Talk:Kings of Judah

Orphaned references in Kings of Judah

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kings of Judah's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Thiele":

• From Kingdom of Judah: Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (1st ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1951; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965; 3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983). ISBN 082543825X, 9780825438257
• From Zedekiah: Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (1st ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1951; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965; 3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983). ISBN 082543825X, 9780825438257, 217.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheba?

At the top of the graphic, it shows a "Sheba" as having reigned over Israel at the same time (?) as David. If there's no source for this, I think it should be edited out. Are there any objections?

Missing King.

I just wanted to point out that this list of the Kings of Judah is incomplete. It is true that after the destruction of Jerusalem the line of the kings ceased to be autonomous rulers (though they did continue as governors under various administrations). However, the last (indeed the culmination) of the Davidic dynasty, namely Jesus, was recognized as the Son of David, the King of Israel by Rome and many of the Jews.[1][2]

In fact Rome’s indictment set over His cross read “the King of the Jews” and their treatment of him at his execution (i.e. the severity of his beating, the placing of a crown of thorns on his head, a purple cloak on his back, his being mocked by the soldiers as the King of the Jews) indicates that they viewed him as one whose throne was opposed to Creaser.[2b]

Much more could be said in regard to differences in the kingdom, yes, but it does not change the fact that He is a King of Judah. Additionally worth mentioning is His resurrection and ascension to the highest throne of heaven making him “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (i.e. the current reigning Emperor of the cosmos) but I imagine that such a stance in a Wikipedia article would be considered “biased” in spite of it being factual. In any case please consider including Jesus in this list. J.D. Loofbourrow.

1. Reference to Jesus as King 
        A. Old Testament Micah 5:2, 
        B. New Testament confirmation Mathew 2:5-6.

2. Jesus recognized as King of the Jews by 
        A. Jews: Matthew 21:1-9, Mark11:1-10, Luke 19:29-40, John 12:12-19.  
        B. Rome: Matthew27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 18-19.

Synchronism material on the last kings of Judah vs. kings of Babylon

This topic has been started as no consensus has been reached as to the diagram I posted to Wiki commons, namely:

Synchronisms of the last Judean kings with contemporary Neo-Babylonian rulers

Initially a Polish Wiki user (User:John Belushi) removed the link and declined to supply an answer to any of my questions in English, but as far as I understood his concern was that the diagram:

• reflected my own research,
• placed Old Testament references alongside extrabiblical documents.

(There is an analogous user account created for me on the Polish Wiki where a different diagram of mine had been translated and placed, which might be the reason why User:John Belushi took it for granted that I was fluent in Polish). Having exchanged a couple of messages and receiving same response in Polish all over again - "own research" without pointing out a single element in the diagram to support the accusation - I decided to revert the changes made by User:John Belushi. My entry was subsequently removed by User:JudeccaXIII who asked me to start the topic here - hopefully the discussion will take place in English without the need to resort to the Google translator.

The diagram in question (Synchronisms of the last Judean kings with contemporary Neo-Babylonian rulers), to the best of my knowledge, does not reflect or include information which has not been published in specialist literature.

Wiki guidelines are as follows:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

I might not be the brightest person out there, but I fail to see which fragments of the diagram caused both User:John Belushi and User:JudeccaXIII to say that the work presents:

• either material for which no reliable, published sources exist
• or such an analysis which imlies a conclusion not stated by the sources

If the diagram reflects my own research please highlight your points, namely:

• which date, synchronism, document or event have not been discussed in published materials relating to the topic
• what is/are the implied conclusion/s which is not stated by the sources (that one is especially hard for me to think of but User:John Belushi might come up with some interesting hypothesis here - It would be really interesting to learn what people may read into timelines like the one in question).

In the messages I sent to User:John Belushi I just mentioned Thiele and Horn, but I cannot tell whether or not the user is familiar with their works, not to mention other Bible scholars and authors who published on the subject like McFall, Cross and others (I simply could not obtain a meaningful response to any of my questions which might have been due to the language barrier). Apologist en (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The diagram constitutes a synthesis of material from separate sources (and it appears to provide interpretations of primary sources rather than any clear indication of being based on reliable secondary sources). Also, the type of 'specialist literature' would need to be considered as well. It would be best if the chart were based on sourced with broad consensus without theological bias. Much of the chart appears historically accurate. The phrase "Jerusalem in captivity" isn't particularly helpful since the city remained where it was.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

