Talk:Solomon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: I find it atrocious that the account of a historical figure such as Solomon be left to authors whose whole premise is that he may not have even existed. To quote the thesis of their book: "there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, or the Exodus, and that the monarchies of David or Solomon were much smaller than the Bible implies. The statement, "There is no archeological evidence" -- could be said of any number of world figures whose existence the authors choose not to question. I am particularly appalled by their contention that the bible (and the history of the Jewish nation) was 'created' to "further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of the Kingdom of Judah." Shades of the daVinci hoax! What is more plausible, given the incredible resiliency of the Jewish people, is that they were truly blessed by the direct intervention of God. Furthermore, it would not make sense to write the bible accounts in the honest detail we have, given the countless failings of the central characters. YBatwork 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (edit) WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-Class) Solomon is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles. Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Occult writers and antisemitism Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess),Jewish assimilation Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded); Assess Sandy Koufax Translate: from German: Judensau B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-Class) Judaism Portal Solomon is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Bible (Rated B-Class) This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] Vandalism

"Queen of Sheba had hot unprotected sweaty monkey sex with King Solomon". This I guess is some vandalism by a quite immature person. Could someone fix this? I dont have an account yet and do not wanna mess up something, I just wanted to point this out. Thanks! 84.135.75.95 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Later legend

ok, so where does the popular story of two women claiming to be the mother of a baby come to see king solomon to decide who the mother is... he proclaims to cut the child in half, and the real mother says "no, i'd rather she have him than he be cut"; solomon says "ah ha! you must be the true mother!" and gives the baby to her instead... where does this fit in?

I moved this section from "Fall and Decline" to the "Wisdom" section.

[edit] Given name

Since the Hebrew name is given, shouldn't the Arabic Suleiman also be mentioned? -- Chris Q

Certainly. Please feel free to add it, along with what Suleiman means in Arabic if you know. Edit boldly! :-) Wesley

OK - I am pretty sure it is "Peaceful" in Arabic also

[edit] Disambig

I'm not sure of the best way to disambiguate this page. Solomon is also the name of a famous British pianist. User:David Martland

[edit] Birth of Solomon

How could Solomon be born 1035 BCE, be King 965 BCE and assume the throne at 16 or 18 years of age?

[edit] Solomon's decline

I'm new here so I'm a little hesitant to just edit this myself. But I believe the statement that Solomon's decline was blamed on his polygamy and wealth is not accurate.

As far as polygamy - The Hebrew Bible does not discourage polygamy in any way, and many of the greatest men of the Bible had multiple wives (Abaraham, Jacob, Moses, David). Specific to Solomon, it's not the fact that he had multiple wives that is the problem, it's the fact that the wives were foreign.

"King Solomon loved many foreign women: not only Pharaoh’s daughter but Moabites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites, from those peoples of whom Yahweh had said to the Israelites, ‘You are not to go among them nor they among you, or they will be sure to sway your hearts to their own gods.’ But Solomon was deeply attached to them." - 1 Kings 11:1-2

It's not even clear that his marriages are actually what led God to get angry with Solomon - ultimately it's the fact that Solomon followed the gods of his wives and built shrines and whatnot to them.

As far as the wealth - I'm not sure where this is coming from at all. Solomon's wealth is portrayed in the Bible as a blessing from God, not as a source of Solomon's downfall.

Basically I think the concepts that polygamy and wealth are bad things on Solomon's part reflect more modern Christian points of view that developed much much later rather than simply reading what the Bible itself says about it. Leftfist 16:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "In the Bible"

"In the Bible, the prophet Nathan informs David..." This is like saying "In the Library I read that..." Can we get some references to actual books? --Wetman 04:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest changes; aside from many other issues with it, the phrase "According to some modern apologetic interpretations of Jewish law" was a bit much. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mmm, yes indeed. The references to actual passages in the books would still improve this article. --Wetman 19:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, "a bit much" means that a complete reversion of my edit was warranted? I Removed the problem paragraph as it was not directly related to Solomon. Perhaps the comment about loophole belongs at the Uriah the Hittite --GoodOlDude

In case you haven't noticed, the Torah is a real book, with the amount of manuscripts they have confirming its authenticity, no one should doubt it.

