Talk:Generations of Noah/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a theory but a myth

No! A) Sons of Noah is a twentieth-century religious concept for a group of fundamentalist former Christians that rejects the divinity of Christ and adheres to the Old Testament. B) It is not a theory, it is a biblical myth explaining the origins of different peoples. Danny 07:22, 14 August 2002 (UTC)

OK, what would be a better name for this wrong-idea-that-still-is-an-encyclopedia-topic? The Anome 07:29, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
Danny and Anome, sorry if I edit-conflicted with you guys. I can return to this topic in a few hours if you need time with it now. :-) --Ed Poor 07:45, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that the version of 08:00 Aug 14, 2002 was a nicely-developing article, and I'm sure that, after Danny's deletion of most of the text in it, he's going to replace it with a much better article, complete with improved scholarship. The Anome 08:08, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
Give it a chance. You are including things that are utterly irrelevant to the topic, and making assumptions that are wrong. See what you wrote on Japheth, for instance. It refers to a specific grouping of peoples, not "all the rest." I will try to write something a bit more contemporary, but these edit conflicts are killing me. Danny 08:11, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
I'll try to restrain myself, but eventually I'd like to put in something about the 3 Biblical characters as background for the myth explaining the origins of different peoples. I daresay if readers see the Genesis account contrasted with the myth, they might actually learn something. --Ed Poor 08:17, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
Danny, to avoid edit conflict, I waited a half hour before my most recent edit. I will wait some more, before my next. Please craft this into a well-written article. --Ed Poor 08:33, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
Danny, your new article looks really good. The Anome 14:24, 14 August 2002 (UTC)
Thanks, now can we think of a better name for it. "Sons of Noah" has a modern meaning which is quite unrelated. I will work on that topic tomorrow. Danny 14:30, 14 August 2002 (UTC)

Exegetes

In classical times, biblical exegetes attempted to translate these divisions into the contemporary geographical divisions of the ancient world. "Exegetes" is such a fancy word, that I'm sure some quotes can be found that will elucidate precisely how these genealogies were interpreted. "Classical times," for a start, generally suggests the culture of pagan antiquity, rather than the culture of patristic writers that I surmise is being referenced. I for one don't find this article worthy yet of being a featured article. I'm sure it will be though... Wetman 19:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dodecanese

This article is now getting so good that I had to remove the reference to Dodecanese Islands: "and could be a reference to the inhabitants of the Dodecanese Islands" because Greek Δωδεκάνησα, Dodekánisa, simply means "twelve islands" and has no connection to Dodanim. Wetman 22:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV

"These genealogies, like the similar ones expressed in Greek myth and legend, should not be dismissed out of hand," is really point of view. The encyclopedia should not tell the reader what to do or not do.

Likewise, but from the other side, the rest of the paragraph seems point of view. Stating that a grain of truth can be discerned presupposes that the story is not literally true.

As written, this introduction takes a middle-of-the-road POV, dismissing both those who accept the story as literally true and those who believe it is entirely fabricated. It would be better to contextualize this, stating that those who reject the story as literally true usually accept that the information should not be dismissed altogether and may have value for the reasons stated. Jdavidb 18:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The tendency nowadays, among educated people, is to dismiss these stories out-of-hand, as mere fables, the "Begats". This tendency should be addressed in a neutrally-balanced Wikipedia entry, just as the racist implications that are more familiar in some education levels. There is a grain of truth in these fictions, if the attempt at a primitive ethnology can be described. No sensible person will read this as an attempt to tell the reader what to do or not do. Wetman 20:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Uh, yeah; I never meant to imply that tendency should not be addressed. I just meant that rather than saying, "These stories should not be dismissed (by you) out of hand," it should say something like, "Most modern scholars conclude that These genealogies, like the similar ones expressed in Greek myth and legend, should not be dismissed out of hand." One instructs the reader what view to hold, while the other informs the reader of the view held by modern scholarship. Jdavidb 15:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The article is definitely not NPOV. It is written as though the Bible-as-accurate-history POV is wrong (even if it also is written as though the Bible-as-fiction POV is wrong). The bit about not dismissing it out of hand is an example here. Another is the phrase "For the times in which they were memorized and recited", which is a POV that rejects that they were written records from the start. "sometimes a grain of historical fact can be discerned" ignores William F. Albright's claim that it is "an astonishingly accurate document", as does the claim that "Today scholars are practically unanimous that the genealogy reflects the ethnic groupings and changing socio-political alliances of the time and places of the oral traditions, ... rather than any genuine history of human origins." That last claim also minimises the existence of the scholars that do treat it as accurate history. The following claim that "A vocal minority of fundamentalists dissent from this view with the assertion that every word of Scripture is literally true." is also overly dismissive, in my opinion, as well as being incorrect, as most fundamentalists do not believe that "every word of Scripture is literally true" (i.e. they do allow for metaphor, parable, etc.).
In short, the article does not give enough credence to the idea that the Biblical narrative could actually be true. Philip J. Rayment 15:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Noah a son of Cain?

For example, Noah himself is given conflicting descent, equally a "son" of Cain or a "son" of Seth.

