Talk:David

What is this BCE gibberish?

This is a page about a Biblical figure. What “common era” are you referring to? Give me a break. This PC gibberish is fine on a page about the latest viral dance on TikTok, but it is absolutely ridiculous on a page about a Biblical figure. 2603:7080:9A00:13B:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

As he was a Jewish king should we go for a wording preferred by some Jews? PatGallacher (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Commenting here since there was a recent change from BCE to BC. This is correct, since this is indeed a BC article per WP:ERA. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Disagree, considering David was the King of Judah, BC would be inappropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I take it you mean you are saying it should be a BCE article, but it is now a BC article in terms of WP:ERA until we get a consensus to change it. StAnselm (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That is, it started out BC and then was changed to BCE without discussion by an IP editor here. StAnselm (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That was thirteen years ago. Changing it back is needlessly tendentious at this point. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It has been changed many times over that time, and always erroneously reverted. StAnselm (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

So it was BC from 2013 to 2015, and then changed to BCE again by an IP. It has been discussed from time to time on this talk page (I see I made a comment in 2013) but there has never been a consensus one way or the other. StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@StAnselm If it has kept being changed back to BCE, that seems like a consensus to me. I support it because David is a Jewish and Muslim figure as well as a Christian one. Those who prefer BC can read it as "Before Christian Era" Furius (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This topic occurs from time to time across several Bible-related articles, with BC/AD enthusiasts claiming "biblical". When it comes to "in the absence of other overriding criteria, gently nudge it one way (BCE/CE) or the other (BC/AD)" one consideration might be "OT/HB or NT?". For example, articles related to St. Paul (NT, Christian) might be nudged towards BC/AD. But there is a much stronger case towards nudging articles such as this (David) towards BCE/CE, because of their primary OT/Judaism relevance. (Again, note that my gentle "nudge" language isn't intended to override the primary principles of MOS:ERA.)

I haven't expressed that well; it needs refinement! But I wonder whether something like this needs to be added as a secondary issue to MOS:ERA? Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I must confess, I was one of the people who reverted back to BCE under the mistaken impression that this was a BCE article. Personally, I think most of these decisions are ultimately personal preference: I think Christian-only articles should be BC and Judaism-only articles (e.g. Simon II (High Priest), which I created with BCE) should be BCE, but this one is right in the middle - I would not "nudge" it one way or the other. Yes, having bad changes and arguments (like the one that started this thread) might prejudice us, but the most recent change by User:AdamMin1 was a good one (e.g. being careful not to change direct quotes). StAnselm (talk)

Then again, in this case, it's Christian because it's Jewish. It doesn't hurt anyone to have it as BCE so I think it should be BCE rather than run into issues with it otherwise. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You really think having BC would "hurt" anyone? But either way, that's not really WP policy. StAnselm (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Some might be annoyed, not unjustifiably, that an international encyclopedia doesn't hold a secular line. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Adonijah was David's eldest surviving son, not eldest son.

The third paragraph says, "He dies at age 70 and chooses Solomon, his son with Bathsheba, as his successor instead of his eldest son Adonijah." At that time, Adonijah was David's eldest surviving son, not eldest son. Please change that. This page is semi-protected, so I can't change that. I am new to Wikipedia, and I apologise if my format on this talk page is wrong. AdamMin1 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The third paragraph says, "He dies at age 70 and chooses Solomon, his son with Bathsheba, as his successor instead of his eldest son Adonijah." At that time, Adonijah was David's eldest surviving son, not eldest son. Please change that. David's eldest son was Amnon, who had been killed by Absalom. AdamMin1 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Sidebar

I've added a sidebar for Moses (see to the right) after my proposal was accepted, and I'm thinking of doing the same thing with David. Is this a good idea? And could this work with other Biblical figures?

{{Moses}} Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

If King Saul's page is titled King Saul, then definitely King David's page should include King in the title!

Herein lies the problem with Wikipedia and why so many do not consider it a source. There is no consistency! King Saul was a minor player in the Bible, yet his page is titled King Saul. It seems an insult to the various beliefs of many to not list King David as a King in his title! I am not encouraging a debate about the belief system. I am however, at the very least but for many even more, encouraging the respect of excellent literature. Literature that has been studied for thousands of years, just as Greeks, Egyptians and early Romans.

I do not know how to begin the process of renaming a page, but this is essential.

MagnoliaSouth talk) 05:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

"a debate about the belief system" What belief system, and how it relevant to the article's title? Dimadick (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Magnoliasouth Saul's page is just titled Saul, so I don't understand this proposal. Furius (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Existence?

I swore I remember seeing this article mentioned that most scholars agree that David might have existed but now I don't see it anymore here. CycoMa2 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)