Talk:Books of Samuel

message: The image has excessive nudity which has no relevance in the larger context of the Book of Samuel. Such nudity or sexually explicit content would have been appropriate in pages concerning human body or anatomy or actresses . Considering the religious context of the Holy Scriptures, it would be offensive or distractive to someone who is studying Book of Samuel. Thanks. Samuelled (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image refers to an important story described in the book -- so important that it's specifically referred to in Matthew 1:6. The image is not sexually explicit, and is in fact 17th century Christian art. I'm not seeing a problem, and consensus is clearly to retain the image. Please note WP:EDITWAR. -- 202.124.73.15 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 5 or 6 different editors have re-added the image during this long-running edit war. The consensus is clear. -- 202.124.73.4 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually, if the only reason for including it is the relevance of the subject matter, we could replace it with a more "modest" depiction - though very few exist. But what's with "David's letter" anyway? When did he write a letter to Bathsheba? He wrote to Joab, yes, but presumably he just sent servants to Bathsheba. StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we really want to pander to Samuelled's weird sexual fetish? Does he know there are pictures of bare table legs on Wikipedia? Does he realise that most people who study the Book of Samuel are not distracted by great art? If he's distracted from his study of the Book by bare breasts, should we worry about what happens when he discovers the Song of Songs? Rbreen (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we do. That's what it means to obtain consensus. Of course, the same picture is at the top of the Bathsheba article, and I think it should stay there, since it is a good representation of how she is portrayed in art. If Samuelled removes it, I will be happy to revert. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? One prude outvotes several other editors? That's a bizarre definition of 'consensus'.Rbreen (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we don't count votes, we weigh arguments. The chief argument in favour of retention is that the subject matter is relevant. The new picture has the same subject matter. StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. So you give somebody a stern warning about edit warring. Then you give in to them. Rbreen (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not engage in personal attacks. The whole point of edit warring is that it's bad to do, even if you're right. Samuelled's point was, at least, was worth considering. That doesn't justify the edit warring. In fact, I have no idea why he wasn't warned and reported much earlier. But this is a better way of stopping the edit warring. StAnselm (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between "achieving a consensus" and "giving in to tantrums". When the end result of the process is one which only one person wants, for what appears to be an entirely personal obsession, it's clearly the latter. This isn't personal; there are some things Wikipedia does very well. This isn't one of them. Rbreen (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bathsheba image removal

message: the silver quarter-shekel which Saul's servant offers to Samuel in 1 Samuel 9 almost certainly fixes the date of this story in the Persian or Hellenistic periods
An editor commented that "the citation seems to be mistaken - I own this book and that page doesn't say anything about this"
Here's a direct reference - it clearly shows the exact point. It's from the 2003 edition - perhaps this editor has a different edition.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA219&dq=%22the+silver+quarter-shekel%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQZCUq25NZO3hAeS3oHAAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22the%20silver%20quarter-shekel%22&f=false
--Rbreen (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship and date of composition 

message: * Book of Samuel the Seer is a stub which asserts that the Chronicles mention refers to a lost book, however there is no reference supporting this and in searching for any discussion describing a lost "Book of Samuel the Seer" I found only pages which identify it with the canonical Books of Samuel. I suspect the stub was created by someone who mistakenly assumed all books mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29 were lost. I therefore suggest a merge. - Scyrme (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (implemented) 

message: And shouldn't the articles mention this? Imerologul Valah (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it 1 and 2 Kings in the Septuagint and Orthodox Bibles? 

message: what happens on ash Wednesday 41.114.216.36 (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ash Wednesday