Talk:Canaan (son of Ham)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canaan (son of Ham) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rename article
editPlease consider renaming this article Canaan, son of Ham as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh
editIt seems that while most readers would use an encyclopedia to learn things they perhaps never heard of before, there is a type of wikpedia editor that only wants to read the familiar things they have always heard, mentally rejects whatever they are not previously familiar with, and continually looks for pretexts to suppress things they have not been exposed to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of article: Presenting debatable material that already has a page
editThere are three wiki pages that discuss the narratives of Ham, son of Noah and Canaan, son of Ham. Those three pages are:
The Curse of Ham page was created as an offshoot of really both the Ham and Canaan pages, to discuss the possible interpretations of what that curse was and the impact that those interpretations have had on namely, religious movements. Because of the huge debates surrounding the curse, those debates need to stay on that page and no where else. One of the many debates is the race issue, inparticular being Black.
No where in any biblical translation or version is "Ham" and "Black", or "Canaan" and "Black" in the same verse. It is pure speculation. This is why the Curse of Ham page was created, to discuss THAT issue as that is the scope of the article. See also: WP:TOPIC.
NONE of these pages: Ham, son of Noah or Canaan, son of Ham should have statements or discussions or poving points about being Black, Nubian, or African. It is appropriate, however, to reference such material to the Curse of Ham page. It can also be mentioned that those interpretations are out there... but posting statements and direct quotes from commentators that support the highly debatable Race view is inappropriate for the Ham and Canaan pages.
Thanks for your time, Jasonasosa (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your determinations regarding what you see as "proper scope" of these articles are unilateral, relying on some racialist pov that I cannot share, and I will contest them to the fullest. The material from Al-Tabari regarding Canaan, son of Ham, belongs on the page Canaan, son of Ham. The material you are blanking from here is specific to Canaan, son of Ham, and his descendants according to various historiographic sources.
- Al-tabari simply recorded traditions saying that Canaan begat Blacks, Nubians, and peoples of Sudan, etc. as well as some other specific ethnonyms and even the supposed name and family of Canaan's wife. That is specific information for this page, but you clearly have an agenda, first to blank out, and then to try and hide under the carpet in the obscurest possible location, information you are not comfortable with. How sad. You are now making up arbitrary "Scope" rules that involve reading inferences in between the lines with this straightforward simple statement about Canaan's descendants according to one source, and forcing a subjective POV that is hard to follow, that it really belongs on the "Curse of Ham" page just because it mentions "Blacks" among Canaan's descendants. Read the deleted text straightforwardly, it is not about the "Curse of Ham" whatsoever and any assertion that it is would be your original research interpretation of a primary source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- After I split the two curses apart, you can put all the "Black" commentaries and references you want on this page. Jasonasosa (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Al-tabari simply recorded traditions saying that Canaan begat Blacks, Nubians, and peoples of Sudan, etc. as well as some other specific ethnonyms and even the supposed name and family of Canaan's wife. That is specific information for this page, but you clearly have an agenda, first to blank out, and then to try and hide under the carpet in the obscurest possible location, information you are not comfortable with. How sad. You are now making up arbitrary "Scope" rules that involve reading inferences in between the lines with this straightforward simple statement about Canaan's descendants according to one source, and forcing a subjective POV that is hard to follow, that it really belongs on the "Curse of Ham" page just because it mentions "Blacks" among Canaan's descendants. Read the deleted text straightforwardly, it is not about the "Curse of Ham" whatsoever and any assertion that it is would be your original research interpretation of a primary source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Scope of this article
editI propose that the scope of this article be:
- Identifying the source material for Canaan.
- Discussing the narrative elements (Narrative criticism) for Canaan (i.e. plot, setting, background info, the specific things that happened to Canaan as related to the source material)
- Presenting Source criticism methods, such as the Documentary hypothesis
- Engaged in scholarly information that is NOT "highly debatable" by avoiding topics and commentaries that support racial ties to being Black and/or slavery.
Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No. The Scope for this article is defined as "Canaan, son of Ham". Anything regarding what any pov has said in historiography regarding this figure, or who he was supposedly ancestor of, the name of his wife or his father-in-law from various sources, is fair material for his article. No "rules" designed to exclude information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Til here. I'm not sure why Jason thinks we shouldn't mention the connection between Canaan and any debate. These sorts of debates are a big part of religion. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to "mentioning" it. I'm opposed to posting PROs and CONs on this page for or against Canaan being Black, Nubian or African or anything related to slavery... because all of that is already discussed on the Curse of Ham page. However... We could edit the Curse of Ham page and remove all elements related to the Curse of Canaan and bring them over to this page so that the "Curse of Ham" and the "Curse of Canaan" are two distinct topics. I don't know... Jasonasosa (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well... after thinking about it, maybe that's what we should do, since everyone wants to talk about Canaan being black... we can treat the curse as two seperate curses. I will start gutting the Curse of Ham page. (Goes off to call a demolition crew and a wrecking ball team) Jasonasosa (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Why is it that the concepts of "being black" and "slavery" seem so fused in your mind that you take any sentence including the word "black" to be a solid connection to the issue of slavery and therefore trumping any other reason why it should appear on this page? I still can't follow it. People of other races have been slaves as well, eg. Hebrews in Egypt. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm speaking only in regard to the Curse of Ham page where "being black" and "slavery" is associated. I'm not speaking in general terms, here, folks. Anyway, I think the time has come to treat the curse of Ham and the curse of canaan as two separate curses, so I'm going to make the measure of splitting them apart... because this subject has caused way too much unnecessary confusion and it's been way long over due.Jasonasosa (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
BCE / BC clarification
editHi User: Til Eulenspiegel, I'm not going to swap around the BCE or BC on this article... but, I do want to discuss something with you directly. I would love for you to provide me where it says in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style or anywhere else for that matter that Wikipedia "doesn't allow switching articles from BC to BCE or vice versa". I can go into any artilce and edit it from BC to BCE or BCE to BC, so long as no one has a problem with it. Should there be a problem, it goes to discussion page... usually for a vote. You need to read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Another thing... please don't sling around that word consensus... I don't have to consult the discussion page first for a "consensus" on any edit if I don't want to. Just to make another point in case you throw this word in your rebuttal, a "consensus" is not always a vote. Thanks for your time Til, Jasonasosa (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel vs. Jasonasosa
|
---|
|
Africa
editThe source is here. Besides the fact that it’s more complex than the edit suggested, where is the African homeland claim? Maybe it’s there, I’m struggling reading it on my iPad,. 20:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC) --- comment by User:DougWeller.
It's not there. In a chapter on cannibalism, he writes:
" According to a persistent belief that shows up in several Byzantine authors, the ancestors of the Libyan Moors had been Canaanite refugees who fled to Africa to escape the Hebrew armies under the leadership of “that bandit Joshua.” This bizarre sounding claim finds some support in the fact that Libya was heir to a strong Semitic cultural heritage, dating back to the days of its colonization by the Phoenicians. So deeply rooted was this tradition that the church father St. Augustine, who lived in the North African town of Hippo, related that local peasants were wont to describe themselves as “Chananaei”— Canaanites. A similar tradition is preserved in rabbinic literature, where it is the Girgashile nation who evade Joshua’s onslaught by migrating to Africa." Doug Weller talk 18:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
See Jubilees 9:1: "And Ham divided amongst his sons, and the first portion came forth for Cush towards the east, and to the west of him for Mizraim, and to the west of him for Put, and to the west of him [and to the west thereof] on the sea for Canaan."
Clearly states that Canaan got his share west of Egypt.
17:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC) User:CanCanqr1989
Genetics not needed
editOne user has repeatedly inserted a section on "Genetics". It has already been reverted because Canaan is a legendary person who has no genome.
Please give your reasons or refrain from inserting that section again. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)