Jump to content

Talk:David/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Bullae

I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about the history of the Jews is based on King David's existence what do you want me to put the Tel Dan Stele link??
look you could be a minimalist that is your business but my experience is people that are more objective get closer to the truth (every scientist will agree). If you don't want truth what are you doing on Wikipedia trying to spread lies?? (or hide truth whatever)
If you don't like it just try to revise words so the sound OBJECTIVE (not slanted to atheism (I am convinced anyone anti bible is an atheist)
so we will write like this
In 2012 and 2014 six bullae were found at Khirbet Summeily suggesting a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been acknowledged by many recent scholars who tend to dismiss trends toward political complexity occurring prior to the arrival of the Assyrians in the region in the later eighth century b.c.e. [1] with the Tel Dan Stele it can be suggested with great certainty of the existence of King David.
Sadya goan (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That scholarly article simply does not state anything about David, so it does not support your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The discovery/claim was widely reported;[2][3] there should definitely be something about it in the article. But of course, criticism of the claim should be included too. StAnselm (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
They were found near Gaza, which was a Philistine city - doesn't sound very good evidence for King David to me.PiCo (talk)
And then I did some searching - should have searched first. This blog from someone working there says the pottery associates more with the hill country than the Philistines. Nothing about King David. This blog, Imaging the Past, points out that the bullae do not prove the existence of David and Solomon, and that the original press release didn't claim they did (which is adequate reason not to mention them in our article). It also makes the point that the bullae don't even imply the existence of written documents - they could be amulets, for example. Nor, if they can be linked to documents, do they imply Jerusalem - the "capital" could have been anywhere. And some of the bullae were found inside mud-bricks - a very odd place to keep documents. So, all in all (and there's more), I wouldn't mention this in the article. PiCo (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, of course, they didn't claim to prove anything - nobody makes claims like that. But "We are very positive that these bullae are associated with the Iron Age IIA, which we date to the 10th century B.C., and which lends general support to the historical veracity of David and Solomon as recorded in the Hebrew biblical texts" seems a significant enough link to David. As you remind us sometimes, we're just reporting here; we're not doing archaeology ourselves. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a weak source which puts forward speculation. The scholarly article about the discovery does not state that, just ends with a hint that different people interpret differently (depending upon how many phrases above it get considered). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the article should indicate that it is speculation, and that it was not the discovery itself. But it is notable speculation by the lead discoverer. StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are more links http://archaeology.org/news/2832-141216-israel-clay-seals http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2014/12/clay-seals-may-support-bible-story StAnselm thank you for stepping in Sadya goan (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel Finkelstein, whom you have cited as reliable source in another article, stated: Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002) [2001]. "8. In the Shadow of Empire (842-720 BCE)". [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869128 The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts] (First Touchstone Edition 2002 ed.). New York: Touchstone. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-0-684-86913-1. Archaeologically and historically, the redating of these cities from Solomon's era to the time of Omrides has enormous implication. It removes the only archeological evidence that there was ever a united monarchy based in Jerusalem and suggests that David and Solomon were, in political terms, little more than hill country chieftains, whose administrative reach remained on a fairy local level, restricted to the hill country. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Is Finkelstein antisemitic? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you research a little he dint attack these bullae ,(but that doesn't mean I think very highly of him) maybe you should research antisemitism and try to see who would fall under that category (it is hard for a Jew to be classified as such). Don't forget the main country that was involved in biblical criticism was Germany Sadya goan (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Guilt by association, I presume. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes User Sadya goan, that's not useful at all. And you really need to learn more, eg see Self-hating Jew. Jews can be anti-semitic. But this is all off-topic, Finkelstein isn't anti-semitic. Doug Weller (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, meant [User:Sadya goan]]. Doug Weller (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(it is hard for a Jew to be classified as such) = Self-hating Jew Sadya goan (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa

I don't know why Khirbet Qeiyafa isn't mentioned in the archaeology section?? http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ and others?? For some reason I am having trouble posting it myself.Sadya goan (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek name

I believe the spelling of David's name in ancient Greek is Δαυείδ - with an epsilon. --Irlandos (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The Date that King David became King of all of Israel and Judea

According to The Books of The Prophets by Moffatt published in 1939 by Hodder and Stoughton, London, King David's reign is from 1016 - 976 BC in Chapter two of the introduction. I feel it is important for this to be clarified as 2016 is his 3rd millennium. Crixothia (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is uncertain if David was a king. Finkelstein and Silberman maintain that he was a hill country chieftain, ruling over a cow town. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
If it was 1016BC, the anniversary was in 1985. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, the main problem with any theory about David is that we lack decent sources from this period to determine if he existed or what his particular role was. With this lack of definite evidence, any theory supported by published scholars remains plausible but non-authoritative. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to create an image gallery? David is so often painted and sculpted this seems like an essential part of the article, but although I copied the layout I found on the article Mary, mother of Jesus, it just doesn't work. PiCo (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a really great idea. I'll be on the look out for a layout on some other page that might work and will keep you posted. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
My thanks to those who helped with the image gallery. For future reference, it seems that if anyone wants to add a second row of images, the whole thing has to be repeated (with different files of course), not simply new images added to the existing setup.PiCo (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Genealogy of Jesus

There is no consensus among historians upon a particular genealogy of Jesus being true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a claim. Following the scholarship popularized by Catholic Answers, it appears rather that among Christian historians (which, collectively, would seem to make a substantial number) the predominant view is that both genealogies in the Gospels are true, one being more symbolic than the other (i.e. skipping generations). -- Newagelink (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You may want to read the article linked above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


– The name "David" is so common in European languages that we can hardly say that the average person who tries to go to the page "David" wants the article on the Israeli king. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference to Lutheran as a western rite church

As the page is protected I cannot edit. The Lutheran Church is not a western rite church, it is not mentioned in the attached article either. I would suggest Roman catholic should be first in the brackets and if a second is desired from a style perspective than it would be Anglican, which is mentioned in the article. Thanks Whosbasil (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Era: Revert to BC/AD; Stop BCE/CE Foolishness

Please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (apart from eschatological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web, or perhaps World War I. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. -- Newagelink (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a WP:PAG about this issue, see WP:ERA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where you state specific relevant reasons for one style being more appropriate than the other for this article. BCE/CE are being used more frequently and by broader demographics as time progresses. I think editing the article to BC/AD is just going to cause the next generation of editors to come back through and revert it to the new academic standard. Also, I don't see the point in using nonsecular terms to describe something as secular as the calander/date, especially since only ~30-35% of the global population are Christians. Why not use terms that are secular and inclusive for everyone instead of tacitly excluding the vast majority of the people living on the planet? 

ChiXiStigma (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor grammatical errors

There are a few minor grammatical issues in this article which I tried to correct, however the page is protected at a level that prohibits me from making edits. If anyone with the appropriate edit permissions reads this and doesn't feel like proofing the whole article for a few very minor grammatical errors, please let me know and I'll post the error and the correction. ChiXiStigma (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard; I was able to make the edits. ChiXiStigma (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Guerilla fighter

David's activities described in the bible, after Saul turned on him but before he became king, have been described as guerilla warfare - James Kugel described that period that way (ref) and this is even in the footnote of a bible study edition, per here. I realize that was startling and to be frank and i didn't check first to make sure that was discussed in the body, so am fine with taking that out. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:TERRORIST. It would be fine to say in the body that he used guerrilla tactics while fighting so and so. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
TERRORIST is irrelevant (guerrilla tactics are just a form of warfare - TERRORIST is about "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" etc. ) but this is something to deal with later. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST was just the link to the section about value-laden labels. The term "Guerrilla fighter" also carries connotations, albeit to a lesser extant than do "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". (Our own article on Guerrilla Warfare confirms this, saying that the term "Guerrillas" carries positive connotations to the guerrillas and their sympathizers, and notes that "Making an objective definition of the difference between 'a guerrilla' and 'a terrorist' has proven a difficult task." Anyway, the point is to avoid using value-laden labels, not to equate guerrillas with terrorists. ~Awilley (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Not responding further to this, as this is not an issue now. Will pick this up later. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two cents, I don't know if there are any wholly reliable accounts to how David actually commanded his army – only that he won alot. There's no real evidence he used any guerrilla tactics whatsoever, let alone that it was a recurrent theme in his battles enough that it should be noted on the page. Fighting with ferocity doesn't equate to guerrilla warfare. BedrockPerson (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not discussing this further now nor arguing to add content about this now. So am not responding now other than to say that you are not dealing with the parts of the biblical story where David uses guerrilla tactics (nothing at all to do with ferocity). You can read the two refs I provided and there are plenty others, to prepare for later, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

References used in article which support 1040 BCE as birthdate.

Before I begin, @Alephb:, just saw your unacceptable edits. Removing all the dates? This article is sourced with the very same references we give to biblical kings – Albright, Thiele, Dever, etc. These dates are accepted consensus fact, these calculations are used on the king entries both before and after David. Why are the dates attributed to David suddenly inaccurate? Who are you to decide? And also, your edit summary of "per talk page"? You can clearly see no such discussion ever took place on this talk page. You gained no consensus on the talk, you agreed with @Jytdog: once and were immediately rebuked. I'm done.

Citation 28 – Kirkpatrick, A. F., Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on 1 Samuel, Section IIIa

— Josephus, Ant. VI. 14. 9, makes the same statement, adding however that he reigned 18 years during the lifetime of Samuel, and 22 years after his death, which does not agree with the facts of the history. David was 30 years old at his accession.
  • Article cites 1010 BC as the approximate year of David's ascension - thus making his birth year 1040 BC

Kirsch, Jonathan (2000) King David: the real life of the man who ruled Israel. Ballantine. ISBN 0-345-43275-4 — p. 269

— At the age of seventy, the king of Israel…ended.
  • Article cites 970 BC as the approximate year of David's death - thus making his birth year 1040 BC

Bergen, David T. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 9780805401073., p. 31

— 1045 I Ish-Bosheth born (cf. 2 Sam 2:10)
1040 I David born (cf. 2 Sam 5:4)
1015 I Mephibosheth born (cf. 2 Sam 4:4)
  • Source literally states birth year is 1040 BC

Citation 83 – Commentary on II Samuel 22, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 9. II Samuel. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1984. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-06808-5, p. 133

— Similarly, we note the years of David's life were seventy
  • Again, 70 years from 970 BC is 1040 BC

Citation 90 – John Corbett (1911) King David The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company)

— David died at the age of seventy, having ruled Jerusalem 33 years.
  • seventy years.

