This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. 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
You are absolutely correct. The image and images depicted of Solomon are 100% inaccurate. The true images, or as close to true as you can get, are found in the Russian Icons text. It depicts all of the biblical Israelites, and also Jesus Christ as a so called black man. Aenth (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose I should add—if we were to make this a primary factor in deciding to switch as a matter of course, there are strong objections I can imagine to describing Solomon primarily as "a figure in Christianity", wouldn't you agree? Remsense ‥ 论14:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed paintings of Solomon are wildly inaccurate. Solomon was a man of colour with dreadlocks or long curly hair. From the text, Russian Icons, it give the appropriate and true description of all of the biblical Israelite figures. I was told that the image of Solomon that I had attempted to upload was a more accurate description of what he looked liked. I would like to upload this photo for accuracy. Because the photos of the Israelites that are on this page now give certain people a false sense of superiority, while providing no empirical evidence whatsoever that the depiction that Wikipedia has chosen to accept is accurate. Aenth (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know what "Russian Icons" refers to. I see Russian icons, but that's not a source, it's an article about a form of religious art. You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to. Jfire (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you then, or someone else needs to provide empirical evidence that the depiction or painting of Solomon is accurate I could say the exact same thing. Aenth (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing image in the infobox is clearly one artist's interpretation. It's dated and attributed to its creator, and its source is clearly documented on its Commons -- all of which is more than can currently be said about the image you uploaded. Other images throughout the article provide other interpretations.
As far as I can see, the article makes no claims about the historical actuality of Solomon's appearance. It says a historically accurate picture of the Davidic king is difficult to construct. If you want it to instead say Solomon was a man of colour with dreadlocks or long curly hair, you need to provide a reliable source for that claim. Given the overall uncertainty about the historicity of Solomon, I think it's likely that there are no surviving contemporary descriptions or depictions of his physical appearance. Jfire (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Current scholarly consensus allows for a historical Solomon, but regards his reign as king over Israel and Judah in the 10th century BCE as uncertain..." (lead) and in the relevant section: "As for Solomon himself, scholars on both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology generally agree that he probably existed [ref]. However, a historically accurate picture of the Davidic king is difficult to construct." Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a false dichotomy/balance there isn't there: both the maximalist and minimalist sides of the spectrum of biblical archeology – seems like we're missing the perspective of non-biblical archaeology altogether. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biblical archaeology in this context simply means archaeology that relates to the region and period in which the biblical stories are set. It does not imply anything about the use of the Bible as a historical source. So the perspective of 'non-biblical archaeology', such as the archaeology of medieval China, is simply not relevant here. - Lindert (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly true. Biblical archaeology was directly burnt borne of attempts to prove the historicity of the Bible, and even if modern techniques have improved, the genre suffers from its framing begetting by its very nature a form of confirmation bias. It is meanwhile perfectly possible to conduct Near Eastern archaeology without recourse to the Bible, hence the entirely separate name of that discipline. Biblical archaeology is, as its name suggests and its page attests, a subset of Biblical studies and Levantine archaeology, so part Biblical exegesis. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Near Eastern archaeology is broader than just biblical archaeology, but any archaeological discussion about a biblical character such as Solomon (the subject of this article) involves biblical archaeology by definition (after all, an archaeologist wouldn't even know the name Solomon were it not for the Bible). - Lindert (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being somewhat the point. Because if the name Solomon is not independently attested outside of the Bible by any physical evidence, then this figure is essentially solely the preserve of literary analysis and extrapolation, not anything excavated, i.e. very much the same ballpark as Odysseus. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
