Talk:Generations of Noah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sons of Noah)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Generations of Noah is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
July 1, 2004 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Frivolous cite requests[edit]

I removed as frivolous cite requests for the fact that "many" Christians, Jews and Muslims adhere to Biblical and/or Quranic outlines of history. Whoever wrote that it was "only a few dozen" in the edit summary needs to get out more - he's obviously never been to a Middle Eastern country and probably never ventured beyond his own little world, if he seriously thinks it's "a few dozen"! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did Asians/Orientals come from?[edit]

To my understanding Japheth = white. Shem = semitic. Ham = black. Where do Asians and Native Americans fit in? (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Great question, and I have started a mini-section below with possible answers...--Gniniv (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephus certainly had some Indians coming from Shem. The Bible only mentions where the nearby people came from. And, of course, it's not as simple as that anyway. The descendants of each son would intermarry, so most people will be descendants of two or three of them. And the Hamites are certainly not all black - they include the Canaanites, Hittites etc, and North Africans. People with the same ancestors do not necessarily have the same colour of skin. (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points, the reality is probably that complex due to ancient intermarriage...--Gniniv (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Japheth = Indo-European languages. Shem = Semitic languages. Ham = All other Afro-Asiatic languages. So if you're not descended from a group that historically speaks an Indo-European or an Afro-Asiatic language you're not descended from Noah according to some "Biblical scholars". (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible answers, Shem as the Father of Eastern (through Joktan) and Western (through Peleg) Asia[edit]

I have been researching the genealogies covered in the Sons of noah article. Has anyone considered seeing if any sources have been devoted to which of the Sons of Noah was the father of the Far-eastern (Oriental) peoples? I find it intriguing to consider some of Shem's descendants like Joktan as possible candidates. We may want to establish consensus with the editors of articles like Ancient China, Records of the Grand Historian, History of China, and the Yellow Emperor--Gniniv (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I found a source from a researcher who is supposedly looking in to this (See Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?.--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in pursuing this further, any comments?--Gniniv (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe most researchers consider Native Americans to be Asian in heritage, so they could possibly have come from Joktan's lines as well...--Gniniv (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you know already about the prohibition against conducting Original research. That pretty much limits us to quoting from published sources that may have already addressed these questions. Around 100 years ago, it was popular to connect the Chinese with the Assyrians (Asshur), but that line of thinking was "discouraged" after World War 2, and so is rarely found any more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this topic merely hasn't been covered in the article, and I was curious if there are any sources that have researched this. The source I gave seems to be from a Chinese website, so it could possibly offer a fresh perspective on the topic, considering that most of the sources in the article come from Western thinktanks...--Gniniv (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The source I gave seems to offer an explanation that refutes the typical classification of Joktan as the father of Assyria...--Gniniv (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I just gleaned some info from the Talk:Records of the Grand Historian--Gniniv (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Til is correct, and Gniniv shouldn't be asking on other talk pages for help with original research. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha! I won't won't ask for any original research, only prior sources....--Gniniv (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you had looked at Google Books, you would have found Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China. This is a Jesuist figment, including a supposed Egyptian colony in China and a relationship between Hebrew, Egyptian, and Chinese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's of any assistance, the "Mormons" have their own view on the origin of Native Americans. I'm not sure specifically what they attribute to which son of Noah but they consider the Native Americans to be "Jacobites" I believe which would probably make them descendants of Shem. (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


I removed one as I think it is clearly not a reliable source. It was restored, so I've brought it up at WP:RSN, although once removed, I believe it was the editor who wanted it replaced who should have done that, reliability is not the default position for a source. I also removed another unreliable source, and if the other editor who added that wants it restored they should go to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

East asians = Japheth[edit]

There are numerous books by Christian theologists that mentions that Shem = Caucasians, Japheth = Mongloids (Turks etc) & Ham = Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether they have actual evidence for it is another story...--Novus Orator 06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Many credible theologians and archaeologists don't even consider Mongoloid and Negroid people to be Adamic. (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Riiiiiight... and which sect are these "credible theologians" repping? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Japheth = Indo-European languages. Shem = Semitic languages. Ham = All other Afro-Asiatic languages. So if you're not descended from a group that historically speaks an Indo-European or an Afro-Asiatic language you're not descended from Noah according to some "Biblical scholars". (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, can you name any scholars or theologians who actually teach that? If so, we could look at attributing that POV to them in the article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Old Map from Restoration Library[edit]