The comment was not that the Torah is a false source; the comment was that "in the Bible" is not very specific, as it is a very big book. Actual books, as in, in 'which book' of the Bible/Tanakh etc. Djcartwright 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig 2

I put up a Disambig page, see Solomon (Disambiguation). I did not include all pages that have the name solomon in it, for their seems to be over two dozon pages. Feel free to put up some more links.  :)

And I deleted it. Please read the rule about disambiguation pages: they are for things known as solomon, not for things part of which name contains the word "solomon". See an example how to do this: Solomon Grundy (disambiguation). mikka (t) 02:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first rule about Disabiguation Pages is that they be of assistance to the Wikipedia reader, a point that is sometimes overlooked. --Wetman 03:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Picture of him please get one.

If we don't disambiguate at Solomon, then we have to do so here. I know nothing about the African king, but Solomon the pianist is known only by his first name. Mark¹ 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please verify anon's

I reverted non-commented anon's edition of 09:06, 6 August 2005, who changed "1 Solomon" reference into "2 Solomon". Please verify the reference. The edit pretty much looks like vigilance probing, made popular by these idiots journalists. I apologize, If I am wrong.mikka (t) 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV on the footnote?

The second paragraph of the footnote seems quite POV and overly confrontational. I get the impression it was added later since it doesn't quite follow from the first paragraph. Opinions? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology

Do we have archeological remains from the Solomon era? Egyptian or Phoenician documents? I.e., something independent of the Bible and the later Quran.

Nope. Not a sou. Some pretty impressive masonry has been claimed as Solomonic, but is now accepted as dating from later kings of the line of Omri (israel). The general consensus is that David and Solomon ruled over a tiny mountain principality, and that the united kingdom is a myth concocted by the much later kings of Judah in the 7th century to justify a campaign to conquer the kingdom of Israel. Don't forget to sign off with four tildes. PiCo 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein's redating of these layers is a minority position. The majority of archaeologists still see them as Solomonic.--Rob117 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein's minimalisim has been now completely discredited. The Gates are accepted as Solomonic. Every major archaeologist now agrees (except the stubborn Finkelstein). The dating of the Gezer gate has now be confirmed twice! Once in 1991 and again last year. The page on Solomons Building does not even mention the Gates at Hazor Megiddo and Gezer! This page has been dominated by a minority position in archaeology and needs to be redone!

The story of the excavation of King Solomon's Gate at Tel Gezer

To back up Rob117's comment - & the one below it - there is a healthy current debate in archaeology on this issue. I'm currently studying it at uni & the impression I've received - though I couldn't be dogmatic & am not an expert - is that Finkelstein's position is not the majority view (whatever one's personal position may be.) It seems the author of this article has been overly influenced by Finkelstein's point of view, which takes a very minimalist approach to the Old Testament account. This article is therefore good but a little biassed & I'm surprised it hasn't been properly flagged up as such. I'm also surprised that there are only three references for the whole article (two of which are to Finkelstein.) On the basis of my understanding and that of the above two commentators, I am about to edit the sentence stating that the 'majority' of archaeologists see the building works in Northern Israel as Omride. I couldn't honestly say for certain what the majority view is (although as I say, my impression is that most still bow to the more conventional school or variations thereof), but unless the author himself can say for certain, he should surely leave the edit untouched - otherwise feel free to undo it but add a supporting reference (other than Finkelstein!) Ab0u5061 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein's view is certainly not minimalist. He is "middle of the road", as the Minimalists would claim that the Bible was not composed to early Hellenistic times. Finkelstein sees it beginning during the reign of Hezekiah. John D. Croft 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I have suggested that Sulayman be merged into King Solomon, based on the precedent that Dawud redirects to David. The same would have to happen with their disambiguation pages as well; currently Solomon (disambiguation) and Sulayman (disambiguation) are two completely separate lists. Does anyone disagree? -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree they are both talking about the same man.

