Talk:Kingdom of Judah/Archive 1

message: Just to let everyone know - I know the list of Kings is not completely tabulated yet - I thought I would wait to see how the dispute over the Kingdom of Israel list panned out before I continued with it.
--JohnArmagh 10:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe this is the case.  Our own article Palestine (region) says: The term "Syria Palaestina" is first recorded by the 5th century B.C. Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote of the "district of Syria called Palaistinêi", and later Ptolemy and Pliny (who alludes to a region of Syria that was "formerly called Palaestina"), to refer to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean; it is generally accepted that the region they referred to extended further inland than the domain of the Philistines.  At any rate, if we do not use Palestine, I am uncertain what the proper term would be.  Judæa seems clearly inappropriate to refer to the whole region, since the Hasmonaean state consisted of not only Judæa, but also Samaria, Galilee, Idumæa, and so forth.  Palestine seems like the best general term to mean "the southern part of the Levant" once we get past the period when we can use "Canaan." john k 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 talk

message: :Jguk followed up on my contribution here by following me to Wikipedia:Verifiability, a page he has never edited before, and making several changes, including changing spokespersons to spokesmen, a word he insists is still also used for women. This is really unpleasant behavior, Jguk, and hardly endears anyone to your cause. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a number of edits to that page, which I came to as I saw it had a long discussion ongoing on it. There was an instance of "spokesman" clearly referring to a woman closely followed by the word "spokespersons", it made sense to bring them into line. I made a number of other more significant positive changes to that page - all of which are surely better to discuss on that talk page rather than this. Or are you trying to campaign against me more generally? Presumably you were unconcerned for some time that a female spokesman was referred to as a spokesman, but somehow you are concerned when I make things consistent, jguk 12:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! Don't be ridiculous. Why would I want to campaign against you? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalking 

message: I have done some edits in this section.
Since 63 Judea was under Roman supremacy, but at first it was not province but under the Hasmonean high-priest and his chief-minister Antipater, father to Herod. 
I also have problems with the following_
:37 BC–AD 100: The Herodian Kingdom of Judaea, an autonomous realm within the Roman Empire. The last Herodian King, Agrippa II (c. 48 - 100), sided with the Romans in the first Jewish Revolt of 66 - 73, which saw the Temple destroyed in AD 70.
Herod's kingdom existed until his death in 4 BC. After that it was split between his sons and reunited only between 41 and 44 under Agrippa I.
From 6 to 41 and from 44 to 66 Judea (in the narrower sense) was under direct Roman rule under a procurator subject to the Roman legate in Syria.
Sometime between 66 and 70 Judea was elevated to the status of province under a legate. This province was renamed Palestine after 135. 
How should this be worded?
I also removed the phrase "ultimately giving its name to modernity as Western Society" from the Roman Empire section, since it seemed to me both off-topic and quite strange.
Finally, I also rectified the Ptolemaian-Seleucid period and elaborated on the Crusades period.
Str1977 11:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer to how to deal with the early Roman period is contained in the answer as to what territory the article covers.  I would basically suggest that this should cover the approximate territory of the Kingdom of Judah - i.e., the later Judaea - and not nearby territories like Idumaea, Samaria, Galilee, Iturea, Batanea, and so forth.  Why should an article called "Kingdom of Judah" cover Palestine in toto? john k 15:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From the end of the Kingdom ...

message: I had a look into the Kingdom of Israel article which starts with King Saul. Shouldn't the Kingdom of Judah article accordingly start with David? After all: when Saul died, the Judeans made David their king, while another part of the Israelites made Ishbaal king. Only after the latter's death did David unite the two kingdoms in his hand, a union that broke again after king Solomon's death. In modern language this could be described as a personal union of two kingdoms. Anyway, I don't think that starting the Kingdom of Judah with Rehoboam is accurate nor is it correct that Rehoboam ever was king of Israel. Thoughts?
Str1977 23:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Judah and Israel

message: The image seems to be squishing the chart.  I tried to move it around without success; if anyone knows how to move it to accomodate the chart better...--Rob117 05:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I moved it a couple of paragraphs higher. Please see if this works. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Can someone in the know fix the lines of the table that are different? I tried to but I have no clue how to do it. Str1977 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: The current map, labeled as c.830 BC, seems to be somewhat inaccurate for that period- by 830 BC, Israel's transjordanian territories had been given over to Hazael of Damascus, and Israel was limited to cisjordan.  The Assyrian Empire proper did not yet border Damascus, although they did besiege Damascus, unsuccessfully, in 838; Assyria's expansion into the Levant was gradual, with waxing and waning, and was done mostly through vassal treaties- direct annezation did not become the rule until the time of Tiglath-pileser III.  By 830, after the Assyrian threat had passed, Damascus under Hazael dominated the entire Levant.  Assyrian reach did not come this far south again until the reign of Adad-nirari III, who captured Damascus in 796 (imposing tribute, but not annexing it).  If the intention is to show Israel a map of Israel under the Omrides, which the map's territory seems to match, it should be labeled as c.850 BC and Edom should be annexed to Judah.--Rob117 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map may need fixing