Talk:Generations of Noah/Archive 2

Discussion adding scholarly sources and their subsequent delete to Sons of Noah article

Hi can you give me some sources for your statement: Israelites did not consider Assyrians Hamitic? Our only real source for such, 1st Temple period, is the Tanakh...and you'll find that there are 2 instances of "Asshur" in Beresh't 10 (Genesis 10). This implies a Semitic Asshur (Ber. 10:22) and and a Hamitic Asshur (Assyria) (Ber. 10:11 Ham-Cush-Nimrod-Assyria "from that land Asshur/Assyria went out)". If you can't give a source, then you have no basis for opposing the work of the 4 Israeli archaeologists that made this map (see source for image). If no source, I'll just put the map back on. regards Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a primary source, try reading some different translations of Gen. 10:11 in the major English Bibles, and compare it with the Hebrew. As for secondary sources, certainly not all are of the view that there were two Asshurs; the traditional and most usual interpretation is that there was only Asshur son of Shem, and the view that there was actually a second "Hamitic Asshur" who founded Assyria I believe is usually regarded as a rather forced and stilted mis-interpretation of the Hebrew of Gen. 10:11 (I will look for the actual sources for this discussion as soon as I get a chance). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This was based on the Hebrew text. The authorial intent of the, I assume, priestly author, was to associate Ham with Israel's enemies. Assyria and Babylon were both viewed as Hamitic based on the only source we have in the Tanakh. The point of the author in Genesis was to indicate that the people who lived in Assyria were over-run -- exterminated? -- by the Assyrian empire which was Hamitic, descended from Cush. What are you credentials, if I may ask. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "Credentials" of wikipedia editors are considered irrelevant on Wikipedia, per our founder, Jimbo Wales. What's more important is the credentials of reliable sources, and making sure that one fringe POV is not being pushed against the mainstream. What you just said about a "Hamitic Assyrian empire" overrunning another Assyrian empire, supposedly being the "point of the author in Genesis", would appear to be your Original research interpretation, since I have never once seen any source make such an outlandish claim, and I doubt you could find a reference anywhere for this interpretation of Genesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of a certain modern school of thought that has been all too popular with Bible translators, forces Hebrew Gen. 10:11 to make Assyria founded by Nimrod rather than Asshur, and some even make the resulting presumption that therefore the Israelites actually thought the Assyrians were Hamitic! (which is a real stretch of logic). So far, I have found one detailed, but conjectural discussion of the problem quoted below. However, I realize the source is not considered mainstream and thus his scholarship here will probably be subject to some ad hominem arguments, so I will keep looking for more recent discussions of this same problem. Also this source (Hislop) goes on to conclude that the word "Asshur" is really a verb 'to make strong' and not a proper name at all, which is really a long shot that has little acceptance elsewhere, seeing as Nineveh etc. are known to be in the country of Asshur. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Genesis 10:11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is properly understood, casts a very steady light on the subject. That passage, as given in the authorised version, runs thus: "Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh." This speaks of it as something remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the human race in general went forth from the same land... To obviate such difficulties as these, it has been proposed to render the words, "out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria." But then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, the word in the original should have been "Ashurah," with the sign of motion to a place affixed to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such sign of motion affixed.

