years and remain the same.

The earlier time reflects the formation of Judah, just as the 10th/9th century BC seems to reflect the formation of Israel, and archaeology does not support an earlier time for Israel to develop as a kingdom: an interesting coincidence that both developed at the same time and that it was Judah who for some reason seems to have dominated Israel religiously, politically, and historically despite the opposite being the natural assumption as Finkelstein himself notes. The same happened many times in history where an able military commander could overtake a larger foe by his military abilities (e.g. Alexander the Great, and just about any successful kingdom that arose and fell quickly, like the United Monarchy). The same occurred after Alexander's conquests - depleted manpower and razed cities, though, naturally, on a much smaller scale. In Jerusalem, a monumental building existed more appropriate for David's time than Solomon's, and is tempting to identify it with the fortress of Zion (1 Chronicles 11:5) (p.374). "It would appear that the first half of the tenth century B.C.E. was a transitional period in which the Israelites began to develop an urban culture. The modest archaeological data from the time of David, although not conforming with the image of an empire founder, is consistent with the biblical accounts, which do not attribute to him any building operations." (ibid., pp.374-5). And the whole problem is that Finkelstein has in view a Charlemagne or an Augustus when thinking of David, when it should be more along the lines of a Clovis or Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria.

Aharoni and Avi-Yonah's MacMillan Bible Atlas points out that Asa (early 9th century) fortified his western, southern, and eastern borders, but not his northern in hopes of reconquering the territory that was originally part of his grandfather's (Solomon's) kingdom. Why he wouldn't fortify his northern border against his biggest threat (Israel in the north) until Baasha's conquests, the natural result of this, cannot be explained by Finkelstein's hypothesis. Cornelius (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And all of this is interesting but pointless without sources specifically discussing the data of Judah. See WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarnaria (instead of Samaria) is a typo, right?

Is it a result of vandalism? Or is there some twisted deeper explanation? Arminden (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Jeroboam or Omri?

There are a number of cases where we do have external, ancient Near Eastern written evidence that deals with events depicted in these Historical Books. For example, the events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib in 701 BCE are narrated in several Assyrian sources, and are also depicted in the palace reliefs of that king. These sources suggest that part of the terse account in 2 Kings 18.13-16 is quite accurate, while the highly developed continuation of the story in chs 19 and 20, especially the note in 19.35, that the angel of the LoRD killed 185,ooo Assyrian soldiers in a single night, is most likely imaginative. Similarly, from various Mesopotamian sources, we know of a "house of Omri"; Omri's name is also mentioned on the Moabite Mesha Stele. This confirms the existence of the Northern (Israelite) king mentioned in 1 Kings 16.23-28. However, Kings tells little of his achievements during his twelve years as monarch, other than his building of Samaria and the notice that: "Omri did what was displeasing to the LORD; he was worse than all who preceded him. He followed all the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat and the sins which he committed and caused Israel to commit, vexing the LoRD, the God of Israel, with their futilities" (vv. 25-26). The external sources, however, suggest that Omri was a powerful king who established a significant name for himself through his military activities. This highlights the extreme selectivity of the biblical sources. Archeological evidence confirms the picture suggested above: There may be some truth (or kernel of truth) to some of the biblical stories, but in their current form, they lack historical veracity, because that is not their prime concern.

— Jewish Study Bible, 1st ed., pp. 454-455

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

First off, the great majority of ancient and medieval chroniclers are quite vague when it comes to large numbers of people (in the mutiple thousands). The "185,000" number doesn't cast any real doubt on the Bible, since many of historians of the time (such as Herodotus) were equally careless with large numbers. Also, we have an article Assyrian siege of Jerusalem which discusses historical sources. Ancient Assyrian royal inscriptions are almost as problematic as the Bible in some ways, since they almost always propagandistically proclaim that Assyrian forces were victorious (whether they actually were or not). Of course, when recounting where the Assyrian armies went and which battles they fought, they're more or less authoritative... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, searching further, the JSB considers him a real king, so I will self-revert. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

TfD Notice

There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Theocracy

Except for Constantine the Great's rule, all Ancient countries were theocracies. They did not knew separation between church and state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Most ancient countries had a favored or official religion whose rituals and ceremonies were upheld by the country's rulers, but it's not a theocracy unless the religious authorities are also the country's rulers.. AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kingdom of Israel 1020 map.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

