Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:25, 10 June 2015 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,753 edits →Flags in infoboxes: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:40, 10 June 2015 edit undoMShabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,606 edits →Flags in infoboxes: commentNext edit →
Line 205: Line 205:


RfC? ] (]) 16:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC) RfC? ] (]) 16:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

:I don't think we need an RfC. We can probably reach consensus by discussing the issue. Personally, I don't care about flags one way or the other; if the MOS discourages them, I think we should follow the MOS. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:40, 10 June 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJewish history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJordan Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tasks YOU can help with:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBible Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

(Old orphaned comment)

this is completely biased article and untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abohassanein (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, - - Just submitted a basic outline for the United Monarchy.

Merged

I have just merged this with Kingdom of Israel - Nik42 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion and was kept as a result. For the archived discussion see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/United Monarchy -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is problematic, given that most scholars don't seem to believe that the United Monarchy period actually happened (personally, I find this at least somewhat questionable, but it is nevertheless the view of an increasing number of scholars). john k 19:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there was never a united Israel, please clarify- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 22:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It's called Biblical minimalism, and remains a rather debated and contentious view. AnonMoos 02:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
In order to end the ongoing neutrality dispute I did add the opinion of these Biblical minimalists. I hope this is OK with you all? --84.26.109.69

Given that the opinion of minimalists was added, I today removed the NPOV banner.--201.79.112.192 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the minimalist view needs to be looked upon in serious detail, but comparisons of the three (conservative, mainstream, and minimalist) should be shown. In general Biblical Archaeology(or Near Eastern archaeology) tends to be one of the more divided areas of archaeology. Falphin 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This artical still has serious NPOV issues as well as verifiability problems. It is clearly written from a religious rather than scholastic POV. Accept for the extreme Biblical maximalists, few scholars accept proof of the united monarchy outside of the Tel Dan Stele, which in itself is controversial. And certainly, the Tel Dan stele doesn't give us specifics as the author here does. I've added the appropriate tags. EllenS 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Tel Dan Stele says anything other than the fact there was an early group calling themselves "the house of David". As far as I know, most archaeologists accept that there is no evidence of a large settlement in Jerusalem during the period when it was supposedly ruling over the large settlements that are clearly evident in the north. This is the basis of arguments against the united monarchy. For the maximalists and the pro-monarchy mainstream, this is not enough to abandon the united monarchy. However, it is also consistent with the possibility that David was a local warlord - capable of destroying cities in Israel, but not of founding them. I think if the argument could be delineated along these lines it would help a lot with NPOV 124.190.6.202 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl
I propose that the article be re-titled to "Biblical Pre-Rehoboam Era". This will hopefully resolve the issue between archaeological findings (or non-findings!) and biblical historiograpy. I agree that the term "united monarchy" is vague as it may mean that the monarchy used to be divided and that it had been united, when in fact the Bible does not say so before Rehoboam took charge of Israel. Furthermore, the term "Kingdom of Israel" appears solidly convinced with a historical proof on such an existence, when in fact there is a lack of archaeological findings on a David or a Solomon. Re-titling the article to "Biblical Pre-Rehoboam Era" may solve these issues. F456 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition

Since Saul is described (accurately) as of the Tribe of Benjamin, I'm adding Tribe of Judah to David's description. Rationale: keeps things parallel. Besides, for those who take this subject seriously the words about "the scepter shall not depart from Judah" indicate that the then-popular movement to have a king picked one from the wrong tribe. Reluctant Pilgrim 08:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Minority presented as majority

I don't know how many articles were damaged like this one in mis-interpretation but it's very unfortunate. All through the article weasel words are used and without any justification. I'm working from the hebrew wikipedia and what we have here is some extreme bias and utter sillyness. Finkelstein is almost entirely on his own and it's a very minority view. The majority of archeologists don't think along this line as well. The article is extremely biased. It takes a minority view and tries to represent it as fact. It's wrong, it in fact probably needs an entire re-write by someone not biased. Yes, the majority of archelogists used the bible as reference largely, but it's still the majority view. Amoruso 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a spectrum here. The notion that there was never a united monarchy of any form is at one end of it. The notion that there was a united monarchy *exactly as described in the Bible* is at the other end of it. There is plenty of space in between. This article makes it look as if the only options are to believe the entire Bible account of David, solomon etc. word-for-word or else reject everything. Needs rewriting to explain some of these problems.

