Talk:David/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

supposed hypocrisms

"In ashkenazi jewish culture,common hypocrisms of dovid are dovi and dov".

That statement is,in fact,not entirely accurate.

"Dov" (spelled as "דֹב") actually means "bear" in hebrew and is not related to "david". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.50.4 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Typo in lede

In the third paragraph of the lede, there's a pair of words in Hebrew script. Not only are the letters in the wrong order (Hebrew is written right to left, but the characters are left to right.) but there's no space between the words, making it look like only one word. I'd correct it myself, but I'm not familiar with entering non-roman script and don't want to mess things up. JDZeff (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

There may be an issue with how your computer or your browser displays this Hebrew (or Aramaic) text, because to me the phrase appears correct, it starts with a Bet (ב) on the right and ends with a Dalet (ד) on the left. The reason that there is no space is because it is quoted directly from the Tel Dan Stele, and that inscription contains this phrase (ביתדוד) without a space (or rather without a dot, as people back then used dots between words rather than spaces). By the way, does the Tel Dan Stele article display the same phrase correctly for you, or is it also messed up? - Lindert (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Title

Would it be possible to include the Hebrew word for David's title somewhere in the article? I'm surprised not to find it. Furius (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Isaac Kalimi

is it necessary that the article contains the quotes of this person who does not speak of David? In addition to being wrong, it ignores the story/connection extrabible and bible of the King of Egypt Shishak and Rehoboam (son of Solomon) that most scholars consider reliable

It seems like important context to me, explaining the range of academic opinions.Furius (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Error in infobox

Both the Saul and the David infoboxes are wrong as they list Ish-Bosheth as having been King of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah, when all sources agree that Ish-Bosheth was never king of the United Monarchy, which only had three kings: Saul, David, and Solomon. Both pages therefore need fixing. Munter He (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who added Ish-Bosheth's name in the inbox, but I made sure to provided reliable sources to support that addition. I understand that would be perceived as inaccurate because David is such a popular figure that no one would notice Ish-Bosheth's biblical narrative, especially since his overall presence in the Bible is so little. Jerm (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, the Bible isn't a reliable source, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I already know that. Jerm (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Still, what was added is wrong information - none of the sources lists Ish-Bosheth as having ever been king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah (because he never was). He was "only" King of Israel, according to all sources. Hence, this article's infobox needs fixing, as do the ones in Saul and Ish-Bosheth. Munter He (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There is references stating Ish-Bosheth was the second king or Saul's successor, ruling Israel. I know, I added them: Ref: 3, 4, 6, & 7. Just because he didn't rule Judah doesn't mean he was illegitimate, and the Kingdom of Judah didn't exist yet. It was just a rebellious tribe. Jerm (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeating what I said: there are no sources saying Ish-Bosheth was ever king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, because he never was. You can say he was king of the Kingdom of Israel, yes, and that he succeeded Saul, yes, but my whole point here is that the infoboxes include, however, that he was King of the United Monarchy, which is false. It is quite easy to correct, though. Munter He (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, it was just the Kingdom of Israel. Putting David as Saul's successor is also completely inaccurate. It would make it seem that David became king after Saul's death but that is obviously not the case. It wasn't until Ish-Bosheth's death that David was declared King of Israel by representatives from every tribe (including Judah), making David the successor of Ish-Bosheth . Jerm (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

For the fourth time: the infobox precisely links to the article on the "United Kingdom of Israel and Judah". Either the infobox here needs fixing, or the dozens of other Wikipedia articles referring to the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah are wrong. Munter He (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I had already redirected the link to the appropriate page. Jerm (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew vs. Canaanite

In the second paragraph, the statement "The Tel Dan stele, a Canaanite-inscribed stone erected by a king of Aram-Damascus in the late-9th/early-8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the Hebrew-language phrase Beit David (ביתדוד‎), which most scholars translate as 'House of David'." implies that the Hebrew and Canaanite language of that era were distinguishable. How factual is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9280:14A0:2A17:D74D:D11:48C6 (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There was no "Canaanite language", there were Hebrew, Philistine, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Aramaic, etc. And it's very accurate, it ain't Hebrew, it's another Canaanite language, not "the" Canaanite language. Zhomron (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Black or white

David wasn't either white (pink) or black (dark brown). That's all we know.

The case that he was an impostor might have some merit, but the childish edits for pushing it don't. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. I have to ask, who the hell cares what color David was? He could have been friggin' purple and it still wouldn't matter at all to this page. Someone who feels the need to interpolate whatever melanin content some caricature from 3,000 years ago possessed needs to seriously re-evaluate their life. Zhomron (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming he existed at all, he would have been a well-tanned Canaanite. That is essentially a Palestinian or Syrian of today. Some are more pale and others are better tanned, but they do not consider themselves to be either white or black as Americans define these things. "Woke" does not carry the same meaning in the Middle East. Wdford (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I again ask, who the hell cares? Zhomron (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Israelite monarchs

Zeex.rice You've been changing the links to the titles in the infoboxes of Israelite monarchs Saul, Ish-bosheth, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam from Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) to Kings of Israel and Judah. Here:[1] is the first time you've changed it at Ish-bosheth. The link you are using indicates to monarchs of the Kingdom of Northern Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, however, Saul and his successors ruled a united monarchy of the twelve tribes of Israel. Never did they rule the Kingdom of Judah as it did not exist yet. Only Rehoboam ruled as the first king of Judah, and the borders of the Kingdom of Northern Israel were not the same as the one ruled by Saul, Ish-bosheth, David, and Solomon. There is already a link to Kings of Judah in Rehoboam's infobox under the title "King of Judah". Overall, the article: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is far better sourced and focuses on the kingdom that Saul, Ish-bosheth, David, and Solomon had actually ruled. Jerm (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You should have taken some time to read the article that I have been linking across those pages. It covers the rulers of the United Kingdom of Israel, the post-split northern Kingdom of Israel as well as the post-split southern Kingdom of Judah; this is something that should have been made obvious by the article's lead section, where it is explicitly stated, "This article is an overview of the kings of the United Kingdom of Israel as well as those of its successor states and classical period kingdoms ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian dynasty." Never did I claim that Saul and his successors (before Rehoboam) ruled the Kingdom of Judah, because it indeed did not exist yet. The article I linked shows the kings whose reigns were limited to the United Monarchy (i.e. Saul, Ish-bosheth, David and Solomon), explains the breakup of the union into two separate entities (Judah and northern Israel), and goes on to list their respective rulers as well. Ideally, when you click on "King of Israel" (their title), you would want to see a page dedicated to Israelite kings rather than be directed to a page for the country itself (for which there are other obvious links, including in the infobox). As far as sourcing goes, no article should be discarded because it needs work. If that was the case, a lot of Wikipedia articles would not be linked. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 01:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If Kings of Israel and Judah is already in the lead, then why repeat it in the infobox on rulers who ruled neither the Kingdom of Northern Israel or Judah? Your argument is self-contradicting. Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) discusses everything from its formation to its split and actually has reliable sources. You haven't intruduced anything significant that is not already mentioned in "Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy". Jerm (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep bringing up the fact that they (Saul and his successors before Rehoboam) did not rule the post-split kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah, when I already cleared up the fact that the article I linked makes mention of the fact that it covers the United Monarchy period as well as the post-split period, and nowhere does it show the rulers of the United Monarchy as having ruled Judah or northern Israel (for obvious reasons). By your argument, a lot of links should not exist in the infobox because they are already mentioned and linked in the lead. Your only concern here seems to be concerning how both articles are sourced, and the fact that the article for the United Monarchy has better sources, which is fine. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your argument though is in favor of including the post-split info of Kings of Israel and Judah when it is irrelevant to these monarchs. Jerm (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey David wasn't the third ruler. He was the second. Solomon is the third ruler. Read the Bible properly Messiah1982 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Messiah1982 Why don't you read the sources in the article before you attempt to lecture others about reading. Jerm (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They haven't made any edits anywhere again. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Religion

I wonder why there needs to be a religion section in this article? If the historicity of David and his kingdom are full of doubt, why then is it so important for the article to mention his religion was Yahwism when it is no more certain than if he was a redhead? I should mention, the Hebrew and Arabic language articles on David don't have a religion section at all. 2A02:ED2:F000:DB65:E818:2C88:EA69:CE70 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

1. There is a majority view that David existed; whether he was king or just a chieftain of the hill country nobody knows.
2. Assuming that he existed, his religion was most likely Yahwism, and certainly not Judaism. Judaism (i.e. monotheist Judaic religion) appeared on the scene many centuries after David.
3. If you insist that polytheistic Judaic religion be called "Judaism", that is just a verbal trick.
4. The pretense that David was a servant of Yahweh could be fake, but that needs a majority view among scholars in order to posit it here.
5. As Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou state time after time, ancient history is about what probably happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

judaism had already existed in some form at the time of David due to the fact that moses and many other prophets had spread Gods word to the ancient isrealites. Webwarrior04 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Webwarrior04: According to mainstream Bible scholarship your claim is WP:CB. It cannot be taught as fact at the Ivy League, and it would be there booed off the stage. See WP:CHOPSY and WP:FRINGE. E.g. if the historical Moses did exist we cannot know anything else about him, he is irretrievably lost to history. According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt; Israelites did not build the pyramids!!!" tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Finkelstein and Fantalkin identified Qeiyafa as Philistine?

The article states that Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin have proposed that the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa "is to be identified as Philistine". However, I have read the original article [1] and I have noticed that what they have actually proposed is that Khirbet Qeiyafa had a Northen Israelite affiliation, not a Philistine one. I think the article should correct that claim. Potatín5 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and corrected the sentence in the article. Potatín5 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not the same

Distasteful and "a sin" yes, but a suggestion to have sexual relations with unrelated women of his father's keeping is not the same as rape and defiling. Please reword this: "Absalom did avenge his sister's defilement, ironically he showed himself not to be very much different from Amnon; as Amnon had sought the advice of Jonadab in order to rape Tamar, Absalom had sought the advice of Ahitophel who advised Absalom to have incestuous relations with his father's concubines in order to show all Israel how odious he was to his father [2 Samuel 16:20]. 107.120.41.1 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

Change dating format from "BCE" to "BC" since David is a Biblical figure, and given that most scholars/people reading this article are reading the date of his lifespan in reference to his distance in time from the birth of Christ, it is more acceptable to use the Before Christ (BC) format, as opposed to the secularized "Before Common Era" (BCE) format. Thucydides2.0 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Gain WP:CONSENSUS for your proposed edit. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I object, David was a Hebrew figure, and the use of Christ is offensive to Jews. יהואש (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

David was an Old Testament figure, so BCE is more appropriate. Wdford (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

redirect

Shouldn't david redirect to David_(disambiguation)? 2601:645:100:8380:0:0:0:DFE5 (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, because this article is the PRIMARYTOPIC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is this the primary topic, rather than anything else listed under David_(disambiguation)? Who gets to decide that? Is that something that happened by chance when these articles were created, and — as a legacy setting — nobody dares change it? Or is there some actual logic involved? Has this issue already been debated and a consensus established?

Personally I would set David_(name) as the primary article, as King David is mentioned in the introduction there, and is a subset of that article. Other famous David's likewise stem from that origin. And I suspect the use of David as a surname originated as an indicator that one's father was named "David".

—DIV (1.145.75.160 (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC))

Story

Darn it. Just created an account to add a more complete story of David, but it's unavailable for edition. Here I leave what I wrote:

David was a young shepherd boy when he was anointed by the prophet Samuel to be the future king of Israel. He rose to fame when he killed the Philistine giant Goliath with a single stone from his sling, leading the Israelites to victory against the Philistines.

David became a trusted servant of King Saul, and his musical talent as a harpist earned him a place in the royal court. But as he gained popularity and military success, Saul grew jealous and began to see him as a threat. David fled to the desert, where he gathered a small army and started his mercenary life, serving as a mercenary for the Philistines under King Achish of Gat.

For a year and four months, David defended the city of Ziclag for the Philistines, gaining fame and truly becoming a worthy adversary to Saul as a leader and a force to be feared by the Philistines. In fact, they even called him the "king of the earth."

Despite his success, David never lost sight of his loyalty to God. He refused to harm Saul when given the opportunity, believing it was not his place to take the life of the anointed king.

Unfortunately, Saul and his sons died in battle against the Philistines, leaving Israel in disarray. Saul's successor, Ishbosheth, was supported by Saul's general Abner and held the eastern territories of Israel, while David held the southern territory of Judah.

David continued to gain military victories, and Ishbosheth's rule was short-lived when he was assassinated by his own men. David executed those responsible and became the sole king of Israel, anointed in Hebron.

As king, David conquered neighboring kingdoms and established a strong central government. He brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, making it the religious center of Israel. He was known as a great poet and musician, credited with composing many of the Psalms in the Bible.

But David was not without his flaws. He committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers, and had her husband killed to cover it up. The prophet Nathan confronted David about his sin, and he repented, but the consequences of his actions haunted him for the rest of his life.

After David's affair with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Nathan prophesied that the child conceived from their union would die. And so it was - the child became ill and died seven days later. But Bathsheba gave birth to another son, whom they named Solomon.

David had many other children, both sons and daughters, from his wives and concubines. His eldest son, Amnon, raped his half-sister Tamar, which led to Absalom, Tamar's brother, avenging her by killing Amnon. Absalom later rebelled against David and tried to take the throne, leading to a bitter conflict that ended with Absalom's death.

Towards the end of David's life, his son Adonijah attempted to take the throne, but David had already promised Bathsheba that Solomon would succeed him as king. With the help of Nathan, Bathsheba convinced David to publicly proclaim Solomon as his successor, and Solomon was anointed king while David was still alive.

David died at the age of 70, having ruled Israel for 40 years. He was buried in Jerusalem and succeeded by his son Solomon, who became one of the wisest and most prosperous kings in Israel's history. Solomon built the first temple in Jerusalem and was known for his wisdom, wealth, and international alliances. But like his father, he also had his flaws and ultimately led Israel down a path of decline and division.

And that's how David left a lasting legacy as one of the greatest kings in Israel's history.

Karkajoo (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Replace image

Hi I think that File:Michelangelo's David - right view 2.jpg would be a good image replacement. Not only is it much more famous, but it's better overall. The current image feels weird, IDK why. Not only that, but because of the proposed image's fame, it's more recognizable as David. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

While the statue is obviously named and themed after the subject here, I don't think it really makes you think of the subject here; it just makes you think of the statue, which is famous in its own right. The current image for the page depicts David as a king, which is fitting for the legendary subject, unlike Michaelangelo's conjured figure of a naked studio study. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• A statue of a naked dude to represent a monarch, what? Jerium (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow clear guidelines

We should be on the clear on this issue by now, and significant article such as this should be edited by following WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:PORTRAIT. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PORTRAIT is an essay and goes against a long-standing consensus to include an infobox image here. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see (perhaps I missed something in the archives), the only discussion of this that has ever taken place consisted of someone proposing Michelangelo's David and someone else saying "I don't want to look at a naked man"... which isn't really a discussion. The more well-known imaginary image would be better in my opinion, but it ought to be a portrait, e.g. File:'David'_by_Michelangelo_FI_Acca_JBS_084.jpg, not a full body shot. Furius (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Small edit: Nabaal's widow

In the Biblical account - Family section, Abigail is described as Nabaal's wife, but this is misleading since it implies adultery or biandry. Given David's famous foible, changing to "widow" would better clarify the matter.

Apologies if this approach is inappropriate. I am a very casual user. Throody Shrelfe (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Good pickup. StAnselm (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)