Where is this? I've never heard it before. Jdavidb 18:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia entry for Lamech (father of Noah) may help you. Wetman 20:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That encyclopedia entry makes it clear there are two Lamechs. It would not be proper to say that Lamech-Noah are equally descendants of Cain and Seth, but only something along the lines of what that encyclopedia says: "The coincidence of the names "Lamech" and "Enoch" in the Cainite and Sethite genealogies, as well as the similarity between other names in the two lists, has led modern scholars to suppose that these are two different recensions of the same list." Jdavidb 15:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree, in fact can anyone give the details of any academic paper which attempts to identify Noah as a descendant of Cain and Seth? 10 kings and 7 sages after which some of their kingdoms seem to have taken names is a motif of mesopotamian tradition but I don't think any serious ancient middle-east scholar has attempted to assert that the two lines are different memories of one ancient tradition since the earliest days of the discipline.Zestauferov 06:22, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Name

This article doesn't seem to be about the Sons of Noah at all, but appears to be about the use of genealogies in Ancient Israel. Should it be renamed to reflect that? DJ Clayworth 15:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was confused in the first place, because I was expecting an article on B'nai Noach, a religion. The article doesn't (yet) discuss use of genealogies in general, so I'm not sure a renaming would be appropriate. It covers the theory that all mankind is descended from the three sons of Noah, the Biblical basis for the theory, opinions of modern scholarship, use of the theory to promote racism, etc. Makes sense to me where it is, at the minute. I'm just interested in a few minor additions to contextualize the different points of view represented. Jdavidb 16:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Right this is the same point Danny was making above (in fact all men are considered Sons of Noah in Hebrew thought). Perhaps it would be better to put it under Hebrew Table of Nations or something like that? Zestauferov 06:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scholars

No, Wetman, it is a POV slight against those who believe the Bible to assert that noone who does so is worthy of the name "scholar." Jdavidb 15:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This absolutely uncharacterizable assertion might be backed up, then, with a fundamentalist "scholarly" article, so that Wikireaders can go and see what "scholar" does in fact mean in that context. But there is no such article. Not a slight, information. Wetman 19:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't see a backup for your assertion that 100% of scholars reject the Biblical view, either. I think part of our problem is that "scholars" can be very loosely defined. (I could even assert, though not very relevently, that a student of the Bible is a "Bible scholar." There are scholars of different fields, of course. Perhaps qualifying what type of "scholars" we are discussing would help (historical scholars?)) I propose the following: are you satisfied with my most recent edit, which preserved almost all of your previous edit? If so, then fine, we come to agreement. If not, then I propose we eliminate the term "scholars" from the sentence altogether and reword. Jdavidb 19:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I edited this section to include that not all fundamentalists accept the racist claims regarding Noah's sons, but after reading the talk here I decided that the paragraph really needed a rewrite. It is (unintentionally) now not as strong in saying that the idea is wrong, but I believe that it better reflects reality rather than trying to preach that the idea is wrong, which I felt the reference to scholars did. I also added a link to a "fundamentalist" article rejecting racism. Philip J. Rayment 03:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, given that the idea of three Biblical races was an inference from the Bible, not something explicit, what has "Only biblical fundamentalists still claim the word-for-word reality of Scripture" got to do with the idea of three Biblical "races"? It doesn't follow that fundamentalists accept the idea of three Biblical races, as the current wording implies. That implication is not "accurate fact". I'm not suggesting that some "fundamentalists" don't still believe that, but I'm not aware of any fundamentalist organisations that teach that, and even if there are some, that is still not all fundamentalists. The link is an example of a group often labelled "fundamentalist" that very clearly teaches that the idea is unbiblical. Additionally, I suspect that the KKK teaches it, but I would certainly not label them "fundamentalist". Philip J. Rayment 15:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not having any response, I have re-instated my previous change. Philip J. Rayment 07:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Misc.

At the risk of making an unintentionally inflammatory statement, I think I've found an error in grammar that becomes an error of fact: (Section Ezra and the High Priesthood): "A priest was required to demonstrate the purity of the pedigree of his prospective bride as far back as his great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother." Shouldn't that be her g-g-gf (since the ancestors in question would seemingly be his "pure" wife's)? I'd fix it, but don't care to start an edit war; and it's possible that I'm simply misreading it. Dukeofomnium 14:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm certain it should be her. I'm going to fix it. It can always be reverted later.
Haven't looked at the context in a while, but I question whether genealogy of priests really needs to be in this article. Jdavidb 14:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I have removed...

The genealogies of the "Sons of Noah" are recount a time before recorded history and can not yet be confirmed or denied by objective evidence.

...because it is POV. The Bible claims to be recorded history, so saying that its genealogies recount a time before recorded history is to express the POV that the Bible is not what it claims. To put it a different way, one POV on the authorship of Genesis is that Moses compiled it from pre-existing documents that date to the times of the people who witnessed the events. Philip J. Rayment 06:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This conversation references the ancient Jewish book of Genesis, not the New Testament or other Old Testament books. So your reference to "The Bible" is out of context here; It's clear your POV is that of a Christian (Protestant, probably fundamentalist?), not as a historian, scholar or Jew. Look at the POV article on Wikipedia for guidelines to minimize this bias and make your contributions more useful.
Virtually every religion has holy texts that claim objectivity. Many ancient texts claim to be historical, even when accounting supernatural events. Since the different accounts contradict each other, and many times reference miraculous and one-time events, it is certainly impossible to consider them all to be objective. Furthermore, many times the accounts contradict the best objective evidence available, and must be discounted for that reason. Many of these accounts contradict even our most well researched scientific understanding, and should be rejected by everyone with even a most basic education and understanding.
This upsets those who believe the text to be the highest authority, but this can't be helped. Somebody is going to be upset no matter is decided, so best to search for the truth. For these reasons, and many others, the Bible claiming itself to be objective history cannot be considered objective evidence of it's truthfulness.
CalvinLawson 00:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Disembodied "Traditions"