This important map can explain track the Sons of Noah and this map also support the future research. Bocah anon (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases). That doesn't amount to any sort of evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing this same conversation on several different talkpages, but I'll answer here. True, the 1880 map may not accurately reflect current thought in Biblical studies, on the geographic interpretations of Biblical names like Gomer, Magog and all the rest (the Sons of Noah), but since most of these topics are primarily concerned with historiography (not so much genetics), the map obviously could be of some historiographic interest. By the way, as late as the 1970s or so I saw Bibles with a map in the back that wasn't that much updated from the 1880 version! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am modern accredited scientist (explain latter). Please be patient and DO NOT EDIT my words. Bocah anon (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to "prove" the evidence for your theories on the Sons of Noah, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. Please read our policy on Original research. We only can describe hypotheses that have already been published and peer reviewed, and citations are a crucial way to verify this. The map may be on topic, but we need an acceptable source for any conjecture about Javanese or Kashmiri folklore connecting with Shem. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
There is one Wikimedia project that does allow Original research to be published, called v: Wikiversity... I haven't looked at it lately, but it may be something you could try. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Table of nations[edit]

Most of the contents of this section is unsourced extra-Biblical 'identifications' and the like, and has been tagged as needing sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is like a nuisance over-use of tagging, since all of the Sons of Noah already have their own main articles dealing with the sources for their identification, and this page is only like a summary of them all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Not when the majority of these "own main articles" appear to be un/poorly/unreliably-sourced, and/or not support the claims made here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it really is a nuisance, and clearly you are using an overabundance of cite request tags. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To compensate for an under-abundance of citations to reliable sources confirming the information. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


A lot of material on this page is fruity and derived from very biased religious sources. The ethnic schema of Genesis 10 has been seriously attempted from the Semitic and Egyptian languages. The Egyptian derivation is not exactly controversial. Please stop vandalizing the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, if the Egyptian derivations are not controversial, you should have no problem finding reliable sources to attribute them to. Otherwise, I'm afraid they'll have to be removed as original research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've given you some links on your talk page. It isn't vandalising removing unsourced or incorrectly sourced material. Sources have to specifically discuss the subject or else it is what we refer to as synthesis -- WP:SYN. I'm sure this article could use your help in removing bias and reaching what we call a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

Sons of Noah is not accurate per title, as the page deals with not his sons but grandchildren etc., as the article opens, Noah had but Eight family members. I propose a name change to The Seventy nations that more accurately summarizes the current article's content--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Descendants of Noah (which currently redirects here) would be more descriptive to a general audience. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


This topic is called the Table of Nations, not the Sons of Noah. PiCo (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Togarmah < Tilgarimmu[edit]

today Gürün in Sivas Province, Turkey Böri (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do Aboriginal Australians and Papuans fit in?[edit]

Just curious, or do you pretend they don't exist? (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of this page. You should read WP:TALK, but in a nutshell, it is mostly just for discussing sources, or potential improvements to the article text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A Couple Suggestions for Improvements[edit]

(1) The Byzantine Greek historian George Syncellus (8th century) in his Chronography provided a fairly complete listing of tribes and ethnic groups which he believed were descended from the individuals named in the Table of Nations. It could be an interesting exercise to compare his list to those found in Josephus, Hippolytus, Jerome and Isidore of Seville and note any important differences found. Although Syncellus wrote somewhat later than the other authors mentioned here, he did have access to numerous earlier sources, so his works remain an important source on early eastern Christian biblical interpretations concerning these names. Unfortunately his work is only freely available on the Web in Byzantine Greek and in Latin translation:

(2) If anyone has a fair bit of time on their hands and access to the book On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K.A. Kitchen (Eerdmans 2003), a lot of information on the relationship of the names of the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth named in the Table of Nations and the tribes and ethnic groups associated with them can be found in the footnotes on pages 592-595. These footnotes cite numerous references to peer-reviewed historical/archaeological papers and other academic sources. Citing these references in the main article (and thereby replacing several dozen "citation needed" tags with actual references) would certainly do much to improve its quality. Kitchen's book is available in Google Books "preview" mode, although most of the pertinent pages are not part of the preview. However, I did manage to access pg. 594 (albeit which pages are accessible may vary from one Google Books user to another). Here's a Google Books link for anyone who may wish to use this resource to further improve the article:

Mike Agricola (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


There are two topics in this article: (1) the Table of Nations (as two other editors have pointed out above, this is a more appropriate name for this article), and (2) the "Noachic" or "Mosaic" Ethnography which derived from this table. I propose to split this out into separate articles, unless any objections. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say leave it as is with no fork. What you mention is so intertwined as to form one obvious topic, we don't need one article for the passage itself and a separate article for the interpretations of the first article. Mr. Lunt (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess I explained my proposal poorly, as the topics are very different. It requires addition to the information here, hence it is difficult to explain in abstract. I'll find a way to illustrate and then we can discuss. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

PiCo, can we discuss your edits here? My view is that we should not be mixing (1) a description of what the bible says, with (2) the modern interpretation of that. Some of the interpretations that you added are highly subjective and should not be written using wikipedia's neutral voice. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. My feeling is that there's two things being combined in this article because of the rather unusual title. "Sons of Noah" isn't a phrase you'll find in most scholarship - the object of study is the "Table of nations". But I'm happy to combine them. So I put a section for the Table of Nations, and kept the rest for the names. The Table of Nations section won't say much - just the boundaries of the TN (i.e. where it is in Genesis), its function (fulfillment of the injunction in Genesis 1 to "go forth and multiply"), and a few other matters - all these are covered in reliable sources. None of the interpretations are subjective, they're all reliably sourced. At the moment the article is entirely without reliable sources (I've looked at the list of sources, none are reliable in Wiki terms), and reifies the subject from an extreme literalist pov.PiCo (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You should be aware that a vast number of Christians, Jews and Muslims not only throughout history but still today continue to take this topic quite seriously, as it has been called one of the keys to the entire Bible. In the interests of neutrality, the vast amount of propaganda thrown at it by dry and skeptical 'scholars' endeavouring to show it dates from 300 BC might be mentioned, cited and attributed but not given undue weight in wikipedia voice since this opinion is controverted by many. Mr. Lunt (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't get too focused on the date issue. The article itself is a problem. "Table of Nations" is an academic study area, "Sons of Noah" isn't. There are no sources to be used for a Sons of Noah article, although it would be possible to have a simple list based on the genealogies. The article, however, needs to be directed at the Table of Nations.PiCo (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to the title being changed to Table of Nations. Mr. Lunt, is that ok with you? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That title works, but the information should continue to be explained in the prose Mr. Lunt (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If we're in agreement on a title change for the article, could one of you gentlemen do it for us, or get an admin to do it if that's required? I'm still in favour of two articles, one on the ins and outs of the TN, the other simply a list of the names set out in a genealogical table. Mr. Lunt, I don't understand what you mean by "the information should continue to be explained in the prose" - what information? PiCo (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I mean there should be only one article for this information, not two, and it should remain in prose and NOT a "table" format, despite the topic being referred to in literature as a "Table". Mr. Lunt (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have made the technical request, as the page seems to be move protected.

Separately, PiCo, per the previous thread above, I am supportive of two separate pages as you also suggest. The most common title used in scholarly literature for the interpretations seems to be Biblical ethnography. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin of phrase "Table of Nations[edit]

I did my best to find the earliest usage in literature of the phrase "Table of Nations" for this ancient subject and the earliest I could find was the 1836 English edition of Ernst Friedrich Karl Rosenmüller's Biblical Geography of Central Asia. Other books were picking up the phrase by 1840 after which it has been increasingly popular since. We may be able to find more material on the spread of the term that could be explained in the article. There is a wealth of material for every kind of pov and never any agreement on anything, so I feel this is one article if any where we should studiously refrain from endorsing any, but rather lay them all out impartially. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits[edit]

I see User:PiCo has replaced several of the 'citation needed' tags with refs, which is on the surface good. However, he has relied on a single source to change much of the information completely to endorse a single view, and in so doing I believe has fallen prey to what I warned of immediately above ("There is a wealth of material for every kind of pov and never any agreement on anything, so I feel this is one article if any where we should studiously refrain from endorsing any, but rather lay them all out impartially.") I will give one example to illustrate:

    • Tarshish (Tarshishah in Chronicles), son of Javan. Has been variously connected with Tarsus in Anatolia, or Tartessus in southern Spain.((Citation needed|date=April 2011))
    • Tarshish (Tarshishah in Chronicles): Usually associated with Tarshish in Spain.((sfn|Towner|2001|p=103))