References in pop culture

Is a section dedicated to references in pop culture needed? I personally know some games that portray the kingdom of Israel /Judeah SjoerdsDeVisser (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) → Kingdom of Samaria – The current title is a poor choice based on the standing precepts of WP:NCDAB, with specific regards to the point that natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Kingdom of Samaria already directs here, so this page is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the term "Kingdom of Samaria" is common enough in scholarly literature that it clearly ticks all the boxes to be preferable to a parenthetical approach - not least the current parenthetical approach, which ironically uses the name "Samaria" to disambiguate the base term, and in doing so makes plain that the latter is actually the name with the greater precision (as well as potential concision) in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This makes sense on the basis of scholarly use and to clearly differentiate from confusion over the various uses of Kingdom of Israel (where this needs a following qualification.) Pngeditor (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ref Bolter21. The common name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah. This is important as even though that entity probably did not exist, and the Kingdom of Samaria actually did, the correct use of the name is needed to specify what is meant when we refer to Israel in this time period. There simply was no Kingdom of Israel without a qualifier to say what is meant by that term. It is not a case of differentiation it is a case of specification. These were Israelite Kingdoms however that does not mean they were Kingdoms of IsraelPngeditor (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree -- It called itself "Israel", and claimed to be the inheritor of the northern tribes of Israel. "Samaria" was the capital city, but a bit of an exonym as the name of the kingdom... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

These points are somewhat besides the point, which is one of disambiguation (since lots of things are called Israel). But for the sake of completeness of discussion, theoretically speaking, so what if it were an exonym? I'm not aware of a guideline which says 'avoid exonyms'; on the contrary, that typically doesn't come into it: the Germans don't call their country 'Germany', but the English-speaking world does. But further to that point: who/what source says it called itself Israel? The earliest historical references largely speak of a "House of Omri" or "Samaria". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree - The Bible calls it Israel. Dovidroth (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. The official name was Mamleket Yisra'el aka Kingdom of Israel. Most sources, including the Bible, call it so. Samaria was just the capital for some time.Lisa Day-Daniels (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Biblical usage is not the issue here. The outstanding issue of this page is that it shares a base name with multiple other entities. In such a context, WP:NCDAB advocates the use of natural disambiguation to alternative titles, such as, in this instance, the "Kingdom of Samaria" - a page title that already directs here, and is supported in scholarly usage [27]. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 -- Exonyms are not banned from Wikipedia article titles, but mere Wikipedia disambiguation convenience is a very weak reason to retitle an article with an exonym. There should be some better motivation than that before undertaking a drastic renaming. AnonMoos (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I provided several reasons. It is not just disambiguation convenience: it is replacing a clunky title that requires parenthetical disambiguation with a natural form of disambiguation that requires no clunky parentheses. If the current title was precise, the parentheses would not be required. "Kingdom of Samaria" is therefore more precise, as well as more concise, alongside the disambiguation concerns - so that is two key article title WP:CRITERIA by which the current title is inferior. Removing the imprecise name that fails to disambiguate while retaining the precise "Samaria", which is there for the very reason that it is necessary to provide the required degree of precision is hardly a 'drastic renaming'; it simply shortens the current title and removes brackets, retaining all the precision in a tighter title. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In any case, from where do you derive the confidence that "Samaria" even is an exonym? The article Samaria prefers the name as a territory of the city from which the name derives, and if "Samaria" was such an unnatural name for the territory then it that makes it extremely odd that it is the name of choice, in the form of "Judea and Samaria Area", for the Israeli government in it administrative pretensions of ownership to the area, and it is also odd that Josephus so confidently wrote: "Now as to the country of Samaria, it lies between Judea and Galilee ...". Is it indeed exonymic? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, this runs counter to the principle of least astonishment. Not using the word "Israel" in the title would definitely be surprising to many readers. Second, the case *for* the removing is pretty weak, there is no comparison of the relative usage of the alternatives. Alaexis_¿question? 19:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The principle of least astonishment: "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle." The precise name here that already conveys the actual geography under discussion is "Samaria" - a natural and recognizable name for a precise territory. "Israel", by contrast, is the very term that is currently a source of ambiguity and confusion, since it can refer to various former states and also has quite different modern territorial associations. As for your other point of dissatisfaction, no other alternative names are currently present in the article, so it is unclear what terms you are looking for a usage analysis on - but you are of course welcome to provide such terms and an analysis yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  You are proposing the move, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's "commonly used." You've shown that there is some usage but for all we know it could be that it's only used 1 time out of 100 when referring to the entity in question. Alaexis_¿question? 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  The land has commonly been called Samaria from Assyrian through to present times (as I've noted above, with everyone from Josephus to the Israeli Government agreeing on this), hence why the page for the region is at Samaria and no one has ever suggested moving it and why "Kingdom of Samaria" is a very natural and self-explanatory title. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  From the academic side, among the scholarly references that I linked to above in Google Scholar, we can see that famed Israeli archaeologist Adam Zertal (a tenured professor of Haifa University) was a proponent of the term, writing the likes of The heart of the monarchy: pattern of settlement and historical considerations of the Israelite kingdom of Samaria. It also pops up frequently in research on the Samaritans, since obviously this is from where their name derives, including in this article: The Samaritans by Shemaryahu Talmon, another tenured professor (Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Of the fact that it is a perfectly acceptable scholarly term, and therefore a perfectly acceptable alt name, there can be absolutely no doubt. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most commonly referred to as the Kingdom of Israel, not often as the Kingdom of Samaria. WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION does not trump WP:COMMONNAME unless the proposed name is very commonly used. This is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Necrothesp -- Thanks for explaining the intersection of facts and policies better than I did... AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: 'Very commonly used' is surely a highly subjective concept? WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION simply says: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names." Here, the proposed alt name is perfectly viable and well supported and is far from obscure or 'made-up'. One might even argue that the historical record as a whole prefers "Samaria", with only the Bible really demurring. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 -- Yes, "Kingdom of Samaria" is a viable alternative or secondary name. However, I don't think it's a good idea to change from the main or primary name to an alternative or secondary name motivated by Wikipedia convenience. It would be like renaming the "Switzerland" article to "Helvetia" because it's confusing that too many things have "Swiss" in their names. You could also rename "Portugal" to Lusitania... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: It is not at all like that, because both of those examples are clear WP:PRIMARYTOPICs for their names. The entire point here is that the subject is NOT the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its base name and so already requires supplementary parenthetical disambiguation - to which, as WP:NCDAB states, natural disambiguation is preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

However, if there were two countries named "Switzerland" in the world and Europe's one had a page on Wikipedia titled "Switzerland (Europe)" then it would be better to go with "Swiss Confederation", its official name, per WP:NCDAB - just like we use Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo to disambiguate the two Congos. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ths submitter of this proposal has used a very weak argument and the wrong policy. It should go with WP:COMMONNAME.

The kingdom had several exonyms in both biblical (a mostly Judahite work) and Assyrian sources (Samaria, Ephraim, Beth Omri, etc.). Yet, it is definitely most commonly known in the scholarly work as "Kingdom of Israel". While the title "Kingdom of Samaria" appears 334 times in the Google Scholar search by Iskandar323, who submitted this proposal, the name "Kingdom of Israel" has yielded 19,300 results, almost 60 times more than "Kingdom of Samaria".

The reason why the "(Samaria)" was added to the title in the first place, I believe, is to distinguish between the historical "Kingdom of Israel" with its capital in Samaria (ancient city) to the (United) "Kingdom of Israel" from the Book of Kings, which has its own article: Kingdom of Israel (United Monarchy).

Therefore this is clearly a case of WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Kingdom of Israel" and "Kingdom of Samaria" is definately not. It doesn't really matter if this is an exonym or an endonym. We call Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II this way, even though their titles were probably closer to Tukultī-apil-Ešarra and Šarru-kīn. The scholarly community has traditionally preferred the biblical versions of these kings. The same goes for Jesus, Joseph, and John who were probably Yeshua, Yosef, and Yochanan, and we call Germany "Germany" instead of Deutschland. By the way Iskandar323, you have made an error when referencing Josephus, because he is talking about the name of the province between Judaea and Gallilee in Classical times, which is still the name of the mountainous region between Jerusalem and the Jezreel Valley in Hebrew up until this day. This title was given to the land by the Assyrians, after the capital of the kingdom they destroyed. They have done the same in the Syrio-Anatolian cities. Aside from the Assyrians and the Hebrew Bible, there aren't many relevant sources on that matter. But the Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele, written by the enemies of Israel from North and Southeast clearly refer to it as "Israel", while the grand Assyrian empire degrade them to their capital or ruling house "Bit Humri - House of Omri". This whole discussion is of course useless, as here in Wikipedia, we mostly go by COMMONNAME, which in this case, is the name used by our sources.

I've checked several sources in English, and most of them simply use "Israel" or otherwise "Kingdom of Israel" and "Northern Kingdom" (most notable Finkelstein in his book The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel.

I would suggest moving this to "Kingdom of Israel" without the parentheses, and moving the article Kingdom of Israel (United Monarchy) to "United Monarchy of Israel". Otherwise, keep it that way.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bolter21. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Israel largest extent.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)