Traditions are embodied in some way: in cult (which may be hard to reconstruct), in imagery, or in text, which may survive. In all the chat about "traditions" in this entry, there is still no reference to any actual text. Instead, we still read drivel like: "According to Genesis chapter 10, the present population of the world was decended from Noah's three sons. Broadly speaking, Japheth is the father of the European races..." yada yada. There is no mention of "European races" in Genesis 10, so how did such ideas arise? That is the real gist of this entry, and it's still missing, after all these months. "Traditional biblical exegetes attempted to translate these divisions..." Who is being referenced here? If someone would take the trouble to trace the development of these ideas connected to the "sons of Noah"— there's a whole literature on the subject, so there must be external links on the internet— then this entry would have more real information to it. --Wetman 04:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair point, Wetman. I believe that the book "After the Flood" (already included in the external links and available on-line) would provide one source of this information. When I have the time ....(or do you want to follow this up?). Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, thank you: my own interest is in texts, not in folk culture and pseudohistory. "After the Flood" will not help you develop the history of these legends, as embodied in texts. Even Jacob de Voragine's remarks on the subject would help. And where did he get his interpretation? How did Jerome pick up his ideas on this subject? Legends are not real: it's the history of legends that is authentic material for Wikipedia. It's all yours. --Wetman 16:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Except that we are talking here about history, not pseudohistory or legends. Japheth is traceable to be the ancestor of the Europeans, but we do need to document that, not just state it. Philip J. Rayment 14:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moves

1) i moved the greek mythological geneology to the end because it has no connection to those of genesis except the obvious and baseless implication that the two are analogous and the genesis geneology is therefore also mythological. this page is about noah's sons, not other mythological geneologies. the connection between the two is both personal research and utter nonsense. Ungtss 06:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why, here's a neutral point-of-view! The analogy is perfectly obvious mainstream assessment, bordering on cliché. This entry is being highjacked by another zealot. --Wetman 08:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
zealot is as zealot does. for every analogy to mythological genealogies, there's an analogy to historically accurate ones. Ungtss 08:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Mythology is an explanation for reality. It is not itself reality, however. "Genealogy," btw. --Wetman 17:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
if mythology is explanation for reality, then modern history is mythology too -- just a more accurate one than the old pagan ones, because it is based on research and stands up to facts and evidence. the question for mythology, then, is not whether it's a myth, but whether it's true or not. "Absolutely." is a sentence fragment, btw. Ungtss 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) i inserted the traditional viewpoint (which had been entirely absent) that the geneologies are actually accurate -- that view is held by all orthodox jews and muslims today, who substantially outnumber atheist "western scholars" who seem to think they know everything. that view must remain intact, and first, because this is an article about the geneologies, and not why some people think they're bogus. the "genesis is a crock" opinion was left intact, and follows the traditional opinion. if you want to say that "rejection of the geneologies is universal," back that tripe up with a stat. Ungtss 06:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The neutral, skeptical point-of-view that stands apart from these cultists posing as "traditional' is the noncommittal Wikipedia position. --Wetman 08:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
no sir, neutral point of view is neither skeptical nor cultist. it's neutral. calling me a cultist, however, is ad hominem. Ungtss 08:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The skeptical perspective is neutral by definition. Skeptics withold decision and judgment. Cultists resent that. All I know is what I read. --Wetman 17:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
skeptics don't withold decision and judgment. they decide that anything they can't see is false, and they judge anyone who believes in more than they can see. that's a pov, same as all the others. it's just a rather narrow-minded one. Ungtss 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3) i removed the reference to racism. back that up with specifics or cites, or it will go right next to a reference to how the REJECTION of the table of nations (with its implication that all men were created equal as asserted by those crazy fundamentalist abolitionists who thought slavery was wrong on a Christian basis) was quickly replaced by evolutionary Eugenics, or the view that humans are only valuable for the dna they carry and all non-useful dna should be wiped out, a direct corollary of evolution. Ungtss 06:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to revert the tripe that inspired this rant. --Wetman 08:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(incidentally, i didn't add "what scripture tells us" -- THAT tripe was already in there when i showed up:). Ungtss 08:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whomever: tripe is tripe. --Wetman 17:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
indeed:). Ungtss 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New version

I heard of being bold, but this is just too much... You just cut out the whole section I spent so much work on, about the wives aboard the ark... parts of your rewrite seem a little pov as well... if you want to make changes of this scale, lets do it slowly and with some discussion... thanks... ፈቃደ 22:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The wives aboard the ark is really not a major part of usual discussion of the sons whatsoever. Where it does appear as discussion is concerning the wives of the patriarchs generally, and should be a wholly seperate article, discussing the other wives as well, a subject that Jubilees seemed particularly keen on. In the same way we don't go into detail about the flood, ark, or Noah, when discussing the sons, since those subjects are off-topic, and discussed elsewhere, or should be.
If part of the re-write seems a little pov, then either edit it a little so that it doesnt seem a little pov, or raise the specific concern here (i.e. specify exactly what the little percieved pov is). I fail to see what is unacceptable about changes of this scale, when the article is clearly not volatile - there has been almost a whole year since a comment was made on this talk page, for example. Articles are not owned by individuals or committees who have to be consulted before any changes can be made, particularly non-volatile articles. There was a serious lack of academic context, and information, in the article, thus it needed to be altered to improve its standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but first of all, deliberately pasting a message at the old article to prevent it from being moved back without an administrator is underhanded and reprehensible. The vast majority of editors who wrote the old article - Wetman, Llywrch, FeanorStar, Paul Barlow, Acjelen, Rich, Ungtss, Jdavidb, Zefausterov, Ed Poor, Gilgamesh, etc. are still active, and if the article is not 'volatile' as you put it, it's because there was a carefully worked-out balance that everyone was fine with. I will make a separate article at Wives aboard the Ark for the Sibylline stuff, and try to work with the massive pov-load you've introduced. But large parts of it are going to have to be majorly adjusted. ፈቃደ 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Tabal / Tubal and Jabal / Jubal

(moved to Talk:Sons of Noah/Tubal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codex Sinaiticus (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion after Llywrch