• As far as I understand, Wiki does not prohibit creating and/or uploading content which is a synthesis of material from separate sources - the vast majority of all articles here (including the one on the Kings of Judah) are syntheses of material from various sources - that's how one goes about creating any work of scientific value, I think. What Wiki forbids is posting such an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources - if it were otherwise Wiki's policy would read This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material full stop. So if I did err on this one, could you kindly show me what is the conclusion not stated by the sources which you notice in the diagram?
• sources with broad consensus without theological bias - that one is interesting. I have always thought that theology has to do with God (or rather - to avoid a theological bias should I write: god?) and not with history, dates and ancient documents - cos that's what I find in the chart - but I may have been terribly wrong... I wonder what sources you have in mind which I seem to have drawn on and which show theological bias or for which there is no broad consensus. The Bible? (oh, sorry: the bible?) I might be a bit thick, but I'm asking you to help me out of my misconceptions. Excuse my sarcasm but that is not a gospel tract unless you perceive it as such.
• Much of the chart appears historically accurate - thanks. You're implying that not all of the chart appears historically accurate - so could you please point out those elements in the diagram which distort the history as we know it? And if so, what is an accurate account in each such case?
• Jerusalem in captivity - to be precise - yes, the city did remain where it was. If that bothers you I could easily change it to something "more helpful" and your suggestions are welcome.

Apologist en (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is mildly amusing, but entirely unhelpful. Your chosen username as an "apologist" also isn't going to do you any favours. The issue is not merely that your diagram cites the Bible (or any other silly way one might choose to type it), but that citing the Bible here is your interpretation of a primary source.

Obviously articles are compiled with specific statements based on specific sources, but specific statements or ideas should not be drawn together from separate sources. You probably need to read WP:SYNTH. More problematic is that the chart is the result of your own analysis of primary sources, which is original research.

It certainly would have been unwise of me to say that your chart is 'entirely historically accurate' after only a cursory examination. In a different forum, I might be more pleased with your chart (apart from the misspelling of Ezekiel and the ambiguous reference to 'Jerusalem in captivity') but it does not comply with Wikipedia's standards. Such a detailed diagram should certainly provide some reference to reliable secondary sources with mainstream consensus if it is to be appropriate for Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, such a detailed focus on the destruction of Jerusalem is tangential to this article's purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You claim that citing the Bible here is my interpretation of a primary source. I don't know why but this discussion starts to feel like Kafka's Trial. I'm supposed to defend by work before a group of people who might not be specialists on the subject but at least have some satisfactory knowledge of the field, yet my impression is that you speak on the matter you are barely familiar with. Your allegation is absurd, to say the least. Citing the Bible here, sir, is not my interpretation of a primary source, because these and many other Old Testament references are generously employed by virtually all scholars who have published on the issue so far. The same goes for juxtaposing Old Testament fragments alongside Babylonian documents. It is so obvious I thought no one would event think of asking me to prove it, but here we go...

For your convenience I have browsed through the Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum by Donald J. Wiseman published in 1956. This has long been considered the primary source for the Neo-Babylonian documents which relate to the fall of the kingdom of Judah. Wiseman makes numerous references to the Old Testament text covering most fragments presented in my diagram and disscussing many more verses which could not be squeezed into my work due to its limited dimentions. The following is the list of Old Testament fragments referenced by Wiseman in his work:

while discussing tablet BM 92502

• Ezra 5:19 [sic - should be 4:19] on p. 4 (ref. 3) - the practice of compiling historical documents to aid an enquiry needing a historical background

while discussing tablet BM 21901 (pp. 11-23)

• Nahum 1:8 on p. 17 (ref. 4) - in reference to the fall of Nineveh
• Ezra 6:22 on p. 18 (ref. 1) - the term Assyria used sometimes after the fall of the Nineveh to denote areas formerly ruled by Assyrians

while discussing tablet BM 21946 (pp. 23-37)