In researching the sources, I have found many widely different interpretations of Gen. 10:11, and much debate as to exactly what the Hebrew means and how much can be drawn from it. So it certainly seems to be a disputed question going back for centuries. Extrapolating that the Assyrians were ever seen as a Hamitic people, does seem to be at one extreme end of the spectrum, but this should be explained or attributed in the caption if you're going to use that map. Something like 'Ancient Israelite's view of the Middle East, as reconstructed by x and y'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My purpose for making the map was to present a visual - very literal - picture of the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 based on the work of 4 (four) of the world's leading experts on historical geography, including the current world expert, Anson F. Rainey who is a prof at Tel Aviv University. This same map is published twice. First, in the Macmillan Bible Atlas by Aharoni, Rainey, et al, on p. 21, and also in Rainey's new and updated work "The Sacred Bridge" which is an annotated biblical atlas with the most current research added in notes. You'll find in the Macmillan version, on the same pg 21, a map of Assyria labelled exactly where I placed it and on the same page a map of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. There are three names which appear twice: Havilah (one for Ham and one for Shem), Sheba (one for Ham and one for Shem), and Asshur (one for Ham and one for Shem)...Asshur refers to the region from which the Assyrian Empire originates...having Asshur for Ham and Shem means that both sons of Ham and sons of Shem lived there...not that all the Assyrians were Semites. The nucleus of Shem is clustered around Southern Arabia-Ethiopia (where it is generally believed the Semitic languages originated), thus green. The nucleus of Ham is Egypt-Canaan-Northern Fertile Crescent, thus red. It makes very logical sense...no interpretation involved...the Israelites wrote this passage to show their ethnic origin and that they were not related to the the Assyrians, Babylonians, who descended from Ham's descendant Nimrod, etc...again this is not controversial...? The names appear to suggest place names. This map correctly and literally depicts the Table of Nations...so what's the problem? Most scholars and professors warn their students NOT to use Wikipedia precisely because anyone can post anything and edit or delete...I'm trying to make Wikipedia better and would appreciate you not deleting a very useful map for understanding the ancient and contemporary Middle East. Isn't the work of 4 archaeologists enough for you? Hkp-avniel (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it must be attributed per the WP:NPOV policy if it is to appear, because these four archaeologists, whatever their credentials, do not possess a monopoly on POV nor on Bible interpretation of disputed verses like Gen 10:11, and contradictory POVs and interpretations may easily be found. When I say "must be attributed", this isn't a big deal. Just reinstate the map as before, and add "according to so-and-so" to the caption, so it doesn't look so much like a bald statement of undisputed fact — when in point of fact it is disputed and controversial to state that anyone thought of Assyrians as Hamitic, and far more so to extrapolate from that presumption, that anyone ever thought "Hamitic Assyrians" had conquered "Semitic Assyrians". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted 5 hours of my work based on undisputed primary and secondary sources from archaeological and biblical scholarly sources that are available in mostly every academic library and some online. I will now be appealing to third=party editors at Wikipedia since you appear to be acting unreasonable. my regrets. Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to request for third opinion

I came here well-equipped to offer a neutral opinion, what with my being totally ignorant of the subject matter. Unfortunately, the preceding discussion doesn't give me a clear picture of the dispute. Can you folks boil it down? One point that I can pull out is Til Eulenspiegel's suggestion that the map be included but with a caption attributing it to its creators. If the content of the map is controversial, that's clearly the correct approach under WP:NPOV; if it's not controversial, the absence of well-sourced contrary views in the article should be apparent to the reader. As for this edit by which Til Eulenspiegel removed material added by Hkp-avniel, I can't give a sensible comment because I'm left unclear as to what points are made by the sources relied on by Hkp-avniel. Perhaps rewording the passage to include more direct quotations would remove the WP:NOR concerns? JamesMLane t c 10:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the response. I will post all the material that was added by Hkp-avniel and subsequently removed by Til Eulenspiegel after Shabbat. This will detail point by point my additions and Til Eulenspiegel can question my sources. All sources are professors in Israel or were (now deceased) who have published with Macmillan Publishers or peer-reviewed journals. Third-party source was BDB: Brown, Drivers, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon - a standard Lexicon in Hebrew scholarship and references to primary sources for English translations of the Tanakh/Holy Bible: the NLT New Living Translation and the JPS Jewish Publication Society translation. I think Til Eulenspiegel should add other sources that reflect a different position, which I welcome and look forward to reading, rather than delete the content and sources I posted, the opinion of which he disagrees with it seems. There is nothing controversial about the map as it was made based on the Macmillan Bible atlas and the biblical references that appear on the original map...but the original map is under copyright so I remade it...as Til requested I footnoted the source in the caption and the original image also bears the academic references in the description...I hope my improvements made the map a bit better with use of the NASA satellite image and color coding of Shem and Ham which was otherwise in pure text form, i.e. Hazarmaveth=Shem, Egypt=Ham, Canaan=Ham, etc. I will add the specific content under dispute by Til later this weekend. I believe Til's main problem is with Assyria and its capital Nineveh being identifed under "Ham" in the Table of Nations/Sons of Noah in Genesis 10:12, which properly belongs to be explained under this article, with reference to biblical Hebrew scholarship and journal articles. Hkp-avniel (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The most controversial thing about the map is that it assumes the validity of the "Documentary hypothesis", which is itself a highly controversial and disputed hypothesis that is not universally accepted. This map therefore must be attributed to its source per WP:NPOV. The extrapolation from DH of an imaginary "Asshur son of Nimrod" from this interpretation is an even bigger stretch. In 2000 years of extensive literature devoted to the subject, nobody ever mentioned once "Asshur son of Nimrod" until he was invented in our own era, and there are even precious few modern theorists who assert any such character. Why don't you try writing an article on this "Asshur son of Nimrod" first so we can link to it, and see how many reliable references you can fill it up with. He was unheard-of until the appearance of selected modern theories and schools of thought. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"In the eyes of Ancient Israelites"

