Content deleted Content added
Content forking |
|||
Line 123:
:Briefly, no. See [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras]]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 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? - [[User:Sparky|Sparky]] 13:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
== 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.
--[[User:PeR|PeR]] 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
| |||