Talk:David (disambiguation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David (disambiguation) page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Anthroponymy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled

Editor: This disambiguation page needs the addition of "Jacques-Louis David" in the art section. As justification for this addition, the page about J-L David states he had "the strongest influence in French art of the 19th century, especially academic Salon painting" (see second paragraph, last sentence).Nantucket40 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -Seidenstud (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's not there, man

There is no page, as of yet, for "Dave", so I added in a reference to "Dave's not there, man", HTH. 71.39.78.68 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Im not sure what there is to discuss. These figures are not only featured in the Hebrew Bible hence the disambiguation page should not make that impression. Pass a Method talk 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic, which calls for a "brief explanatory sentence" regarding the primary topic. The thing is, David is best known as the King of Israel, as described in the Hebrew Bible. While he is in the Baha'i scripture, that information is not relevant for a disambiguation page. St Anselm (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the reverts in general. You have also removed refereneces to Islam. While These may be best known as such in your country of residence, wikipedia is a global community, and in some communities they are known from other scripture, such as the Aqdas or the Quran. Pass a Method talk 09:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it is just in my country of residence. If we look at it globally, (e.g. using google or google books) we would see the same thing. For example David + Bible gives 162 million hits on Google, while David + Quran gives 23 million hits. St Anselm (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but leaving things out would be the equivalent of saying "the solar system contain the Sun and the Earth", rather than "the solar system contains the Sun, the Earth and other planets". The first statement is misleading becaus it makes it sound as if the Sun and the Earth are the only things in the solar system. Pass a Method talk 11:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Explanation of King David

Should "Baha'i scripture" be mentioned as part of the primary topic explanation at the top of the page? St Anselm (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Linking to a primary topic, which calls for a "brief explanatory sentence" regarding the primary topic. St Anselm (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have notified the Anthroponymy and Disambiguation wikiprojects. St Anselm (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~No, the explanatory sentence should based on the lead of King David, which does not even mention this fact, for good reason: it is not considered a major World religion.~~ --JFH (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes This source describes the Baha'i Faith as a major religion among the major twelve classical religions. Pass a Method talk 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But David is not a major figure in the Baha'i Faith. The David article says "In the Baha'i Faith, David is described as a minor prophet who came in the shadow of the dispensation of Moses to develop and consolidate the process he set in motion." St Anselm (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term minor prohet is used in comparison to the major prohets such as Muhammad, Jesus, Moses. But in itself a minor prohet is still a major figure. Pass a Method talk 21:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise If we are going for briefness and conciseness i propose a compromise wording as "David is a figure in the Abrahamic religions". Pass a Method talk 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I tend to agree with Jfhutson. There are a lot of smaller religions that may make mention of David in their writings, but not all of them are notable enough to be in the Lead sentence of David or the disambiguation sentence here. This should say where he is most notable, and that is as a king of Israel mentioned in the Bible (of which he wrote a fair portion, if I recall correctly). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the Baha'i Faith is a small religion? Pass a Method talk 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With 7 million members, compared to Christianity (2.1 billion) and Islam (1.5 billion), yes. It's even small compared to major denominations and churches. There are about 150 times more Catholics than Bahai's, and twice as many Mormons (another NRM that was founded around the same time). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm So by that logic is Judaism a small religion too? Pass a Method talk 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different proposal

Compromise: "a figure in the scriptures of Abrahamic religions" is comprehensive and concise. Striking my vote above. --JFH (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that the lead would then read "King David (c. 1011–971 BC) was the second king of the United Kingdom of Israel and a figure in the scriptures of Abrahamic religions"? St Anselm (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess that's not exactly Pass a Methods's proposal, but he is apparently on board with it. --JFH (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd prefer "of the Abrahamic religions", but that's a trivial quibble. :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support JFH proposal. Pass a Method talk 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise as described by JFH above seems more like an improvement than a compromise. Why list individual cases when we can include a category? SchreiberBike (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a bit confused about it. It doesn't seem to be the same "compromise" suggested earlier by User:Pass a Method. St Anselm (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:David (2013 Hindi film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]