In particular it needs to explain exaclty *how much* of what we know about Israel pre. 900BC is known only from the Bible and *how much* can be confirmed from other sources. 82.33.152.5 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy is not defined by majorities, but by evidence. But there is no evidence for the biblical story whatsoever. Period. CUSH 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a very good source to consult is The Mythic Past by Thomas Thompson (University of Copenhagen, retired). His book has a thorough treatment of the United Monarchy and other parts of the Biblical story. He makes the important point that the scribes of the advanced civilization in Egypt would have certainly noticed and recorded the monumental undertakings of Solomon---but of course they did not. So as CUSH says, the Unified Monarchy is not history. On the other hand, the authors of the Bible did not present their narratives as history as we understand the term today. They presented stories of how men (humans) should relate to each other and to God: they were very relaxed about what we would call historical accuracy. So: on any rewrite, i recommend that the authors and editors consider The Mythic Past and other works by Thompson to get a better idea of what the archeological evidence is, as well as a sharper idea of the great limitations of using the Bible as a source for history as we moderns understand it. Son of eugene (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, then, Finkelstein is within the majority view, or close? He is described in the Misplaced Pages bio as "not ultra-minimalist" and seems "sympathetic" to the biblical view, but just not taking it as literal history. Student7 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ishbaal/Ishboseth

Ishbaal was never a legitimate moshiach, as he was never properly anointed. The three anointed kings over the United Israel were Saul, David, and Solomon. This needs to be fixed. For the record, if ya'll want to debate the legitimacy of Tanach feel free to create one specifically for such a thing, but we don't come here for your biased opinion. Too often "one guy challenging the status quo, whose opinions the majority of his contemporary reject" becomes "most experts believe . . ." We understand, you don't believe it, however what the literature says and what some dissenter believes are two completely different things, and have no place side by side.

Hebrew Translation

I think we need a Hebrew translation of "United Kingdom of Israel and Judah". --Horses In The Sky 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? And btw the term would not have existed at the time period in question. And nobody would need modern Hebrew as an explanation of anything. CUSH 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Any non-scriptural evidence

Any non-scriptural evidence for this "United Monarch" that conquered almost all of the Levant? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That's why I now tagged the article as Bible primary, although the wording of the template does not exactly reflect the deficiency of the article. This article is biblical POV and lacks references to secondary sources that check the veracity of the biblical claims. (Un)fortunately all of Israelite history from the Exodus to Solomon lacks extra-biblical confirmation and thus should be considered some kind of historizing fiction. Cush (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
From roughly 1100 BC all the way down to 900 BC, there is a very little amount of archeology for any civilization in the Middle East. On the Wall chart of World History, for instance,
  • 1100 BC-975 BC, Egyptian History a Blank
  • 1100 BC-880 BC, Break in Babylonian History
  • 1080 BC-930 BC, Few Assyrian Inscriptions Known
It should not be surprising, therefore, to not find evidence for the united monarchy of Israel, which ran from 1095 BC-977 BC.LutherVinci (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, LutherVinci. Where did you get that from? (no sarcasm, just pure curiosity as I am not a historian.) F456 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Judea bias

There seems to be a lot of bias against Judea, calling it backwater etc several times. Maybe it was, but it's not a very professional term to use and it looks like somebody had a bit of a vendetta against Judea for some reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Kirk (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

lol. I noticed that too ;) and hope I have fixed it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Several confusing sentences

The second sentence here is confusing. I left the first sentence in for context.

A number of scholars have concluded that despite the appearance of a biblical account of a united monarchy with a number of rebellions, the biblical account actually describes two distinct kingdoms - Israel and Judah - rather than a united entity. According to this view, the Bible portrays Judah led, or symbolized, by David entering into a politically motivated alliance with a band of outlaws led, or symbolized, by Jonathan, and sometimes with the Philistines, in order to rebel against Israel, led by Saul.

A reference is given to Finkelstein's book, but no page number.

In fact the article has numerous references to Finkelstein's book and almost no others. None of the references includes page numbers. The sentence previously had "anthropomorphised" for what is now "symbolized." Either way, I cannot make heads nor tails of the sentence. I have deleted it a second time, but if someone would like to return it to the article, I hope they can write it in such a way as to be clear to the average reader what is meant, and to add page numbers to the reference so we can check the meaning ourselves. In fact the whole article puts far too much emphasis on the interpretation given by one book. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it extremely confusing, though a slight rewrite could perhaps clear up things. I reverted your elision because of your stated (and mistaken) assumption that "anthropomorphism has to do with animals". You may be correct that the article puts too much emphasis on one book however. I have not been able to find a page number or a cite for this in "Bible Unearthed" (no preview on Google Books), so perhaps we should let it go (but please leave the cite in rather than fact-tagging what's left). MeteorMaker (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Great! then perhaps you would explain it to me. Anthropomorphism is the act of providing inanimate objects or animals with human characteristics. Thus human "outlaws" (as in the above sentence) cannot be anthropomorphed to Philistines, without somehow suggesting that "outlaws" are "animals"...but that's a stretch. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent move/merge of article

