This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Solomon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article cites works of Finkelstein and Lester L. Grabbe to claim that the consensus among scholars is that: regardless of whether or not a man named Solomon truly reigned as king over the Judean hills in the tenth century BCE, the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is almost surely an anachronistic exaggeration
. However,
this review of Grabbe's book seems to contradict that claim:
Grabbe outlines Finkelstein’s low chronology which dates the finds and events of Iron I and IIA a hundred years later than most archaeologists. This chronology has had a major impact on the historical study of the period. One implication of this is that buildings which had been associated with the united monarchy are dated later. With this issue and many others there is no unanimity of opinion.
P. J. Harland states that there is no unanimity of opinion in many topics related to the historicity of the United Monarchy, but he also states that Finkelstein’s low chronology (also followed by Grabbe) is not accepted by most archaeologists. Isn't the lead of the article giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion as if it represented a (supposed) scholarly consensus? I will wait for other editors' responses. Potatín5 ( talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the “his” in the name see “Shalem” entry in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Arguing in favor of the “shalom” reading, the author says,
”the name Selomoh indicates 'His (David's?) Peace', or, more probably, 'His (the deceased's) Healthiness' (STAmM 1980:45-57).”
The “his” is clear in the Hebrew. What’s contested is what follows. I’m happy to just have it as a both sides debate in the article. I haven’t had a chance to look at the more recent literature yet. The above DDD should be included in the article too. Lots of good info on Shalim.
I think this article should have maybe 4 sentences on etymology.
@ Sinclarian @ Potatín5 tr IncandescentBliss ( talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Images portrayed are not accurate representations of the description of King Solomon. Thiago1001 ( talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Remsense Closer up images are an advantage. Faces are the most recognizable parts of people and if we want people to understand what they are looking at, we should show primarily the face.
The Doré portrait has a unclear and undetailed face. For one, it's already zoomed out. Another is that the face can't really be distinguished from the beard. Another is that Solomon's brow droops down to such an extent that his eyes are shadowed. It is true that color is not an inherent advantage, but a color painting is more pleasing to look at than a black and white engraving, so it is more inviting to the reader, at least in my opinion. Even if color is not necessarily an "advantage", I don't see why that justifies reversion. Can you prove that lack of color is an advantage? ― Howard • 🌽33 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Remsense, I don't really understand how the portrait you chose is any more "historical" than the one I've chosen? According to Wikimedia commons, the portrait you've chosen is from 1700 while the one I've chosen is from 1872. Solomon is said to have lived in the 10th century BCE, so neither portrait is more "historical" than the other. The only reason I chose my this portrait is because it's a high quality scan of a painting and not just a blurry, dark photo of an icon. It's consistent with almost every other Biblical character to have a painted portrait in the infobox. If you are insistent in keeping this icon as the infobox portrait, please use a more high quality photograph. ― Howard • 🌽33 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Another case where an imaginary depiction will generally be suitable in an article is if it is a well-known, high-quality artwork that is independently notable as such.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Solomon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article cites works of Finkelstein and Lester L. Grabbe to claim that the consensus among scholars is that: regardless of whether or not a man named Solomon truly reigned as king over the Judean hills in the tenth century BCE, the biblical description of his apparent empire's lavishness is almost surely an anachronistic exaggeration
. However,
this review of Grabbe's book seems to contradict that claim:
Grabbe outlines Finkelstein’s low chronology which dates the finds and events of Iron I and IIA a hundred years later than most archaeologists. This chronology has had a major impact on the historical study of the period. One implication of this is that buildings which had been associated with the united monarchy are dated later. With this issue and many others there is no unanimity of opinion.
P. J. Harland states that there is no unanimity of opinion in many topics related to the historicity of the United Monarchy, but he also states that Finkelstein’s low chronology (also followed by Grabbe) is not accepted by most archaeologists. Isn't the lead of the article giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion as if it represented a (supposed) scholarly consensus? I will wait for other editors' responses. Potatín5 ( talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the “his” in the name see “Shalem” entry in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Arguing in favor of the “shalom” reading, the author says,
”the name Selomoh indicates 'His (David's?) Peace', or, more probably, 'His (the deceased's) Healthiness' (STAmM 1980:45-57).”
The “his” is clear in the Hebrew. What’s contested is what follows. I’m happy to just have it as a both sides debate in the article. I haven’t had a chance to look at the more recent literature yet. The above DDD should be included in the article too. Lots of good info on Shalim.
I think this article should have maybe 4 sentences on etymology.
@ Sinclarian @ Potatín5 tr IncandescentBliss ( talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Images portrayed are not accurate representations of the description of King Solomon. Thiago1001 ( talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Remsense Closer up images are an advantage. Faces are the most recognizable parts of people and if we want people to understand what they are looking at, we should show primarily the face.
The Doré portrait has a unclear and undetailed face. For one, it's already zoomed out. Another is that the face can't really be distinguished from the beard. Another is that Solomon's brow droops down to such an extent that his eyes are shadowed. It is true that color is not an inherent advantage, but a color painting is more pleasing to look at than a black and white engraving, so it is more inviting to the reader, at least in my opinion. Even if color is not necessarily an "advantage", I don't see why that justifies reversion. Can you prove that lack of color is an advantage? ― Howard • 🌽33 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Remsense, I don't really understand how the portrait you chose is any more "historical" than the one I've chosen? According to Wikimedia commons, the portrait you've chosen is from 1700 while the one I've chosen is from 1872. Solomon is said to have lived in the 10th century BCE, so neither portrait is more "historical" than the other. The only reason I chose my this portrait is because it's a high quality scan of a painting and not just a blurry, dark photo of an icon. It's consistent with almost every other Biblical character to have a painted portrait in the infobox. If you are insistent in keeping this icon as the infobox portrait, please use a more high quality photograph. ― Howard • 🌽33 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Another case where an imaginary depiction will generally be suitable in an article is if it is a well-known, high-quality artwork that is independently notable as such.