Talk:David

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)

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)

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)

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)