• 2 Kings 23:29 ff. & Jeremiah 46:2 & 2 Chronicles 35:20 on p. 24 (ref. 5) - placing the battle of Megiddo described in the Bible in 609 BC, idenfifying the battle of Carchemish of 605 BC with the one mentioned in the Bible in the 4th year of Jehoiakim
• 2 Kings 24:7 on p. 26 (ref. 1) - 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar takes control of the lands up to the Egyptian border, but does not enter Judah
• Daniel 1:1 on p. 26 (ref. 2) - 605 BC as a result of Egyptians defeat at Carchemish Jehoiakim submits to Nebuchadnezzar and some Jewish hostages are taken to Babylon
• Jeremiah 39:5-6; 52:26-27 on p. 26 (ref. 5) - in 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar captures Riblah which had been occupied by Egyptians
• 2 Kings 24:1 on p. 28 (ref. 1) - following the battle of Carchemish Jehoiakim becomes Nebuchadnezzar's vassal for 3 years
• Jeremiah 47:1 on p. 30 (ref. 1) - Egyptians still able to defy Nebuchadnezzar and capture Gaza during Apries' reign.
• Jeremiah 37:5 on p. 30 (ref. 2) - Babylonians forced to temporarily raise their final siege of Jerusalem due to the threat posed by Egyptians
• 2 Kings 24:7 on p. 30 (ref. 4) - Necho remaining within the borders of his own country
• Jeremiah 27:9-11 on p. 30 (ref. 5) - Jehoiakim influenced by Egyptians contrary to Jeremiah's warnings
• 2 Kings 23:33-36 on p. 30 (ref. 7) - Necho losing control of Judah
• Jeremiah 37:7.11 on p. 31 (ref. 3) - placing the events described in Jeremiah and the final siege of Jerusalem in 588-586 BC (today a number of scholars argue for 589-587 BC)
• Jeremiah 49:28-33 on p. 32 (ref. 3) - linking Jeremiah's prophecy with the events recorded in BM 21946 r. 10
• 2 Kings 24:2 on p. 32 (ref. 4) - Babylonian raiders attacking Judah in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar
• Jeremiah 37:7 ff. on p. 33 (ref. 1) - the pro-Babylonian group led by Jeremiah in the context of Jehoiakim's rebelion against Nebuchadnezzar
• 2 Chronicles 36:9 on p. 33 (ref. 3) - placing Jehoiakims death 3 months and 10 days before Adar 2 of the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. on Marcheswan 22 (Wiseman assumed the accession-years system for Jewish kings and Jehoiakim's 11th year beginning in Tishri 598 BC - with the non-accession year system that would have created a 1 year gap between Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim)
• 2 Kings 24:17 & Jeremiah 37:1 on p. 33 (ref. 4) - identifing events described in the Hebrew Scriptures (deposing of Jehoiachin and installment of Zedekiah) with those recorded in the Babylonian tablet
• 2 Kings 24:13 on p. 34 (ref. 2) - Nebuchadnezzar looting Jerusalem on taking Jehoiachin into exile
• 2 Kings 24:14-16 on p. 34 (ref. 4) - Nebuchadnezzar taking 10.000 Jewish captives on the same occassion
• 2 Chronicles 36:10 on p. 34 (ref. 5) - Jehoiachins's captivity begins at at the turn of the year (Wiseman's interpretation was that the phrase meaning around the new year meant Nisan as at the time he wrote his work scholars assumed that the last kings of Judah employed the accession year system which was later shown to be incorrect - with the non-accession year system the phrase used points to the preceding month)
• 2 Kings 24:12 on p. 34 (ref. 6) - placing Jehoiachin's captivity at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year (that means 1 pixel shift in my diagram - see note above, Wiseman assumed that Jewish scribes recorded Nebuchadnezzar's years according to the accession year system which is contrary to what a number of scholars claim today)
• 2 Chronicles 36:6 on p. 35 (ref. 2) - placing the death of Jehoiakim in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year
• Jeremiah 22:24-30 & 2 Kings 24:6-7 on p. 35 (ref. 3) - prediction of Jehoniachin's exile, the death of Jehoiakim and the rule of Jehoiachin all placed in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar

while discussing tablet BM 25124 (pp. 37-42)

• Jeremiah 52:31-34 & 2 Kings 25:27-30 on p. 38 (ref. 3)- identifying biblical Evil-Merodach with Amel-Marduk
• Jeremiah 39:3.13 on p. 38 (ref. 8) - a likely identification of Neriglissar (Babylonian ruler) with Nergal-sharezer (a commander of Nebuchandezzar's army)

I hope this settles the matter. Apologist en (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your tone suggests you've missed the point, your claim that I 'barely understand' the subject is unfounded, and your description of Wiseman as a primary source suggests you don't understand the meaning of the term in the context of Wikipedia sources.

Your 'work' is a PDF. PDFs are multi-page documents. Why not put sources on a second page??--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand a number of things and I'm happy there are people around willing to explain them to me. If anyone goes through the discussion they will see (or maybe not) the reason for my tone. Another thing is I did not claim that you "barely understand" the subject as I didn't think and I still don't think of myself as mentally superior to you. What I actually wrote was that you "are barely familiar with" the issue. Knowing dates, ancient documents and their interpretation is not enough to make a judgment on whether or not a particular work complies with Wikipedia rules - I assumed you were familiar with the academic literature relevant to the subject. If that really was the case you should have known of Wiseman's work or at least that of Thiele in which there are hundreds of references to the Hebrew Scriptures. I can hardly think of a relevant passage from 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles or Jeremiah which has not been covered in their publications and set in the context of known Neo-Babylonian documents. Omitting OT quotations and references in a diagram on Jewish kings would be like omitting Egyptian sources when describing 18th dynasty rulers only because those sources contain invocations to Egyptian deities.

The genealogy of the kings of Judah, along with the kings of Israel.

And what about this diagram which is not my work and which is placed on the Kings of Judah page (The genealogy of the kings of Judah, along with the kings of Israel). Where are the sources? Isn't that an original work? It mentions David, worse than that: it includes Solomon and Saul. How terrible! Shall we kick it out just because first Israelite kings are considered mythical figures by "the scholarly community" (i.e. those more scientific scholars who - unlike Thiele, Kitchen or Mazar - just know there was no such king as David or Solomon)? Cos that is my impression of your attitude. Have a look at the Kings of Poland family tree article - where are the sources? Why hasn't User:John Belushi deleted the article? I suppose because that diagram is attributable, even if not attributed. I have thought that the number of publications on the issue is more than enough yet I might have been mistaken.

My diagram is in the PDF format, but it was initially created as an SVG file and I decided to use masks (compliant with the standard) which turned out to be improperly processed by Wikipedia's image converter. So a quick convertion to PDF was necessary. I could easily include references in the file yet converting it to the PDF format would pose certain problems - I haven't ever tried creating a multipage PDF document based on a single SVG file. There are a number of other reasons for the lack of sources in the diagram:

• it was meant as a clarifying material for those who are interested in or even familiar with the subject to see various elements of the story - which are hard to visualise (there are simply too many of them) - as one piece,
• limited dimentions and aesthetical issues,
• the topic having been covered extensively in numerous academic publications,
• the final effect should be convertable to a print friendly PDF (vectorised fonts, CMYK colors, possibly flattened gradients) so that it could be printed in formats bigger than A4.

If you still perceive in this particular case references are required I could provide a link to this talk page in the diagram link caption on the Kings of Judah page. Apologist en (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that I was already aware of Wiseman, Thiele, and other sources has no bearing on the fact that the level of detail on the chart you've provided is such that it should include sources. The genealogy chart you've attempted a comparison with is much more straightforward, and does not go anywhere near the level of detail, i.e., it makes no attempt to assign specific years and even days to events—content such as that requires reliable secondary sources.

It doesn't matter whether I know the sources because I am not the only reader of the article. I am talking about Wikipedia's policy.

I'm not responsible for following up sources on unrelated articles I'm not aware of, and the fact that other stuff exists isn't a justification for your own poor sourcing.

Even if it is technically difficult to provide sources in your PDF, at the very least, you should provide sources in the image summary beyond "own work".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That is doable and reasonable. The only thing to be clarified and sorted out is the Polish Wiki user User:John Belushi who deleted all my diagrams from the English Wikipedia (though he does not seem to either speak or understand the language) and who refused to answer any question of mine and simply repeated in Polish "original work" - this might have been due to his inability to express himself in English, but then why did he remove any material from the English Wikipedia at all if he did not actually understand what he was deleting? And if he did understand why is it he declined to answer my questions in English? Is that a standard model of behaviour for advanced Wiki users to remove material from articles written in a different language and then decline to answer questions related to those deletions? If it is not what is expected of Wikipedia users how do you go about such behaviour? Apologist en (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no control over the past actions of another user. It may be that his argument simply wasn't well articulated, but his rationale that your "original work" is unsourced is correct. It certainly would be ideal for him to discuss his change, but if he was unable to meaningfully discuss in English, the next best thing to do would be to draw attention to the issue by removing the content. You've previously indicated that your charts (or similar) have been provided on Polish articles, so it does not seem to be the case that the Polish user 'did not actually understand what he was deleting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The PDF file containing the diagram has been updated (Dan 1:1 added, correction of Julian dates in 609 BC, slight layout changes, default diagram size set to 600x400mm, smaller file size) & sources for all synchronisms and juxtapositions supplied in the description of the file. If I skipped anything let me know, cos that's the version I'm going to link to from the Kings of Judah page. Apologist en (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Apologist en, but I don't see how this graphic is ever going to be usable on Wikipedia. Unless it gets covered in a reliable source. Maybe you should write a book. But as it is, synchronism sources are a matter of debate, and no matter how you present them, it's going to constitute original research. I think this is the point when you should conclude that this isn't worth fighting. I might even agree with your chronology if I were to look at it, but that does not matter. You seem not to understand how Wikipedia works. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, don't be sorry, this graphic has already proved very usable. Anyway, I would be happy to learn about your concernes related to my work:

• Unless it gets covered in a reliable source - Could you please name which one/ones of the sources I presented is/are unreliable?
• synchronism sources are a matter of debate - well, here it gets plural, so: Would you, please, tell me which sources from my list are a matter of debate?
• Do you know any sources on the subject at all which are not a matter of debate?

I may have misunderstood you, but anyway - could you, please, answer these 3 questions directly? Thank you. Apologist en (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. There are a number of issues here. Let's take one blurb. "2 Kings 23:29: In his [Josiah's] days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up

against [or: "to", compare 1 Ki 22:2 the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo."

The comparison with another verse is, by definition, original research. As is the linkage of BM 21901 with that verse. It may be a reasonable linkage, but reasonable isn't relevant here. It isn't the measuring rod on Wikipedia. This is conclusion which you have drawn. That's what original research means. Now... if you want an example of how your conclusion in this case isn't forgone, I'll tell you that in my work on biblical chronology, those two sources actually refer to two consecutive years. Josiah's interference actually stopped the Egyptians from making it up north. It wasn't until the following year that Necho campaigned up north through the now-pacified Judah.

Why am I mentioning this? I mean, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. And ordinarily, I wouldn't post something like that (and I apologize to others for doing so), but it seemed to me that you needed to see a concrete example of how your original research doesn't constitute proper use of reliable sources. Neither does mine. If there's a book on the subject that addresses it, you could cite that. For example: [1] or [2] or [3]. These are all reliable sources. You could mention the differences of opinion between various scholars regarding the date of Josiah's death at Megiddo.

I also need to point out to you that primary sources are not, with some exceptions, considered reliable sources. Do you understand what that means? It means that you can't take an inscription and use it as a source. You can only take someone's published work about that inscription and use that as a source. Otherwise, you're engaging in original research. So yes, every single source you've brought from the British Museum and other collections is unusable. You can mention them, but only in the context of what reliable sources say about them.

Let me know if this makes sense to you. There are a number of important Wikipedia policy pages that you really need to read if you want to be contributing material that doesn't get removed. If you are interested in creating original content that can be useful, Wikipedia is the wrong place. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• The comparison with another verse is, by definition, original research. - Well, this is just one of many results found in a concordance and related to the phrase "went to the king" (English search though, needs correction anyway). This wording ("against" or "to") has been mentioned in academic sources since many years ago (e.g. Buried History, Vols. 1-3 (1964, p. 16)) and at least some notable scholars argue that both variants render a legitimate translation (e.g. Lester L. Grabbe, Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology, 1998, p. 87), so I'm not the first person to compare this verse with other passages. Anyway, my concordance shows that virtually identical phrase in Hebrew "went up (H5927) to (H5921) +person" is to be found in Genesis 38:12 and "come (H0935) to (H5921) +person" is used in 1 Chronicles 12:22-23 - my Hebrew is really poor so I have to rely on others' work in that respect. The question is: can I add to the diagram what a concordance says? Does drawing on concordance results constitute original research? If it does not, I'll use a verse using similar wording found in a concordance using Hebrew words search and Strong's numbers. If it does, I'll simply use Strong's numbers as this has been directly provided in his work, i.e. In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against (H5921) the king of Assyria to (H5921) the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against (H7125) him; and he slew him at Megiddo...
• As is the linkage of BM 21901 with that verse - Could we, please, not go over and over again those issues which have already been discussed and settled? I followed Jeffro77's suggestion and provided sources for all synchronisms and juxtapositions (Wiseman, Thiele, Galil, Bright and Lipschitz) in the file description area. Have you really visited the page with the diagram's description (The PDF file containing the diagram)? If you have you may have missed this fragment: 2 Kings 23:29 in the context of Babylonian documents and placed in 609 BC (Thiele, p. 180 ff., Wiseman, p. 24) - so it's not me who linked that verse to BM 21901 but it was Thiele (in that particular example). My humble request is that you go in detail through the list I supplied before you make any further allegations about my work. If there is anything that actually needs to be changed or modified - I'll do it. My work is basically a timeline where synchronisms and juxtapositions mentioned in academic sources are presented in a different, i.e. visual form. That's all it is and I cannot really see why anybody should call it an "orginal research". If there are any elements which are not to be found in scholarly publications - I'll remove such elements from the diagram. But I need your help in pointing out such stuff in order to make this diagram fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies.

Apologist en (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is admirable that you've supplied sources at the image's page (though you've listed them in the Description field instead of the Source field), and I think User:Lisa should consider that. However, following my suggestion about what you should do "at the very least" does not mean that there is consensus to include your image.

Aside from that, unless your concordance explicitly states that specific Bible verses refer to specific events in Babylonian chronicles (which it almost certainly does not), then "drawing on concordance results" for this purpose absolutely is original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just moved the sources to their proper place.

No, my concordance does not refer to Babylonian chronicles or any other documents. It just shows other OT verses which use similar phrases. In that particular case it informs me that the Hebrew word H5921 was translated as "TO" and not "AGAINST" in other verses and in a similar context ("go up TO someone" as in Genesis 38:12 and "come TO someone" as in 1 Chronicles 12:22-23). The thing is that a number of academic sources maintain (explicitly) that the phrase "AGAINST the king of Assyria" may be translated as "TO the king of Assyria" (in 2 Kings 23:29), however they do not support their arguments with examples (as these might be obvious to the scholarly community). So I thought it convenient to provide examples to that argument from a different, yet equally reliable source - i.e. a concordance. Well, yes, this is a synthesis from multiple sources, but that's legal as long as it is not used to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As for now, I simply provided Strong's numbers to some words in question based on Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament.

• Is there still any other element in my work that is likely to be challenged and for which I should provide sources?
• Is there any synthesis in the diagram which is used to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?

If not, the diagram is compliant with Wikipedia's no original research policy. And if there is still something that needs improvement I'm ready to work on that issue to make it fully conforming to Wikipedia's rules. Apologist en (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SYNTH? I recommend it. It addresses some of your issues. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read WP:SYNTH. I'll repeat myself: if there is any stuff in my diagram which is likely to be challenged (and for which I have not provided sources) or if there is any synthesis in the diagram which I used to to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources - please point it out precisely and directly. I'm willing to correct my work if it needs adjustments. A general allegation about my diagram (like some of your issues) is of little help at this point.

And have you read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not? It says: If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. and if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. You claim my diagram is an original work. I provided sources for each synchronism and juxtaposition. I removed a reference to another verse based on an English concordance (which comparison, in fact, was not a good example to be used in that place). But you still find issues with the diagram. Could you please name them? (Would you be so kind and name at least a couple of them at one go? Correcting tiny imperfections one at a time becomes a little tedious.) And, please: do read the sources I provided at the file information page before you claim again that no scholar so far has linked a given OT verse to a Babylonian document or a historical event (so that a given juxtaposition is my original research). Thanks in advance. Apologist en (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The diagram was originally removed by User:John Belushi on 2014-11-19 and then again by User:JudeccaXIII on 2014-11-20 as allegedly "original reasearch". User:Jeffro77 and also User:Lisa showed some weaknesses in the diagram which have all been addressed and reliable sources for all synchronisms and juxtapositions have been supplied. As the diagram was initially removed on the grounds that it was SYNTH and if - after supplying all the required information - no one is able to show elements in the diagram which still fall into the original research category under Wikipedia's policies I'm going to bring the diagram back into the Kings of Judah article. Thanks to User:Jeffro77 and User:Lisa for motivating me to improve the work as a whole. Apologist en (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Apologist en What defines your diagram as original research is the fact you placed exact dates of reigning kings, battles etc. in which these dates are debate still today. There was no source given for this digram other than basing the source on what?..."biblical versus." What you think, believe, or feel doesn't apply to Wikipedia per WP:OR. Do not continue onward with your digram by opposing general consensus per WP:CON. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding what has been said so far on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard:

@JudeccaXIII

no to the diagram per WP:OR because of debatable dates and timeline issues - WP:OR does not in any place prohibit including facts which are still the subject of a debate among experts - one just has to provide reliable sources to support his research and refrain from promoting some new thesis which is not presented in any of those sources (WP:NOR: A secondary source [...] contains an author's interpretation [...] of the facts - that's why secondary sources always present debatable views which does not mean such sources are not reliable...)

Even with a source, the source is just a POV which will just cause a constant issue with WP:BALANCE - you're right that every reliable secondary source is usually just one point of view on its own. And yet you are required to use it in support of your research. Go through Wikipedia:OR#Neutral_point_of_view and see that it is not my responsibility to present all points of view in my work - my diagram is just an addition to a Wikipedia article and not a complete Wikipedia article on its own. It's up to all editors to properly incorporate any research into an article by providing an adequate context for it. You may edit the Kings of Judah article and write that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC supporting that with a reliable source. Shall I remove your entry on the grounds that it is POV? No, because it is my responsibility when I find that there are other points of view to describe them alongside your research and provide a proper context for it. If you have problems with my diagram it is your obligation to create a proper context for it in the Wikipedia article. You may describe my diagram whatever you like, but it is based on reliable secondary sources and though it is a synthesis it does not present a new thesis which is not stated in any of those sources. Do you believe it represents just one point of view? Don't remove it, it is just a fragment of the article, but present another view and provide a proper balance. You are also much welcome to create a diagram of your own presenting a different interpretation of events based on reliable sources (I just wonder how many differences an average reader will be able to detect...).

The diagram has no source for dates other than...uh?...biblical versus? - visit the file information page and scroll it down a little bit...

Finally, go through the last paragraph of Kings of Judah#Synchronism to fall of Judah, compare it with my diagram and think once again about what you have written so far. If you are really concerned about WP:OR or WP:BALANCE that's the place for you to start with. And if you do not care about editing that section to make it compliant with WP:OR and WP:BALANCE (because as I suppose you hold a different opinion than that presented in the section) then, at least, don't make life difficult for other editors.

@Jeffro77

Have a look at commons:File:JWStats1931-2010.png - I think you might find this file quite interesting. Look at the Author and Sources. Do you think that synthesis is based on reliable sources? As far as I understand WP:OR works based on unreliable sources are a clear example of original research as defined by Wikipedia. And forget the WP:DIAGRAM - the chart won't pass the test as it shouldn't have a title/caption. Guess who inserted that chart into Jehovah's_Witnesses and Demographics_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses on 9 May 2011. Do you want to talk about this later on?

Apologist en (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already made all the comments I am going to make regarding your chart. Your attempted comparison with a graph (which was an updated version of an earlier graph supplied by another editor[4]) that is based on the only available data for the information provided is not comparable to your chart based on selective sourcing. I do note though that you've obviously been willing to trawl through years of my edits for this purpose, which has the appearance of retributive intent. However, I have already told you that inclusion is not up to me alone.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jeffro77:

1) open Google

2) enter just two words: Jeffro77 wikimedia

The file in question is among the first 10 results (at least on my machine). Check the date of creation and the Wikipedia pages on which the file is used. I don't know why but I thought that if it was you who created the file you must have added it to Wikipedia articles soon afterwards. The whole process of trawling through years of your edits took less then 10 minutes. Use Google. It saves time. You (well, plural) started to post such absurd demands regarding my diagram that I decided to check what, if any, diagrams or images you have created - as it was close to impossible to meet all the requirements you had made of me. Just a quick check - and there you go. Jeffro77, I'm not going to try to remove your chart even if you are still against including my diagram in the Kings of Judah article. Your remarks encouraged me to look again at my work and improve it. I don't want you to give up on WP:OR as far as my diagram goes. I just want you to be fair and not to try come up with some new criteria which are not to be found in WP:OR or WP:POV. That's all I want. Be fair. Apologist en (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pitiful that you even made the attempt to find whether I have ever uploaded images, and your intent in doing so is clearly retributive. The fact that you bothered to do that suggests that you do not understand what I have already told you about why your image may be problematic and the manner in which inclusion is by consensus, which precludes your imagined validity of your 'witch hunt'.

Despite that, your comparison is invalid anyway. Your diagram contains very elaborate detail drawing on multiple sources that are not the only sources for information that is still debated. The graph I updated presents simple information based on data that only exists from one publisher.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not include Ussher's dates as well?

They may not be as popular with secular scholars, but a strong argument can be made his are the more strict interpretation of what The Bible says.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources (in Wikipedia's sense of the term, see wp:rs) that endorse Ussher's dates for the kings of Judah, that might be doable.Alephb (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template suggestion

I recently created/included this table in an article, and wondered if it would be of any use here (perhaps replacing the existing one?). Oldhamtw (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the style, but I don't see a need for it. And I really don't understand why the Herodian dynasty is in the template. They were not Israelites, nor did they represent an Independant Israel. And none of the Jewish rebels were able to establish a monarch/dynasty. I'd rather see this style in Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah. Just with the image of Star of David only. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oldhamtw If you don't like someone's opinion, don't ask for it. It's really annoying that you've added the template anyway after asking for recommendations. I oppose adding your template. You've removed Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel which I have/will restore back. Your template is basically the same. Also, The Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom of Judah may have been established in the same situation, but that does not mean they have the same history after. As I said before, Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel covers the list of Israelite Monarchies. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII I asked for opinions on this talk page for this page specifically, to which I did not add the template. I spend a whole day editing various pages carefully, so expect me to undo your removal of the template across the board, which was rather mean-spirited. I removed it to avoid a duplicate set of information. The histories of the Northern and Southern kingdoms are, of course, split after a point (there is an argument to be made that there never really was a United Monarchy, but still...). I would happily reinstate the Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel at the base of the page, I just wished to avoid a double set of information. You should really assume good faith, which you appear not to have. Combining Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah into one Navbox (which was the aim) was really an attempt to make navigation easier, and show the topic of the monarchies in a larger field (say, across both the Hebrew Bible and the NT, as well as any historicity to be found).Oldhamtw (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

OldhamtwA nav box that places every Israelite ruler is in a template already. Seeing another template that does the same thing is not mind-blowing. The two nav boxes you've replaced were meant to saperate the rulers of Israel and Judah on purpose. JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII I see your point. I guess I just don't see the reason for separating them out, especially when it's all tied together like necklaces in the bottom of a jewellery box. As I say, I made the template for an unrelated article a while ago, and I actually used the older Templates in question as a baseline. I was trying to do the job of three templates in one, for efficiency sake. That being said, I can see why it would upset some users that their hard work suddenly vanished, so I've reintegrated the older templates (etc) at the bases of the pages I edited, even if it means the articles in question have repeated information. I essentially thought that the Navbox might work better for users if it incorporated sections on each of the Monarchies (like Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel). Maybe this is just something we agree to disagree on. I do, however, like the change of title to 'King of Samarian Israel' (even if I'm not sure on the grammar/spelling) and have started to adopt it on the articles I edit. Also, what's your issue with the Menorah and Crown on the Template? I'm genuinely interested and want to know. Does it look cluttered? Or is it a doctrinal issue? I'm just curious as to what ruffled you about it, I would definitely consider changing it. Maybe we should move discussion to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Monarchy_of_Ancient_Israel ?.Oldhamtw (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oldhamtw In truth, I don't like any on the nav boxes on the articles. They just look like a clutter of links. Only Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel seems to be the most organized style. I also like that its at the bottom of the article and not a distraction to the info boxes. Just recently, I removed the Jewish rebels and the Herodian list from the template to focus on Israelite monarchies. I thought I was going to get hell from other editors, like I'm doing to you (I do apologize), but I was actully thanked for it. As for your other questions, the Menorah (Temple) is used for religious purposes and the Star of David represents more of an identity. The crown is more for European monarchies. JudeccaXIII (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I'm using my phone right now. JudeccaXIII (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah

There is a discussion @WP:BIBLE#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah to possibly remove Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah completely from articles. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What about Saul then ?

Somewhere in the Old Testament, King Saul is mentioned as Davids' king. But something changed that relationship and David became king.

Dating Coventions

This article is confused as to the dating conventions used throughout (both BC and BCE are use). It would be prudent to pick a style and stick to it. Why style would be agreeable? BibleScholar (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that BCE is generally preferred by secular scholars and that the subject of this article is not exclusively specific to Christianity, BCE should probably be used at this article. Other than that, it doesn't really matter so long as it is consistent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)