"United Monarchy" vs "united monarchy"

Kuratowski's Ghost has moved the United Monarchy article to "Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)". My point about it would be that "United Monarchy" in the context of the history of the Levant is more or less a proper name for a certain period. Subsequently it should be written with capital letters. Just my two cents. Cush (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the kingdom in question is called the "Kingdom of Israel" (in Hebrew Mamlekhet Yisrael) in primary sources, "United Monarchy" is a strange neologism and not at all the term one would think of searching on when desiring information on the subject. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
However, historians and archeologists distinguish between the Kingdom of Israel in the United Monarchy period and the Kingdom of Israel in the Divided Monarchy period. Speaking of the "United Monarchy" in the context of Levantine history means precisely the Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon. There is no other entity that could or would be mistakenly referred to by this term. This is not a neologism but a scientific term, and whether there are any primary Hebrew sources is completely irrelevant. Oh, and was there any discussion/consensus/agreement to move the article ??? Or any need ? Cush (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cush on this. Any Google search (which is not case-sensitive) will demonstrate that the majority of uses is with capital letters and used as a proper noun. It is also true that it is fairly often not capitalised, but since the "United Monarchy" is indeed another name for the "Kingdom of Israel," it should be caps when it is so used, as here. In fact I would ask if there was a consensus to move/merge the article at all or did I miss the discussion? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was moved, not sure what merge you are referring to. Googling United Monarchy produces lots of mirrors of wikipedia or articles derived from wikipedia and only a handful from archaeological articles. In the latter it is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not but always refers to a time period and is not claimed to be the name of the kingdom. What motivated me to move the article the fact that the article refers primarily to the kingdom not to the period and seemed to create a false impression that "United Monarchy" was the actual name used for the kingdom when it certainly wasn't. Moreover the average reader is more likely to search for terms like "Kingdom of Israel" (the actual name of the kingdom), "Biblical Kingdom of Israel" or similar and not the term "United Monarchy". So to me it makes sense that "United Monarchy" is a redirect not the primary name of the article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We really need a disambiguation page for "Kingdom of Israel" as the name refers to four distinct kingdoms:

  • The original Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David and Solomon.
  • The northern successor state after the split.
  • The kingdom of the Hasmoneans.
  • The kingdom of Herod the Great.

Currently Kingdom of Israel is the primary name of the article on the northern successor state. My feeling is that this should also be renamed to something like "Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)" and "Kingdom of Israel" should be a redirect to this article on the original kingdom, with all relevant articles pointing to the disambiguation page. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk)

Actually, the United Monarchy is the name of the time when the Kingdom of Israel was united with what was later called the Kingdom of Judah. If this article is to be about the Kingdom of Israel, then it makes sense to talk of its history on this article, before, during, and after the split. The United Monarchy period should have its own article. Definitely disagree with your contention that the United Monarchy isn't a name in its own right. There are many scholarly books and archeological journals that use it as a name. Just a few so you know I am not talking through my hat:
  • "1000 BC -- In about 1000 BCE David ascended the throne, and he soon managed to unify all twelve tribes into a single nation, called the United Monarchy ... search.barnesandnoble.com
  • The United Monarchy Under David and Solomon : Bib Arch Seminary "This challenge to the historicity of the United Monarchy culminated in the 2000 publication of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision ...biblicalarcheology.net/?p=69 -
  • This map