Note that the map asserts that the "Ancient Israelites" thought things they never recorded, based on modern reconstructions. "Hamitic Assyrians" is a perfect example. I could just as easily create a map based on this testimony of a TRUE ancient Jewish source, (Sons_of_Noah#In_Flavius_Josephus as it appears already in the article), and it would look far different from the DH reconstruction. A map based on the identifications in Pseudo-Philo, an even older Hebrew source, would be even more different. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV can not be used to delete the work of 4 archaeologists just because they're from Israel

Perhaps you don't like Israelis I don't know...but the map and all the work I added to the page are based on multiple sources including the work of the world's leaders in Historical geography of the biblical period. I've read over your page and you (Til) seem to have a habit of arbitrarily deleting edits by others because you don't seem to like them. My solution to this disagreement, and ask for third-party opinions, is for me to readd the work I invested in the topic, which I will post momentarily, and ask Til to make his own map based on Josephus...I welcome this, in fact, and find other schoarly sources to support different view points...the intention of wikipedia was for all MAJOR and MINOR viewpoints on a subject to be included provided they are documented to appropriate sources. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, what you propose here sounds fair, but please don't assume I am anti-Israel; I am more concerned with ancient sources of the Israelites representing themselves, and not based solely on modern / 19th-century reconstructions that are very different... I may well work on a Josephus map; and let us also add sections explaining the view of your references as long as we keep it neutral; it seems listing "Asshur son of Nimrod" among the others is an extreme minority when you look at the vast number of sources for this over the centuries. But it still can be explained neutrally. I'd still like to see how much you can get on an Asshur son of Nimrod article, then we could link to that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes I propose to add to this article, that were deleted by Til, because ?

First off, I state...this article is linked to "Table of Nations" which is clearly and specifically a reference to the biblical text of Genesis 10. I will be more than happy to make a new article "Table of Nations" and you (Til) can have "Sons of Noah" since that title is not really my interest, which is to explore the sources and people groups, archaeologically, etc listed in Genesis 10.

I ask a specific reason or objection and alternative source document for any objection...I'd rather have multiple sources to present all viewpoionts. As cearly stated in WP:RS, and I quote: Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics...this means the best article will have multiple viewpoints. Point out what is not sourced properly below, and I will remove it...you find your sources and add it...don't just delete what you don't agree with or like...we want all relevant viewpoints discussed.

