Talk:David#Edit request

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Davids_wars_of_Conquest&redirect=no Davids wars of Conquest] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 14#Davids wars of Conquest}} until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

adonai, Elohim, Hashem should ne used in place of the written name of G-d 2603:6010:E4F0:8370:7C42:C941:D615:3B9 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not censored. Remsense ‥ 论 20:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yes it is. This is just false. I've had plenty of my submissions removed. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia is not censored morally, theologically, or ideologically. But same as Britannica and Larousse do not publish everything, Wikipedia does not to that, either. The mission of an encyclopedia is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not everything is supported by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:FRINGE POVs belong in articles dedicated to fringe subjects, wherein those views are correctly labelled as fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A serious encyclopedia does not peddle antivax, conspiracy theories, biblical inerrancy, or political extremism. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The addition of:

• 2025, "House of David" - David is portrayed by Michael Iskander.

Katharsye (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

2025, [https://www.sight-sound.com/shows/david David, Live on Stage] performed and produced by the Sight & Sound Theatres (S&ST has its own wiki page I'm not sure how to link).

64.57.225.215 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{re|MrThunderbolt1000T}} Sources behind paywall were never banned from Wikipedia. You have deleted information sourced to many WP:RS, not just two books. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Unless you got low scores in mathematics in school, one should readily realize that two sources are not "many RS." The claim that David and Jonathan had a "homoerotic relationship" is frankly bold and should be based on more than sources that are paywalled and unverifiable. Yes, I know paywalled sources haven't been banned. I also know that paywalled sources are not given the same weight as free sources. You need to come up with a better excuse than that. You should know better as a long-time editor. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|MrThunderbolt1000T}} I counted 5 (five) WP:RS in that paragraph. Often, books-for-profit are of much higher quality than free sources. And there is no excuse to claim it fails WP:V while you did not bother to loan the book from a library in order to speak about what you know to be the case. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's five RSes if you count the entire paragraph. It's two if you're intellectually honest and only count the RSes used to source information that the other three are used to source contradictory information. It's an ill-informed section in the article founded on unverifiable sources whose status as a "reliable source" is itself questionable. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|MrThunderbolt1000T}} The claim that it fails WP:V falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. If you doubt the reliability of sources, take each of them to WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#David. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::To answer your other point: the information can be "contradictory" because we don't believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::On en-WP, there is nothing wrong with using WP:PAYWALLED sources. The good stuff is often locked up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: the homoerotic interpretation of David and Jonathan is a minority one. The first sentence of the disputed paragraph is, in fact, unsourced as well as being misleading. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:*{{re|StAnselm}} I agree: it's a minority view. It is not presented as WP:THETRUTH. You may remove the offending sentence. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)