Does this help either of you with this disagreement? Have I missed any points either of you have with this article? I'm willing to offer my opinion on this matter, but I'm hoping that by providing references from your own research, we can move this article towards something all of us will approve of. -- llywrch 21:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may take a little while, but if you were to go diff-by-diff beginning with the 23rd November (when it was still Sons of Noah, you will see that "Tubal v. Jubal" is really only the very tip of the iceberg with respect to all the differences between the collaborative version, and Duffy's version. I merely selected Tubal v. Jubal as the first point for the discussion page, since none of this massive change was ever discussed; and he is refusing to budge even an inch from his absurd contention that the ancient nation of Tabali were known to their neighbours as "Jubal" and "Jabal" - Something I honestly don't believe you're going to find in any book anywhere. If you follow the discussion on this page closely, I have been pressing him for a source for this novel theory of his, and he responds with naming the same two books listed as references on the Tabal article, without actually quoting them, and that I seriously doubt he has ever cracked open (one of them is written in Georgian !) So where it stands now, is that FeanorStar7 has suggested that a Georgian colleague of hers can find out exactly what the Georgian really says about Jubal / Jabal, and as for the Bittel book he claims as a source, I think I have seen it somewhere, and hopefully should find it within a week. I don't know of any other way to get to the bottom of what has every appearance of being spurious information. If it turns out I am wrong and he is right, I will be the first to admit it, and my respect for his knowledgeability will go up accordingly. Regards, ፈቃደ 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
If the Bittel book is an issue, I can easily get ahold of it: the copy I used at my local library is available & I can pick it up tomorrow.
FDuffy, Codex Sinaiticus has made his statement. Have you had a chance to read my comment & compose a response? -- llywrch 04:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Erm, "Put" of this section are almost always considered to be the ancient Libyans. The reason is that there were two significant ancient Libyan tribes (according to Egyptian records), one was named the Libu (from whom Libya takes its modern name) and the other was named the Pitu, from whom it took its ancient name - the Egyptians appear to have used Phut to refer to the area.
If Codex considers "Tubal v. Jubal" to be the "tip", then I would like to know why he is reverting (which Codex once did as the sole purpose of one of Codex' edits) "are" to "is" when I was the originator of the phrase, "are" is correct UK usage, and we are meant to keep "authors choice". How Codex finds this is more significant than "Tubal v. Jubal" I would like to know. There are several other issues that I have to question how they are more significant. To me, it appears as if Codex has chosen the one which appears least supported, and is intending to justify the whole reversion based on that mere issue, which I find somewhat of a false premise.
In particular, I should like to know why Codex is apparantly unable to see that I am not misrepresenting the creationist view, especially since he appears to be the one that added identical equalities (e.g. Meschech = Massechusetts (native tribe), Magog=Magyar, Gomer=Germany) to the Japheth article on two seperate occasions (Massechusetts there being represented more generally by Algonquians, and Magyar by the English name of their nation - Hungary).
I would also like to know why Codex refers to my entries as shoddy, when he is unable to see any connection between Cush and Nubia (the connection is that Kush (nation) and Nubia are the same geographic location, quite a large, obvious connection). And likewise why I use Sudan rather than East Africa (essentially because Kush (nation) was situated in (north) Sudan, not Eritrea, or Somalia, for example).
Rather than cherry picking the easiest area to contest, and attempting to imply the others are equally invalid without any argument, each issue should be addressed. In particular, in order to avoid reverting the entire thing, the simplest issues, such as, for example, how UK usage (authors choice) for certain types of collective nouns works, should be addressed first.
--User talk:FDuffy 11:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
Oh believe me, we are going to get into each and every one of those points in absolute detail to work out a version that is not disputed and has solid sources behind it. Just be patient. I still dispute the other changes, and I agree with Llywyrch that a bullet point list is easier to handle, because once a table is filled with false information, it's a little harder to add explanations of why something is debated, and a little easier to cut out or suppress information. So just for now, because as I said, there's really a lot of dispute here - just for now, I'm starting with Tubal.

(discussion moved to Talk:Sons of Noah/Tubal, to avoid overloading one page with lengthy discussions of all 16 grandchildren of Noah) -- ፈቃደ 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible for each of you to explain your positions without attacking the other? I can understand your frustration (I've been there), but when one side adds hostility to the discussion not only does this make it more difficult for the other side to listen & perhaps admit they are wrong, but also for the first side to concede where she/he might be wrong. Winning an argument on Wikipedia is not going to make you any money or win any prizes, so there's no good reason to fight without restraint over anything here. -- llywrch 19:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To explain my position, I am going to cover several other points, as I feel Codex is deliberately targeting a single issue to avoid having to address points where Codex's stance is significantly weaker. I have added a break at this point to make it easier to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Points