The problem here is you can find sources making all kinds of claims about what is "usual" but it isn't necessarily the case. As you can see from the article, Josephus explicitly associates Tarshish with Cilicia and the city Tarsus. This was the standard identification repeated by Jerome, Isidore, and most sources until Monsieur Bochart who suggested Tarshish was Tartessus in Spain. This idea got some support in some schemes and schools of thought, however one problem contradicting your text PiCo, is that there is no attested record of any place called "Tarshish" in Spain; this association with "Tartessos" in Spain comes from Bochart centuries later as a suggested replacement for the usual "Tarsus" /Cilicia located near all of Tarshish' brothers. Mr. Lunt (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Cethimus (Kittim

Mr. Lunt: I'll see what Towner has to say, then I'll go through other sources and add them if they say something different. That way we add up to a decent coverage.PiCo (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It is with deep regret that I observe the way User:Pico throws all caution to the wind and blunders forward full speed ahead with the drastic changes and minimalist sources reflecting his own pov, before any of us have had a chance to discuss these detailed points one by one. This is not a topic to be run roughshod over as so many other articles have, and once again I would implore PiCo to take a more collaborative and less unilateral approach to editing and working with other editors.
To continue with the example of Tarshish, we now have:
    • Tarshish (Tarshishah in Chronicles): Candidates include (Tartessos) in Spain and Tharros in Sardinia, both of which appear unlikely, and Tarsus in Cilicia, which appears more likely despite some linguistic difficulties.((sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=150-152))
Does this language in Wikipedia's voice appear to endorse a particular viewpoint with didactic language, or is it written impartially so as to allow the reader his own opinion? I would say any phrases like "which appear unlikely" or "which appear more likely despite' are the LAST thing we need in neutral writing. Common sense there. Tarshish is but one example, the article is now littered with serious point-of-view pushing and it may have to be rolled back so we can take this weighty subject one step at a time. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't set out "to allow the reader to form his own opinion," it sets out to present the opinions of reliable sources in a neutral manner. The sources I'm using are reliable sources. If you think there are other contrary viewpoints that aren't being represented, then by all means tell us who they are.PiCo (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My problem is that the text seems to be moving in a less neutral direction than previously. The original wording was simply "Has been variously connected with Tarsus in Anatolia, or Tartessus in southern Spain." That wording was accurate, succinct, but most of all it fits the hallmarks of our WP:NPOV policy by not trying to steer our audience into favoring any identification since we have established that both opinions are out there. You have replaced this matter-of-fact statement several times with leading statements cited to your selected 'authorities' bestowing Wikipedia's sanction on first one, then the other of these hypotheses, when we should be doing neither and should have left the perfectly neutral language there was nothing wrong with. This is why I am once again begging you to slow down with the unilateral edits and discuss every detail thoroughly. What's the rush? This is one of the most heavily covered topics known to man. At least 20 or 30 scholars of all flavors have written their views on this every single year for the last 2000 years. That's a heck of a lot of material representing all the major positions, and we should avoid discarding our neutrality principle to endorse any scholar merely because he represents, for example, the minimalist school of thought. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Lunt: Let me summarise what I think your concern is: If a particular name is identified with several different places, we should simply list those places and not say that one is more or less likely than another. I can sympathise to a degree, but I think that runs the risk of ignoring the balance of scholarly opinion whenever there's a consensus or partial consensus. For example, on Tarshish, Towner says this is most commonly identified with Tartessus in Spain: presumably he's speaking for some kind of scholarly consensus or quasi-consensus, or at least that's the way I read his words. We owe it to the reader to inform him/her of this. Your reaction? PiCo (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you help me by listing which specific names (as edited by me) you have problems with? I'll try to accommodate your concerns. PiCo (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The root of the problem I am seeing with ALL of your edits, seems to be based on your perception of what "Neutral Point of View" policy actually means. Your understanding of it seems to be the direct antithesis of common sense. You stated above as if to "correct" me on it, Wikipedia doesn't set out "to allow the reader to form his own opinion". And that is your understanding of NPOV. However if you would pay a little closer attention I had said nothing about the reader FORMING his own opinion. I stated that policy requires language to be neutral to ALLOW the reader his own opinion. We already know there are some out there who associate "Tarshish" with Cilicia (the older view going back at least 2000 years) as well as some out there who associate "Tarshish" with Spain (this view is only about 500 years old, was invented by Bochart, and is complicated by the fact that there is no Tarshish recorded in Spain, only a "Tartessos".) You have just asserted that your cherry-picked "authority" thinks Tartessus is more likely, therefore wikipedia needs to play referee here and tell everybody who's right (your guy) and who's wrong (everybody who says different than your guy) as if the controversy has all been settled and scientifically proven by the scientific method suddenly, just because your guy "thinks so". And to confuse things even more, what you have now placed in the article is pov in the opposite direction of what you just stated, favoring the identification with Cilicia over Spain! So in short, since you have come to his article the neutrality has gone downhill fast. In case I wasn't clear enough, the original wording was perfectly neutral: "Has been variously connected with Tarsus in Anatolia, or Tartessus in southern Spain." and it should never have been changed with language favoring a point-of-view over another accompanied by empty and false claims of "consensus" (there is NO consensus on anythng in this topic). Mr. Lunt (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sons of NoahTable of Nations – Most common title, rather than current descriptive and ambiguous name. Discussion already held on talk. Needs technical help. – Oncenawhile (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Oncenawhile (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:AT and WP:NPOV. I don't think that we can present in Wikipedia's voice that this is where the nations came from. Even with the issue of creation we have Genesis creation narrative as an article title. People also may be less certain of the meaning of table of nations especially when there have been existent organisations such as the League of Nations. GregKaye 13:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi GregKaye, I originally thought the same, but that should be resolved through the proposal in the thread above to separate out the two topics (i.e. the table itself, and biblical ethnography). As it relates to the name of the Table itself, many if not most bibles title Genesis 10 as "Table of Nations". The word nation is simply the common translation of the Hebrew word Goy (see [1]) from the Masoretic Text (ἔθνεσιν in the LXX). For example, the 1604 King James Bible ([2]) and the 1530 Tyndale Bible ([3]), the first in the English language, both used the term "nation" in Genesis 10. Of course the term "nation" meant something very different then to how we understand it today - this is what we need to explain in the article. Another good source is [4]. So my view is we correct the title, and then explain all this clearly. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