No if this was the original United Monarchy article, it should remain so and not become the Kingdom of Israel(united monarchy). It is not correct as it stands. There is already a Kingdom of Israel article. We do not need one for merely this period. I urge you to move it back. Or perhaps we could put a query up at Wiki Project Jewish History and get their view. What do you say? Shall we seek outside input? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Israel article is about the northern successor kingdom not the original Kingdom of Israel, so there was a disparity - the divided monarcy period has articles named after the kingdoms (Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Judah) but the united monarchy period had an article named after the period not the name of the actual kingdom which strikes me as odd. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I certainly did notice that there are lots of articles. It is more than a little confusing. Perhaps what we need to do is to merge the information regarding the original Kingdom of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel article. Then have a United Monarchy article which provides informative relative to both kingdoms united (which can of course include the "minimalist" perspective). Does that make sense? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this article, which is about the original kingdom, should be merged into the one on the northern successor kingdom, it creates the impression that the northern kingdom was the normal continuation of the original kingdom when the reality is that the southern Kingdom of Judah continued the dynasty of David and Solomon while the northern kingdom was a breakaway kingdom despite the fact that it ended up keeping the name Israel. Also be aware that the mainstream view of the history is not that the original kingdom was a unification of two previous independent political entities called Judah and Israel, the mainstream view is that there was originally no central government and then the establishment of a kingdom under Saul and that this kingdom divided in two during the reign of Rehoboam, the northern part retaining the name Israel and the southern being known as Judah. Claims that these two were originally separate entities that came together to form one united kingdom under Saul is revisionist history and an inversion of what all known sources say. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
However, according to the Bible the northern Kingdom is in fact the continuation of the realm, because the continuation is defined by the people, not by the ruling dynasty. Solomon was a bad king and the people wanted a change after his death.
According to historical and archaeological research on the other hand, there has never been a United Monarchy. The record is devoid of any evidence for such a period. This article should be deleted as it only represents religious POV and has no roots in actual history. CUSH 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job making this look like a reasonable article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rearrangement of headings and some material

I moved some material up to form a more informative lead. And I retitled some headings. But no changes to to the contents.PiCo (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

King Rehoboam

I think it should be added that Rehoboam, son of Solomon, was ruler of the united kingdom for 3 years, until the revolt of Jeroboam, according to 1 Chronicles 11:17.LutherVinci (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to Bahasa Indonesia pages

There are now 2 links to Bahasa Indonesia pages. Which one is the correct? Bazuz (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation bias

"For the secessionist kingdom of northern Israelites, see Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)" reflects an anti-Samaritan bias. I have changed "secessionist" to the slightly more descriptive "later". NadaRama (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

I have just found a report on evidence that Israel Finkelstein was wrong about David and Solomon. Here is the URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130903141356.htm. This does not prove it, but it is a major advance.

Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How exactly would these mines have anything to do with David, Solomon, or Israel Finkelstein? Per the article you linked: "Scholarly work and materials found in the area suggest the mines were operated by the Edomites, a semi-nomadic tribal confederation that according to the Bible warred constantly with Israel." The archaeologist who found them considers these mines to be from the same historic period as Solomon, but does not claim they were part of Israel's area. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the Bible, the Edomites did not emerge as a major threat until the 7th century BC. Also, Finkelstein has said it was the Omrides and Solomon who built Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. His evidence is inconclusive at best. I know that the archeologist does not claim that the mines belonged to Solomon. The report says it is a possibility. Haven't you ever heard of a hypothesis?

Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Finkelstein rejects Solomon as involved with the building of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. That was clear and repeated throughout the book The Bible Unearthed. I've just finished reading it. Their basic premise is that the Omrides were the first full fledged kingdom of Israel, while Judah (which Solomon would have been from) was relatively underdeveloped and wouldn't match the Omride kingdom in political, military, economic, agricultural or architectural sophistication for another 200 years. Entropyandvodka (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Judahite kingdom

There is a problem regarding this sentence in the lead: "The United Monarchy is the name given to the Israelite, and Judahite kingdom of Saul, David and Solomon, known primarily from the Hebrew Bible." Of course, Judahites are a subset of people who belong to the broader group known as Israelites. We would not refer to the United States as "an American and Californian" country. While it is true that some archaeologists deny the existence of the United Monarchy, there is no doubt that Judahites are Israelites and that, therefore, the United Monarchy (whether it existed or not) should as an Israelite kingdom. --GHcool (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


This may be your opinion, but RS refer to the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Please do not remove sourced claims in favour of your opinion. 81.159.119.55 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Palestine or West Bank

I don't want to get into the politics about whether or not a State of Palestine actually exists, but even surely the most neutral wording is that the Kingdom of Israel is located in part of the West Bank, not Palestine. I intend on changing the infobox to reflect this in the coming days unless anybody has any legitimate argument for not doing so. --GHcool (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.bible-history.com/map-davids-kingdom/davids-kingdom.jpg
    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—Talk to my owner:Online 23:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes

Generally discouraged. "where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not."

RfC? Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need an RfC. We can probably reach consensus by discussing the issue. Personally, I don't care about flags one way or the other; if the MOS discourages them, I think we should follow the MOS. — MShabazz /Stalk 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Categories: