text:
Scandinavian York

Scandinavian York or Viking York (Jórvík) is a term used by historians for what is now Yorkshire during the period of Scandinavian domination from late 9th century until it was annexed and integrated into England after the Norman Conquest; in particular, it is used to refer to York, the city controlled by these kings and earls. The Kingdom of Jórvíc was closely associated with the longer-lived Kingdom of Dublin throughout this period.

Pre-Viking age
York was first recorded by Ptolemy around the year 150 as Eborakon. Under the Romans it became the provincial capital and bishopric of Eburacum. The Roman settlement was regularly planned, well defended and contained a stone legionary fortress. The Romans withdrew around 407 and the Anglo-Saxons occupied the settlement from the early 7th century. Post-Roman York was in the kingdom of Deira; it was taken over in 655 by its northern neighbour Bernicia to form the kingdom of Northumbria. The Anglo-Saxon king Edwin of Northumbria was baptized there in 627 and the first Anglo-Saxon archbishop Ecgbert of York consecrated in 780. The settlement became the Anglo-Saxon trading port of Eoforwic.

Viking invasion
The Vikings had been raiding the coasts of England from the late 8th century, but in 865 a Viking army landed with the intention of conquering rather than just raiding. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle described the army as the "mycel heathen here" (Great Heathen Army). They landed in East Anglia where the locals, under Edmund of East Anglia, "made peace" with them in return for horses.

The army, led by Ivar the Boneless and his brother Halfdan Ragnarsson, made its way north to Northumbria where the Anglo-Saxons were embroiled in a civil war. In 862 the ruler of Northumbria, Osberht, had been deposed by Ælla of Northumbria. Ivar the Boneless was able to capitalize on the Anglo-Saxons disarray and captured York in 866/ 867.

Scandinavian rule 866–901
After Ivar the Boneless had annexed York, the two Anglo-Saxon leaders settled their differences, they joined forces and attempted to retake the city. When the Northumbrians attacked, the Vikings withdrew behind the crumbling Roman city walls, but the Anglo-Saxon leaders were both killed and the Northumbrians defeated during the ensuing battle on 21 March 867. Symeon of Durham wrote: "In those days, the nation of the Northumbrians had violently expelled from the kingdom the rightful king of their nation, Osbryht by name, and had placed at the head of the kingdom a certain tyrant, named Alla. When the pagans came upon the kingdom, the dissension was allayed by divine counsel and the aid of the nobles. King Osbryht and Alla, having united their forces and formed an army, came to the city of York; on their approach the multitude of the shipmen immediately took flight. The Christians, perceiving their flight and terror, found that they themselves were the stronger party. They fought upon each side with much ferocity, and both kings fell. The rest who escaped made peace with the Danes."

The remaining Northumbrian leaders, probably led by archbishop, Wulfhere, "made peace" with the Vikings. The Vikings appointed a compliant native prince Ecgberht as puppet ruler of Northumbria. Five years later, in 872, when the Great Army was elsewhere, the local Northumbrians capitalized on their absence by driving Wulfhere and Ecgberht out. The two exiles found refuge at the court of Burgred of Mercia. The revolt was short lived with the Vikings regaining control of York in 873. Wulfhere was recalled to the See but the Anglo-Saxon Ricsige became ruler, as Ecgberht died in 873.

In 875/ 876 part of the Great Army returned, headed by Halfdan Ragnarsson. York was retaken and although Halfdan was proclaimed King of Northumbria, in reality he was only the ruler of southern Northumbria (Deira). Deira became known as the Kingdom of York (Jórvík) with Halfdan as its first king. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: "Halfdene apportioned the lands of North-humbria: and they thenceforth continued ploughing and tilling them." Halfdan's reign did not last long, as he was killed, trying to assert his claim to the Kingdom of Dublin, in 877.

There was an interregnum after Halfdan died until Guthred became king in 883. Guthred was the first Christian Viking king of York. It is traditionally thought that Guthreds election was sponsored by Archbishop Wulfhere's religious community from Lindisfarne. Churches and religious centres in Northumbria had been systematically stripped of their wealth since the arrival of the Vikings, however although it had become impoverished the amount of ecclesiastical artefacts that have been excavated in York, from various periods between the 7th and 11th centuries, indicate that the cathedral remained a religious centre throughout. Guthred died in 895 and was buried at York Minster. Siefredus of Northumbria replaced Guthred as ruler of Jórvík and although not a great deal is known about him there has been some information provided by coin evidence. A substantial find in the Ribble Valley, during the 19th century, now known as the Cuerdale Hoard, contained approximately 8,000 Anglo-Scandinavian coins as well as continental and Kufic coins. Some of the coins discovered have Siefredus's name on providing an indication to when he reigned. The coin evidence suggests that Siefredus succeeded Guthred and ruled from about 895 until 900.

The medieval chronicler Æthelweard has led some historians to suggest that Siefriedus maybe the same person, as Sichfrith, who had previously been raiding the coast of Wessex.

"When these events so happened, Sigferth the pirate arrived from the land of the Northumbrians with a large fleet, ravaged twice and afterwards sailed back to his own homeland." A further hypothesis, proposed by the historian Alfred P. Smyth, is that Siefriedus is the same as the jarl Sichfrith who lay claim to the Kingdom of Dublin in that same year.

The Cuerdale Hoard also contained some coins with the name Cnut or Knútr on them, the coin evidence suggests that he reigned between 900 and 905. He is listed as ruler of York but has proved to be something of a conundrum, for historians, as Cnut is not recorded on any written contemporary sources. Historians have posited several hypotheses. These include, "no coins have been found from Gunfriths[Guthred] reign so perhaps they could be his? ". As some of the coins had both Siefredus and Cnuts name on them "perhaps these are the same person?". Another possibility is that he was "a Danish noble, mentioned in Norse sources, who was assassinated in 902 after a very brief reign. So brief that there was not enough time to produce coins in quantity."

A West Saxon rules Northumbria
The next ruler, Æthelwold, was the son of Æthelred, the king of Wessex from 865 to 871. Following his father's death, in 871, his uncle Alfred the Great became king. When Alfred died in 899. Alfred's son Edward the Elder ascended the throne of Wessex. However, Æthelwold made a bid for power, seizing his fathers old estate in Wimbourne. Edward's forces besieged Æthelwold's position, forcing him to flee. He went to York, where the locals accepted him as king, in 901. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:

"... he stole away by night, and sought the army in North-humbria; and they received him for their king, and became obedient to him."

Æthelwold did not stay in York long; in 903 he began a campaign to regain the crown of Wessex. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describes how he raised a fleet and landed first in Essex, then went on to East Anglia where he persuaded their king Eohric to help him in his campaign. The combined armies raided Wessex in the Cricklade area. Edward and his allies responded by attacking East Anglia. Edward's Kentish allies engaged Æthelwold's army, and in this battle Æthelwold was killed.

Scandinavian rule restored 903–926
Edward followed up his attack on East Anglia with raids into the Viking kingdom. The following year the Vikings retaliated, led by their new joint kings Eowils and Halfdan II their intention was to raid Mercia and Wessex but were intercepted and killed when they met a joint army from Wessex and Mercia at Tettenhall on 5 August 910.

Ragnall I was York's next ruler, he was the grandson of Ímar and was probably one of the Vikings expelled from Dublin in 902. He fought against Constantín II, King of Scotland, in the Battle of Corbridge in 918. It is not clear from the annals, who actually won the battle, but the outcome did allow Ragnall to establish himself as king at York. It seems that the people of York were unhappy with Ragnall as they promised obedience to Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians in early 918, but the negotiations were ended prematurely by her death in June of that year. Later in his reign, Ragnall submitted to Edward as overlord, but was allowed to keep his kingdom. Ragnall had three separate issues of coins produced while he ruled York the coins bearing the name RAIENALT, RACNOLDT or similar. He died late in 920 or early 921.

The next ruler was Sihtric, who was a kinsman of Ragnall, and another Viking leader that had been expelled from the Kingdom of Dublin, in 902. Sihtric, however had returned to Ireland to retake Dublin and become their king. Then in 920 he travelled to York and joined Ragnall where in 921 Ragnall died and Sihtric replaced him as king.

Sihtric raided Davenport, Cheshire, in violation of the terms of submission agreed between Ragnall and Edward. Edward the Elder died in 924. It seems that Sihtric took advantage of the situation to expand his kingdom. There is some numismatic evidence to support this as there are coins, from this time, minted at Lincoln, in the Kingdom of Mercia, as well those from York.

Edward was replaced by his son Æthelstan, and although the annals indicated that Sihtric was reluctant to submit to Edward, he submitted to Æthelstan at Tamworth in January 926. Part of the agreement was that Sihtric should marry Æthelstan's sister Eadgyth also he should be baptised. According to Roger of Wendover, Sihtric was baptised but he "repudiated" the faith and rejected his bride shortly after, without the marriage being consummated.

West Saxon rule 927–939
In 927 Sihtric died. His brother Gofraid left Dublin and headed to Northumbria to replace Sihtric as king but his attempt to rule was unsuccessful, and he was driven out by King Æthelstan. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle makes no mention of Gofraid, simply stating that Æthelstan succeeded Sihtric as King in Northumbria, and thereafter held a meeting with the other kings in Britain, establishing peace. A later account by William of Malmesbury tells a different story. In his version, Gofraid goes to Scotland following Sihtric's death, to attend a meeting at Dacre with Æthelstan, Constantine II of Scotland, and Owen I of Strathclyde. Gofraid and a Viking ally called Thurfrith led a force to York and besieged the city. Æthelstan counterattacked and Gofraid was captured. The city was then looted by the Anglo-Saxons and Gofraid allowed to return to Ireland.

"[Guthferth] ... at last came a suppliant to court. Being amicably received by the king, and sumptuously entertained for four days, he resought his ships; an incorrigible pirate, and accustomed to live in the water like a fish."

In 937 a coalition of Vikings (led by Gofraid's son Olaf Guthfrithson), Constantine II, King of Scotland, and Owain, King of Strathclyde invaded England. The invaders were stopped and defeated by Æthelstan, and his allies, at the Battle of Brunanburh. After this, although Æthelstan's relationship with Northumbria was not an easy one, his hold on it remained secure until his death in 939.

During his reign, Æthelstan integrated Northumbria into England and the design of the coinage was changed to conform with the standard English system. On some coins, produced at York, the mint-signature was Eforwic, the Old English name for York.

Restoration of Scandinavian rule 939–944

Although Æthelstan had integrated the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into one unified England and suppressed opposition from the Vikings and their allies, when he died in 939, the Viking leader Olaf Guthfrithson (who had been defeated at Brunanburh) arrived from Dublin and took over Northumbria with minimal opposition. Coins minted at York during his reign show the Raven motif.

In 940, his cousin Olaf Cuaran joined him in York. In 941 Olaf Guthfrithson invaded Mercia and East Anglia The Archbishops of York and Canterbury mediated and Edmund I, Æthelstan's successor, surrendered much of the south-east Midlands and Lincolnshire.

It is probable that Olaf Guthfrithson died in 942 and was replaced by Olaf Cuaran. Then in 943 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Olaf Cuaran was baptised, with Edmund as sponsor, and that same year, another king of Northumbria, was named as Ragnall Guthfrithson and he was confirmed also with Edmund as sponsor. Both Olaf and Ragnall are called king, but it is uncertain whether they were co-rulers or rival kings.

The chronology of events for both Olaf Guthfrithson, Olaf Cuaranths and Ragnalls' reigns have been subject to debate however the annals for 944 all seem to agree that Edmund was able to expel the Viking leaders from Northumbria.

English rule 944–947
In 945, Edmund invaded Cumbria and blinded two sons of Domnall mac Eógain, king of Strathclyde. Then according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle he "granted" all of Strathclyde, to Malcom king of the Scots in return for an alliance.

"This year king Edmund ravaged all Cumberland, and granted it all to Malcolm king of the Scots, on the condition, that he should be his fellow-worker as well by sea as by land."

In 946 Edmund was assassinated at Pucklechurch.

Edmund was replaced by Eadred who immediately turned his attention to Northumbria, where according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he "subdued all Northumberland under his power" and obtained oaths of obedience from the Scots.

In 947 Eadred went to the Anglo-Scandinavian town of Tanshelf, where Archbishop Wulfan and the Northumbrian witan submitted to him.

Scandinavian rule reestablished 947–954
Eric Bloodaxe capitalizing on the deteriorating political situation in York, established himself as king. Eadred's response was to raid Northumbria and drive Eric out. Olaf Cuaran was reestablished as king from 950 to 952. Olaf's rule was short-lived as in 952 Eric removed him and then reigned in Northumbria till 954.

The Earldom of York 954–1066
Scandinavian domination came to an end when Eadred's forces killed Eric Bloodaxe at the Battle of Stainmore in 954. The whole area was then governed by earls, from the local nobility, who were appointed by the kings of England.

In 975 the king of England Edgar died suddenly. The succession was contested between his two sons Edward and Æthelred. Edward became king but was killed under suspicious circumstances in 978. Æthelred replaced him as ruler and in 1002 he was told that the Danish men in his territory "would faithlessly take his life, and then all his councillors, and possess his kingdom afterwards". In response, he ordered the deaths of all Danes living in England. The orders were carried out on 13 November 1002 (now known as the St Brice's Day massacre).

It is thought that the massacre provoked the king of Denmark, Sweyn Forkbeard, to invade England in 1003. The onslaught continued until 1014 when Æthelred and his family were driven into exile and Sweyn installed as king of England. However he only reigned for five weeks before dying.

After Sweyn's death, his son Cnut became the leader of the Danish army and Æthelred returned to England. Æthelred drove Cnut out of England and back to Denmark. Then in 1015, Cnut relaunched the campaign against England.

Meanwhile, in 1016 Æthelred died and was succeeded by his son, Edmund Ironside. Edmund and his forces were decisively beaten by Cnut at the Battle of Ashingdon. After the battle, Cnut made a treaty with Edmund whereby Edmund would be king of Wessex and Cnut would rule the rest of England.

Ironside died just a few weeks after the treaty. Cnut then became king of all England. He divided England into four semi-independent earldoms using a system of governance based on the Scandinavian system of the time. He appointed his most trusted followers as earls, with the Norwegian Erik of Hlathir appointed to the Earldom of Northumbria. The previous Earl of Northumbria Uhtred, had been murdered, probably on Cnut's orders. Although a Scandinavian king ruled all of England. Northumbria was not well integrated into the rest of the country.

Siward became the last Scandinavian Earl of Northumbria when he succeeded Erik in about 1033. He governed for 22 years without difficulty. On Siward's death in 1055, the king of England, Edward the Confessor, chose a West Saxon to govern Yorkshire, in place of Siward's son, Waltheof. Edward's choice, Tostig Godwinson, was unpopular with locals. In 1065 Tostig was deposed by the northern nobility and replaced with Morcar (the brother of Edwin of Mercia). The northerners choice of new earl was accepted by Edward.

After Edward the Confessor's death in 1066, Harold Godwinson became King of England. He visited York early in his reign and according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle returned to Westminster at Easter 1066. In September 1066 Tostig was back on the scene this time with his ally, Harald Hardrada of Norway. On the 20 September 1066 the allies defeated, the northern earls, Morcar and Edwin at the Battle of Fulford. The people of York submitted to Tostig and Hardrada who did not occupy the city. Five days later Tostig and Hadrada were defeated and killed, by Harold Godwinson, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Shortly after William of Normandy landed at Pevensey on 28 September and on 13 October Harold of England fought his last battle on the Sussex coast at Hastings. Although William had won the battle it took several years for the Normans to consolidate their rule over England. It is likely that the Conqueror exercised little authority north of the Humber during 1067 as he simply did not have the troops there to enforce his will although the northern earls did submit to him.

Norman rule post 1066
Copsi, a supporter of Tostig, was a native of Northumbria and his family had a history of being rulers of Bernicia, and at times Northumbria. Copsi had fought in Harald Hardrada's army with Tostig, against Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. He had managed to escape after Harald's defeat. When Copsi offered homage to William at Barking in 1067, William rewarded him by making him earl of Northumbria. After just five weeks as earl, Copsi was murdered by Osulf, son of Earl Eadulf III of Bernicia. When, in turn, the usurping Osulf was also killed, his cousin, Cospatrick, bought the earldom from William. He was not long in power before he joined Edgar Ætheling in rebellion against William in 1068.

William's response was brutal. During the winter of 1069, in an action known as the Harrying of the North, he laid waste Yorkshire and eventually replaced its nobility with his own trusted men. The Domesday Book, for Yorkshire, indicates the extent of the Norman takeover, most of the former landowners who survived the conquest, retained only a fraction of their estates, and then as tenants of a Norman lord. With 25 of William the Conquerors magnates holding 90% of the county's manors, the days when English kings appointed Scandinavian Earls of Northumbria were at an end.

After the Norman conquest there were several unsuccessful attempts by Scandinavian kings to regain control of England, the last of which took place in 1086. However raiding did continue and the last recorded one was in 1152, when Eystein II of Norway taking advantage of the confusion caused by the English civil war looted places on the east coast of Britain, including Yorkshire.

Coinage
Small silver coins, known as sceattas, were minted in England by the early 8th century, and from the late 8th century, locally produced coins of this nature have been excavated in York. The bankrupt nature of the Northumbrian economy is illustrated by the continued production of small silver coins and eventually replacing them with copper pennies (known as stycas) while the other English kingdoms were producing the larger standard silver penny established by Offa of Mercia. The minting of coinage in York was controlled by the Northumbrian monarch and the archbishop.The coins produced under command of the king seems to have stopped around 850 and Archbishop Wulfhere around 855. The Vikings reintroduced the minting of coins, in York, c. 895/896. These coins had a similar design to continental coins, some with short religious texts on them and others with the name of the mint where they were produced, for example EBRAICE for Eboracum (York). Although where the mint was located, in York has not been found, a workshop that produced and tested the dies has been identified at Coppergate.

In about 973 King Edgar, reformed the monetary system to give Anglo-Saxon England a uniform currency. This involved approximately sixty moneyers in the various boroughs around the country. The most important mints were in London, Winchester, Lincoln, Chester and York. They produced a standard design so that each coin could be used anywhere in England. The design was changed about every six years. This model for the production of currency remained unchanged until the reign of Henry II, around two hundred years later.

Trade
Archaeological evidence indicates that Jórvík had a busy international trade with thriving workshops, and well-established mints. York was part of the wider Scandinavian trading system with one route leading to Norway by way of Shetland and another to Sweden via the Dnieper and Volga rivers to Byzantium and the Muslim world.

York was a major manufacturing centre particularly in metalwork, with Jórvík craftspeople sourcing their raw materials both near and far. There was gold and silver coming from Europe, copper and lead from the Pennines and tin from Cornwall. Also, there was amber from the Baltic for the production of jewellery, and soapstone probably from Norway or Shetland, used to make large cooking pots. Wine was imported from the Rhineland and silk, used to make into caps for sale, came from Byzantium.

Religion
Christianity had been established in Northumbria by the end of the 7th century. Very little evidence of the old Viking pagan religion in Yorkshire has been found although there is coin evidence minted during Ragnall I's reign, from the 10th century, that had Thor's hammer on them. The arrival of the pagan Vikings seems to have had little effect on the Christian religion, with the incoming Scandinavians converting to Christianity within a few decades of their arrival and largely adopting local burial customs, however there are stone crosses and grave markers, that introduced Scandinavian motifs to the designs and instituted new forms, notably the so-called Hogback gravestone.

Hogbacks were introduced in 10th century, they are a house-shaped stone with a bowed roof ridge and often with bombé long sides, many were accompanied by standing crosses. In England, the incidence of them is most dense in northern Yorkshire, suggesting that the form was initiated in this region.

Ridings
Scandinavian Yorkshire was divided into three parts, for administration purposes, these were known as the North Riding, the West Riding and the East Riding. The name Riding derives from the Old Scandinavian thrithjungr meaning third part. Under Scandinavian rule each Riding was a unitary authority with its own assemblies. They were created during the Scandinavian period but continued until 1974, when they were abolished under the Local Government Act 1972, although the East Riding of Yorkshire was revived as a unitary authority in 1996.

Wapentakes
From the Old Norse vápnatak an administrative sub division of the Ridings in Yorkshire. The term is of Scandinavian origin and meant the taking of weapons; it later signified the clash of arms by which the people assembled in a local court expressed assent. In Scandinavian York it is likely that initially the Wapentakes were formed by groups of smaller Hundreds but confusingly later on the Wapentake itself was regarded as the direct equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon Hundred. Wapentakes lasted until 1974, when they were phased out by the Local Government Act 1972.

Yorkshire dialect
"'The whole speech of the Northumbrians, especially that of the men of York, grates so harshly upon the ear that it is completely unintelligible to us southerners. The reason for this is their proximity to barbaric tribes and their distance from the kings of the land who, whether English as once or Norman as now, are known to stay more often in the south than the north.' (William of Malmesbury 12th century.)" The English language contains many hundreds of words that have a Scandinavian origin. However, in Yorkshire and northern England there are thousands of words with Scandinavian roots. A contemporary local literary tradition plus the large amount of non-Norman population, indicated by the charters of the time, was the basis of the distinct modern Yorkshire dialect. An example, in literature, of the Yorkshire dialect can be found in Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights, where the servant Josephs dialogue is written in dialect. An example, quoting Joseph from Chapter 2 of the book: "What are ye for?' he shouted. 'T' maister's down i' t' fowld. Go round by th' end o' t' laith, if ye went to spake to him.' 'Is there nobody inside to open the door?' I hallooed, responsively. 'There's nobbut t' missis; and shoo'll not oppen 't an ye mak' yer flaysome dins till neeght.' 'Why? Cannot you tell her whom I am, eh, Joseph?' 'Nor-ne me! I'll hae no hend wi't,' muttered the head, vanishing." In standard English the meaning is: "'What do you want?' he shouted. 'The master's down in the fold [sheep pen]. Go round the end of the barn if you want to speak to him.' 'Is there nobody inside to open the door?' I hallooed, responsively. 'There's nobody but the mistress, and she'll not open it for you if you make your frightening din [noise] till night.' 'Why? Cannot you tell her whom I am, eh, Joseph?' 'Not me. I'll not have anything to do with it,' muttered the head, vanishing."

Placenames
After the Norman Conquest, the frequency of Anglo-Scandinavian place-names and the absence of Norman-French place-names indicate that the Norman settlers were purely of the top rank.

Place-names can give an indication to what an area was used for. For example, in York, the Old Norse placename Konungsgurtha (Kings Court), recorded in the late fourteenth century was possibly the royal residence. It is in the area immediately outside the site of the porta principalis sinistra, the east gatehouse of the Roman encampment, perpetuated today as King's Square, which nucleates the Ainsty. New streets, lined by regular building fronts for timber houses were added to an enlarging city between 900 and 935, dates arrived at by tree-ring chronology carried out on remaining posts preserved in anaerobic clay subsoil.

Many of the city of York's street names end in "~gate". The name derives from the Old Norse "~gata" meaning street. One of the best known of these is Coppergate, which translates as the "street of the woodworkers".

Archaeological findings
From 1976 to 1981, the York Archaeological Trust conducted a five-year excavation in and around the street of Coppergate in central York. This demonstrated that, in the 10th century, Jórvík's trading connections reached to the Byzantine Empire and beyond: a cap made of silk survives, and coins from Samarkand were familiar enough and respected enough for a counterfeit to have passed in trade. Both these items, as well as a large human coprolite known as the Lloyds Bank coprolite, were famously recovered in York a millennium later. Amber from the Baltic is often expected at a Viking site and at Jórvík an impractical and presumably symbolic axehead of amber was found. A cowrie shell indicates contact with the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. Although little is known about the internal events of Jórvík, during this time, it is known that there was an accommodation with the church as Christian and pagan objects have survived side-by-side.

After the excavation, the York Archaeological Trust took the decision to recreate the excavated part of Jórvík on the Coppergate site, and this is now the Jorvik Viking Centre.

title: Scandinavian York


text:
1999 Rugby World Cup

The 1999 Rugby World Cup (Cwpan Rygbi'r Byd 1999), was the fourth Rugby World Cup, the quadrennial international rugby union championship, the first World Cup to be held in the sport's professional era.

Four automatic qualification places were available for the 1999 tournament; Wales qualified automatically as hosts, and the other three places went to the top three teams from the previous World Cup in 1995: champions South Africa, runners-up New Zealand and third-placed France. 63 nations took part in the qualification process, with 14 nations progressing directly to the tournament. the remaining two qualifiers were determined by a repechage, introduced for the first time in the tournaments history. This was also the first World Cup to feature 20 teams (expanded from 16).

The 20 teams were divided into five pools of four. The winner of each pool progressed to the last eight automatically, with the remaining quarter-finalists determined by three play-off matches, played between the runners-up from each pool and the best third-placed team. The tournament began with the opening ceremony in the newly constructed Millennium Stadium, with Wales beating Argentina 23–18, and Colin Charvis scoring the first try of the tournament. Australia won the tournament, becoming the first nation to do so twice and also to date the only team ever to win after having to qualify for the tournament, with a 35–12 triumph over France, who were unable to repeat their semi-final victory over pre-tournament favourites New Zealand. The overall attendance for the tournament was 1.75 million.

Qualifying
The following 20 teams, shown by region, qualified for the 1999 Rugby World Cup. Of the 20 teams, only four of those places were automatically allocated and did not have to play any qualification matches. These went to the champions, runners-up and the third-placed nations at the 1995 and the tournament host, Wales. A record 65 nations from five continents were therefore involved in the qualification process designed to fill the remaining 16 spots.

Venues
Wales won the right to host the World Cup in 1999. The centrepiece venue for the tournament was the Millennium Stadium, built on the site of the old National Stadium at Cardiff Arms Park at a cost of £126 million from Lottery money and private investment. Other venues in Wales were the Racecourse Ground and Stradey Park. An agreement was reached so that the other unions in the Five Nations Championship (England, France, Ireland and Scotland) also hosted matches.

Venues in England included Twickenham Stadium and Welford Road Stadium, rugby union venues, as well as Ashton Gate Stadium in Bristol, which normally hosts football, and the McAlpine Stadium in Huddersfield, which normally hosts football and rugby league. Scottish venues included Murrayfield Stadium, the home of the Scottish Rugby Union; Hampden Park, the home of the Scottish Football Association; and the smallest venue in the 1999 tournament, Netherdale, in Galashiels, in the Scottish Borders. Venues in Ireland included Lansdowne Road, the traditional home of the Irish Rugby Football Union; Ravenhill Stadium; and Thomond Park. France used five venues, the most of any nation, including the French national stadium, Stade de France, which hosted the final of the 1998 FIFA World Cup, and would later go on to host the finals of both the 2007 and 2023 editions of the tournament.

Pools and format
With the expansion of the Rugby World Cup from 16 to 20 teams an unusual and complex format was used with the teams split into five pools of four teams with each team playing each other in their pool once.
 * Pool A was played in Scotland
 * Pool B was played in England
 * Pool C was played in France
 * Pool D was played in the principal host nation Wales
 * Pool E was played in Ireland

Points system

The points system that was used in the pool stage was unchanged from both 1991 and 1995:
 * 3 points for a win
 * 2 points for a draw
 * 1 point for playing

The five pool winners qualified automatically to the quarter-finals. The five pool runners-up and the best third-placed side qualified for the quarter-final play-offs.

Knock-out stage

The five pool runners-up and the best third-placed team from the pool stage (which was Argentina) contested the quarter-final play-offs in three one-off matches that decided the remaining three places in the quarter-finals, with the losers being eliminated. The unusual format meant that two pool winners in the quarter-finals would have to play each other. From the quarter-final stage it became a simple knockout tournament. The semi-final losers played off for third place. The draw and format for the knock-out stage was set as follows.

Quarter-final play-offs draw

 * Match H: Pool B runner-up v Pool C runner-up
 * Match G: Pool A runner-up v Pool D runner-up
 * Match F: Pool E runner-up v Best third-placed team

Quarter-finals draw

 * Match M: Pool D winners v Pool E winners
 * Match J: Pool A winners v Play-off H winners
 * Match L: Pool C winners v Play-off F winners
 * Match K: Pool B winners v Play-off G winners

Semi-finals draw

 * Match J winners v Match M winners
 * Match L winners v Match K winners

A total of 41 matches (30 pool stage and 11 knock-out) were played throughout the tournament over 35 days from 1 October 1999 to 6 November 1999.

Pool stage
The tournament began on 1 October 1999 in the newly built Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, with Wales beating Argentina in a hard-fought game 23–18 to get their campaign off to a positive start. The Pool stage of the tournament played out as was widely expected with the Tri Nations teams of New Zealand (who inflected a massive 101–3 win against Italy at the McAlpine Stadium in Huddersfield), South Africa and Australia all winning their pools easily without losing a single game. For the then Five Nations Championship teams who all played their pool matches in their own countries it was a case of mixed fortunes with France winning their pool without losing a game. Host Wales also won their pool, though they suffered 31–38 defeat at the hands of Samoa in front of a home crowd at the Millennium Stadium. However, as expected England, Ireland and Scotland all finished second in their pools and were forced to try to qualify for the quarter-finals via the play-offs alongside fellow runners-up Samoa and Fiji, and Argentina as the best third placed side from all five pools, having been the only third-placed side to win two matches (against Samoa and Japan). Indeed, Argentina had finished level with Wales and Samoa on 7 points each in the group stages, and could only be separated by "total points scored": playing and winning their final match against Japan, they had the chance to overtake either of Samoa or Wales, but were 14 points short of overtaking Samoa's total score and a further 18 points short of Wales.

Play-off stage
The quarter-final play-offs were three one-off knock-out matches between the runners-up of each pool and the best third-placed side from all five pools to decide the remaining three places in the quarter-finals. The matches were played in mid-week between the completion of the pool stage and the start of the quarter-finals. The matches produced fairly easy wins for England, beating Fiji 45–24, and also for Scotland, beating Samoa 35–20. However, the final match produced the shock of the round where Argentina upset Ireland 28–24 in Lens.

Knockout stage
The winners from the quarter-final play-offs, who had played in mid-week, joined the pool winners, who had enjoyed a week long rest, in the quarter-finals. England, hosts Wales and Scotland were all knocked out, and France, who beat Argentina, were the only team left from the Northern Hemisphere.

The semi-finals, which were both played at Twickenham Stadium, produced two of the most dramatic matches of the tournament, with Australia beating South Africa 27–21 in extra-time after normal time ended with the scores locked at 18-18. The second semi-final between favourites New Zealand and underdogs France was an all-time classic, as France overturned a 24–10 deficit to win 43–31 and reach their second World Cup final. France and Australia met at the Millennium Stadium on 6 November 1999, with Australia winning 35–12 to become the first team to win the Webb Ellis Cup twice. The cup was presented by Queen Elizabeth II to Australian captain John Eales.

The overall attendance for the tournament was 1.75 million.

Statistics
The tournament's top point scorer was Argentina's Gonzalo Quesada, who scored 102 points. Jonah Lomu scored the most tries, eight in total, a rugby world cup record.

Broadcasting
British television rights holders ITV acted as the host broadcaster for the tournament, with S4C also broadcasting matches in the Welsh language. with coverage shown in 209 countries, to an audience of 3.1 billion viewers. In Australia, the event was broadcast by Seven Network.

Broadcast UK history

 * ITV (1 October 1999 – 6 November 1999)
 * S4C (1 October 1999 – 6 November 1999)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 1999 Rugby World Cup


text:
User:Isaac32767

Isaac Rabinovitch: His Wikipedia page.

Details to follow.

Well, it appears that an anonymous user can edit any page, including personal page. I'm adding this paragraph as an anonymous user. Considered editing another user's page as an experiment, but decided that would be rude. OK, you can enforce politeness against regular users easily enough, but how do you prevent abuses by anonmymous users?

title: User:Isaac32767


text:
User talk:Cliffordfreeman

Clifford leroy george freeman/inventor{ X-wing s72models }copyright/permission given by Jamar ,Wikes family Paster Muhummed speaks.

title: User talk:Cliffordfreeman


text:
Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon

Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon (7 March 1930 – 13 January 2017) was a British photographer and filmmaker. He is best known internationally for his portraits of world notables, many of them published in Vogue, Vanity Fair, The Sunday Times Magazine, The Sunday Telegraph Magazine, and other major venues; more than 280 of his photographs are in the permanent collections of the National Portrait Gallery.

Snowdon was also a relentless and successful campaigner for disabled people, achieving dozens of groundbreaking political, economic, structural, transportation, and educational reforms for persons with disabilities during his adult life.

From 1960 to 1978, he was married to Princess Margaret, the sister of Queen Elizabeth II.

Early life
Armstrong-Jones was born at Eaton Terrace in Belgravia, central London, the only son of the marriage of the Welsh barrister Ronald Armstrong-Jones (1899–1966) and his first wife, Anne Messel (later Countess of Rosse; 1902–1992). He was called "Tony" by his close relatives.

Armstrong-Jones's paternal grandfather was Sir Robert Armstrong-Jones, a Welsh psychiatrist. His paternal grandmother, Lady Armstrong-Jones (née Margaret Roberts), was a graduate of Somerville College, Oxford, and was the daughter of Sir Owen Roberts, the Welsh educationalist. Armstrong-Jones's mother's family was of German-Jewish descent. A maternal uncle was the stage designer Oliver Messel (1904–1978); a maternal great-grandfather was the Punch cartoonist Linley Sambourne (1844–1910); and his great-great-uncle Alfred Messel was a Berlin architect. Additionally, his great-great-grandmother, Frances Linley, was a first cousin of Elizabeth Linley, wife of Richard Brinsley Sheridan.

Armstrong-Jones's parents divorced in early 1935, before his fifth birthday. His mother remarried later that year.

As a 16-year-old he contracted polio while on holiday in Wales; during the six months that he was in the Liverpool Royal Infirmary recuperating, the only visitor from his family was his sister Susan. The illness left him with a withered left leg, one inch shorter than the other, and a slight permanent limp.

Education
Armstrong-Jones was educated at two private boarding schools: first at Sandroyd School in Wiltshire from the autumn term of 1938 to 1943. After Sandroyd he attended Eton College, beginning in the autumn term ("Michaelmas half") of 1943. In March 1945, he qualified in the "extra special weight" class of the School Boxing Finals. He continued to box in 1946, gaining at least two flattering mentions in the Eton College Chronicle. In 1947, he was a coxswain in Eton's traditional "Fourth of June" Daylight Procession of Boats.

He then matriculated at the University of Cambridge, where he studied architecture at Jesus College, but failed his second-year exams. He coxed the winning Cambridge boat in the 1950 Boat Race.

Career
After university, Armstrong-Jones began a career as a photographer in fashion, design and theatre. His stepmother had a friend who knew Baron the photographer; Baron visited Armstrong-Jones in his London flat, which doubled as his work studio. Baron, impressed, agreed to bring on Armstrong-Jones as an apprentice, first on a fee-paying basis but eventually, as his talent and skills became apparent to Baron, as a salaried associate.

Much of his early commissions were theatrical portraits, often with recommendations from his uncle Oliver Messel, and "society" portraits highly favoured in Tatler, which, in addition to buying many of his photographs, gave him byline credit for the captions. He later became known for his royal studies, among which were the official portraits of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh during their 1957 tour of Canada. He was also an early contributor to Queen magazine, the magazine owned by his friend Jocelyn Stevens.

After marrying Princess Margaret in May 1960, Armstrong-Jones's first solo public engagement was on 7 December 1960, when he presented the 1960 National Challenge Trophies for the trade organisation the Photographic Information Council's School Photography competition, with entries from 200 schools in Britain with camera clubs, at the opening of an exhibition of the work. News of this event was covered in American and Australian newspapers, as well as in England.

In line with the usual royal practice when a king's daughter married a commoner, in October 1961 Armstrong-Jones was granted a peerage, becoming Earl of Snowdon, or Lord Snowdon.

In the early 1960s, Snowdon became the artistic adviser of The Sunday Times Magazine, and by the 1970s had established himself as one of Britain's most respected photographers. Though his work included everything from fashion photography to documentary images of inner-city life and the mentally ill, he is best known for his portraits of world notables, many of them published in Vogue, Vanity Fair, The Sunday Times Magazine, and The Sunday Telegraph Magazine. His subjects included Marlene Dietrich, Laurence Olivier, Maggie Smith, Leslie Caron, Lynn Fontanne, David Bowie, Elizabeth Taylor, Rupert Everett, Anthony Blunt, David Hockney, Princess Grace of Monaco, Diana, Princess of Wales, Barbara Cartland, Raine Spencer (when she was Lady Lewisham), Desmond Guinness, British prime minister Harold Macmillan, Iris Murdoch, Tom Stoppard, Vladimir Nabokov, and J. R. R. Tolkien. More than 280 of his photographs are in the permanent collections of the National Portrait Gallery.

In 1968, he made his first documentary film, Don't Count the Candles, for the US television network CBS, on the subject of aging. It won seven awards, including two Emmys. This was followed by Love of a Kind (1969), about the British and animals, Born to Be Small (1971) about people of restricted growth and Happy Being Happy (1973).

In October 1981, a group portrait by Snowdon of the British rock band Queen was used on the cover of their Greatest Hits album. A Snowdon portrait of Freddie Mercury was used in 2000 on the cover of Mercury's compilation box set The Solo Collection.

In 2000, Snowdon was given a retrospective exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, Photographs by Snowdon: A Retrospective, which travelled to the Yale Center for British Art the following year. More than 180 of his photographs were displayed in an exhibition that honoured what the museums called "a rounded career with sharp edges".

Snowdon was an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society—he was awarded the Hood Medal of the Society in 1978 and the Progress Medal in 1985.

In 2006, Tomas Maier, creative director of the Italian fashion brand Bottega Veneta, brought in Snowdon to photograph his Autumn/Winter 2006 campaign.

Designs and inventions
Snowdon co-designed (in 1963, with Frank Newby and Cedric Price) the "Snowdon Aviary" of the London Zoo (which opened in 1964); he later said it was one of his creations of which he was most proud, and affectionately called it the "birdcage". He also had a major role in designing the physical arrangements for the 1969 investiture of his nephew Prince Charles as Prince of Wales.

He was granted a patent for a type of electric wheelchair in 1971.

Disabled persons
Contracting polio as a teenager left Snowdon with a shortened leg and a limp. As a result, in adulthood, he was a fierce and tireless campaigner for disabled people, and over several decades achieved dozens of groundbreaking political, economic, structural, transportation, and educational reforms for persons with any type of disability.

In the 1960s, he served as a council member of the Polio Research Fund, later renamed the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases. He served as a trustee of the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases, since renamed Action Medical Research.

In June 1980, Snowdon started an award scheme for disabled students. This scheme, administered by the Snowdon Trust, provides grants and scholarships for students with disabilities. He was president for England of the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981.

The arts
During his first marriage, Snowdon was patron of the National Youth Theatre, the Contemporary Art Society for Wales, the Welsh Theatre Company, and the Civic Trust for Wales. He was also President of the British Theatre Museum.

He was provost of the Royal College of Art from 1995 to 2003.

Personal life
Snowdon was married twice, first to Princess Margaret (1960 to 1978) and secondly to Lucy Mary Lindsay-Hogg (1978 to 2000).

First marriage
In February 1960, Snowdon, then known as Antony Armstrong-Jones, became engaged to the Queen's sister, Princess Margaret, and they married on 6 May 1960 at Westminster Abbey. The ceremony was the first royal wedding to be broadcast on television. Despite the enthusiasm of the public, some critics disapproved of a commoner marrying into the royal family. The couple made their home in apartments at Kensington Palace. He was created Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley, of Nymans in the County of Sussex, on 6 October 1961. The couple had two children: David, 2nd Earl of Snowdon, born 3 November 1961, and Lady Sarah, born 1 May 1964.

The marriage began to collapse early and publicly; various causes may have been behind the failure. On Margaret's end, there was her penchant for late-night partying, while on Snowdon's part there was his undisguised sexual addiction ("'If it moves, he'll have it', was the summing-up of one close friend"). Anne de Courcy, in her 2008 authorised biography, writes "'[T]o most of the girls who worked in the Pimlico Road studio, there seemed little doubt that Tony was gay'. To which Tony responds: 'I didn't fall in love with boys – but a few men have been in love with me.'" Snowdon's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography identifies him as bisexual, a label which he never denied during his life. In his 2009 memoir, Redeeming Features, British interior designer Nicky Haslam claimed that he had an affair with Snowdon before the latter's marriage to Princess Margaret and that Snowdon had also been the lover of Tom Parr, another leading interior designer. De Courcy reveals a series of affairs with women, including a 20-year relationship with his mistress, journalist Ann Hills, which lasted from 1976 until her suicide in 1996.

The couple remained married for eighteen years. "They were both pretty strong-willed and accustomed to having their own way, so there were bound to be collisions", according to de Courcy. His work also consumed a great deal of time. "She expected her husband to be with her more, but one of Tony's strongest motivations was work." The marriage was accompanied by drugs, alcohol, and bizarre behaviour by both parties, such as his leaving lists of "Twenty Reasons Why I Hate You" for the princess to find between the pages of books she read. According to biographer Sarah Bradford, one note read: "You look like a Jewish manicurist and I hate you". According to biographer de Courcy, "Most people, including the Royal Family, took his side."

When high society palled for Snowdon, he would escape to a hideaway cottage with his lovers or on overseas photographic assignments. Among Snowdon's lovers in the late 1960s was Lady Jacqueline Rufus-Isaacs, daughter of the 3rd Marquess of Reading. In spite of her own affairs, Margaret was said to be particularly upset when hearing about this woman. Margaret and Snowdon separated in 1976, and the marriage ended in divorce in 1978.

In 2004, The Sunday Telegraph reported that Snowdon had fathered an illegitimate daughter shortly before marrying Princess Margaret. Polly Fry, born on 28 May 1960 in the third week of Lord Snowdon's marriage to Princess Margaret, was brought up as a daughter of Jeremy Fry, inventor and member of the Fry's chocolate family, and his wife Camilla. Polly Fry asserted that a DNA test in 2004 proved Snowdon's paternity. Jeremy Fry rejected her claim, and Snowdon denied having taken a DNA test. However, four years later, after Fry had died, Snowdon admitted that this account was true.

Second marriage
After his divorce from Princess Margaret, Lord Snowdon married Lucy Mary Lindsay-Hogg (née Davies), the former wife of Sir Michael Lindsay-Hogg, 5th Baronet, in December 1978. In 1979, they had a daughter, Lady Frances Armstrong-Jones, who became a designer and board member of the Snowdon Trust. In 2006, Lady Frances married Rodolphe von Hofmannsthal (b. 1980), the great-grandson of Hugo von Hofmannsthal.

The Snowdons separated in 2000 after the revelation that in 1998 Snowdon had fathered a son, Jasper William Oliver Cable-Alexander, by Melanie Cable-Alexander, an editor at Country Life magazine.

Death
Lord Snowdon died from kidney failure at his home in Kensington on 13 January 2017, aged 86. His funeral took place on 20 January at St Baglan's Church in the remote village of Llanfaglan near Caernarfon. He was buried in the family plot in the churchyard.

Publications
Snowdon authored and curated a book of his own photographs, entitled Snowdon: A Life in View. It was edited by his daughter Lady Frances von Hofmannsthal. Graydon Carter wrote the foreword and Patrick Kinmonth wrote the introduction. Tom Ford is listed as a contributor in the book's credentials. It was published by Rizzoli in 2017.

Generally, Snowdon's publications have been attributed to Antony Armstrong-Jones. Occasionally, the byline includes Earl of Snowdon, and most of the titles at least contain Snowdon in the title.

 * London. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1958. (A later edition has ISBN 0-297-16763-4.)
 * Private View: The Lively World of British Art (1965, with text by Bryan Robertson and John Russell)
 * Assignments. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972. ISBN 0-297-99582-0.
 * A View of Venice. [Ivrea]: Olivetti, c1972.
 * Snowdon: A Photographic Autobiography (Times Books, 1979)
 * Personal View. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979. ISBN 0-297-77715-7.
 * Snowdon Tasmania Essay. Hobart: Ronald Banks, 1981. ISBN 0-85828-007-8. Text by Trevor Wilson.
 * Sittings, 1979–1983. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1983. ISBN 0-297-78314-9.
 * Israel: A First View. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1986. ISBN 0-297-78860-4.
 * Stills 1984–1987. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987. ISBN 0-297-79185-0.
 * Serendipity: A Light-hearted Look at People, Places and Things. Brighton: Royal Pavilion, Art Gallery & Museums, 1989. ISBN 0-948723-10-6.
 * Pride of the Shires: The Story of the Whitbread Horses
 * Public Appearances 1987–1991. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1991. ISBN 0-297-83122-4.
 * Hong Kong: Portraits of Power. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995. ISBN 0-316-22052-3. Text by Evelyn Huang and Lawrence Jeffery.
 * Wild Flowers. London: Pavilion, 1995. ISBN 1-85793-783-X.
 * Snowdon on Stage: With a Personal View of the British Theatre 1954–1996. London: Pavilion, 1996. ISBN 1-85793-919-0.
 * Wild Fruit. London: Bloomsbury, 1997. ISBN 0-7475-3700-3. Text by Penny David.
 * London: Sight Unseen. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999. ISBN 0-297-82490-2. Text by Gwyn Headley.
 * Photographs by Snowdon: A Retrospective. London: National Portrait Gallery, 2000. ISBN 1-85514-272-4.
 * Snowdon. London: Chris Beetles Gallery, 2006. ISBN 1-871136-99-7.

Peerage
Following his wedding, Armstrong-Jones was granted an earldom and introduced to the House of Lords as the Earl of Snowdon on 28 February 1962. The awarding of the earldom was in line with the practice of granting a peerage upon marriage into the royal family. Snowdon was appointed Constable of Caernarfon Castle in 1963; as part of this role, he designed and organised the Investiture of the Prince of Wales in 1969.

He made his maiden speech in the House of Lords in April 1972 on the problems that disabled people suffered in everyday life. One of his last contributions to the Lords was in response to the Queen's Speech of 1992.

On 16 November 1999, Lord Snowdon was created Baron Armstrong-Jones, of Nymans in the County of West Sussex. This was a life peerage given to him so that he could keep his seat in the House of Lords after most hereditary peers had been excluded. An offer of a life peerage was made to all hereditary peers of the first creation (those for whom a peerage was originally created, as opposed to those who inherited a peerage from an ancestor) at that time. The government of the day had expected Lord Snowdon to follow the example of members of the royal family and turn down his right to a life peerage. At the time, Labour MP Fraser Kemp said he was "shocked and surprised that someone who achieved their position in the House of Lords by virtue of marriage should accept a seat in the reformed Lords".

Snowdon retired from the House of Lords on 31 March 2016, having seldom attended nor claimed any expenses for many years.

Awards and honours

 * 7 July 1969: Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO)
 * 1985: Progress Medal of the Royal Photographic Society and an Honorary Fellowship
 * 1989: honorary degree of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) of the University of Bath.

In popular culture
Armstrong-Jones is portrayed in the Netflix series The Crown in season 2 by Matthew Goode and in season 3 by Ben Daniels.


text:
Talk:David

Historical sources for the lead of the article
Are there no historical references for King David? The construction of the temple mount by his son King Solomon, is widely acknowledged outside of rabbinical literature and is supported by historians like Josephus, who lived only a few hundred years after. While biblical literature faces scrutiny, King David's historical existence is recognized beyond rabbinical texts. Flavius Josephus is generally accepted as a credible historian, so I'll try to find the exact text when I have a chance. Additionally, I'll explore other historical sources, as adding a historical reference would enhance the article. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Flavius Josephus is generally accepted as a credible historian" Not really. Josephus' biases are particularly evident in his writings. From the main article:

This source is based on the scriptures. In reality there is no such evidence in archaeology. Josephus was not alive around the alleged time of David, and would not be able to add anything beyond thousand-year-old anecdote. Wdford (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "historian Mary Smallwood, in the introduction to the translation of The Jewish War by G. A. Williamson, writes:"[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning, but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefited for the rest of his days from his change of side."" Dimadick (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [Of course he's biased and wrote in a very particular personal position, but I don't see how that translates to being "unreliable" per se, especially with the weight of two millennia of historiography on top of his work to accompany one's reading of it. He has obvious scruples, I don't see how it's different than citing Herodotus about the Persian Wars, Sima Qian about the Warring States period, or Procopius's Secret History.]
 * To answer the OP: from what I've read, it seriously doubted whether David was a historical figure that resembles what's come down to us, as opposed to essentially being an amalgam. Remsense  聊  01:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Remsense Agreed. Being a figure of various traditions inevitably introduces discrepancies in accounts, leading to an amalgamation of diverse viewpoints that deviate from the original narrative. The historical figure handed down to us appears distinct depending on the source, inviting much-needed skepticism. Nevertheless, a substantial body of evidence exists, affirming with confidence that David was a tangible figure, and it was his son who erected the Temple Mount. Titus destroyed the Second Temple during the First Jewish-Roman War, and today the Western Wall remains.
 * It is problematic to say that all of what is known of David is from Biblical literature: "Apart from this, all that is known of David comes from biblical literature, the historicity of which has been extensively challenged, and there is little detail about David that is concrete and undisputed." If you think it would enhance the article, what approach would you take to incorporating the historical account of Josephus into the lead of the article? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To cut through layers of legend, there was a Temple in Jerusalem, probably small, probably Pagan, and probably not built by Solomon. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: This source disagrees. Potatín5 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When I have the chance I will source archaeological evidence, I agree that is a more straightforward way of enhancing the article. Still, I think there is merit in Josephus' account even if they need to be contextualized as not being alive during that time. Just curious, who do you believe built the Western Wall ? Do you disagree that there was a jewish temple there? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't know for sure, that's why I said probably. Anyway, the point is that even if that Temple was dedicated to Yahweh, Yahweh was still by and large a Pagan god. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources for this claim and what does that have to do with this discussion about the First Temple? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Relevance: Pagan god in Pagan Temple. That Yahweh was initially a Pagan god is Bible scholarship 101. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source. Furthermore, it's a leap of logic to assume because other cultures adopted similar worship that the Temple was built by pagans. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A much simpler point is that Judaism simply did not exist in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, so everybody was a Pagan (meaning polytheist), including all Judahites and all Israelites. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this claim? According to your source when was Judaism founded? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true."
 * "Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true."

- Prof. Dr. Herbert Niehr, Tübingen University

 * "But to sum up, it's clear that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are not strict Yahwists, as we will come to understand that term. The P and the E sources preserve this insight; and they preserve it in their insistence that the Patriarchs worshiped God as El, but at the time of the Exodus, God revealed himself as Yahweh. There's an interesting passage in the book of Joshua, Joshua 24:14-15. Joshua was the successor to Moses. He presents the Israelites with the following choice: "Now therefore revere the Lord," using the word Yahweh, "revere Yahweh, and serve him with undivided loyalty. Put away the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt"--put away the gods your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt--"and serve Yahweh. / Choose this day which ones you are going to serve, but I in my household will serve Yahweh," serve the Lord. Only later would a Yahweh-only party polemicize against and seek to suppress certain… what came to be seen as undesirable elements of Israelite-Judean religion, and these elements would be labeled Canaanite, as a part of a process of Israelite differentiation. But what appears in the Bible as a battle between Israelites, pure Yahwists, and Canaanites, pure polytheists, is indeed better understood as a civil war between Yahweh-only Israelites, and Israelites who are participating in the cult of their ancestors."

- Christie Hayes, Open Yale Courses

 * You seem to be an expert in the history of Judaism, as told by Orthodox Jewish scholars, which is completely different from the history of Judaism taught at WP:CHOPSY.
 * The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory.
 * I don't say that you have to agree with me, but you do have to understand that Wikipedia isn't a venue for WP:SOAPBOXING for fundamentalist pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate gaining a better understanding of your perspective. It seems you're referring to the Documentary Hypothesis, which indeed lacks academic consensus. In the latter part of the 20th century, critiques of the documentary hypothesis emerged, notably through publications such as "Abraham in History and Tradition" by John Van Seters, "Der sogenannte Jahwist" ("The So-Called Yahwist") by Hans Heinrich Schmid, and "Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch" ("The Tradition-Historical Problem of the Pentateuch") by Rolf Rendtorff. While these scholars shared criticisms of the documentary hypothesis, they diverged on alternative paradigms.
 * Van Seters and Schmid contended that the Yahwist source couldn't be dated to the Solomonic period as proposed by the documentary hypothesis but rather to the Babylonian captivity or the late monarchic period. Van Seters also questioned the substantiality of the Elohist source.
 * Regarding your concerns about pseudo-history, some of the history you describe aligns with Jewish historical narratives, where there was indeed a divergence between idol-worshipping Jews and those adhering to monotheism. Moreover, the patriarchs were unequivocally monotheistic figures, as depicted in the Torah.
 * The Torah emphatically denounces idol worship as one of the gravest sins, even to the extent of emphasizing that a Jew must sacrifice their life before committing idolatry. Abraham's Hebrew name, which can translate to "other side," symbolizes his departure from the idolatrous environment of his parents and society. The assertion that the patriarchs were idol worshippers doesn't correlate with the primary sources.
 * While acknowledging ongoing debates about David's historicity, I believe enriching the article with archaeological evidence would be valuable. I'm open to incorporating more evidence to present a balanced view and depict David as a possible historical figure rather than a definite mythical one. Please let me know what evidence you think would enhance the article, and I'll take the responsibility to find it. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one claiming that David did not exist, or that Solomon did not exist. I don't put all my money upon the Documentary Hypothesis. the patriarchs were unequivocally monotheistic figures—if you mean characters from a book, I agree, that book however does not amount to historical reality. symbolizes his departure from the idolatrous environment—regardless of what it symbolizes, such symbolism does not amount to historical evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that referencing the Tanach doesn't constitute historical evidence for this discussion, and its relevance depends on the context of our discussion. My mention of the Tanach was in response to your citation of text from Joshua to suggest that the patriarchs were polytheists when the Tanach suggest the opposite.
 * Regarding the historicity of David, it's essential to acknowledge the ongoing debates surrounding his existence. Enriching the article with archaeological evidence could greatly contribute to presenting a more balanced perspective and portraying David as a potentially historical figure rather than definitively mythical.
 * Once again, additional evidence that has been glossed over could enhance the article. Please feel free to suggest any archaeological findings or scholarly works that you believe would be pertinent to our discussion, and I'll take the responsibility to find it. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, the direct archaeological evidence about David is one broken piece of stone. For the rest, archaeological evidence about 10th century BCE Judah mostly debunks the idea that David had a fully formed state. William G. Dever, who is on the conservative side of mainstream Syro-Palestinian archaeology, said that David had an "early inchoate state". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * William G. Dever is a self-described "unreconstructed traditionalist". He is also 90-years-old, and probably older than many of the current archaeologists in his field. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ... which is precisely my point: what people call "liberal scholars" would easily agree with the statement that David did not really have a state, but when even a conservative like Dever agrees, it is a sign that it got accepted as fact. Dever defends a greater historical validity of the Bible without engaging in denialism or pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another view is that David did not have an ordinarily findable kingdom (through archaeology), but he ruled over a kingdom of nomads. And archaeologists will have to explore this idea before declaring it wasn't the case. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the Bible, David was a bit of a nomad warlord during the reign of Saul, but later he lived in a palace in a "city" where he abducted bathing maidens off their rooftops etc. The city may have been very small, and the palace even smaller, but there is no evidence of a major kingdom as related in the Bible stories. Wdford (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * As per Wikipedia, the Western Wall was started by King Herod the Great, almost a thousand years after the putative time of King David. Most of what we see now was added during the later Islamic period. There was large-scale architecture in Jerusalem long before the putative time of David, but that was Bronze-Age Canaanite work. There was fresh Iron-Age architecture in Jerusalem after the putative time of David. However the Western Wall was part of the so-called Second Temple, built originally by Herod the Great. Wdford (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, the significance of the Western Wall lies in its proximity to the Temple Mount. King Herod the Great aimed to construct a massive temple, and to achieve this, he erected massive retaining walls around Mount Moriah. Thus, the focal point is really about the Temple Mount rather than just the wall. Let's rewind about 500 years. According to Jewish history, this marks the destruction of the First Temple. As per Wikipedia, the Temple Mount is considered the holiest site in Judaism, where both Temples once stood. Before all of this, there existed a Canaanite presence in Israel, in line with Jewish tradition. Just to clarify: Do you also believe there was a First Temple before the Second one, and who do you think built it? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I advise you to read Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm having an engaging discussion with Wdford based on fact and reason and seeing where it takes us, no need to inject this here. I did not attempt to cite the Torah directly for the claim that the 1st Temple was built by King Solomon. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, the Torah isn't an authority according to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Nor is Josephus, because he is not a 21st century historian. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Where is your source on Wikipedia conventions that sources written over 24 years ago cannot be included? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not about 24, but about 100: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329
 * And Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360
 * These being said, I have WP:CITED myself works by Carl Clemen and Edward Gibbon, but I did fully disclose to the reader how old were those works, i.e. stated in prose that it is a scholarly view from 1924 or from the 18th century.
 * WP:RSN does not support a ban on these sources, but does admit that the insights of many Ancient or Medieval historians (e.g. Josephus) have been largely superseded. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I am having increasing trouble seeing this discussion's relevance. You started talking about David's historicity. How did this turn to a discussion about the historicity of Solomon's Temple, and should not this be discussed on the Temple's talk page?Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are discussing archeological evidence for King David's existence. However, the OP thinks sources outside of the 21st Century generally don't have merit, so not sure where to go from there. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * My opinion is that the article on David and the article on Solomon's Temple are correct as they stand. There undoubtedly were Canaanite/Jebusite structures on that hill at some point, and the descriptions of the First Temple corresponds closely with "pagan" temple designs of the period, so if there was a temple on that hill then it was quite possibly a pagan temple. As far as I have read, there is no actual hard evidence that Solomon actually existed, outside of the scriptures and Josephus. However the existence of the Second Temple (of King Herod) is clear. None of this has anything to do with King David, or this particular article. Wdford (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide concrete evidence, rather than circumstantial, that the First Temple is undoubtedly Canaanite/Jebusite and that King David and King Solomon didn't exist? As far as I know, those assertions remain theoretical. I believe I've encountered archaeological evidence supporting King David's existence. If you're open to exploring new information, I can dig it up. Just let me know what criteria you're looking for, and I'll do my best to provide the necessary evidence. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml

 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is one broken piece of stone which attests the existence of the House of David. For Solomon we don't even have that much! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that sources written before the 21st century should be banned from Wikipedia. What I do say is: WP:RSAGE. That's a content guideline which as a rule of thumb has to be obeyed by all Wikipedians. More to the point of allowing you to WP:CITE Josephus in order to give the lie to WP:CHOPSY: no, we don't allow that. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * There is no concrete evidence that the putative First Temple ever existed at all. All we have is scripture, which is of dubious historicity. The existence of Bronze-Age Canaanite structures in Jerusalem is solidly attested by the archaeology, as is the much-later Temple of Herod. Ditto, there is no evidence at all that either King David or King Solomon ever existed. A broken piece of rock alluded to a "House of David", which could mean anything, whereas the archaeology shows no sign of any kingdom to match that described in the scriptures. If either of them did exist, they were probably minor chiefs of minor tribes at best. These issues have been thrashed out in huge detail on this page previously - you can find it in the archives. Wdford (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your position that there is no evidence, but that's not what I was inquiring about. Again, can you provide concrete evidence, rather than circumstantial, that the First Temple is undoubtedly Canaanite/Jebusite and that King David and King Solomon didn't exist? As far as I know, those assertions remain theoretical. I believe I've encountered archaeological evidence supporting King David's existence. If you're open to exploring new information, I can dig it up.
 * Let me know what criteria you're looking for, and I'll do my best to provide the necessary evidence, as I've accepted the burden on myself to find that information. That's the way I think is most productive to have a conversation and move forward. I think I'm being very reasonable, but if you decide you know everything there is to know about the topic and don't even want to specify the threshold of evidence needed to update the article, then I don't want to waste my time. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the assertion that David was a historical figure is based on a disputed reading of the Tel Dan stele. The term "dwd" in the text may stand for "David". Conversely, it may mean "dōd" (uncle) or "dūd" (kettle). Another reading is that the writer is using "bytdwd" as a place-name for Jerusalem. Dimadick (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is NO First Temple standing anymore - assuming there ever was one. It exists only in scriptural writings of disputed historicity, reliability and objectivity. Ends. Wdford (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it is still standing; this is a strawman argument. We are discussing archaeological evidence for David's existence.
 * I am attempting to find the threshold of evidence needed to update the article, and you keep ignoring my very reasonable question. Let me know what criteria you're looking for, and I'll do my best to provide the necessary evidence, as I've accepted the burden on myself to find that information. That's the most productive way to have a conversation and move forward.
 * I believe I'm being very reasonable, but if you decide you know everything there is to know about the topic and don't even want to specify the threshold of evidence needed to update the article, could that be a violation of Wikipedia policy? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority opinion of archaeologists is that David and Solomon did exist, however such opinions relies on scant evidence. That piece of rock, in a plausible reading, says a minor Aramean king vanquished 70 kings of Israel and Judah. So, the question is: if there were 70 kings, probably "king" means village head or something like that. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The article currently discusses the historicity of David in appropriate detail. As I have stated previously, if you wish to add anything, simply present it here for discussion. As I have stated previously, these issues have been thrashed out in huge detail on this page previously, and all those arguments are available in the archives. I await your proposed material with interest. Wdford (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I want to ensure that my contributions align with your expectations for the article's development. Since you've stated you're content with the current state of the article's discussion on the historicity of David and prefer no further changes, I don't want to waste my time. However, if you're open to enriching it with new information, I'm more than willing to contribute.
 * In my previous communication, I might not have articulated it well, but what I'm essentially asking for is the threshold of evidence required to warrant updates to the article regarding David's historicity.
 * By specifying the criteria you're seeking ahead of time, I can ensure that the information I provide aligns with your expectations, is as relevant as possible and adheres to Wikipedia conventions. This transparency not only streamlines the contribution process but also minimizes the risk of submitting information that may not meet your standards. It's about fostering a more direct and effective collaboration.
 * Let me know the specifics you're looking for, and I'll endeavor to meet those requirements to the best of my ability. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS and WP:NPOV for what counts as a reliable source on wikipedia. Those are the expectations; beyond that, it's only that you'll take account of previous discussions on this talk page...
 * Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarise material that appears elsewhere in the article, so the only justification for updating the lead would be that it fails to accurately summarise the article as it currently stands. If that's not the case, then the discussion should centre on changes that you want made to the article body. Furius (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget about WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. E.g. the archaeological claims made by Ron Wyatt are pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Furius This was really helpful. Since you are familiar with Wikipedia conventions and friendly enough to explain it, can you help me out with this page? I want to update the article for reasons I explained here Talk:Abrahamic religions but not sure how to go about updating it.
 * To Wdford, I will look up the source material I had for his existence that wasn't covered here that I'd like to add to the body of the article. The more, the better because it doesn't seem there is much that has been mentioned yet. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except for the bytdwd inscription, there is no attestation for David, independent of the Bible. Instead, there is a lot of evidence that David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom. If you mean that he ruled over a loose confederation of tribes, then I might agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In Jewish tradition, there is a Midrash that offers insight into the strength of the Jewish nation. It emphasizes the power of prayer and spirituality over military might, as exemplified in the story of Jacob and Esau. This narrative underscores the enduring spiritual foundation of the Jewish people. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You statement is, sorry to say it, completely off-topic. If you're fighting against mainstream academic knowledge, you cannot prevail at Wikipedia. If you are here to fight against archaeology, against the historical method, and against Bible scholarship, learn that your fight has been already lost. I can't stress this enough: Wikipedia is built upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so if you are here to fight against mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, you lose the fight by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I already said earlier to Wdford I will come back with sources and that has nothing to do with you.
 * I wrote this just to be sweet, because your statement "David did not really had a kingdom worthy of the name kingdom" was also off-topic. You took what I wrote and interpreted in the most nasty and inaccurate way possible. Don't talk to me anymore. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? About your behavior in other articles. You may ask me to stay off your talk page, but your requests to say off this page are void by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "I will come back with sources" There is no deadline here, so you can gather sources at your own pace. Out of curiosity, do you have any particular source in mind? Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. Yes, over the summer, I received a VIP tour at the City of David exhibition in Jerusalem and had the opportunity to see up close some of the archaeological projects underway. I know they have found some new things, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. I reached out to my contact who gave me the tour to clarify and am waiting to hear back on the details of some of the things we saw. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Direct archaeological attestation of either David or Solomon would be world news. Remember: if it is not published in a scholarly journal of scholarly book, it fails WP:V, so we cannot render it here. I'm not saying that I read much archaeological journals, but does. And he would likely know it before you. tgeorgescu (talk)  02:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Doug Weller  talk 07:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Errors
the story has some error. First David was the second king of unified Israel as Saul's son only rule part of Israel. Secondly he did not conquer Jerusalem rather the house of Jerusalem willing anointed him. 87.95.8.11 (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry what? David was not Saul's son. His father was called Jesse. 41.218.206.32 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the bible: 1. David was the second king of Israel 2. David took Jerusalem from the inhabitants (the Jebusites) by taking their stronghold of Zion, the city of David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davexander (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not go by primary sources (see WP:PST), the preferred are secondary academic sources. Furthermore, there is no universal Bible and there is no universal English translation. There are academic sources already in the page that clarifies this issue about Saul's son being the next king. Jerium (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears there might be a critical misunderstanding. The Hebrew Torah is distinguished by a precise number of characters and stands as a singular version. While other traditions may have appropriated the narrative of King David over the centuries, it is essential to recognize that, concerning the Torah itself, there exists only one version. Even within Christian and Muslim traditions, where the story has been adopted, King David is unequivocally acknowledged as a Jewish king. Hence, I advocate for placing paramount importance on the Torah's narrative over accounts written more than a millennium later.
 * The absence of a universal English translation poses a challenge, as the nuances present in the Hebrew text are often lost. English renditions primarily convey the Peshat, the straightforward or literal reading, leaving behind the Remez (allegorical), Derash (metaphorical), and Sod (hidden meaning) interpretations.
 * According to the Torah, David holds the esteemed position of being recognized as the second king of Israel. This acknowledgment is rooted in various biblical texts, particularly the Books of Samuel. A pivotal moment in David's narrative unfolds as he captures Jerusalem from the Jebusites, establishing it as the iconic city of David. This significant event is detailed in 2 Samuel 5:6-10.
 * Do you agree that there is considerable merit in prioritizing commentaries from universally respected poseks and scholars, such as the Rambam, as invaluable secondary sources? These commentaries often provide profound insights that may be absent in contemporary perspectives that perceive King David's story as mythological and subjective. If you hold the view that the article should deviate from the established timeline in Jewish tradition, could you offer an explanation to support this divergence? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I do think there is special importance in the Jewish narrative, other narratives being younger do not make them less WP:DUE. Remsense  留  20:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I agree. My response was prompted by the preceding statement asserting the absence of a universal Jewish Torah which is not true and an editor's preference for a recent "academic" source, which diverged from the Torah's timeline. I am emphasizing that, in discussions about the succession of kings, the Torah's timeline for King David should take precedence over an "academic" source that establishes a new timeline based on theoretical foundations or a synthesis of various narratives.
 * While acknowledging the value of younger narratives and traditions that independently recognize King David as a Jewish king, it is crucial to incorporate them in the appropriate sections with contextual accuracy. I believe that omitting critical moments from the text regarding his rise to power as King is not the most appropriate approach. I'm also hoping to include a Josephus source as discussed a few weeks ago once a consensus is reached. What do you think? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I found an article on Purim that cites Josephus quite comfortably. When I have the chance, I will try to include some of his quotes in the article unless anyone objects or wants to discuss it further. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe paste the quotes here first, and the source, for discussion? Wdford (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll do that first when I have the chance to find the quotes, thank you Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2024
I am requesting that we use other interpretations of historical biblical images. The ubiquitous Caucasian images are outdated and even offensive in some communities. I would like to change that first image to this:

Jcarney79 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Most images are copyrighted and not usable on Wikipedia, as we only use fair use images (like album covers) when there is no non-copyrighted version available. Wikimedia Commons contains free-use images, so try looking around in commons:Category:David (Biblical figure) and its subcategories. QuietCicada chirp 14:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't david the second king of the United Kindom of Israel?
As the topic says, and Abimelech was the king of Shechem, he was a king in Israel, but wasn't king of the United Kingdom of Israel. Sahar Huri (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Abimelech is irrelevant. David succeded his brother-in-law Ish-bosheth, following the assassination of Ish-bosheth. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:David


text:
Robert I, Duke of Normandy

Robert I of Normandy (22 June 1000– July 1035), also known as Robert the Magnificent and by other names, was a Norman noble of the House of Normandy who ruled as duke of Normandy from 1027 until his death in 1035. He was the son of Duke Richard II; the brother of Duke Richard III, against whom he unsuccessfully revolted; and the father of Duke William who became the first Norman king of England after winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066. During his reign, Robert quarrelled with the church—including his uncle Robert, archbishop of Rouen—and meddled in the disorder in Flanders. He finally reconciled with his uncle and the church, restoring some property and undertaking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, during which he died.

Name
Robert is generally enumerated as Robert I of Normandy (Robert Ier de Normandie), although he is sometimes considered Robert II with his ancestor Rollo listed as Robert I. He is also known as Robert the Generous (Robert le Libéral), Robert the Magnificent (Robert le Magnifique), and Robert the Devil (Robert le Diable). The last is sometimes reckoned a misnomer, as he is not called Robert the Devil in surviving contemporary accounts and the name seems to have been a conflation of the historical figure with a separate fictional one during the late Middle Ages.

Early life
Robert was the son of Richard II of Normandy and Judith, daughter of Conan I, Duke of Brittany. He was also grandson of Richard I of Normandy, great-grandson of William I of Normandy and great-great grandson of Rollo, the Viking who founded Normandy. Before he died, Richard II had decided his elder son Richard III would succeed him while his second son Robert would become Count of Hiémois. In August 1026, their father Richard II died and Richard III became duke, but soon afterwards Robert rebelled against him, and was subsequently defeated and forced to swear fealty to Richard.

Reign
When Richard III died a year later, there were suspicions that Robert had something to do with his death. Although nothing could be proven, Robert had the most to gain. The civil war Robert I had brought against his brother Richard III was still causing instability in the duchy. Private wars raged between neighbouring barons, which resulted in a new aristocracy arising in Normandy during Robert's reign.

It was also during this time that many of the lesser nobility left Normandy to seek their fortunes in southern Italy and elsewhere. Soon after assuming the duchy, possibly in revenge for supporting his brother against him, Robert I assembled an army against his uncle, Robert, Archbishop of Rouen and Count of Évreux. A temporary truce allowed his uncle to leave Normandy, and live in exile at the Capetian court.

Robert also attacked another powerful churchman, his cousin Hugo III d'Ivry, Bishop of Bayeux, banishing him from Normandy for an extended period of time. Robert also seized a number of church properties belonging to the Abbey of Fecamp.

Despite his domestic troubles, Robert decided to intervene in the civil war in Flanders between Baldwin V, Count of Flanders and his father Baldwin IV, whom the younger Baldwin had driven out of Flanders. Baldwin V, supported by king Robert II of France, his father-in-law, was persuaded to make peace with his father in 1030 when Duke Robert promised the elder Baldwin his considerable military support. Robert gave shelter to Henry I of France against his mother, Queen Constance, who favoured her younger son Robert to succeed to the French throne after his father Robert II. For his help Henry I rewarded Robert with the French Vexin.

In the early 1030s, Alan III, Duke of Brittany began expanding his influence from the area of Rennes and appeared to have designs on the area surrounding Mont Saint-Michel. After sacking Dol and repelling Alan's attempts to raid Avranches, Robert mounted a major campaign against his cousin Alan III. However, Alan appealed to their uncle, Archbishop Robert of Rouen, who then brokered a peace between Duke Robert and his vassal Alan III. His cousins, the Athelings Edward and Alfred, sons of his aunt Emma of Normandy and Athelred, King of England, had been living at the Norman Court and at one point Robert, on their behalf, attempted to mount an invasion of England but was prevented in doing so, it was said, by unfavourable winds, that scattered and sank much of the fleet. Robert made a safe landing in Guernsey. Gesta Normannorum Ducum stated that King Cnut sent envoys to Duke Robert offering to settle half the Kingdom of England on Edward and Alfred. After postponing the naval invasion, he chose to also postpone the decision until after he returned from Jerusalem.

Pilgrimage & death
Robert's attitude towards the Church had changed noticeably certainly since reinstating his uncle's position as Archbishop of Rouen. In his attempt to reconcile his differences with the Church, he restored property that he or his vassals had confiscated, and by 1034 had returned all the properties he had earlier taken from the abbey of Fecamp.

After making his son William his heir, he set out on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. According to the Gesta Normannorum Ducum he travelled by way of Constantinople, reached Jerusalem, fell seriously ill and died on the return journey at Nicaea on 2 July 1035. His son William, aged about eight, succeeded him.

According to the historian William of Malmesbury, decades later his son William sent a mission to Constantinople and Nicaea, charging it with bringing his father's body back to Normandy for burial. Permission was granted but, having travelled as far as Apulia (Italy) on the return journey, the envoys learned that William himself had meanwhile died. They then decided to re-inter Robert's body in Italy.

Family
By his mistress or concubine, Herleva of Falaise, he was father of:
 * William the Conqueror (c. 1028–1087).

By Herleva or possibly another concubine, he was the father of:
 * Adelaide of Normandy, who married firstly, Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu. She married secondly, Lambert II, Count of Lens, and thirdly, Odo II of Champagne.

title: Robert I, Duke of Normandy