Come on now. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You are giving the old-school maximalist version of ANE history, which is not mainstream ANE history. WP is not a Christian website and the body does a good job of explaining the mainstream view of David's historicity. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, you've knocked down one source. Still plenty left up. Continue. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The content in the body of the article is well sourced and read as a whole, makes it clear that none of these dates are firm. They don't belong in an infobox. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Infoboxes have birth and death info as presets for a reason, Jyt. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are used for people that existed for certain and about whom we know those facts. Not every field in an infobox is relevant in every article. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Laozi is legendary, he has exact birth and death dates with no sources. We have a place of death and nothing more for Jesus, but his estimates are still alllowed. What about Cissa of Sussex? What about Aesop? What about Ithobaal? What about Ælle of Sussex? What about Pythagoras? Why are all these people with discounted historicity allowed these things in info boxes without so much as one source, yet when plenty of sources come along and balance a whole field of archeology on these estimates, you find it fit to remove? BedrockPerson (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

you are making the "other stuff exists" argument. We are talking about this article, and the sourced content in the body of this article makes it clear that his historicity is unclear and the dates are tentative. The use of dates in this infobox is not warranted per WP:INFOBOX. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Any editor is free to remove unsourced content from any page, and it is not to be added back without sources. So if you want to remove the Ithobaal stuff, go for it. Nobody's stopping you. And if anyone tries to put it back without adding in sources, I'll be there to support your edit, Bedrock. Alephb (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox issues

  • has link to Kings of Israel and Judah which is horrible, conflating biblical narrative and history
  • has dates for reigns in Judah and separately in Israel; this is biblical narrative, not history. These dates are not clear and should not be in the infobox
  • has date for his death; it is not certain that he existed and if he did, when.

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I would strip out all dates for David. As I understand the scholarly literature, it's a majority opinion that David existed, but there just isn't a firm basis for thinking that we can date his reign with any accuracy, much less take the "United Kingdom" business at face value. Alephb (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Stripping out all the dates is a really hamfisted way of dealing with this and is unhelpful to the reader. If the only dates we have are biblical then we make a note of that. If there is discrepancy between the biblical dates and the scholarly literature that should be discussed. I'm envisioning wording like "reigned from approximately xxxBCE to xxxBCE according to the biblical narrative". For the infobox, there should probably be something, even if it's a large range. ~Awilley (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Support for Awilley's points BedrockPerson (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Awilley, there are no dates in the bible. Please explain what you mean. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I believe Awilley is referring to instances in the Biblewjere a specific date is mentioned without giving a year, such as "In the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (...)" and things like that. Naming a time period without giving a year. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Awilley is capable of speaking for themselves. To address your claim -- links made in the Bible, between events in the biblical narrative and events that we know about from extrabiblical sources, are not facts, necessarily, but narrative that needs to be handled with care. The Bible is not a history book. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog, I'm not sure I understand your question. There are relative time references given in the bible and biblical scholars analyze those to say that so and so ruled from xxxB.C. to xxxB.C. We can then cite those scholars to say that, in the biblical narrative, so and so ruled from xxxB.C. to xxxB.C. Whether the Bible is history or fiction is beside the point. We give years and dates when writing about Middle-earth as well. ~Awilley (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
What I am saying is mainstream ANE scholarship. Sure people construct chronologies in purely fictional universes. The difficulty in dealing with the bible is that it is not a history book. It is a lot of things including narratives that tell stories. Believers take those stories as True. Historians take them as ... interesting, possibly useful, but unreliable. The most obvious clash between believers and mainstream scholarship is with creationism but the same issue arises when people who believe the Bible is True uncritically map events that occur later in the biblical narrative onto actual history. This is what Bedrockperson does. It is called a "maximalist" position. Mainstream ANE scholarship treats statements in the Bible very, very gingerly. This is the so-called "minimalist" position and it is the mainstream. Now, the closer the biblical narrative gets to the modern times the more we can actually do the mapping with confidence but David takes place earlier, when things are very murky. Looking at all the extrabiblical evidence for example, mainstream ANE scholarship has very strong doubts whether the unified kingdom that the bible describes as being governed by David and Solomon, existed at all. This is the kind of thing I mean. Likewise is is not clear if David even existed. And to the extent mainstream scholars are willing to grant that he existed, the dates are very tentative - constructions based on a lot of assumptions. So no, the middle earth thing is not relevant (nothing to do with actual history) and the mappings are not simple. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
About the "stripping out all the dates" frame being put on this; infoboxes are for facts. Not "reconstruction accepted in some circles but not in others". That is nuanced stuff to be dealt with in the body (dates are fine there, in context); they have no place in an infobox for a liminally historical character like this. It is not certain if David existed at all (though scholars tend to lean toward "probably did") but when he may have been born and died is completely constructed and is subject to lots of assumptions. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Right. I want to make it clear that when I endorsed stripping all dates out, I was responding only to the proposal to strip them out of the infobox. I'm perfectly fine with dates being discussed in the article. Alephb (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

POV reversions

User:Awilley your edit here - and you own it - violates WP:NPOV. I added content to the lead that is well supported in the body about negative things David did and toned down the hero-worship. You removed that and restored the blatant POV adulatory lead. This is not OK - to be clear, with your comments above and that edit, you are now INVOLVED here. And violating content policy to boot.

There are wider-ranging issues here around historicity of people described in the Bible that are distinct from the POV issues that were present int the lead. Please restore the neutral version of the lead. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I just restored what seems to have been the longstanding status quo. Neither version was neutral in my opinion, and I've already started trying to make it better [4]. Really though instead of trying to make the lead say that he was "righteous" or "sinful" we should be focusing on how the sources talk about him. My opinion is that Bathsheba should be mentioned, but not to the exclusion of everything else. Why don't you try to add a sentence about Bathsheba, but without removing anything, and we can work from there? An interesting snippet from the body is, "Jacob L. Wright, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Emory University, has written that the most popular legends about David, including his killing of Goliath, his affair with Bathsheba, and his ruling of a United Kingdom of Israel rather than just Judah, are the creation of those who lived generations after him, in particular those living in the late Persian or Hellenistic periods." That might be the basis for saying something along the lines of him being often remembered/credited for his killing of Goliath and his adultery with Bathsheba. ~Awilley (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. The content you restored violates POV, and blatantly so; I had made it more neutral (not perfectly so, no -- but much moreso). Please improve what I did or take your own stab at completely revising it; restoring what was there is really unacceptable. Your suggestion about summarizing Wright is fine with me, but not leaving the adulatory stuff that you restored. Please remove that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw a recent edit and jumped in without checking the talk page; sorry for that. I was going to simply fix a typo and a tense error, but found the whole statement jarred with the paragraph. Anyway, there's my bit for all to consider. YoPienso (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Please note that "Citation needed" is not about challenging content neutrality (referring to your recent edit summary), but about verifiability. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Yopienso please review WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. The lead just summarizes the body and gives WEIGHT as the body gives WEIGHT. Nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body, and the lead is not a place to sing anybody's praises nor to tear them down - it just summarizes the body of the article. Your edit note here indicates you are seeking some kind of "balance" between positive and negative statements. That is not what NPOV means. Look at the body; summarize it. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I understand that. YoPienso (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The edits you have made to the lead after I wrote the above (diff blatantly violate NPOV and do not summarize the body. Please self-revert or edit to make this neutrally summarize the body. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I have revised the lead to neutrally summarize the body of the article. The lead does not need refs per WP:LEAD, as all it is doing is summarizig the body. We do not need prooftexting anywhere in Wikipedia, but especially not in the lead of an article where the content is only there, and not in the body. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I only restored or rearranged material that was already in the lead.
You removed the statement that David was a man after God's own heart on July 28th with the edit summary "neutral." Neutral? Nothing POV about what you removed, so I restored it. Perhaps your real objection was stylistic--it didn't summarize a topic treated in the body. On a crowd-sourced project like this, we inch forward; I suggest that it would have been better to move it down into the body or bring it to talk, because it's an important point in the biography of the biblical David. It had been in the lead for over two years. Prior to that, it had been in the body for over four months. Of course longstanding info can be removed, but we could do so more collaboratively.
As my edit summary says, I also incorporated info on ancestry/Messiah into another paragraph: (More editing on lead. Moved last line into 2nd para. Now the first para. names him and defines him as king of Israel. 2nd describes him. 3rd give chief events of life.) I think that outline of the lead would be fine, but I like your most recent revision of the lead, too.
I don't understand your charge of prooftexting. YoPienso (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

@Yopienso:, the claim that David was 69 or 70 has come in and out of the infobox today several times, and I originally removed it because there is no reliable source given for the claim. Given that it is a matter of Wikipedia policy that unsourced material should not be added back into an article after it has been removed, I would request that you remove the bit from the infobox where it claims David was "69 or 70" at death. Whatever you think of a several topics that are all being debated right now, I would hope we can all at least agree about WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly have no reason to be so specific. I merely copied and pasted what had been removed. There's a general consensus that David reigned, or was supposed to have reigned, about 1000 B.C. I'll go with that. YoPienso (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, his posited reign is sourced. We say circa, so it's obvious an estimate. The article is clear that there is no definitive source for his birth or reign or death. I left it as "age approx. 70." YoPienso (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why the timeline is being discussed here. I am going to throw an RfC about the infobox issue and historicity issue more broadly. Things like how old he was are narrative, not facts and have no place in a factual infobox. The problem is not "unsourced" -- all kinds of things are claimed all over the place. The issue is what is accepted knowledge per mainstream scholarship, which as I have noted, is pretty well summarized in the body and pretty OK there. But pulliing numbers out of nuanced reconstructions and trying to force them into a "fact"-box that is invalid and violates NPOV. Not OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I think an RfC would be an excellent idea. At this point, we've sort of got people floating in and out of the disagreement in a semi-disorderly way, unsourced stuff getting removed, unsourced stuff getting pushed back in repeatedly by multiple people, plus of course the concerns about historicity more generally. I think the infobox issue has reached the point where an RfC would be appropriate. Alephb (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I always welcome input from fresh eyes. I disagree with Jytdog's dichotomy of narrative and history, though, wrt the infobox. The infobox is there on the basis of the biblical narrative, not of archaelogical finds ("facts"), so I don't see how we can single out his age--which the Bible puts at 70--from his parents, spouses, issue, etc. Everything in the infobox is right there in the article. YoPienso (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are several competing Davids. There (1) the David(s) of the biblical texts themselves, (2) the historical David(s) reconstructed by mainstream contemporary biblical scholars, (3) the David(s) reconstructed in the most conservative kinds of scholarship, and (4) the historical David(s) reconstructed by older biblical scholars before modern archaeology made scholars a lot more skeptical about relating the Bible and history. All four Davids or groups of Davids are complicated.

So, for example, a simple adding up of the reigns of the kings of Judah would suggest that David was in power 1060-1020 BCE. I can show you the work if you want. Pushing his reign forward fifty years involves from fiendishly complicated stuff with synchronizing the chronologies of Judah and Israel — fiendishly complicated stuff that has not lead to any consensus. The fact that the 1010-970 date is because of the privileging of one particular subset of the different ways one could try to reconcile all the various discrepancies in biblical chronology.

To quote Norman K. Gottwald, in The Politics of Ancient Judah, p. 54 [5], The numbers supplied for the synchronisms and durations of royal reigns do not "add up" at any number of points, probably because of any number of factors affecting the computations: incorrect transmission, and/or undisclosed fluctuations in calendar and manner of counting regnal years. Indeed, chronological difficulties also attend the prior reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. A textual lacuna means that we lack a report on the length of Saul's reign (1 Sam. 13:1), and the forty-year reigns assigned to David and Solomon may well be round numbers (1 Kings 2:1; 11:42). As a consequence, there is no consensus among the many scholars who have sought to reconcile the chronological data in Kings, nor can any be expected short of new textual discoveries.

The most important part of that quote is "there is no consensus." And that's true.

So, while one particular Wikipedia editor or another may like to say that David reigned over Judah from 1010 to 1002, and then over Judah and Israel from 1002 to 970, using that date in an infobox gives the reader a false impression. David just is not dated by consensus. The biblical data doesn't solve the problem, and the archaeological data just isn't there because the earliest detailed information on David is written 350+ years after he dies. All we know from an archaeological point of view is that by around 800 BC there was an identifiable bytdwd in the region -- not a thing about his life as a person, just the name existing for some political group.

If the infobox is there to simply communicate what the Bible says about David, the Bible does not give a single agreed-upon date for David's reign. If the infobox is there to communicate what modern historical scholarship says about David, there also isn't a single agreed-upon date for David's reign. As of now, the dates aren't justified. There is a larger discussion to be had about what details should or should not be in that infobox, and whether that infobox should clarify that it is talking about the biblical portrayal as opposed to the historical character. That's fine. But as a start, the infobox should be for summarizing key information about a character. So if the article correctly notes that the details are fuzzy, the infobox shouldn't produce a different impression Alephb (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, which I'm aware of. Don't you think the c. in the infobox indicates the details are fuzzy? YoPienso (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It's true that there is a "c." there, and if we're going to have dates in the infobox it's better to have "c." than no "c." But, on the other hand, the inclusion of a date like "1002" there makes it appear that the fuzziness would be very limited. If we're going to keep dates in the article, I would suggest something more like "11th-10th century." That would come closer. But I also think (probably when the RfC comes out) that we need a closer look at what the infobox's mission is.
You say, "The infobox is there on the basis of the biblical narrative, not of archaelogical finds ('facts'), so I don't see how we can single out his age--which the Bible puts at 70--from his parents, spouses, issue, etc." I'd say, instead that the infobox currently uncritically conflates three different things, in a way that only a very well-informed reader will be able to see through. On the one hand, yes, most of the material in that infobox reflects the biblical account. On the other hand, the inclusion of the date as it stands reflects a particular sort of conservative historical approach to David, and doesn't come in any direct way from the biblical account. On yet another hand, the inclusion of David's "mother" Nitzevet is from the Talmud, a work without a shred of credibility on biblical history. You don't find Nitzevet in the Bible, nor would any historian take her existence seriously. If we're going to add in later Jewish traditions, we might as well push the date of David into the ninth century, as Seder Olam has it. There is nothing explicitly in the biblical account, by the way, that would eliminate a ninth century date if we're ruling out archaeology from the infobox.
So the composite David we now have there isn't just Bible David, because Nitzevet and some oddly specific dates found there way in there. It isn't historical consensus / archaeological David, because most historians don't buy the idea that he reigned over all Judah and Israel, and there's no confidence about the dates. It isn't traditional Jewish David, because traditional Jewish David lived in the ninth century. It's a composite David that doesn't accurately reflect any of those three. Unless our readers are very sophisticated and know how to distinguish modern history-writing, biblical narrative, and medieval Jewish tradition, there's no way they know what they're looking at right now. Alephb (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure the general reader would object to a composite David, but perhaps we would do better to stick with the biblical one. I'm more comfortable with vague dates than specific dates, and very unhappy with no dates. 11th-9th centuries B.C. is far better than no time reference. As James Moffatt wrote in the preface to his translation of the Bible, "When the choice lay between a guess or a gap, I inclined to prefer the former." For now, can we just say "c. 10th-century B.C." or "likely/approx. 10th-century B.C."? YoPienso (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Nitzevet is blue-linked and identified as coming from the Talmud--iow, a labeled exception to the biblical David--so I have no problem with naming her in the infobox. Would you prefer "Talmudic tradition" in parentheses? YoPienso (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not saying the general reader would object. I'm just thinking the general reader wouldn't even realize that they're looking at a composite David. I would be happier with "c. 10th century" than what we have now. If the date is that general, I don't think I'd have any remaining objection to it. When it comes to the infobox more generally, I've got ideas about a couple ways it could go, but I'm more looking forward to the RfC to see what kinds of ideas people have. Infoboxes are hard for issues where there's some complexity. If the community decides that infobox is about the biblical David as opposed to the historical David, I would hope there would be some way to tip the reader off that that's what we're doing. If the community decides that the infobox is about the historical David, then we'd have another interesting set of issues on our hands. If the community decides they want a composite infobox, well, I'll live with it. Alephb (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd also be fine with "c. 10th century." What do you think about the source cited in the infobox for the specific dates? What do you think about the source cited in the first paragraph of the lead? Eerdman's, p. 244: "Beginning at the end of the OT period we possess quite precise figures for the chronology of the Persian and Babylonian periods. The chronology present there probably does not vary by more than plus or minus one year. By the time one reaches the time of David at the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C.E. that variation is probably still limited to less than a decade." Shea dates David to c. 1000. But on p. 247 he specifies 1012-972. YoPienso (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that Eerdman's dictionary is one of the higher-quality sources that pops up in Wikipedia Bible articles. And Baruch Halpern is a prominent scholar. However, he is on the maximalist side of the minimalist / maximalist debate when it comes to David and Solomon. He tends to see the forty years of Solomon as exactly or almost exactly correct, likely to the exact year, and something similar for David. And for all I know he might be right, but as his article in Eerdman's illustrates with its comments about "King Arthur", he's giving his personal judgment as a scholar rather than speaking for the scholarly world in general. What if we were to meet in the middle and use the Eerdman's dates for David with the word (disputed) in parentheses after it? That might be what I'll suggest in the RfC. I'd be interested to hear what either User:BedrockPerson or User:Jytdog might think of that idea. Alephb (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You could go with circa dates and add a note telling the reader that nothing is certain and giving the major suggestions by Thiele and whoever. Would need to add a Notes section. PiCo (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be OK to have one date in the infobox - that he lived ca 1000. Nothing about his birth or death date or the dates of his reign and nothing about the united monarchy at all, as that probably didn't exist. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There are two Davids (AlephB sees even more, but I'll stick with two), the historical man who probably existed but about whom practically nothing is known, and the literary figure we have in the bible. About this one a great deal is known, but most of it involves magical numbers. There are, for example, 10 generations from Adam to Noah, 10 from Noah's son Shem to Terah, and ten from Terah's great-grandson Judah to David. (The gap between Terah and Judah is introduced by the need to fit Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in as "sons" of Terah - they form a triad, like the three sons of Adam and the three sons of Noah, marking the division between the blocs of ten). Then from David's son Solomon to Johoiachin and the end of the kingdom there are two further groups of ten kings of Judah, with the break at Uzziah. The last few kings in the list are real, but the further back you go the less reality there is and the more you find these "significant numbers", like 40 years, which is all over. PiCo (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems we're all pretty much of one mind that the infobox should not give specific dates even with a circa unless a note is appended. Looks like it's time for someone to go ahead and make the improvement. YoPienso (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, done here. I left it at "reign". You all OK with that? Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. Alephb (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Me too. YoPienso (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm seriously good with this, but my one hangup is I'd still at least keep the date of c. 970 BC as death. My reason being that most of the king entries after David are dated based off Thiele's calculation (or people working off of Thiele's calculation) of Solomon reigning from 970–931 BC, and even Solomon, the king entry right after this one, is listed as 970-930. My thought is some unaware editor is going to see Solomon reigning from 970 BCE and say, "Why isn't David listed as dying in 970 BC?", and then we start all over again. Then again, we got a 2 week lock on editing, so what more can we do at this present moment? BedrockPerson (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, BedrockPerson, if you want 970 in the infobox, a necessary but not sufficient condition for a move like that would be first making sure it is in the article and sourced. At your most recent addition, it was not in the article or sourced. We've had this discussion many times -- anything in an infobox must be sourced. You shouldn't add unsourced things to David, and you shouldn't do what you just did to Ish-bosheth a few minutes ago. These are simple and blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, and given the way people keep talking to you about the issue, you really should stop doing that. Of course, if it was sourced and in the infobox, it would still be a good idea to seek consensus on adding in the 970 date, but sourcing is a non-option requirement. Alephb (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If you remember, I made a whole subset of the talk page showing that numerous citations used in this article support the birth year originally on the page — they all support the 970 death date as well. Scroll up a bit, and you'll see it. The years were always sourced, but I suppose just not directly. So when the time comes that I am able to do so, I will gladly source as seen fit.
Also, for Ishbosheth, it says he reigned two years. If the entry for his predecessor places their death in 1012 BC, is it not obvious that Ishbosheth reigned from 1012-1010? If we have clear info and sources not just on the page, but also the page before, do we even need to directly affix more to something so obvious? It's the equivalent of saying we can't make a page from 2 BC until we find a source that affirms it occurred after 3 BC or before 1 BC. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There are a couple issues here. First, an infobox is for material found in the article. If it's not in the article, don't put it in the infobox. Second, you need a source. Saying that some other Wikipedia page has the information does not constitute a source. We are over a year into you inappropriately adding unsourced things into Infoboxes. People keep explaining to you that you need reliable sources for these things, and then you revert, in violation of the Wikipedia policy on sourcing, or else you give arguments other than actual footnoted sources. At this point, you should understand what's necessary. The pages affected by your repeated inappropriate and disruptive additions of unsourced content additions to infoboxes include Abdon (Judges), Abimelech (Judges), Abraham, David, Ehud, Elon, Habakkuk, Ibzan, Isaac, Ishbosheth, Ishmael, Jacob, Jair, Jephthah, Jezebel, Joshua, Kenan, Moses, Othniel, Samson, Samuel, Shamgar, Tola (biblical figure). Can you figure out how not to add unsourced information to infoboxes, or should I take this up with WP:ANI? Alephb (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Alephb, I've appreciated our brief and collegial dialog here. I recognize BedrockPerson--who I've only just come across a day or two ago--is editing in too aggressive a manner. Still, the material was in the article until very recently. Just yesterday you and I discussed two sources that were removed later. Why were they removed? Do I correctly understand you that you don't accept maximalist views as RSs? If so, why not? Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
We don't cherry pick. Per NPOV we look at what mainstream, reliable sources say and we summarize them. For ANE history issues, those are publications by mainstream ANE historians. Religiously-driven scholars form a "minority view" under NPOV; they can be mentioned but they must be given less WEIGHT than the mainstream view. Again, this is policy. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Yopienso, as for myself, I think there are kooks at the far ends of both the maximalist and minimalist spectrums. Speaking only for myself, I am perfectly comfortable with citations to maximalist and minimalist sources, and to the great number of scholars somewhere in between. I would have to no problem with someone citing Baruch Halpern, for example. In the list from Abdon to Tola, above, in every case I'm talking about the addition of dates with no sources whatsoever. When it comes to our recent discussion on David, I'm more interested in making sure stuff in infoboxes can be traced back to reliable sources, and where debate in reliable sources exists I don't want the infobox to pick a side. I think that myself and Jytdog -- another editor I very much respect -- are approaching this issue from slightly different angles. I am mostly focused on the question of the infoboxes, while he has a broader goal of working on the question of whether the article itself is fully neutral. I've mostly tried to stay out of the issue with the article itself. I'm here mostly for the infobox question. If I gave a lot of thought to it, I could probably come up with opinions about some of the article body edits that have happened here over the past few days, but so far I've been abstaining. When I'm aware of a debate, I try to cite both minimalists and maximalists. Where I'm not aware of a debate, I'll happily cite anything that's peer-reviewed and/or published in a reputable source like the Eerdman's dictionary. I'm sorry if I said something to give you another impression. There's been a very large number of edits and it's been difficult to keep up with all the ins and outs of it. There are also problems where people mean different things by "minimalist" and "maximalist," so if you want to get more specific I'd have to talk about individual sources.
When it comes to the information about dates in the article body itself, I don't think I've removed any, so I'll let anyone who's removed information from the article body speak for themselves. I wouldn't be the person to ask about that. Alephb (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! So, fir example, I guess you wouldn't cite to Kenneth Kitchen on the question of dates.
And now, to Jytdog, why did you remove the dates? YoPienso (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Kenneth Kitchen would not be my first choice, but when I've found him cited in articles, I haven't removed him. In a few cases I have added information about other scholars as well, while leaving Kitchen in.Alephb (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, thanks. It seems to me the mainstream consensus is that he is reputable except for dates.
Jytdog is making allegations and threats related to this article and discussion on my talk page. Would you care to look at them and coach me through them? YoPienso (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
YoPienso, there was consensus above to remove them, to which you agreed (diff writing Me too with edit note Yes, OK). What has changed? Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I perceived and agreed to a consensus to remove specific dates from the infobox, not to strip them from the article. YoPienso (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that was too brief. Nothing's changed. I still agree with that consensus, but you went beyond it.
You seem to have missed a reply I made to you above at 18:32, 30 July 2017. Do you care to explain what you meant by "prooftexting"? (I know what the word means; I don't understand your use of it.) Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
1) about prooftexting - you added and re-added content to the lead several times making hagiographic claims about David sourced solely to the Bible. They are right there in the diffs. This is bad for three reasons - it is has nothing to do what we do in the LEAD and it is abuse of primary sources and it violated the crap out of NPOV.
2) You are saying you agree with my diff that removed the dates from the infobox, but that I " went beyond it." All that diff does is remove the dates. That was my last edit to the article. So again, what are you talking about? Are you talking about my prior edit to the lead? If so this edit, most of which has stuck, still has the same ca1000 BCE date in it, in the history section. So again - what are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you don't know what "prooftexting" means. I did add back in material you deleted without discussion. You did not respond to my subsequent discussion of it.
I agreed with the consensus to remove specific dates from the infobox, which you did per talk 05:41, 30 July 2017]. You had stripped it from the article [00:06, 30 July 2017.] So my apologies for thinking you had removed it from the article after you removed it from the infobox. You did not go beyond the consensus; I got lost in the edits and diffs. My bad. YoPienso (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone wants me to completely re-write the article, do they? No, thought not. Carry on :) PiCo (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. Alephb (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward

I don't expect anyone wants me to completely re-write the article, do they? No, thought not. Carry on :) PiCo (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't object. Alephb (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, not a complete re-write, but some improvements could be made.

The biblical vs. the historical David
There was quite a discussion about how many Davids are represented in the article. I suggest we focus on the biblical David--with all his facets and contradictions--since there really is no historical David. The historical part is what historians and archaeologists say about the biblical David. Scholars don't doubt his existence, but the only artifact supporting it is the Tel Dan stele, which attests to his dynasty, not to him as an individual. My suggestion is more about editorial direction than revision of the current article, which I think treats it well by presenting the Biblical account and then David in history, archeology and literature.

Suggested improvements
I suggest expanding the Family sub-section of the "Biblical account" to include David's dynasty (The House of David or Davidic line), which is an important biblical theme. Finkelstein and Silberman, p. 129, is a good source: "This [the Tel Dan stele] is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty..." Finkelstein and Silberman support the idea than the dynasty is important to mention in the "Biblical account" section.

The section "David as psalmist and musician" should be a subsection of the "Biblical account" section, imo, and needs to be rewritten. Brettler and Zvi, "Psalms," The Jewish Study Bible, pp. 1281-82, is a good source. Mention should be made of David's harp-playing for Saul, and of his institution of a choir to sing before the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Chr. 16:4. I think it's important to keep "the sweet psalmist of Israel" because it's a well-known epithet.

The section "David in history, archeology and literature" seems quite good to me since it covers in a neutral fashion the development of scholarly thought and the various opinions offered by the academic community. I suggest adding a paragraph or section about dates, citing to Thiele, Gottwald, Finkelstein and Silberman, Eerdman's and others for a rounded view of the debate, weighted toward modern MS scholarship.

Sections 4-6 seem appropriate and are chronological. Should the lead mention that David is a revered figure in the Abrahamic religions?

The "Modern art and literature" section is important, imo, but seems to have too many entries in the "Literature" sub-section and not enough in the "Paintings" and "Sculptures" sub-sections, which I just opened and can't presently enlarge. YoPienso (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The stuff about Tel Dan is history, not bible. It doesn't belong in the biblical narrative section. I agree with the suggestion about "psalmist and musician" content - that is completely part of the bible's intertextuality and should be there. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't suggest putting the stuff about Tel Dan in the biblical narrative section. It's appropriately in the historical/archaeological part. YoPienso (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see how you misunderstood--I was mentioning F & S to show that the Davidic dynasty is important to mention in the biblical part. I see I wasn't clear enough. YoPienso (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't misunderstand anything. Thanks for withdrawing that. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. YoPienso (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • another section that is missing in the article is fruits of study from anthropology that view David as a culture hero of the ancient israelites and his role in the National myth; a bunch of the biblical narrative can be seen as expressions of that. ditto his nachleben in the self-understandings of Christianity, Islam, the current nation of Israel etc. All from the perspective of anthropology. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • and likewise more clearly separating out a recap of david in the bible, from meanings and emphases generated in Jewish, Chrisitan, and Islamic traditions (which each have more than one set of readings). Separating out what the bible says, from theology. This is hard to do. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree on all points. The culture hero, national myth, and legacy angle is what I meant about being a revered figure in the Abrahamic religions. But you seem to be extending it also to the present-day political state of Israel? I would concur.
Do you want to start a draft to have ready when the article's unlocked? YoPienso (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I never expected this to come from my off-hand comment :). If anyone has the time, good on 'em. I'd suggest for starters that the subsection on "family" be deleted - the info is presented in the biography box or whatever it's called. I'd also suggest that the summary of David's life be much, much shorter, though for some reason people seem to love summarising the Bible - perhaps because it's easy. Most of the other sections could be a lot shorter too. My opinion only of course. PiCo (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'd already seen room for improvement before you made the comment. :)
Remember that what's in the infobox must also be in the article. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE YoPienso (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Under the subheading "Film", the link "David and Bathsheba" redirects one to this page about Bathsheba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathsheba . The link should take one to this page about the 1951 film "David and Bathsheba": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Bathsheba_(film) . RhavinBanda (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sculptures

Suggested Edit:
from: 

===Sculptures===
*'''1440?''' [[Donatello]] ''[[David (Donatello)|David]]''
*'''1501-04''' [[Michelangelo]], ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]''

to: 

=== Sculptures ===

* ''[[David (Donatello)|David]]'', [[bronze]] statue by [[Donatello]], ca. 1440
* ''[[David (Verrocchio)|David]]'', bronze statue by [[Verrocchio]], ca. 1475
* ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]'', [[marble]] statue by [[Michelangelo]], 1504 
* ''[[David (Bernini)|David]]'', marble statue by [[Bernini]], 1624

or something along those lines.
Maybe some kind of connection to Category: Sculptures depicting David might also be appropriate.
--BjKa (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I like it, but not sure we need to link to "Bronze" and "Marble." I got locked out of the article soon after starting that section. (See "Suggested improvements" above.) The protection comes off in 5 days so if an administrator doesn't add it in before that, you or I can afterwards. YoPienso (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

God denies him the opportunity to build the temple...

God denies him the opportunity to build the temple... This is misleading to assert it as a fact. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The first mention is prefaced with "In the biblical narrative," and the second time is in the "Narrative" section. Nobody's saying it's a historically documented fact. YoPienso (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Adultery and forced sex with Bathsheba

[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Larry Richards; Lawrence O. Richards (2002). Bible Reader's Companion. David C Cook. pp. 210–. ISBN 978-0-7814-3879-7.
  2. ^ Carlos Wilton (June 2004). Lectionary Preaching Workbook: For All Users of the Revised Common, the Roman Catholic, and the Episcopal Lectionaries. Series VIII. CSS Publishing. pp. 189–. ISBN 978-0-7880-2371-2.
  3. ^ David J. Zucker (10 December 2013). The Bible's Prophets: An Introduction for Christians and Jews. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-63087-102-4.

The lede says "As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery with Bathsheba." Bathsheba did not commit adultery. It is misleading to suggest Bathsheba committed adultery. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As you correctly wrote, the lead says "his adultery, not hers. It does not suggest Bathsheba committed adultery. YoPienso (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It was more than adultery. It was rape. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It was rape because of that verse where it says she was an unwilling participant, I take it. There is a verse like there somewhere, right? Or is this all just speculation? Alephb (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I provided three references above that are already in the article. All three say she was raped. QuackGuru (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there is no verse that says she was an unwilling participant. StAnselm (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It is easy to find references for both adultery and rape - scholars are divided on this issue. It would be POV to describe it as "rape" (in WP voice) since many scholars deny that it was rape. StAnselm (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It was both adultery and rape. The sources presented are not divided on this issue. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
See, for example,
  • George G. Nicol, "The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative," JSOT 73 (1997), 43-54.
  • Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili, "Was it Rape? The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined," VT 61 (2011), 1-15.
  • Richard M. Davidson, "Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology," JATS 17 (2006), 81-95.
StAnselm (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
QuackGuru said, "I provided three references above that are already in the article. All three say she was raped." QuackGuru would have done better to look more carefully at the resources they provided. The first two sources QuackGuru provided are both outside of what Wikipedia normally uses as reliable sources. The third source QuackGuru provided says clearly that the text allows for both rape and non-rape interpretations. I agree with StAnselm here -- the sources provided, both biblical and scholarly, do not support the notion that we can call this a rape in Wikipedia's voice. There may be an appropriate place in the article for discussing how some scholars, but not others, see a rape here, but the article should not casually drop this accusation into the text. Alephb (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
All three sources seem reliable to me--they're all academic journals. Vetus Testamentum, while having solid scholars on its editorial board, is possibly not peer-reviewed, but the other two are.
None of the sources says definitively that David raped Bathsheba. Davidson comes the closest, calling it a "power rape." I can't access Nicol's article, but the abstract indicates his conclusion is not that David raped Bathsheba. Ditto for Abasili. YoPienso (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Vetus Testamentum is certainly peer-reviewed. I know, because they've recently accepted an article of mine. :) StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The three sources I was talking about were QuackGuru's, at the top of the thread. I didn't challenge Anselm's sources. Alephb (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Folks here seem to open to acknowledging that the biblical text is ambiguous enough that it allows both readings - rape and not rape. This is elaborate-able in the body, and after that is done, it might be possible to briefly summarize that in the lead with something like "his adultery with Bathsheba, which some commentators describe as rape." or depending on how most of the literature describes this, "is widely described as rape". But only after content is developed in the body. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery with Bathsheba." needs to be clarified. Change to "As king, David arranges the death of Uriah the Hittite to cover his adultery or rape of Bathsheba." QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be dull. You just made a half-decent very good edit at Bathsheba. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC) (correct Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC))
The proposal will clarify the misleading sentence in the lede. More details can be added later. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
You have perfectly good language at Bathsheba. Do not be disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I added it. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
QuackGuru being a constructive editor? Whatever next. PiCo (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Bible Readers Companion

It's a reprint of a 1991 book and has only one author, we either use his formal name or his nickname. If we use it at all. Why should we? Is the concept of an age old struggle between angels and demons mainstream?[6] Just curious, seems odd. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: We also generally state the opinions of authors, not books. I think you should fix all your recent additions. StAnselm (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for this? I usually state the book and date for books when it is not in WP's voice. When you state the authors it can cluster the content when there are more than one author. For brevity I simply state the book and date. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about a guideline, but I would second Anselm's opinion. Generally, I think, it is more normal in the social sciences to cite author names in the text than the book title. Authors generally have more of a reputation than individual books, so it probably gives the reader more useful information that way. Alephb (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. Changed to authors. Is there anything else missing from David's relations with Bathsheba? Is there other sources that can be summarized? QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to see this feminist POV giving undue weight to one incident in David's life. When QuackGuru gets tired and goes home maybe we can pare it down to size. YoPienso (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The Art Bible

@Alephb: Hi! I think the person who titled the image here made capitalization errors. The original was in all caps, so impossible to tell for sure, but easy to assume normal capitalization rules should be followed. [https://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Comprising-Old-Testaments/dp/B001PRU0CA Amazon] gives the title as The Art Bible: Comprising The Old And New Testaments. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the person who made it got the error from the archive.org website where the same capitalization error appears. Alephb (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Adultery and forced sex with Bathsheba, Part 2

I find it strange that in at least two instances, the question of whether Bathsheba consented to sex with David or did not consent is so conspicuously placed. Do we question all other instances of ancient marriage? I really do hope we're not on some modern context crusade here. Let the article be about what the article is about without modern day, out of context social commentary. I think it needs to be removed, but of course, I won't just go ahead and do so since it would be reverted anyway. Jersey John (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is because of one editor intent on making Bathsheba a rape victim. Such is crowd-sourced editing. YoPienso (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the unnecessary detail from the lead. Please feel free to contribute as you see fit. You may wish to go to the article history to see the contentious editing about Bathsheba in the middle of August of this year. YoPienso (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I made the header neutral. That is important element of the story and the story is in turn, one of the key points of David's story. I've restored the content, which was the result of a lot of discussion and work. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "header"; lead, I suppose. It isn't even an element of the story at all, much less an important one. It's 21st-century feminist editorializing. YoPienso (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Every section has a header also sometimes calling "heading". This section has a header. See WP:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages.
It is an element of the story and is sourced to death in the body of the article. I understand well that in some traditions issues around sex, power, and rape are something to be ignored or swept under the table but WP is not written solely from the point of view of those traditions. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the Bible says nothing about whether or not she was coerced. This is purely editorial commentary improperly introduced into a subsection called "Narrative" in a section called "Biblical account." If the narrative of the biblical account says nothing about it, that part of the Wikipedia article should say nothing about it. Since the biblical narrative ignores her willingness or unwillingness, 21st-century opinions shouldn't be inserted.
It's sourced to death because it was a contentious addition. I don't deny it's a pertinent question, but it belongs in the Bathsheba article, not this one. And there it is, under "Critical commentary."
Please self-revert. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
For you to frame consent in sexual relations as "a matter of opinion" is .... something for you to think about.
In any case, the issue here is the way the text handles this action by David especially in contrast to the way the narrative handles his son's actions with Tamar later - and this difference has a very rich history of interpretation. His son is clearly a rapist as Tamar clearly says no; the text here is remarkably silent as to whether David raped Bathsheba or not. This bit of content is about David - about the ambiguity of his action, not about Bathsheba.
And more importantly all of these arguments were already made when we discussed this before. I understand that you were opposed to it then but this was well scrutinized and negotiated at that time. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it wasn't well-negotiated at the time. QuackGuru had a bee in his bonnet and you joined him, though somewhat snarkily. AlephB, St.Anselm, myself, and to a lesser degree, PiCo disagreed. We just weren't militant about it. My last comment was "When QuackGuru gets tired and goes home maybe we can pare it down to size." In QG's absence, you hold a consensus of one: yourself.
Yes, the biblical narrative makes clear than Amnon was a rapist. It makes no mention of whether David was or not, so if 21st-century opinions must be included, they need a separate section apart from the "Biblical account" section. It could be inserted before or after current section 7, "Modern art and literature."
I've just removed all the editorializing I could find from the section that is dedicated to the biblical account. YoPienso (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You removed reliable secondary sources and left trivial text. I reverted your edits. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to talk with it, Dimadick.
I removed reliable secondary sources to misplaced text: a section dedicated to the biblical narrative isn't the place to add editorial comments, such as those about David's loyalty to Saul or whether or not Bathsheba consented to sex with David. Why do you think 21st-century commentary should be in that section?
What trivial text did I leave? YoPienso (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Commentary in narration section

The passages under discussion are:

Anglican theologian Donald Spence Jones holds that, "one of the most beautiful characteristics of David’s many-sided nature was this enduring loyalty to Saul and to Saul’s house".[1]

and

Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards state that the biblical text supports the innocence of Bathsheba, that David took the initiative to find out her identity and summon her, and that she was alone at the time and had no way to refuse the requests of a king.[2] David J. Zucker writes that "She is a victim of 'power rape'".[3] Andrew J. Schmutzer stated that "David's "taking" Bathsheba makes him responsible for her coming to him."[4] Antony F. Campbell states "The 'violation of Bathsheba' may be the least unsatisfactory terminology, especially given the ambivalence of the text's storytelling."[5]

References

  1. ^ Ellicott's Commentary for Modern Readers on 1 Samuel 24, accessed 25 May 2017
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference RichardsRichards2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zucker2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Andrew J. Schmutzer (1 October 2011). The Long Journey Home: Understanding and Ministering to the Sexually Abused. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 146–. ISBN 978-1-60899-395-6.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Campbell2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

In general this section should just narrate, without commentary.

In my view the topmost one is just some random praise pulled out of biblehub (we have way, way too many articles sourced to these commentaries on biblehub which people grab because they are online, not because they are best) and the "one of the most beautiful characteristics" language is puffery that has no place in an encyclopedia, in my view. I thought about whether this might belong somewhere else in the article, but I see no value to it, per se. A section on commentary on the relationship between David and the House of Saul might be interesting. But this adds no value.

The second one could have value in a section on "Interaction with Bathsheba" or the like, which has a rich history of tradition in Jewish and Christian traditions (I am ignorant of what the Islamic tradition has done with it) but have parked here for now... Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be part of the narrative. It may be notable enough to include elsewhere in the article as modern commentary on the story (though the amount of material on David we could potentially include from commentaries is vast and unwieldy), but it isn't part of the story itself. - Lindert (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree! Thank you both. YoPienso (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The Biblical narrative itself is neither reliable, nor particularly noteworthy. We need sources from the 20th and 21st century which analyze its meaning and political implications. As for David's connections to the House of Saul, the source text goes out of his way to emphasize that David was a son-in-law of Saul himself, husband to Michal (Saul's daughter), and friends with his brother-in-law Jonathan. Jonathan's son (and David's nephew-by-marriage) Mephibosheth also appears in the narrative to be under David's protection and even lives with his uncle in Jerusalem.
The "modern commentary" are in my view what the article needs most. Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The "biblical narrative" section is just for WP:PLOT. There are many, many ways that these stories have been intepreted/commented on/etc Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not an historical article, but an article about a Bible character; there is no more reliable source than the Bible itself, which is highly noteworthy.
That's not to say there's no room for "sources from the 20th and 21st century which analyze its meaning and political implications"; they just need to be in their own section.
Let's keep the biblical narrative section strictly for biblical narrative, and create a new commentary section for commentary/interpretations. (See my suggestion above, given 02:23, 8 November 2017.) YoPienso (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with separating the narrative from commentary. Treating the narrative like a plot summary makes sense to me. ~Awilley (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
"This is not an historical article, but an article about a Bible character"
The Bible is is a pseudohistorical resource and David is a figure of debated historicity. He is not just a character in the average fiction book. The article should cover theories on historical events. The Bible Unearthed (2001) devotes part of the text on debating the historicity of Saul, David, and Solomon.
"there is no more reliable source than the Bible itself"
The Bible is an unreliable collection of traditional stories. Reliable sources have to be modern secondary sources, that comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policies. Preferably academic research from secular scholars.
"which is highly noteworthy."
I seriously doubt all the nonsense details about Nathan, his supposed prophecies, and admission of sin are worthy of mention. More attention should be paid on military affairs and relations with the Philistines and the city of Gath.
The article currently fails to mention that David's death is followed by the executions of prince Adonijah and general Joab, and the deposition and exile of high priest Abiathar. Hardly a peaceful succession. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Please follow the conventions for threading comments, per WP:THREAD. You are replying to Yopienso, so this should be indented one time more than Yopienso's reply. I have again fixed this for you.
Per WP:PLOT (which guides how we summarize the plots of novels and movies) all that the narrative section should do is neutrally and accurately describe the stories the Bible tells framed as such. The section is called "Biblical account" for good reason. There is a separate section where we discuss what we can say (which is very little) about actual history. Please don't confuse what is going on in the separate sections.
Of course the narrative should include fantastic parts like Nathan's prophecies, as well as the key in-narrative political elements. And no, this section should not emphasis the history-like aspects that you mention. That is all part of the story (or one could say "fictional world") We have been struggling to pare back hagiographic non-neutral elements in the "Biblical account" section as well as confused text that treats this narrative like actual history, and ironically you argued to restore some of that.
Do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the headers and structures to make this yet more clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Jytdog, Lindert, YoPienso and Awilley. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Can they be at least partly collapsed? They take up a lot of vertical space and push the pictures downward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm restoring your request because I think the "Issue" and probably the "Consort" parts should be collapsed. YoPienso (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Looked at fullscreen on a pc, it´s not pretty. I think this is the first time I´ve had a selfrevert reverted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, collapse "Issue" and "Consort". StAnselm (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I've collapsed "Issue" and "Consort". - Lindert (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it doesn't say whether Bathsheba consented doesn't need to be there. This is super obvious editorialising. Does it say whether any of his other wives consented? Is this anything more than speculation?Liempt (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a short way to say that there is debate as to whether he raped her or not. My edit note advised you to read the talk page. I have also added a source. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
A debate by whom? Why do we not simply say that instead of "it doesn't say whether she consented." What content are summarizing? The one sentence later on "The text in the Bible does not explicitly state whether Bathsheba consented or not for sex"? What kind of flow is that for an intro? "David is this guy, he did this thing in the story, he did this thing and that thing, and -- MAYBE HE RAPED SOMEBODY WE DON'T KNOW BUT IT DOESN'T SAY HE DIDNT -- he also did this other stuff too." You know who else it doesn't say if they consented? 99% of the figures mentioned. Sorry, but this is patent editorializing and narrative. - Liempt (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion doesn't matter; the sources do. The content is discussed in the body and sources are provided there. I suggest you engage with the sources before writing here further. If, after you read them, you have a suggestion for a better way to summarize the sourced content in the body of the article, that would be of interest. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Liempt, you ask the right question: "A debate by whom?" It's easy to suppose by Wikipedia editors intent on sullying a hero of the faith. In fact, the debate is among biblical scholars.These questions weren't addressed when I was young, but are very much part of the civic discourse today. Yes, there is almost certainly an element of knocking people off pedestals involved in this debate and in the on-going accusations of sexual improprieties committed by famous American men. The larger conversation, however, is about giving a voice to victims and eliminating assault; it's only logical that this will extend back to David and beyond. Since Wikipedia is committed to speaking for the mainstream, then we must present these arguments appropriately.
Jytdog, that was a fine reference you added, but I suggest that instead of adding a book by an author already cited for that point--Antony F. Campbell--we instead add a new and perhaps startling source: Baylor University, overtly Christian, itself embroiled in sexual abuse troubles in recent years. "Bathsheba’s Story: Surviving Abuse and Loss" is by David E. Garland and his wife. YoPienso (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the idea being included. It's just its placement in the intro that's conspicuous and out of tempo with the rest of it. If we want to speculate that King David was a rapist in addition to an adulterer, and there are appropriate sources for that like Jytdog suggests, all the more power to it - in its appropriate section. But it's downright odd coming to the page and seeing this big headline that "it isn't explicit that he didn't rape her" - it's just... out of context. Like, the list of things that the Bible /doesn't/ indicate whether King David did or didn't do is arbitrarily large. It doesn't say that he /didn't/ beat her while he knew her either. And it certainly doesn't say that he /didn't/ call her foul names. I'm being glib a bit, but hopefully the point will be taken. We need to do a lot more to justify that, and it if we're going to try, it deserves its own section. Liempt (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a big headline that "it isn't explicit that he didn't rape her." The commentary isn't in the "intro," which we call "lead" or "lede." It was a few days/weeks ago, and I helped get it out. But you're certainly right that it should be in a "Criticism" or "Analysis" or "Commentary" section, not in the "Biblical account" section. You can see I'd been trying to get that done. YoPienso (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it must've ended up back in there, because that's what started this whole conversation. As of a few hours ago I tried to take it out again and Jytdog reverted. Liempt (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. The two of you are edit-warring--big no-no. I saw the article when the statement wasn't in the lead.
Jytdog, you're doing this without consensus and need to stop it. Please do. YoPienso (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Unconstructive commentary

"knocking people off pedestals" You have got to be kidding. The entire narrative concerning Uriah the Hittite casts David as a murderer, who willingly send one of his own men to a suicide mission, in order to get rid of him and steal his wife. Several other instances in the Books of Samuel do not cast David in a favorable light. The Nabal narrative casts David as the leader of a group of outlaws, who demand rewards for their "protection" from property owners. The Amnon narrative has David refusing to discipline or punish his heir-apparent, who has recently raped one of his half-sisters. The Absalom narrative has Absalom winning the support of would-be rebels by specifically accusing David of being a king who refuses to offer justice to his people: "If only I were the judge of the land! Then all who had a suit or cause might come to me, and I would give them justice."

Part of the primary sources on David are hostile to him, they do not place him on a pedestal. It is not some kind of novel interpretation that he was neither a perfect king, nor a a perfect human. One interpretation is that the Books of Samuel, which depict him, incorporate materials from older, lost sources. One of them was a so-called "Republican source", with a clear anti-monarchial bias. See for example "monarchy"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0MjLuYnYAhUBCZoKHbNWAwoQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=david&f=false 1 and 2 Samuel by Robert P. Gordon, which notes that part of the text is accusing David for several of his actions, while other parts are trying to defend him from accusations that he had benefited from a series of violent deaths and other crimes.

"monarchy"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0MjLuYnYAhUBCZoKHbNWAwoQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=david&f=false Another source notes that in his encounter with Nabal, David is little more than an outlaw demanding protection money. His message is an act of intimidation, and a threat to confiscate Nabal's property. He asks for whatever Nabal has at hand, and reminds Nabal that he has not done any harm to his flocks ... yet. Dimadick (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And your suggestion for improving the article is . . . what?
Clearly David, Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose, John Conyers, et al, despite their sins and possible crimes, have been in some sense "on a pedestal"--esteemed in the public eye so much that their faults had largely been ignored. The Bible's ultimate commentary on David, after all the catalog of failures, is that he was a man after God's own heart--quite a pedestal.
You seem to have latched onto my brief acknowledgement of a possible bit of iconoclasm and missed my main point: the larger conversation of giving victims a voice and eliminating assaults. Please avoid contentious argumentation. Thanks.
I'm collapsing this as I see no way in which it helps either the discussion or the article. YoPienso (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sculpture

How is it possible that this page doesn't have Michelangelo's David. That's very weird, and incomplete, as it's the most famous artwork about him. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:58DA:1F2B:3676:8AF1 (talk) 10:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)

It (M's David) is in of the article. No idea who added it or when. David notMD (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog revert

I have found that your edit summary is very vague.[7]. The content you have restored They posit that Israel and Judah were still polytheistic in the time of David and Solomon, and that much later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs is nowhere in the source cited. I changed it citing that the former text was source misrepresentation. Either that or a case of WP:FAKE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes this was not all on page 23. There is an extensive discussion of polytheism etc in chapter 9 and i have fixed the citation to include that. The content is an accurate summary of the book. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected page, explained nowhere!

Why the page is protected? if this site is the site of people, please explain what you do.


In response to the above: It is also exceedingly inappropriate to state as fact that the Book(s) of Samuel are a product of Josiah and subsequent "expansion" during Babylonian captivity. This is a deliberate and appalling creation of a narrative for a preconceived and dishonest objective. That position is one among many, and other positions reflect archeological discovery (vis. The Tel-Dan Stela). For my own part - I am a student of History and a Philosopher - to see one side of an argument presented as absolute fact is completely unacceptable, and represents an alarming ossification at best, but is clearly an unaccountable stab at propagandizing a contentious issue.

To claim that a text is a lie - and that IS the claim in dating Samuel (etc...) past their stated eras - is a claim that REQUIRES very conclusive substantiation. To make such a claim WITHOUT substantiation, and then DELIBERATELY OBSCURE AND PREVENT DIALOGUE is nothing shy of intellectual tyranny.

The authoritarian declaration inherent in this page is reprehensible. Locking the page is COMPLETELY at odds with everything that Wikipedia stands for - SO WHAT if it is contentious? That's the point!

Abject shame on you Wikipedia - this is exceedingly dishonest and in direct opposition to the entire purpose of the community.

You deliberately ignore anything but one camp? How dare you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.181.228 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

correction on David and Bathsheba section.

This article states correctly that David is told that because he took Bathsheva from her husband and sent him to his death, his first child will die. The article is incorrect in stating that this child was Absalom. It was the first born of Bathsheva (unnamed in the text) as follows in 2Samuel 12:

15 Then Nathan went home. And the Lord caused the son of David and Bathsheba, Uriah’s widow, to be very sick. 16 David prayed to God for the baby. David fasted and went into his house and stayed there, lying on the ground all night. 17 The elders of David’s family came to him and tried to pull him up from the ground, but he refused to get up or to eat food with them.

18 On the seventh day the baby died.

This is directly in the text. Absalom's death came later. Absalom's mother was Maacah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftalisz (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


The text here is not that clear and needs improvement:
"Nathan prophesies the punishment that will fall upon him, stating "the sword shall never depart from your house."[48] When David acknowledges that he has sinned,[49] Nathan advises him that his sin is forgiven and he will not die,[50] but the child will.[51] In fulfillment of Nathan's words, David's son Absalom rebels.[52]"
We don't say what child (David and Bathsheba's adulterus child), and that it does indeed die. Whoever wrote "In fulfillment of Nathan's words" may have referred to "the sword shall never depart from your house." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The text is confused (I should know, I wrote it - I apologise for the bad writing). It should say, but doesn't, that the infant son of David dies (there's a long description of that in the Bible), and that Absalom's rebellion is in fulfillment of the prophecy that the sword will not depart from David's house. If there's a source listed at the end of the sentence or para it might be helpful to consult that.PiCo (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Art and literature

I'm thinking of making this section a separate article, similar to Nephilim#Popular_culture. "Cultural depictions of David", probably. It is/can be well-sourced, but is given a lot of room here (though I've seen worse), especially in the ToC. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This strikes me as a good idea. Just off the top of my head, there's Absalom and Achitophel, [TV show] that reimagines David and Saul in a modern setting, the evangelical classic Dave and the Giant Pickle, the evangelical classic King George and the Ducky, all kinds of stuff about David in Rabbinical Literature (Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews), a [[8]] ... Alephb (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The three first are in the article, so that's good. Kings is pretty great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Alephb So... Bathseba is the rubber ducky? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I'm afraid so. I really enjoyed Kings, and was sad to see it go. Alephb (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The King George story seems somewhat sanitized. I wonder if there's a dark and gritty "directors cut" somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. David has been depicted in art for millennia, and we could probably find plenty of sources on depictions of this semi-legendary figure. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I shudder at the thought that there might be a director's cut out there. Alephb (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation

Some big citation issues here, in fact no citation is used at all in the opening section of the page. Many places you would hope to find a citation, there are none. Can we please work on fixing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.80.171 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Per a guidance we have called MOS:LEADCITE, it is fine (well, it can be if editors are ok with it) to leave the lead without cites, as long as what's there is expanded on and cited in the body of the article. If there are things in the lead that are uncited in the body, that is something that should be corrected. The body lacks cites in some places, and help with that is appriciated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Introductory note

Here's the note at the beginning of the introduction:

(/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דָּוִד‬, Modern: Davīd, Tiberian: Dāwīḏ; Ancient Greek: Δαυίδ, translit. Davíd; Latin: Davidus, David; Ge'ez: ዳዊት, Dawit; Old Armenian: Դաւիթ, Dawitʿ; Church Slavonic: Давíдъ, Davidŭ; possibly meaning "beloved one"[1])

Why is this relegated to a note? And why is it so long anyway? With the exception of English (because this is en:wp) and Hebrew (the original language), I don't see why any of these belong here, since they're just derivatives of the original. Maybe they'd fit in an article about the name, but one can have a full understanding of the biblical figure without knowing his name in ancient Greek, Ge'ez, or Old Armenian. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It is so long because editors have made it long. This is a chronic problem on names of people in the Hebrew Bible.
It is in a note because putting it there a) satisfies people who think it needs to be right up there next to the name and b) gets it out of the way so that the first sentence is actually readable. See MOS:FIRST as well as this thing from FAC. That stemmed from this AN thread, which led to this which led to this, where we got rid of only some of it. For the remainder, there was a boatload of bad discussion (e.g Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs/Archive_5#Wikipedia_descriptions_vs_Wikidata_descriptions, Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs/Archive_7#Concerns_raised_around_Wikidata_descriptions_on_English_Wikipedia, etc) That whole WMF debacle is being sort of resolved with a "short description" template, Template:Short description being manually populated by en-WP editors, per this RfC. How the WMF will use that, is of course another question.
But first sentences should be actually readable and not have an obstacle course of alt spellings etc between the subject and the verb.
I have note-ified this pile-of-clutter in many articles and will continue to do so. Sometimes I stick alt names and alt spellings in the infobox, or down in the lead, etc. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"one can have a full understanding of the biblical figure without knowing his name in ancient Greek"

Wrong. Many of the texts written about him belong to the Septuagint and its derivatives. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just searched through the Deuterocanon, and nowhere is he a major figure: he only appears in texts referencing him as an ancient figure, someone who would already be known through the Masoretic, with the possible exception of the Syriac-original Psalms 152–155, and yet we don't provide a Syriac rendition of his name. What other Greek texts matter for this purpose? Greek-language Christian texts are entirely dependent on the Hebrew original (whether directly, e.g. Matthew's gospel with its Hebrew-speaking author, or indirectly, by monolingual grecophones who used the Septuagint), as would be works by Greek-speaking Jews and anything written by pagans. Even when born-Greek texts warrant mention here, whether in the Christianity section or elsewhere, the reader can understand the biblical figure properly without his name in translation. But even if we accept the importance of including the Greek name, why do the rest matter? Tiberian is a matter of Hebrew pronunciation, so including it makes sense, but Latin is more remote than Greek (being dependent on it), and Ge'ez, Old Armenian, and Old Church Slavonic are regional uses less important than Latin. Why not mention his name in every other ancient language that came into contact with Christianity or Judaism? Gothic, Coptic, Georgian, Old Persian, etc. seem to be just as relevant as Ge'ez, Old Armenian, and Old Church Slavonic. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
fwiw I note-ified this back in Oct 2017 in this diff; you can see the trainwreck that was there before. I don't think there is any P&G for what alt names to put there; it is just people's preferences (shudder) and it will probably require an RfC to trim it. There has been a big pile going all the back to 2011 (see here and even back to 2009 (not as bad, but still a pile, here) Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Though I know precedent isn't a final argument on Wikipedia, I think the only Bible character with an FA article is Jesus, where notifying happens in the first sentence. At the very least, let me second Jytdog's suggestion that notifying is a good quick improvement to a great many of the Hebrew-Bible-related character articles out there. Whether there could ultimately be some better way to do it, I don't know, but if you can quickly turn a first sentence from an obstacle course into a regular English sentence, that's a good start. And nerds like me, who actually do appreciate the occasional Hebrew or Greek or even Latin spelling, are already the kinds of people who read notes, so I don't lose anything by moving collection of spellings into a note. Alephb (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As a side note, if we really do need the Greek spelling of David, then do we need an explanation of the multiple spellings out there? You'd get (in English characters because I'm feeling lazy): Dauid, Daueid, Dabid, and, most commonly of all, the odd abbreviation Dad. The rabbit-hole of multi-lingual names could go so much deeper than it does. Alephb (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The note seems a decent solution, and if necessary it could be a section like "Etymology" in Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to second Nyttend's contention that ALL of these other than ancient Hebrew and modern English are pointless cruft as far as the intro goes. There may be places in the article body where they are relevant, there may be other articles where they are relevant, but in the intro here they are pointless. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Religion issue

This is an interesting one. Sure, to a Jew or Christian it sounds strange, but if Muslims consider David to be Muslim, don't we have to show both in the infobox? See Prophets and messengers in Islam. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't even know if he was a Judaist, i.e. monotheist or monolatrist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is an interesting thought experiment, but I think putting it in the infobox would be a step too far. It can be said in this article that Muslims regard him as a prophet/messenger in their religion, but we should not imply that he was a member of a religion that didn't exist during his life. That's a slippery slope that would have Biblical prophets being claimed as members of any number of restorationist sects. ~Awilley (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Argh infoboxes, and especially argh for quasi-mythological people. It was added in this diff on July 3 by an IP. I've reverted. Yes "judaism" per se was not a thing yet, at the time he may have lived. Perhaps "Yahwist" would be better. Or better yet: "Important in Abrahamic religions" or the like. {{Infobox monarch}} doesn't really have parameters for this. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Per the editors above, infoboxes are for simple stuff. I find infoboxes like this annoying, since there's nothing in it that indicates that the contents are nothing close to historical facts. Maybe if it had a heading like "Biblical king" or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather it not be in the infobox, but if it it has to be NPOV. @Awilley: I was responding to removal of Judaism and addition of Islam in the infobox. I will say that the edit summary reverting that as "anachronistic" was a pov comment as Muslims do not see Muhammad as creating a new religion. They "believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus." Doug Weller talk 17:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I had missed the reverts, thanks for pointing out that context. I knew that about Islam. That's what I was referring to by my clumsy use of the word "restorationalism" (apparently that word is mainly for modern Christian churches trying to be the same church that Jesus started). Anyway, for a more specific counterexample, Mormonism is almost exactly the same as Islam in the way they view Old Testament prophets, and they see their own Joseph Smith as the latest prophet in the cycle of restorations and fallings away from the one true religion that was revealed to Adam. (See Mormonism and Islam) So from the Mormon perspective David is as much a Mormon as he is a Muslim. That's why I don't think we should start down that slippery slope. ~Awilley (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: First I’ve got to correct a few things. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint...not Mormons, not LDS or Latter-Day Saints. The term “Mormon” is a somewhat derogatory nickname given to our church because we believe that The Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jospeh Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration but he is not the “latest prophet in the cycle of restorations and fallings away” as you described. (The term is Apostasy, by the way) there have been many prophets since Joseph Smith. The current (and 17th) prophet is Russell M. Nelson.

