Talk:Sack of Jerusalem (10th century BC)

Title

This article very much needs a change of title. The 925 BCE date is not universally accepted, and there are any number of sackings of Jerusalem (assuming it was sacked and not just a case of tribute being paid and the Egyptians leaving, which has been often argued). KhalidYasin (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Sack of Jerusalem (10th century BC)? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has Shisaq's campaign being discussed in the II'd Book of the Kings, but, isn't it found in Ist Kings chp 14? I think that an edit is in order.69.171.176.143 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources

ok. nice warning about the terribly POV Jewish opinions. what's next? "this article lacks an appropriate blood libel! add one immediately" Why is a roman historian who was probably stoned out of his mind taken seriously, when the Tanakh from Ethiopia is the same as the Leningrad codex, and gets ignored or categorized as 'religious nonsense' simply because Indo-Aryan linguistic supremacists can't stand anything resembling Arab or Hebrew culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trum5770 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

This article seems to take the Biblical account literally. See Finkelstein for archeaological counter-evidence of a sack of Jerusalem in 926 BCE. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• In your opinion. I disagree. On what do you base your view? Finkelstein is just one scholar and others disagree with him. Jack1956 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. This article cites Finkelstein because I added him; otherwise, the article cites no scholarly works at all.

Also, I still think we should merge this to Shishak so as to have a single place to cover all the disputes. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it isn't up to me to prove anything; I've referenced and sourced the article perfectly adequately. You're the one who disagrees - you prove it. Secondly, I disagree that it should be merged. We are not even certain that Shishak is the pharaoh mentioned in the narrative. Thirdly, adding references is what you're supposed to do.Jack1956 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that we merge this article with Shishak, since we have two relatively short articles with a large degree of overlap. There are some problems with these articles, it makes it easier to sort out POV and accuracy issues if we only have to deal with one article. Sack of Jerusalem (925 BC) already redirects to Shishak. PatGallacher (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)