An excellent article: Guido Zernatto and Alfonso G. Mistretta (July 1944). "Nation: The History of a Word". The Review of Politics. Cambridge University Press. 6 (3): 351–366. 
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oncenawhile, I don't quite agree. The deluge text is directly interpreted to claim that all mountains were covered with water for an extensive period of time, that all people were cleansed from the earth along with every living thing and that Noah's sons formed the base of the entirety of human population. Non Jews includes Eskimos, Aborigines and Native American tribes people. I do not think that we should describe, in Wikipedia's voice, "table of nations". We say things like "Islamic prophet Mohammed" as opposed to "prophet Mohammed". I think that this is a similar issue. GregKaye 18:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg, we're not saying in Wiki's voice that that all humanity descended from the three sons of Noah, we're saying that this is what the bible says. That the bible says this is a simple matter of fact. As for the title "Table of Nations", that's what chapter 10 is called in biblical scholarship - it's not a name that we've dreamed up. It's never called "Sons of Noah" - that's a title you'll only find in extreme biblical literalist circles. Wiki needs to reflect common scholarly usage, and it needs to base articles on scholarship, not popular notions. (I can give you some references if you like).PiCo (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, because the move has been performed prematurely with no consensus for it apparent. Mr. Lunt (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
iMr. Lunt, in the thread immediately above this, you agreed to it. (I have no objection to the title being changed to Table of Nations. Mr. Lunt, is that ok with you? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC) That title works, but the information should continue to be explained in the prose Mr. Lunt (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC). You're always free to change your mind, but I'm puzzled. PiCo (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The most common traditional term to refer to this for most of history was toledoth bnei noah or similar, and calling it a "table" is relatively a johnny-come-lately (i suspect from German 'Tafel') however it is established enough that I could support it if there were no opposition and true consensus. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the text begins, "And these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood." The topic, as presented in the text, regards "sons".
The word sons appears 18 times in the text, the word goyim (nations) appears 6 times in the text and the word table does not appear at all. Sons here is clearly being written in a similar way as sons of Israel in which case we are talking about the claim of the ancestry of tribal groups.
Wikipedia has a List of sovereign states in which all sovereign states are listed with no comment being made to origin. I don't think that we should present an Genesis 10 presents an incomplete listing of national names with a claim which I don't believe to have been substantiated by means such as DNA analysis. While "Table of nations" is an established title, I think that it is neither accurate or NPOV. GregKaye 08:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have a very high regard for the Bible, much higher than mine. Personally I don't think the bible is a history book, though of course I might be wrong and you might be right. But let's put our own opinions aside and go with what biblical scholars say: they all call this the Table of Nations. PiCo (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Really? Can you point to any contemporary examples of the term being used to mean that? Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Greg Kaye is a biblical literalist who thinks every word in the bible is true - we don't need to follow his example. PiCo (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not Greg Kaye's Biblical interpretation that is the crux of my opinion, but his comments about all the other ways that "Table of Nations" is not just a Biblical phrase. Table of Nations is literally just a list of nations, and therefore should be a redirect to a list of nations, and NOT be a Biblical subject, because the world is not just Judeo-Christian, there are parts of the world which are not Abrahamic and we should not skew generic titles to be Biblical topics. That is systematic bias in interpreting titles primarily with a Biblical subtext. To avoid such bias, the proposed title would need to be modified to include parenthetical disambiguation indicating context. -- (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Table of Nations (biblical)" would be fine - though if you do a google on Table of Nations the biblical one makes up 100% of the hits. PiCo (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment although Table of Nations and Sons of Noah are both used to refer to the same subject, I am inclined to oppose as Sons of Noah is more descriptive. Ariel 06:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ariel, why is it more descriptive? PiCo (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? If you are not a reader of biblical scholarship you won't have heard of Table of Nations and will have no chance of working out what it is about from the name alone. Not so with Sons of Noah. I might suggest Generations of the sons of Noah, which is a direct quote from Genesis, and still clearer. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I find Sons of Noah to be more descriptive because it tells the reader what the subject is about (i.e., the descendants of Noah). However, Table of Nations has a scholarly ring to it. I do not personally favor one or the other; I think both titles are appropriate, it just comes down to whichever is the common name. Ariel 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment I would support Johnbod's suggestion Generations of the sons of Noah whole heartedly, since that is slightly more technically accurate than the current title, and also happens to be the name this field of study has gone by for most of the last 2000 years at least; I mentioned the original Hebrew translation above, "toledoth bnei noach". Mr. Lunt (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I can live with Johnbod's suggestion, but I think it needs to be put forward in a new section perhaps - in here, mixed up in all these comments, I don't think we can say everyone's seen it.PiCo (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't have two of these running at the same time. Let this one run its course, then if anyone wants to propose Generations of the sons of Noah, feel free. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


In my mind, there are two alternatives here:

  • Use the title "Table of Nations" but explain clearly in the lead what "nations" means, and that it is a biblical interpretation
  • Use the title "Genesis 10"

Should we start a new thread to discuss this and any other ideas? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Table of Nations" because that's the term used in scholarship - see, for example, the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, which is currently footnote 1 in the article, and which titles its entry that way.PiCo (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The other common suggestion from above is "Generations of the sons of Noah" ("toledoth bnei noah"), suggested by Johnbod and Mr. Lunt.
Before we start a new WP:RM on this, can someone please provide some scholarly sources where this name is used as a title? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looking at scholarly works, I have a preference for the name Generations of Noah. Not only is is more concise, it also has the benefit of matching Generations of Adam. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree and support Generations of Noah as amended by Oncenawhile. Mr. Lunt (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If a new WP:RM is started, I would support Generations of Noah. Ariel 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I will support this.PiCo (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 12:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sons of NoahGenerations of Noah – Per discussion above. Neither Sons of Noah nor Table of Nations appear to have consensus. This appears to have enough support now to try another RM. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I think that, in Hebrew, the phrase toltod Noah/ birth related generations related to Noah makes cultural sense. In English I don't view it to be that clearly meaningful. GregKaye 19:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - User:PiCo you asked why I didn't favour what would be the SBL name in the above RM. I just thought it case where the SBL phrase was opaque and therefore failed WP:CRITERIA to the lay user. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, why not? Torquemama007 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per discussion. Ariel 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportPiCo (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sockpuppet "Mr Lunt"[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


It is a complete failure of research to claim that becasue there is no mention of this subject in the Quran it is not important in Islam. There are literally thousands of written Muslim histories that include genealogies linking Muslims to sons of Noah. Most of the concepts about who descends from which son were debated back and forth among Christians, Jews, and Muslims for most of the Medieval period. I do not know where to begin with creating a discussion of this huge topic. The articles on Japheth and Gog and Magog at least cite a few basic sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Islam. A further source for one small fraction of this is the page: Nlight2 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Islam is a religion, not a race and not all Muslims are related to each other. This is a fringe theory with no basis in Islam when it clearly states in the Quran that all of humanity descends from Prophet Adam and not Prophet Noah. Akmal94 (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)