  • Point 1: One of the issues apparantly viewed as objectionable by Codex (there was a revert covering just it) concerns the use of are and is for a particular type of collective. In English English, certain group nouns, in this case generation of descendants, are plural in certain circumstances, for example in the phrase the nth generation of descendants, and so demand are - the nth generation of descendants are Bob, Dave, Fred,... or the nth generation of descendants are out shopping. However, in American these are regarded as singular. Nethertheless, it was a speaker of English English that wrote the sentence originally, and so authors choice requires the UK grammar to be kept to..
  • Point 2: While Codex alleges "mischaracterisation" and "strawmen" with regard to certain creationist identifications, these are in fact carefully researched. Indeed, in the article Japheth, Codex even added them himself. On at least two seperate occasions. The additions Codex made to Japheth were (amongst others):
  • Meschech = Algonquians
  • Gomer = Germany
  • Magog = Hungary
I carefully researched this, and determined that creationists do indeed make these claims, specifically, in fact, more specifically two of these claims are
  • Meschech = Massechusetts (one of the tribes of Algonquians)
  • Magog = Magyar (the main ethnic group in Hungary)
I also found, in several places, including on a website which I have repeatedly cited in this matter ([1]), the claim that
  • Javan = Japan
I have found no other equalities made in a significant or consistent manner, excepting those already present in the table. I fail to see how presenting these equalities constitutes creating "strawmen"
  • Point 3: As should be obvious to anyone who has done even the slightest research, Cush is usually connected to Kush (also spelt Cush), a very specific historical African nation, attested in so many documents and archaeological digs that its existance is almost universally regarded as fact. The area Kush was located in was known as Nubia, but today it is known as the (north) Sudan. Hence
  • Saying that Nimrod is the son of Cush implies a Nubian origin.
  • The area usually attributed to Cush is (part of) the Sudan, specifically Kush, not the whole of East Africa, a vastly larger place.
I am at a loss to see why Codex objects to my use of the phrasing Nubian origin and Sudan in these contexts as having no justification, when their relevance is totally obvious to almost all scholars involved in the subject.
  • Point 4: The only African nations explicitely mentioned appear to be Egypt, Libya, Kush, and Sheba/Saba. That isn't focusing on Africa. But it is focusing on Egypt - Libya is its western neighbour, and Kush its neighbour to the south. Sheba/Saba refers to Sabaeans, who spanned just the coastal area of the red sea between what is now Yemen and Eritrea, and are listed with other Yemen groups - Arabia not Africa.
  • Point 5: "according to Herodotus, [Cimmerrians] originally inhabited the region NORTH of the Caucasus and the Black Sea". That isn't georgia. It isn't the Caucasus. It isn't the black sea coast. Its NORTH of these areas. I.e. Ukraine, EXCEPT the black sea coast.
  • Point 6: Hamitic theories HAVE been completely discarded. Indeed, the article Hamitic says "Today the Hamitic concepts have been widely discredited and are often referred to as the Hamitic Myth". "The Hamitic Myth" is hardly the title of a widely accepted theory of Hamitic descent.
  • Point 7: While many of Wellhausen's ideas have been thrown away, he lived over 100 years ago, and they have been thrown away not because the documentary hypothesis is wrong, but because people presented more refined versions. In fact, 90% of present day scholars of the bible, as well as the Vatican, support the modern version of the hypothesis. 90% IS a large majority. The only way in which large majority could be seen NOT to be NPOV is because it doesn't state almost everyone, except a few fundamentalists.
  • Point 8: The Table of Nations does NOT mention France, Siberia, Finland, Natal, Australia, Hawaii, and others. To say that one of the most notable features is that it covers areas outside its immediate geographic region is wildly misleading. To say that one of the most notable features is that it does not cover areas significantly outside its immediate geographic region is accurate and NPOV.
  • Point 9: Deleting a phrase because, on careless reading, it appears to contradict an earlier statement, is inappropriate behaviour. Particularly when it has been clarified exactly why scholars think it more likely that Japheth was a corruption of Dyeus Pita than vice versa, BUT still think that actually there is no real underlying connection between the names at all.
  • Point 10: The Documentary Hypothesis has been going for over 100 years. There have been several refinements, and several passages are near universally acknowledged to come from certain sources. The Table of Nations is one such section which is near universally agreed upon with regard to which sections belong to which sources.
  • Point 11: Putting that the "documentary hypothesis is only an unverified theory" into every article that mentions it is like putting that "evolution is only one theory for the origin of life" into every article that mentions it or "There is little evidence to suggest the Bible is true, and it is rarely corroborated by outside sources of the time. Most people think fundamentalists are nutcases, and their viewpoints extreme and based on self delusion." into absolutely every article concerning Fundamentalist Christianity. Such activity is not constructive, and highly devisive, as well as against Wikipedia policies.
  • Point 12: Ancient Hebrew documents use Ara Chesed not Arfa Chesed. The specific ancient document in question is the Book of Jubilees, chapter 11 verse 3. You can see the lack of an f with your own eyes.
  • Point 13: The Medes lived in Media (unsurprisingly). This is NOT just Northern Iran. However, it DOES cover the area of modern Kurdistan surprisingly well (Kurdistan the region, not the Iranian Province).
  • Point 14: Aram-Naharaim is only mentioned in the bible, and only then 6 times. The bible is neither non-Hebrew nor non-Biblical. Putting Aram-Naharaim into the mentions in other sources column is simply inaccurate, no other sources mention it.
  • Point 15: The only people that claim Jupiter was originally a deification of Japheth are the literalists, not some arbitrary some people. In addition, absolutely no-one else would have a motive to make that claim.
  • Point 16: Ludim IS usually thought of as a typo for Lubim, not only sometimes. One noticable reason that this could be the case is the increadibly obvious fact that while there are Lubim (Libyans) attested in other sources, Ludim are not.
  • Point 17: Contesting only one or two of these points in absolutely no manner justifies reverting all of them.

--User talk:FDuffy 21:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the article to facilitate discussion and to stop the edit warring. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Where "Jubal" & 'Jabal" REALLY came from

  • As you can see from the above, there are an immense number of points to be addressed here, so many that I had hoped to address each of them one at a time. Each point needs to be split off into a separate section for discussion.
  • If you really want to know where all the "Jabal" and "Jubal" stuff comes from, check out the very earliest incarnation of the article Tubal from 6 Jan 2004. ... ፈቃደ 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

(remainder of my remarks in this section have been moved to Talk:Sons of Noah/Tubal) -- ፈቃደ 16:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Need for Bullet Points

Let's face it, this is a very controversial subject, and for each of the 16 grandchildren of Noah, there are likely multiple citable pov'sin regards their identity, just as there have been for centuries. It's a little hard to accomodate different pov's in an authoritative-looking chart, which is the present locked-state. Most recently I was reverting to the pre-FDuffy version with no chart, because I had run out of reverts to my 'neutralized FDuffy version' with both a chart and a table. But please note that there is also that version with both the chart and the table, where I had neutralized some of the more extreme POV statements, but that is essentially the same as his version, that he reverted to 8 times. here. I would request an admin to lock it to that version instead of the table only version, because we need bullet points in order to proceed. Then we can go grandson by grandson and work out a compromise wording for all 16 grandsons. For example, starting with Tubal, I would recommend it mention the cites from Josephus, Theodoret, Nennius, et. al. mentioning Iberians, in addition to the other validly sourced information about the Tabali I provided. He may wish to offer a counter argument why he thinks this information should not be presented, or why he feels it should say something else. The moderating admin(s) would have to make the appropriate adjustements to the locked page. Then we would move on to Tiras, Meshech, and all the others down the line until we finish with that, and address any other points of difference we might have. As has been noted, the only article acceptable to all is one that includes ALL pov's, not presents only one to the exclusion of others. So at a very minimum, could you please bring back the bullet points and we can work from that. ፈቃደ 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See m:The wrong version --User talk:FDuffy 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Further Discussion

I would like some response to points 1-17 that I listed above. Particularly point 17. Any point which has not recieved a direct and specific counter-argument within a week I will understand Codex Sinaiticus to support. --User talk:FDuffy 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)

Who are you, to give ultimatums like this? This is wikipedia, buddy... ፈቃደ 20:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not an ultimatum, its a statement of fact. If you don't dispute them, then you haven't disputed them, so they aren't disputed. In fact, if you refuse to dispute them, then you have refused to dispute them, so the chance to dispute them has been refused, so they are not disputed, even given the chance. --User talk:FDuffy 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of them are extremely minor, simple points. PARTICULARY POINT 17. They at least should be easy to respond to. --User talk:FDuffy 20:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)

I'm still waiting for you to respond to point #1. Where on earth is there a cite to alleged Luwian inscriptions in Calapverdi reading "Jabal"??? The ones you've given so far are fraudulent. And you can understand me to dispute ALL your "points", regardless of when I respond to them. ፈቃደ 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparant lack of response on point 1 does not justify ignoring point 17. --User talk:FDuffy 21:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
I utterly reject whatever 'authority' you presume to have here, to tell me what is "justified" and what isn't... I have exactly as much right to tell you "Apparent lack of response on point 17 does not justify ignoring point 1".... But, if you really want to know what I'm waiting for, I'm waiting for Llywrch to respond to the latest points I made above, in the sections "Where Jubal and Jabal really come from" and "Need for bullet points", before I proceed further. What is your major rush? ፈቃደ 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[Interjected] I should point out here that point 1 involves english usage and author's choice. You are currently ignoring it. As you state, a lack of response on point 17 does not justify ignoring point 1. I await your response on this point. --User talk:FDuffy 11:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
What is the "major rush"? Wikipedians generally try to solve POV complaints, and content disputes, as quickly as possible, rather than trying to string them out forever. --User talk:FDuffy 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
In addition, the Wikipedia policies concerning reverting require you, when challenged, to explain why you feel you are justified in reverting all the passages concerned in all 16 of the above points, whether or not you also dispute Jabal. Failure to do this will be a tacit admittance that your stance on these is groundless. 86.136.100.153 11:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, you are taking it on yourself to set the rules and conditions you say I must follow, which action I utterly reject. ፈቃደ 13:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Subpages for discussion created

With such a huge amount of disputed points, let's face it, this is really going to take a huge amount of time to come up with all the citations and research, etc. This must not be rushed. I have seen similar cases stay locked for a month, eg Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, it's not necessarily an "all or nothing" situation between the old version and the new version. I fully concede that I may well "win some and lose some" points, and they should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with the moderating admin(s) making the appropriate adjustements based on the citations and research that have been provided. Even the very first point that was brought up, the issue of citation for "Tubal = Jabal", seems to have been biting off more than we can chew, so to resolve the disputes with identification of all 16 grandchildren is probably going to take a very long time, and again, should not be unduly rushed. We can't say "All discussion is closed after one week", because it won't be. If the page is unlocked after one week, and discussion is not finished / disputes not resolved, there is going to be another edit war.

With all this in mind, and because this page would get really huge if we tried to answer all points here, I have made two sub pages so far for discussion, one for Tubal (still awaiting response from a moderator) and now, another one for Cush. Others will be added as they are created, but please understand that this will take time, and in all likelihood, more than one week.

ፈቃደ 20:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoing the page move

I was alerted that this page was moved from Sons of Noah to the present nondescript name. As far as I can see from the above discussion, the move was not discussed, no move request was filed, and none of the "regular" contributors were consulted.

If the page had not been protected I would have undone the move, merged the edit histories, and fixed the links. But now it's redirected I will not move the page back without some discussion here. In fact, I will post a note on the WP:RM page to this effect.

I find the present version biased. The literal narrative is not clear at all whether this is an official ethnology; only the Rabbinic commentators derive from its subtext that it is a genealogy of all mankind. Also, it is devoid of references apart from some 1897 & 1917 ones, hardly "modern scholarship" according to any standards. A lot of the assertions are so speculative (e.g. Meshech being ancestor to the Indians of Massachussetts) I would personally have removed them as original research in the absence of reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Page was moved without consensus as explained in the previous post

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. Page was moved in violation of policy. JFW | T@lk 17:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously... "Sons of Noah" and "Table of Nations" don't cover exactly the same ground, and the latter article has cut out a great deal of tradition and replaced it with speculation. ፈቃደ 17:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't want this article to have a title that can be interpreted as a table of nations when it is in fact about something unrelated. Georgia guy 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Page moves should be discussed before the move takes place. That policy does not forbid it is a poor reason for an action, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

No, I'm not taking part in this vote. We are supposed to operate on consensus, not bullying. There was absolutely NO policy preventing me from moving this page here. On an aside, this article has cut out a great deal of unscholarly original research masquerading as "tradition" and replaced it with academic speculation attested in such HUGELY respected works as the Jewish Encyclopedia. This is ENTIRELY in accordance with building a BETTER, less biased, encyclopedia. --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)

