Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Primary source flag on biblical narrative section[edit]

@Iskandar323 I see you put a flag on the biblical narrative section. I disagree with your reasoning since I believe a reader would understand the biblical narrative here precisely as if it were a novel. The page somewhat addresses the lack of archeological evidence (although perhaps without enough weight to voices of skeptics), and no secondary sources would exist to "prove" the biblical narrative besides commentary and literary analysis. Still, the biblical narrative remains notable and should be somewhat addressed on this page.

I consider it similar to the Gilgamesh: that page makes no claims that the stories in the epics happened, despite the fact that Gilgamesh may have been a real king in the city of Uruk.

Additionally, there are a few secondary sources in the section. So, I really don't think this particular flag is needed here.

That being said, can you elaborate on your concerns here so that I can make sure I understood them correctly? And, what can be done to address your concerns? too_much curiosity (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section isn't a simple plot summary based on primary sources. In the second paragraph it reads: "According to the biblical account, the united monarchy was formed by a large popular expression in favour of introducing a king to rule over the decentralised Israelite confederacy." The Bible says not such thing. This is a highly interpretive reckoning of the fables. The section juggles between the literal and the interpretive throughout, later with "Some modern archaeologists ..." This is perhaps the nature of the subject. The 'united monarchy' is a theory borne out of biblical interpretation, so it cannot really be just a plot summary, because there is no single story from the bible that is being discussed. It is a summation of stories from Samuel 1 and 2 and Kings 1, and we really need secondary sources to explain this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! I understand your point now. Also, you are absolutely correct that many sentences are highly problematic/interpretive and should be removed quite frankly.
I am curious though, would you prefer replace the juggling between literal and narrative with just narrative (should narrative secondary sources be included)? I happen to strongly believe would is the best approach to making a coherent section on the page. too_much curiosity (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISO code[edit]

There appears to be an ISO 3166 code in the infobox. I haven't found a way to remove it. I don't think they had ISO codes back then. Am I missing something or could/should this be removed from the infobox? Midwood123 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2023[edit]

