Talk:Jonathan (1 Samuel)

Homoeroticism
User:Lgbtoz has repeatedly added a sentence about homoeroticism, "In contemporary times, some scholars have emphasized what they interpret as elements of homoeroticism (chaste or otherwise) in the story." The first time, the sentence was backed by an unreliable source, the second time, exactly the same sentence was added, but with a different source. I have my doubts the second source actually says this. I note it doesn't have a page number. What does Waters say, exactly?

There is a related issue of undue weight here, looking at the David and Jonathan article. The interpretation is notable, but contested. If it were included, it wouldn't belong in the second sentence of this article, but at the end. Also "some scholars" is a peacock term. I notice the David article has nothing about homoerotic interpretations, only homoerotic portrayals in other literature. So I question whether it belongs in this article, anyway. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * User:StAnselm should read references before being so quick to dismiss them as conjecture or unreliable. It appear that StAnselm has a major issue with this sentence whether it is backed up or not. The first reference was from a Published Book available widely in bookstores and University Libraries. The second source was from a peer edited Journal Article. The sentence was not presented as a direct quote from a reference but rather a concept or argument that had been sourced from multiple sources. As User:StAnselm seems to have such major ideological objections to this concept I will leave it for now. However when I have more time I find up to 10 references to back this sentence. Hopefully then the learned user will allow it!? Lgbtoz (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)" is
 * Steady on there, mate. Presenting a "concept or argument that had been sourced from multiple sources" may be original synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have "ideological objections" to presenting an unbalanced view of the interpretation. The David and Jonathan article, after much debate, seems to have a balanced view, and I don't think the sentence you have added is a fair summary of that article. So while I don't have an objection in itself to the issue being mentioned here, it is best, I think, to leave the reader with a link to the David and Jonathan article. StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * worldcat says the christianity 101 book is found in 1 university and 2 public libraries WORLDWIDE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe it to be original synthesis, I agree if it was original synthesis that would be bad. I do not believe I explained myself above well. It was referenced not as a direct quote but it was not original synthesis. As stated in the wiki article on "original research" - "Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material". This is what I believed I was doing. I apologize if I did not explain that above. I still believe it to be a valid statement and valid source. The view has been argued widely and this is what I was trying to show. Whether or not it is true is not known and I was not stating that Jonathan or David were homosexual as we have no clear way of knowing. Indeed we have no real tangible evidence that either men existed. The Bible interestingly enough is not an academic reference. The statement was to reflect a debate that exists and as I wrote it is a view suggested by contemporary scholars including theologians. This does not suggest that I agree with their views it is just documenting that such views exist - and they exist widely. I value your opinions. I have studied this topic and am myself a theological university graduate. But as I said I will leave the article alone. But I do think you need to question you motives here. Lgbtoz (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is Wikipedia WP:OR to take one paper and use it to substantiate a claim about "many modern scholars believe X " unless the paper itself says "many modern scholars believe X". What is the language in this paper that you are citing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to add that there have been homoerotic interpretations of the story, which is why I added a reference to Gide. We don't need to go into that too much, as there is a whole D&J article to debate the matter. Lgbtoz is being rather obscure about what the cited source (which is about Antinous!) actually says. We don't want to create the impression that "scholars" have argued that there was a homosexual relationship. Only historians of the Bible, or more generally of ancient Semitic culture, can be reliable commentators on that issue. Scholars writing about gay/queer readings of the story in modern culture is a different issue. The source appears to belong to the latter category. We have to differentiate the two as clearly as possible. The original sentence was rather unclear in that respect. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't add fringe interpretations to regular articles. Any text added should make it clear that its not a scholarly interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

whats the name of Jonathan wife? 2602:306:32D8:24D0:A169:6C0F:BCD0:AC16 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know her name but his son's name was Mephibosheth. van Lustig (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan (1 Samuel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704204052/http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/11/b2003/hm11_1_86.html to http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/11/b2003/hm11_1_86.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow clear guidelines
We should be on the clear on this issue by now, and significant article such as this should be edited by following WP:LEADIMAGE as explained in WP:PORTRAIT. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  08:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PORTRAIT is an essay and goes against a long-standing consensus to include an infobox image here. StAnselm (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)