Francis, if you want to keep the page here you'd better vote. Throwing a fit is not the way. Which sources refer to this list of 70 peoples as the "table of nations" (not mentioned in the Biblical text, for sure)? As for expanding with "academic sources", you have massively failed to add any serious sources; the version that Codex Sinaiticus reverted to had more sources than your plaything with tables; CITE is the new black. I'm fully aware of your century-old love affair with the Jewish Encyclopedia, but scholarship has moved on a bit, hasn't it (even Richard Elliot would agree here). I do not share your perceptions of a BETTER etc etc. You've pulled this trick on two other pages, and you will simply have to learn to give in. Oh, and fix that signature of yours. JFW | T@lk 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
While scholarship has moved on, it has done so by refining not rejecting the theories. Read the Jewish Encyclopedia article, it (the J...E...) is still highly regarded as an academic reference today. Eastons on the other hand is not. Sumerian/Babylonian myths and records haven't vanished into thin air over the past 100 years, they are still there, still carved in stone, still saying the same things. Similarly, the Midrash hasn't suddenly started to say completely different things than it did 100 years ago, nor the Talmud, they still say the same, and what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about classical rabbinical opinion is STILL viewed as highly accurate. As for the third element of its articles - the traditional/religious view, well, Creationists haven't moved on. And if anyone should fix their signature, it's Codex, whose signature is currently 3 vertical rectangles. --User talk:FDuffy 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
At least Codex' signature links to her userpage, while yours has no link. If you are relying on the Jewish Encyclopedia, why is there no REFERENCE in the REFERENCES section to the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, together with an URL? We expect this from all users and you are not an exception. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You have seen my talk page, all the obvious, easy to find, references, to "Table of Nations". If we need to link to an encyclopedia in the references, for a title, where is your reference to an external encyclopedia article marked "Sons of Noah"? I am still curious why you have failed to change your stance, despite stating that you would given sufficient information. I have pointed out to you several universities, including extremely well respected institutions such as Cambridge, which refer to the topic as "Table of Nations", so I fail to see why you insist the topic does not have that name. --User talk:FDuffy 15:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
Me changing my vote will not greatly alter consensus, but I am satisfied that this page could remain on Table of nations if WP:CITE is adhered to. I am even willing to respond favourably to a request for unprotection. But your first edit should be adequate documentation of your sources (particularly the otherwise intensely speculative material on the supposed parallels between the Cainite and Sethite lines). JFW | T@lk 22:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
RE: "speculative material on the supposed parallels between the Cainite and Sethite lines". You should be discussing that elsewhere, e.g. at genealogies of genesis. That isn't part of anyone's version of this article, as far as I'm aware. --User talk:FDuffy 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
Actually, according to the rules, the voting was supposed to wrap up in 5 days, and since a clear consensus of well over the required 60% had emerged (4 votes for 'Sons of Noah', none against) by the 5 days that began on the 4th and ended on the 9th, this page ought to be returned to Sons of Noah in accordance with the consensus vote, at the earliest opportunity. On Cote d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast, noone was allowed to vote after 7 days, it was too late, and a consensus clearly opted for Cote d'Ivoire, so that's where the article got moved to.
I don't think the page should be unprotected, I think one of the admins ought to look carefully at the cites given so far at Talk:Sons of Noah/Tubal and Talk:Sons of Noah/Cush (also FDuffy's response to the latter that he put at Talk:Table of Nations/Kush, but with much of my argument deleted), then the admin ought to bring back the bullet points, since a table only with no text is unworkable for a controversial subject, and make the appropriate adjustments in accordance with what has been validly cited, bit by bit. Only an admin should do this; if the page is unlocked now it will only lead to another edit war. ፈቃደ 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast is about whether we, as an English Language project, should use English or French. This is completely irrelevant to the case in point, which is about whether we should use the universal academic title of the subject ("Table of nations") or the one some editor at wikipedia invented ("Sons of Noah"). Oh by the way, 3:2 isn't over 60%, and 5 editors is not a very indicative quorum. --User talk:FDuffy 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I put it to you that it should be your edits which should only be applied bit by bit. --User talk:FDuffy 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
Hmm... According to my understanding of how to count (1,2,3,4,5, etc...) a total of FOUR votes were cast on the move, and they were all four votes in SUPPORT of returning to "Sons of Noah"... (I'm not sure how you got 3:2, but yes, that would be exactly 60%...) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You should carefully read JDWolff's above comment and this edit to my talk page, which was preceeded by this edit . --User talk:FDuffy 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Table of Nations/Kush. I would also like to point out that point 17, the most important point of all, especially given that it is an application of Wikipedia policy, requires addressing. --User talk:FDuffy 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)

I think I've already addressed your "point # 17" at least twice. but in case you missed it, here it is one more time:
Also, it's not necessarily an "all or nothing" situation between the old version and the new version. I fully concede that I may well "win some and lose some" points, and they should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with the moderating admin(s) making the appropriate adjustements based on the citations and research that have been provided.
-- ፈቃደ 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why wasn't "Table of Nations" merged with Genealogies of Genesis instead of Sons of Noah in the first place? Much closer subject overlap, IMO... ፈቃደ 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what "Sons of Noah" looked like shortly before the move. It predominantly covered racial classification, and the origin of nations. Genealogies of Genesis predominantly covers the issues of Seth & Cains lines, comparison between them, Antediluvian ages and timings, and the general importance of such toledot, and others, to the priesthood in their attempts to demonstrate purity of ancestry. In Genealogies of Genesis "Table of Nations" describes merely what is effectively a summary section, but for "Sons of Noah" it is the academic name for the subject being discussed in the majority of the "Sons of Noah" article shortly before the move. --User talk:FDuffy 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
It's quite interesting that no-one has responded to that point. --User talk:FDuffy 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Isn't there room for two related pages? As I understand the subject (& this is said without reference to the recent disagreement), there is sufficient material for a discussion of Noah's sons as they are portrayed in tradition & folklore, and a discussion of the "Table of Nations" section from Genesis which represents one author's understanding of the ethnology of the world as he knew it in the 7th-8th century BC. I feel Wikipedia would be better served with two articles, than having to choose between one or the other. -- llywrch 05:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just noticed the edit war, here

