Talk:List of Canaanite rulers

Sources

why is this article based on a 17th century reference?? WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have trouble finding good data on this. The best source I've turned up to date seems to indicate that there is little in the way of direct records of this area and period surviving, and that most of the information comes from (spotty) mentions in the records of their neighbouring empires. I would also note that the sourcing of the linked-to articles on the rulers (both here & at Canaan#List_of_Canaanite_rulers) does not appear to be wonderful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

sure, the best we can do is liste rulers from Canaan (a) mentioned in the Bible, and (b) from epigraphic evidence. Then leave it at that. It is futile to try and combine them into a "chronology", even if we leave Ussher and the 17th century out of the equation. It's just going to be a list of names.

The people who go around creating articles like Ibiranu have a severe misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Cleaning up after them is a time-consuming menial task, and it is usually left to the good content editors, because for some reason it seems to be really really difficult to understand the problem and then fix it. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

As it stands, this article is written from a biblical literalist/Creationist point of view. Some of this may be solved by restructuring, I'll start a new section for this. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure

The way this is set out conflates biblical claims with those that can be confirmed by non-biblical sources. It also makes it very difficult to show the controversies over dating, etc. It has 'Synchronicity' sections that are very difficult to deal with due to disputes over dates, lack of information, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest dividing up:

• First, Biblical vs epigraphic (trying to conciliate the two is likely to prove messy)
• Second, locality of rule (Ugarit, Edom, etc)
• Third, (order by) date of rule
• 'Syncronicity' should only come into play if we have a WP:RS stating that they were contemporaries (e.g. because of correspondence/battle/etc between them).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity

The Synch section I added with remarkable ease: Abimelech, the king of Canaan that sold land to Abram, is in Synch with (guess what) Abram! Og, the "remnant of the Giants" killed by Moses, is in Synch with Moses. Job is in Synch with the Book of Job, etc.LutherVinci (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC) My structure is (was) exactly the same as that suggested above! No difference I can see, anyway. So... why was it deleted?LutherVinci (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just redirected it. If you want to build this article, you are certainly welcome to, but it's clearly a case of WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That only applies if the article is unfix-able. I argue it can, but no one gave me the chance before deleting it!LutherVinci (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice a "synchronicity" section. However, nothing should be there unless reliable sources comment on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

it wasn't a section, it was a column.

LutherVinci, the article isn't "deleted", you are free to take what you think is salvageable from the edit history. Just make sure that whatever you restore is sourced properly.

the article was actually purely biblical if it were not for the attempt to give a real-world date in the "possible date" column. It would be possible to restore this in a context that is entirely limited to the Biblical Canaanites. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)