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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
Please could there be learned comment on the name of the second book: “2 Kings”, 2Kings”, “Kings II”, “II Kings”? JDAWiseman (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two Books in Hebrew Bible
Printed editions of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) also have I Kings and II Kings. I just have to open my Hebrew bible and there they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHDanan (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, printed editions do have both names there, and yet in the Hebrew Bible they are considered one book. The designations "1 Kings" and "2 Kings" are used in Hebrew Bibles for the sake of keeping the chapter numeration in the traditional (originally Christian) order, but do not constitute a judgment that Kings is two books. 2603:6010:F403:85DA:D999:B5D5:F971:B72 (talk)
Long plot
Recently, @Mozartnut introduced plot summaries that were dozens of paragraphs long (I believe the bytes added were 30k or so) and this is unwieldy for any work, let alone a complex set of Bible books. The plot needs to be summarized, condensed, high-level view for this article, lest we rewrite the book in so many words. I've reverted and I've tagged the section as too long already. The other one is tagged for expansion; fair enough, but don't go hog-wild. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: The sections are long and unhelpful. It creates occasion for the dispute we currently have over what needs citations. I was just coming here to ask you to be more specific as to what you wanted the citations for. I'm also unhappy by the inaccuracies like changing "judge" to "wisdom" in 1K3:9. The text of the Books warrant more careful studies and citations would be better for all the content. But this might resolve both issues - All of the Bible book articles I've seen have sections for outlines without long plot synopsis like Acts_of_the_Apostles#Outline. Couldn't we do something similar here? Eunomiäs (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The non-English terms in non-Latin alphabets require citations to
reliable secondary sources that reflect their definition, usage, orthography, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