We do not consider King David a “Mormon.” He wasn’t even the prophet...(Samuel was the Prophet, Succeeded by Nathan). David was a King of the Old Testament and an Israelite. From the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob they were called Israelites or The Children if Israel.

There was a division of Israel at the time of Solomon (~925 B.C.) When the kingdom split between the 10 tribes of Israel in the northern kingdom and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south. The northern kingdom retained the name of Israelites (despite a severe falling away from the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses). The Southern Kingdom became known as Judah, or the Jews.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not view David as a “Mormon” any more than Islam views Abraham as a Christian.

Abraham is considered the common patriarch of 3 different religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Awilley, I think you’re missing the mark on this discussion: Should David have a note in an info box linking him to Islam?

Let’s review a couple facts here: 1) One of the definitions of what Wikipedia is (as provided by Wikipedia on their “About” page) is a “Collective memory – shared pool of information held in the memories of two or more members of a group”. Other definitions provided are “Database – organized collection of data” and “Reference work – compendium of information.”

2) The Torah and Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, the Quran, The Apocrypha are all considered factual and accurate documentations of history by their respective religions despite the fact that there is great controversy and debate by scientists, historians, atheists and archaeologists as to the validity of these sources. Even the article above addresses the fact that outside of the Bible there is virtually no proof to support that King David and the Kingdom of Israel ever existed. Does that mean we should relegate David to the subject of fantasy and fiction?

Regardless of whether you agree with a religion or common cultural point of view, the fact remains that that religion or POV is a cultural source of information that should be included in such an encyclopedic endeavor to gather so much information into one place such as Wikipedia. We’re looking for Information here, not truth, necessarily, but documentation that there is a group of people that believes a certain thing.

Should there be a note letting readers know that David is considered an Islamic prophet by Muslims? Yes. Is this a slippery slope that will open the door to unfounded subjective reasoning? Are you serious? DWHofmanm (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Bathsheba and David did not have an affair

There is nowhere in the scripture that suggests David asked Bathsheba's permission or consent. He raped her. This was not an affair. Furthermore, the story that Nathan tells David to rebuke him specifically says the lamb was stolen, therefore, David stole Bathsheba and raped her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.63.42 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a forum and original research. You will need reliable sources here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There are very plausible arguments to both David power-raping Bath-Sheba and to Bath-Sheba seducing the King in order to rise to become the most powerful woman in the known world at the time.

As it stands, there are currently no solid sources confirming either point of view as correct. We can’t know what really happened. DWHofmanm (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"A different version"

"A different version is told in 1 Samuel 27:1–4, in which Saul ceased to pursue David because David took refuge a second[30] time with Achish, the Philistine king of Gath." Doug Weller, others, we should probably have a source stating that this a different version, it may not be obvious to many readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. In fact at Joshua tonight I deleted a sentence sourced only to a vers in Nememiah which oddly contradicted the sentence. I think that was due to someone changing a template from KJV to Chabad, but my point is that we need secondary sources to make arguments. This problem is endemic in religious articles. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Addition of a source stating that 1 Sam 27 gives a different version/tradition from 1 Sam 21 would be a positive change but ultimately incorrect. The section in question summarizes the biblical narrative, not scholars opinions of the true history, and it is clear that in the narrative 1 Sam 21 and 1 Sam 27 are treated as separate events and work together to frame the narrative structure.[1] Readingwords (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't very clear. We should source it or, if that is the better option, remove it. I think I read somewhere that the story of David has some sort of different versions, but sources are what matters. If this is well-established, it is not necessarily incorrect to note it in the narrative section, but it can also be noted in a separate section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Edenburg, Cynthia (2011). "Notes on the Origin of the Biblical Tradition Regarding Achish King of Gath" (PDF). Vetus Testamentum. 61: 35. Retrieved 25 April 2019.

Image

This Statue by Michelangelo is a much better statue than the one made by Nicolas Cordier, so wouldn't it be better to use the Michalangelo statue as the image for the infobox?(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)).

Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite I really don't want to see a statue of a naked man. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a good argument for having David (Michelangelo) as lead-image, but this falls under editorial discretion/consensus, and some editors wish to avoid prominent nudity (see for example Talk:Bathsheba/Archive_1#Why_are_all_the_pictures_of_her_nude?/Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_4#Nudity). It is possible that using Michelangelo would lead to reccuring time-wasting bickering on the talk-page, perhaps connected to WP:ASTONISH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE

Discussion about to what extent "Biblical account" sections (and similar) needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Second or third

There's been some back and forth editing on if David is the second or third king. Anyone want to talk about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The first is Saul, the second is Ish-bosheth. David usurps the throne after the assassination of Ish-bosheth. What more is there to discuss? Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That's how I count it too, and yet edits like [9][10] pops up. Do they have any scholarly basis (or at least narrative)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the Hebrew Bible, Ishboshet was never the "king of the Unified Kingdoms of Israel and Judah". David was acclaimed king of Judah, after that Ishboshet was declared king of Israel, then he was killed and David became king of the Unified Kingdom. David is the second king according to the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Encyclopedia, [Britannica], etc. Sources added to the article. 2A01:CB09:B04B:815F:50D5:9E4:977B:2260 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Britannica and JE does say second king. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it says "second king of ancient Israel." That's the first sentence of the lead, so I think we can go with that in our article as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
We can, but I'm still interested if there's RS that takes a different view. Currently, Ish-bosheth is also the second king, this is not ideal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Sir Joseph: Looking at the sources that the IP added in the infobox to support the ideal that David was the second king of Israel is highly questionable. Starting with the oldest source, the Jewish Encyclopedia is dated to 1901-1906 and is therefore outdated, and the Britannica source is an overview of David's life according to J. Coert Rylaarsdam. It does not provide any scholarly thoughts on the matter or any other thoughts on scholarly disputes. The beginning even states that David flourished 1000 BC, but the site does not provide any evidence to support that date. The rest of the article is based on the primary source via the Bible, but the author of the page didn't even have the decency to provide Biblical chapters and verses to confirm any of the content, pure laziness. The Bible has different scenarios as to how David became king. Looking at the Biblical chapters/verses, David did not become king of Israel after Saul's death. He was anointed king only by the tribe of Judah. He ruled Judah in Hebron. His reign of Judah was seven years and six months before becoming king of Israel, and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who ruled everything else while David was king of Judah. Primary source: 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11. Jerm (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

So, the answer is to find better scholarly sources and see what they say. Without them, the current ones "win" IMO, being not glaringly bad. Also, for a ping to work you must have ping-template and WP:SIGN in the same saved edit, they can't be added separately (WP:PINGFIX). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Also also, I think calling JE "outdated" in this particlular context is making things too simple, this isn't medical science. Here is one RSN discussion on JE: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_196#Are_jewishencyclopedia.com_(the_Jewish_Encyclopedia)_and_newadvent.org_WP:Reliable_sources?. It's from 2015, though, there may be newer ones. Perhaps it could be added to WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've restored Ish-bosheth back as predecessor, and added academic sources for support. Jerm (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you notice that the ref you inserted [11] seems to contradict " third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah"? As I read it, it agrees with IP 2A01's comment above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You must be referring as to how David became king with the help of Abner, but before Abner betrayed Ish-bosheth, Abner made Ish-bosheth king which would make Ish-bosheth David’s predecessor. The source also states “Ish-bosheth, Saul’s successor”. Jerm (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Jerm, apologies! I got my refs mixed up, and I was talking about the current ref #3 [12]: King David at first ruled his own tribe of Judah only ... Eshbaal was crowned king of Israel. That contradicts "third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
No, the reference was correct, by Avner Falk. Ignoring how they became king, Ish-bosheth was first declared king and if you continue in the same page under “David, King of Israel”, the author refers Ish-bosheth as Saul’s successor. Jerm (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
We'll see if other editors have an opinion on the sources brought up so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That’s an obscure reply. It’s like you purposely ignored my previous response so that other editors can intervene. For what though? Whatever the case may be, I do not like your reply because you didn’t confirm anything that I had previously said. Doesn’t matter now though, I provided two academic sources that support Ish-bosheth was the second King of Israel. Jerm (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Current lead "is described in the Hebrew Bible as the third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah", my emphasis.
  • Current body "David is anointed king over Judah.[42] In the north, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth is anointed king of Israel, and war ensues until Ish-Bosheth is murdered.[43] With the death of Saul's son, the elders of Israel come to Hebron and David is anointed king over all of Israel.[44]", my emphasis.
IMO, there's still contradiction here. It seems there are decent sources that doesn't consider Ish-Bosheth king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah (making David the 2nd such, while still being IB's successor for the Israel part, I'm reminded of James VI and I). You think otherwise, that's fine and WP-respectable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
You still haven’t elaborated on anything. The sources state that Ish-Bosheth reigned after Saul. I’ve even guided you to where ref#3 states it, but you still haven’t confirmed a thing. Do I have to upload a screenshot? Jerm (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, we seem to have reached a dead end. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it seems you don’t want to confirm anything I said, but it’s most likely you purposely don’t want to confirm that Ish-Bosheth was David’s predecessor. Jerm (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, David was declared king of Israel by the tribe of Judah only, not the Kingdom of Judah which did not exist until Solomon died. Being declared king by one tribe didn’t mean he suddenly became the next king. If that were the case, David would’ve been reigning over Israel rather than just the tribe of Judah alone and the conflict between him and Ish-Bosheth would’ve never been present in the Bible. Also, the “United Monarchy of Israel and Judah“ is more of a coined term we use on Wikipedia to distinguish the Kingdom of Israel first ruled by Saul from the Northern Kingdom of Israel first ruled by Jeroboam I but that did not exist until after Solomon had died hence why the Bible is no longer considered a reliable source when it comes to academic arguments per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE because Wiki editors had always inserted their own OR according to their own interpretations of the Bible like content such as 'United Monarchy of Israel and Judah”. And like you said above, David was declared king over Judah and Ish-Bosheth over Israel which supports 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11 that David ruled only over Judah for seven years before finally becoming king of Israel after Ish-bosheth died making David the third king of Israel by the representatives (elders) of the other tribes. Jerm (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is like debating how many angels can fit of the top of a needle. It seems highly likely that a Davidic-Solomonic United Monarchy never existed, so it is much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David/Archive_4&oldid=1149837967"