I don't think I agree. While Sulayman would merge nicely into King Solomon the merged disambiguation pages would be terribly cluttered. Both Sulayman (disambiguation) and Solomon (disambiguation) should link to a merged version of King Solomon. 12.215.194.140 10:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation pages don't have to merge. The first on the Sulayman (disambiguation) is King Solomon + King Solomon and Sulayman are the same persons. Just like there are many Muhammed's but the Muhammed page is about the prophet, there are many Solomon's but the Solomon or Sulayman page should be about the prophet. We can just add "For other people named Solomon or Sulayman, see Solomon (disambiguation) or Sulayman (disambiguation)" in the same manner of the Muhammedpage Blubberbrein2 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. Big articles are split, not smaller articles are merged in larger. Sylayman is King Solomon in Islamic tradition, a well-defined separate topic and deserves a separate article. mikka (t) 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to disagree too. The person is the same, but the tales some are same and some are different. Mukadderat 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"No merge" sounds sensible based on the above. But clearly the articles need to refer to each other, with explanation based on "Sylayman is King Solomon in Islamic tradition", and I think that this should be prominent in each article. — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the articles should definitely be merged. Describing the same historical figure from two different points of view in two different articles seems to me to be against the spirit of Wikipedia. (See WP:NPOV.) There doesn't seem to be any major dissagreement between the two accounts, so it should be possible to write a good unified article. Of course there should be sections devoted specifically to the two different accounts, and possibly even subarticles. (This is my opinion on all articles describing the same historical figure from two different points of wiew (unless the two are so different that it could be argued they are no longer describing the same person). Maybe the discussion should be more centralized, rahter than on individual articles' talk pages.) --PeR 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that you don't understand both NPOV and the goal of keeping articles separate. For starters, let me remind you that King Solomon is both historical figure and legendary figure. While it is OK to have a single article to describe K.S. as a historical person, it is pretty much natural to keep tales about him from different sources in different articles. Mukadderat 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be afraid! I do understand NPOV. If there is a need to keep tales separate, then I don't disagree with subarticles when the main article becomes too long. The main article should then summarize and link to the subarticles. (Presently, there are no tales in the Sulayman article.) --PeR 21:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sulayman should not be merged with King Solomon. The Quranic version of events is very different and borders on the spiritual side. Sulayman is belived to have commanded armies of Jinn (a concept totally alien to the biblical version of King Solomon), along with a court of animals. But I do agree that both Sulayman and king Solomon should be mentioned in each others articles.Bless sins 19:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is any record from Egypt artefact about King Solomon, because he is buy a number of horses and he married with princess of Egypt? (Zimonz 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

There's clearly no consensus for a merge, so I've removed the tags. Henry^Flower 19:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

The article says:

The biblical Book of Proverbs, written by Solomon, ...

but Book of Proverbs says:

The tradition ascribing some proverbs to Solomon, described as "without valid foundation" in the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-06, continued nevertheless to be uncritically accepted among many Christians, ...

This inconsistency needs to be resolved by someone who knows more about it than me. — Johan the Ghost _seance 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There are certain passages within Proverbs written by Solomon, also someone should add that he is a prospective author for Ecclesiasties.

[edit] Story of the Two Mothers

Agree. I find the placement of the story within Solomon's wisdom quite agreeable. I am most interested in the multi-cultural span of the myth. --Steve 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solomon's Mines

A book is mentioned at the end of the article without a link or further info.--04:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dates seem off

And isn't BC POV? - Sparky 04:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, no. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree both about the dates and dating... It seems to be in poor taste to use BC in an article about a Jewish King. Are Christian fanatics running around changing BCE to BC again? - Sparky 13:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content forking

Why is this page called "Biblical account of..."??? There is no page entitled "King Solomon" that this page could be a subpage of, and the page Solomon (ancient) contains nothing that contradicts what is present here. This is a clear case of WP:POVFORK. The fundamental strength of Wikipedia is that people from several different points of view can cooperate to write better articles than will be the case if each POV starts its own article.

Consider what would happen if the article on George W. Bush was removed and replaced by Christian view on George W. Bush, Muslim view on George W. Bush, Buddhist view on George W. Bush, etc.

On the other hand it might be reasonable to have separate articles Adam and Eve / Adam (prophet of Islam) because these can be considered different myths (although of a common origin). But nobody is disputing that Solomon was a real (flesh and blood) person.

--PeR 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that an article called the Biblical account of king Solomon has a subsection on Solomon in the Koran... Frikle 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about preferred terminology

I have a question about terminology in the article. I have no expertise in this area so I'm just hoping for a bit of discussion or explanation of the use of the phrase Hebrew bible. Is this sufficiently accurate, is it sugestive of a Christian POV? Would a more neutral phrase such as "Hebrew religious texts" be less POV or simply more confusing? I'm sure this has been discussed before, I'd just like a little insight. Ande B. 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer Tanakh? Actually, "Hebrew Bible" is a neutral term used by scholars. The pro-Christian term is "Old Testament." Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The least POV is "Hebrew scriptures" as both camps see these works as scriptures and they were written in Hebrew. This avoids Christians getting upset at the use of the word "Bible" when in their opinion you are only speaking about half the Bible. The Christian's New Testament was written in Greek.--Wowaconia 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decline of Solomon

I miss some explanations about Solomon's downfall.

I gather his kingdom split in two after his death, and this has been attributed to problems with Solomon's character.

Such an argument does not seem very convincing to me. If internal conflicts burst out after Solomon's death, it would seem to me that Solomon was helping to keep the kingdom together, not splitting them apart. You don't rebel against a king after his death, you rebel against his successor. (Or no successor manage to hold the kingdom together in the same way, or whatever.)

It just seems to me that conflicts of succession, or simply internal conflicts blooming up after the death of a powerful king are far more believable explanations of the problems after his death than faults in Solomon himself.

Could someone with more insight to this explain? Sverre 16:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The conflict started under Solomon, but Rehoboam made them worse. Solomon placed a heavy tax burden on his subjects to support his building projects. I think the tribe of Judah was exempt from the labor, but I'm not sure. Check out 1 Kings 12, especially verses 4 & 14: " "Your father [Solomon]put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you."....he [Rehoboam] followed the advice of the young men and said, "My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." If Rehoboam had followed the advice of the elder advisors (verse 7) he would have had a lot less trouble. To wit: "If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants." (NIV) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solomon's Egyptian bride's name

Solomon's egyptian bride is not named in the Hebrew scriptures and the previous name in the article for her of Tahpenes appears to have been in error as 1 Kings 11:19-21 gives that name to a different person. There are several competing theories on what her name is, so I dropped the reference to Tahpenes that was here. I'm going to begin an article on the tradition around this figure and looked here first to see if there was already an article. In the article about her, I'll note the competing theories over what her name might be.--Wowaconia 00:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I found on the Biblical person named Tahpenes from http://www.alabaster-jars.com/biblewomen-q.html "Tahpenes was the Pharaoh of Egypt's wife. As she was a queen, she may have been his first wife. Her sister was given to Hadad, a refugee from David's massacre in Edom, as wife. Her sister had a son, who Tahpenes weaned and had cared for with Pharaoh's children."

Here is the quote from 1 Kings 11:19 19 And Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen.

--Wowaconia 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptians rarely gave their princesses to foreign rulers as wives until the 25th (Nubian) Dynasty (~752 BC – 721 BCE). As earlier they practiced hypergamy, Egyptian princesses could only marry someone of higher status than themselves (which either meant the next Pharaoh or they stayed single), and the Egyptians considered all foreign kings as of lower status. Both Amenhotep III and Rameses II got into trouble with neighbouring kingdoms as a result of their refusal to allow royal princesses marry foreigners (This makes the Akhnesenamen letter all the more shocking from an Egyptian point of view). John D. Croft 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solomon's ethnic make-up

Since King Solomon is such a great historical figure, I think it is necessary to dedicate a section to his ethnic make-up. It has been confirmed that Bathsheba was a descendant of Noah's son Ham (who uhm.. did not produce people of lily-white complexion). When I viewed Bathsheba's article, the picture shows a lily-white female?? Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.230.175 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Birthplace

Isnt it incorrect to say that his birthplace was Palestine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elatanatari (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Story of the Two Mothers

Two other people have inquired about where to find the story of the two mothers; they are both told that the story was moved from one section to another, but it doesn't seem to be included at all. Since this tale is so central to the modern-day view of Solomon, it is a glaring omission. Can somebody add it please? I'll do it myself if no one else does, but I'd prefer it be recounted by someone with a little more authority on the subject.Minaker 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Judgment of Solomon. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shalim

I have requested a citation for the etymologies that interpret Yerushalayim as the 'city of Solomon.' - Also, I have removed the following:

The Association of Shalim with a "high place", like the Mount of Zion, suggests that the temple of Solomon may have initially been a temple to Shalim, administered by an early priest-king (the Melchizedek). If this is the case, it could explain the size of "Solomon's Empire" stretching from Palmyra to Ezion Geber, as the realm over which Shalim was honoured.

This is highly speculative and also needs documenting if it is to be reinserted. Is Shalim attested to as a deity in the region this late, in a Jerusalem now dominated by Hebrews?

Further, I have to agree with other users who have commented on here that the article in general is written with a largely minimalist view and has very little mention of how dynamic the debate that is going on in archaeology really is. For any real understanding of what's going in this field, the views of Finklestein at Tel Aviv University must also be balanced by consideration of the views of other prominent archaeologists, such as Eliat Mazar at Hebrew University, who have a completely different view of tenth-century Jerusalem. Brando130 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of Sheba

The Queen of Sheba was not a wife of Solomon, and a do wish! That people would take away the Quranic account, as since it was written 1650 years after the event it is hardly historically accurate!

The Stories of Solomon too were written down a long time after the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age collapse too. People still debate the accuracy of Solomon too. John D. Croft 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence, "The queen is described as visiting with a number of gifts including rare spices, and bringing with her a number of riddles, but upon meeting Solomon being offered anything by him, whereupon she left satisfied." in this section is nonsensical, and requires revision. But, since I do not know what the author was trying to say, I cannot revise it.--68.46.20.154 (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Legend"

I don't think this uncommented anonymous edit should pass without mention: it removed the phrase "Legends say," leaving the article asserting as fact that he was born in Jerusalem. I have no opinion on what the article should say, but just felt that this probably merits discussion (and certainly this sort of edit merits an edit summary). - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: as this has already expired, I have removed it from WP:RM for the time being. Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Solomon → King Solomon — King Solomon is the standard attribution when discussing this person. —Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Controversial. It may pass; I may support it; but it involves the whole question of WP:NCNT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • i'm ot following the "controversy". the wikilink you give says what i thought when i posted at the 'uncontroversial' section, i.e. "use the most common form of the name used in English". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Jaakobou. "Solomon" is too ambiguous, since this is a common surname and given name, except when used with a stock phrase like "Song of Solomon". However, Solomon of Israel would appear to be the proper article name per the conventions on naming royalty articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not; Solomon of Israel is not English usage, it is arguable as biblical scholarship, and the Name of Kingdom format is recommended only for European rulers because they use the same namestock. (I would not argue its application to Moslem rulers on the same grounds, but not here.) This Solomon is the primary usage of Solomon. (But all this demonstrates that the question is controversial; let's have a WP:RM request in normal form, where all these details can be discussed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

just to make things clear - which version is your preferred one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Solomon; it is possible that arguments for King Solomon might persuade me, but I'd have to see them. Others will oppose on the grounds that King is basically redundant, and will provoke requests for its addition where it is entirely redundant, such as Edward II of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect placement

The section titled "A Thousand and One Nights" is placed under the section of 'Islamic view of Solomon'. I don't think this is correct, but not sure. Please let me know.

First, it had been innappropriately labeled "Arabian Nights". I changed that to "A Thousand and One Nights". Incidentally, this is not an Arabian work of literature, but rather a Persian one, albeit one that comes after the Islamic era. Nevertheless, is this simply a matter of confusing Arabic with Islamic? I believe it is, and, that the section may be better placed under another section.JSteinbeck2 (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pride's site on King Solomon's Gates

I've removed this King Solomon's Gate from the external links. It's a personal web site, weird, wrong. The website owner, a computer programmer was a volunteer on an excavation and isn't a reliable source in any way.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solomon's final years

I was looking for information on what happened to Solomon in his later years. I remember learning as a kid that he had wives that worshiped false gods, and despite his wisdom, he joined them and abandoned the God of Israel. Furthermore, his son Rehoboam ended up paying for the sins of his father. I came to Wikipedia to refresh my memory, but the article mentions none of this. I would like to ask someone who is more familiar with this to add this content to this article. - grubber (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)