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: Not moved. In the support column were arguments that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME here. However, the opposers argued that the proposed title is ambiguous and too vague. There were also several alternate proposals raised throughout the course of the RM, though there is no consensus which of them is preferred over the others, or whether any of the opposers support the alternate proposals. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) → United Monarchy – The subject of this page is a postulated political entity most prevalently referred to in scholarship as the "United Monarchy". This term's prevalence in scholarship is demonstrated in a search of "Kingdom of Israel" and "United Monarchy" together in Google Scholar - which sees "United Monarchy" almost invariably come out on top in the title. Even imagining that "United Monarchy" is not the most prevalent term for the subject, it would still be a naturally disambiguated title, which, per WP:NCDAB, is preferred over a parenthetically disambiguated one (which is unconcise by its nature, as rather effectively exemplified here). "United Kingdom of Israel" is also a frequent term in scholarship, but if we compare the general usage of the two terms, "United Monarchy" comes out clearly on top in Ngrams. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm confused as usual. A possibly fictitious united monarchy supposedly produced successors Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah. If KoI (Samaria) is instead called Kingdom of Samaria and this article becomes United Monarchy, then we hardly need the disambiguation Kingdom of Israel, am I right? Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did suggest "Kingdom of Samaria" before as natural disambiguation for the other page, per WP:NCDAB, but there was considerable pushback. But on the disambiguation point, this is sustained by the use in scholarship of the term for both topics mentioned here, in addition to theological musings on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no value in removing clarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One could argue that by removing ambiguity and refocusing the title on the prevalent title in scholarship that it would actually add clarity. I'm less clear what the present clarity is to be removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly the only united monarchy in history (if it indeed even existed). The Austro-Hungarian Empire is another. The Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Denmark–Norway/Union between Sweden and Norway. All are/were united monarchies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    United Monarchy all caps in scholarly literature is singular. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's utterly irrelevant when we're dealing with clarity issues. Our main aim in disambiguation should always be to assist our users, not to smugly apply some dogma. The proposed title is very clearly ambiguous. I should also point out that many of those results refer to the "United Monarchy of (Ancient) Israel". But all of them are in the context which makes it perfectly obvious what they're referring to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're treating "United Monarchy" like it's a generic term, but it's not. None of those pages mentioned above use the term even once, and no evidence has been provided of the generic usage of the term. Dual monarchy is the name for those examples, not "United Monarchy". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or personal union for various forms of two-way, three-way or more. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Idk if there is a better way of arranging the titles/dabs/hatnotes and whatnot to reduce the confusion but I am not convinced that simplifying just this title is the solution. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "United Kingdom of Israel" also exists as a perfectly viable, non-parenthetical alt name for those of the view that "United Monarchy" offers too little descriptive precision on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems better than the parenthetical if it is in common use (and the other common names as redirects). Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it is common enough in academic literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. 'United Monarchy' could have way more implications other than this. PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Final relist, in the hope of increasing participation and generating a clear consensus BilledMammal (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per apparent WP:COMMONNAME. If clarity is a problem (no evidence for an exact match has been shown, however, and note that United Monarchy already redirects here) then move to United Monarchy (Israel). The current title looks much worse with the simultaneous use of natural disambiguation and parenthesis, and with the more common name qualifying the less common. Avilich (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:COMMONNAME. Emolu (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article was originally called United Monarchy until it was moved in 2009 with edit summary "the article is exclusively about the Kingdom of Israel not arbitrary united monarchies" by an editor with strong (and apparently incorrect) opinions about the Kingdom of Israel. While a search does throw up one or two cases of "united monarchy" referring to some other use case, nearly all refer to this particular instance therefore there is no real confusion for which a hatnote would not suffice if needed.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "United Monarchy" is far too general a term to apply it without any qualifications to this particular case. Would this be a case of bias towards the Abrahamic religions, and perhaps religious history generally? See WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatGallacher: I'm not sure I understand your point here about bias. Is the suggestion that there is a problematic systematic bias in the scholarship with the use of this academic term? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not suggesting that there is a problem with this term in specialist literature on ancient Israelite history, or in contexts where the meaning is clear, but there are problems about just diving in in the context of a general encyclopedia. Just as an example, in the context of writings on Scottish history, there isn't a problem with referring to James V, but we give him a fuller title in his Wikipedia article, James V of Scotland. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There seems to be a feeling among opposers that "United Monarchy" could refer to other topics, but without any qualification, I don't think it's likely people would confuse it with other cases of a monarchy that happens to be united somehow. Remember, it needs to not merely "be" a united monarchy, but also called the United Monarchy such that someone would look it up under that title - someone interested in the Acts of Union 1707 can look it up under many other titles. Meanwhile, per above, the grounds on which the move was originally done are faulty - a claim that the Hasmonean era kingdom was called the "Kingdom of Israel" is false (it was usually called Judea or the Hasmonean kingdom). A perusal of the sources indicates that unadorned, "United Monarch" does generally refer to the hypothetical Israeli state. A hatnote can cover any confusion. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too vague and ambiguous. #prodraxis connect 01:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think that the United Monarchy of Israel or a little more extreme, the United Kingdom of Israel is more better. ▪︎ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 11:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The concerns over ambiguity don't hold water. I've searched Google, Google News, and Google Books for the phrase "united monarchy" and the results I found were universally about the United Monarchy of ancient Israel. United Monarchy has redirected to this article, without any controversy, for fourteen years. Pageview stats show that people are not following the hatnote to personal union in large enough numbers to be represented, indicating that readers interested in the unification of monarchies are not being mistakenly funneled here. When taken together, the evidence makes it clear that the phrase "United Monarchy" alone refers WP:PRECISEly to this period of Israel's history. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If consensus does not emerge for "United Monarchy" alone, a DAB such as United Monarchy (Israel) or United Monarchy of Israel would also be preferable to the status quo. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose “United Monarchy” is too generic, and the theorized Kingdom was purportedly called “Kingdom of Israel” - I don’t see the need to phase that into the background or byline Mistamystery (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose “United Monarchy” is too generic, and yes called “Kingdom of Israel” - so exactly. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I was a kid, I learned about this kingdom as the "United Kingdom". Someone then asked me in college who the first king of the "United Kingdom" was and I responded "Saul". He was nonplussed. Anyway, oppose, I'm not convinced this is actually the phrase that is used to refer to the United Kingdom of Israel. Red Slash 22:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This presumably signifies disagreement with the United Monarchy redirect? Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red Slash: I'm not sure I quite understand your response here. There appears to be nothing else that United Monarchy refers to in scholarly literature other than this subject. It seems both ridiculously prevalent and wholly unambiguous as a term. What am I missing? Iskandar323 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should clarify. Support United Kingdom of Israel as a better, more unambiguous, more easily recognizable title. Red Slash 15:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Vague and likely to be confused with something else. Drsmoo (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Asserting vagueness with vaguery. Bold. Something else like what? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that isn’t the Kingdom of Israel. Drsmoo (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like what?! What's an example of what it would be confused with, and based on what usage? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The monarchy of the United Kingdom for one, I can’t see any benefit whatsoever to removing Israel. It will invariably lead to confusion to remove Israel from the kingdom of Israel. Would you support, United Monarchy of Israel, which is used very often the Google scholar link above.Drsmoo (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 16 October 2023[edit]

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: No consensus. As seen in the prior move discussion just above, some people object to the current title but agreement still can't be reached on a new name. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) → United Kingdom of Israel – Following the rejection of the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, i.e. United Monarchy, at the previous discussion, the next best option is the alternative name sometimes used for the topic - one that also dispenses with the ghastly parenthetical disambiguation, and which, while only a distant runner up to United Monarchy in terms of actual scholarly usage, is also preferable, as a form of natural disambiguation, over the parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB. Examples of the scholarly usage can be found here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose The existing title has held tight for almost 20 years (minus the slight interregnum period where it was changed to just “United Monarchy”). There is no prevailing pressure to change this once again outside of a single-editor driven effort here.
That said, “United Kingdom of Israel” is definitely a less clunky title. Would need more editors to chime in here in terms of preference and general consensus on necessity on this proposed move.
Mistamystery (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NB: the page actually began at the title of "United Monarchy" (following the sources) before being moved to the present title without discussion in 2009 accompanied by a very muddled summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely accurate. Title edits between 2005 and 2009 were varied. (It held for a period as “The United Monarchy (United Kingdom of Israel and Judah or just Kingdom of Israel” Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the actual page title, not just what was randomly written in the first sentence regardless of what was present in the page title. Lead changes aren't page moves. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Plenty of sources use the term, and it's much smoother than the current title. It might have been the same for a while now, but I don't think it would hurt anything to change it. Jacksonmcdonald3425 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the kingdom’s title was not “United Kingdom of Israel”, but simply “Kingdom of Israel”. Any qualifiers need to be in parentheses as elsewhere on Wikipedia 2600:100F:B096:C0F9:848B:76FC:8601:CC75 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Palestine in infobox[edit]

From recent edits, I see there's disagreement over the inclusion of Palestine in the "today" section of the infobox. This seems like a reasonable inclusion, since the point is to show what current jurisdictions have land that was once thought to be the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Let me suggest discussing here rather than reverting etc. ProfGray (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)&oldid=1216503501"