I just came across this in my watchlist and saw the 3RR violations a few days ago, the revert warring, and the page protection. I'm going to assume all parties have a clean slate since the page unprotection, but I just wanted to caution everyone to remember both the letter and the spirit of the three revert rule, which is to prevent revert warring and force parties to negotiate on the article talk page, compromise, and achieve consensus. When the necessary cooling off that 3RR is supposed to bring about does not occur voluntarily, admins have the option to enforce it. Please take special note of the fact that the 3RR is not a license to perform three reverts a day. It would be best if all individuals limit their reversions and instead discuss on the talk page. Gaming the three revert rule is not allowed, and there are a number of policies that permit admins to block someone who is abusing the system by revert warring even if that person is not exceeding the three revert limit.

So, I just wanted to say, make sure you're working together to achieve consensus and not simply revert warring. If the article is not going the way you think it should remain calm and don't risk getting blocked and losing all of the influence you could have had.

FDuffy, shouting over bullet points is probably a little over the top. Let's stick to the content of the article, please? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[Interjected] I am entitled to make comments without them being interfered with. --User talk:FDuffy 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)
I warned exactly this would happen if the article was unlocked now. There is no need for it to be unlocked when there is still no consensus whatsoever. It should be locked again at once, and an admin should be the one to apply any changes to the article based strictly on CITATIONS -- or in cases like the former name of the article, or whether to have Table-only or include bullet points providing more detail, based on Consensus. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me see, who was the first to revert the article, after the unprotection.....? It was you!!!. If you thought that reverting it was a problem that would occur when it was unlocked, and was something to be avoided, why was it the first thing you did? --User talk:FDuffy 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have warned Francis again and again that references are provided in the article body. He has consistently failed to back up his draconian edits with ANY outside support, even though the material he claims to base his original research on (the Jewish Encyclopedia) is available free online. This is in constant blatant violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V) and there will be a point when this user will have to learn the hard way through and Arbcom case or short-term blocks. Francis: CITE YOUR SOURCES. JFW | T@lk 08:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you read ANY of the (some way) above 17 points, and forgotton what was discussed on my talk page? And I love the way you blame me, when it was Codex who started the revert war. "Draconian" is quite simply an insult, and hence a blatant violation of WP:NPA. The Public Domain Jewish Encyclopedia is a well respected source, and using it does not constitute Original Research - learn what the definition of original research is. I know you don't like the academic viewpoint, but that is no excuse for disregarding civility (WP:CIV), failing to assume good faith (WP:AGF), and attacking the edits but failing to respond to 17 distinct arguments for each edit made. Yes, that's right, I know how to quote policies and procedures too. So let's learn to address the actual article and its merits, like good Wikipedians, hmm?
  • B.t.w. I'm still waiting for a response on most of those 17 points. No justification has been given for disregarding them, but Codex still instisted on ignoring them and reverting everything. --User talk:FDuffy 08:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 08:53-09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Protecting again

PLEASE talk this out. I unprotected this because I had seen no discussion for several days, so I thought things had calmed down. It feels like people waited until I unprotected and then they pounced. Use dispute resolution. I'd recommend a request for comment if you haven't tried it already. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page - it's been over two weeks! Do not resort to edit-warring, it's unproductive - try WP:DR. Thanks. Izehar 14:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think that was a good idea. It should be protected until someone actually starts responding to the points made on the talk page, and an allowance should certainly be made for the fact that a lot of people will not edit as much over the Christmas Period (24th Dec-6th Jan) for very obvious reasons. It may be two weeks, but it is two weeks where people have obvious reasons for not being able to edit. It really should be protected again. --User talk:FDuffy 15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)

Assyrians in Hamath?

If I remember correctly Hamath was an Aramaean (or Neo-Hittite(?)) kingdom. Not Assyrian in population.--Rob117 21:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't recall ever hearing about Phoenicians in the Sinai or Sumer. The Zemarites are probably an otherwise unknown Canaanite population in Canaan, and the Sinites are likely a bedouin tribe of the Sinai.--Rob117 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tutsi-Hutu

The article on the Tutsi clearly states that they thought the Tutsi were Hamitic while the Hutu were an inferior Bantu. Reverting last edit. 72.65.28.204 04:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That they used this justification is not the same as a document being the cause of the genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedThorn (talk • contribs) 09:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

Or more to the point who is the intended audience? Could an elementary school student, and high school student, and a college student all find what they are looking for including places to look for further information? Could this article follow a layout like that for other historic/religious events?

  • The source document
    • What does the document itself say?(This part should be easy.)
    • Rabbinic scholarship and interpretation
      • Historic
      • Modern
    • Christian scholarship and interpretation
      • Historic
      • Modern
    • Islamic scholarship and interpretation
      • Historic
      • Modern
  • Academic perspectives
    • Archeology
    • Anthropology
    • Geography
    • History
    • Linguistics
    • Sociology
  • See also
  • Notes and references (One would think that at least ten for every subtopic are needed.)
  • External links

Please remember that this is an encyclopedia and opinions and original research are out of bounds.:-) --RedThorn 09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedThorn (talk • contribs)

Diklath=a tribe?

The article says: "It is unclear precisely where in Iraq the Diklath were based, though the name of one of its major rivers, the Tigris, is the Greek transliteration of Diklath."

But the name Diglah (the Arabic name of the Tigris) doesn't refer to a tribe or people. It means "arrow", and refers to the swift-flowing nature of the river. PiCo 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generations_of_Noah/Archive_1&oldid=1089775242"