If you're talking about making a "pov fork", the objections are outlined at WP:POVFORK, something we are not supposed to do. Both titles refer to the same subject and should be at one title. But I seriously think we do need an article on this Asshur son of Nimrod, and see what the sources are that actually discuss it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Historicity and coverage

File:Middle East Shem-Ham v2.jpg

The Middle East through eyes of the ancient Israelites

According to Genesis 10, all the present population of the world was descended from Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. Until the mid-19th century, this was taken by many as historical fact. They are still taken as historical by Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and many Christians. There are disputes as to how many of the peoples of the Earth it was intended to cover, and as to its accuracy.

Young earth creationists and many among Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims, retain the belief that the Table of Nations applies to the entire people of Earth, holding to the traditional reading of the events recorded in the Bible as historical. This belief is based on a literal reading of Genesis 10:32: “All the nations of the earth descended from these clans after the great flood” (NLT). The dispute hinges on the translation of the Hebrew phrase "בארץ" in Genesis 10:32, which is traditionally rendered as "of the earth" (as above). The Hebrew preposition ב has many possible translations, among the most common of which are “in” or “of” based on current Hebrew lexicon research. Thus, two literal renderings of the Hebrew for "בארץ" are “in the land”/“in the earth” or “of the land”/“of the earth” (the definite article "the" (Hebrew: ה) is in this phrase only represented as a vowel that changes the pronunciation of ב and in the Masoretic Text is written under ב). In the biblical literature, "ארץ" was used to refer to the whole Earth, but also used in reference to the Land of Israel or the Land of Canaan. In modern Hebrew, "הארץ" ("the Land" pronounced as "HaAretz") is understood and used as a reference to the Land of Israel. The implication is that the Table of Nations can be interpreted in its historical context as an Iron Age ethnology (circa 1200 BCE – 586 BCE) to explain the ethnic make-up of the people groups living in ancient Israel and the surrounding regions, their allies and enemies, that were known to the ancient Israelites who authored the text or alternatively, as an ethnology of all people groups on the Earth.

Table of Nations

Shem, Ham and Japheth. Illustration by James Tissot 1904.

The table of nations in Genesis 10 begins by listing Noah's immediate children:

• Shem, forefather of the middle peoples (Semitic Arabia and Ethiopia)
• Japheth, forefather of the northern peoples (Japhetic Eurasia, and "seafaring peoples that spread to various lands" (NLT Genesis 10:4)
• Ham, forefather of the southern peoples (Hamitic Africa, Canaan, and the Fertile Crescent)

Ham's descendants

• • • Ashur, "son" of Nimrod (Genesis 10:11-12). The Assyrians traced themselves to the god-ancestor Ashur and the city he founded by that name on the Tigris or a city built by Nimrod; either interpretation can be found in various modern versions. In Genesis 10:11 the use of אשור Asshur here is identical to אשור Asshur the son of Shem in Genesis 10:22. In Modern Hebrew usage אשור Asshur is identified with the Assyrians and the Assyrian Empire and the geographical region it possessed, which at its zenith included multiple people groups from Egypt (Mizraim) in the South, the Land of Canaan (Canaan), parts of Anatolia, Elam (a Semitic people listed under the sons of Shem), and the entire Fertile Crescent. The literal translation of Genesis 10:11a is "From that Land Asshur [Assyria] went out" or the NLT English Translation as "From there he expanded his territory to Assyria." In Genesis 10:11-12, Ashur, the descendant of Ham, or Assyria is credited with building the cities of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, Rehobothir, Calah, and Resen.
  • Mizraim, son of Ham. Mizraim is a name for Upper and Lower Egypt and literally translates as Ta-Wy in Ancient Egyptian ("The Two Lands"). The -aim in Mizraim represents dual number. Arabic-speaking modern Egyptians refer to their country as miṣr. Add: Hebrew: מצרים, modern Hebrew and biblical Hebrew usage both identify Mizraim with Egypt.
  • Ludim, offspring of Mizraim. Sometimes considered a scribal error for Lubim, a reference to the Lebu of Eastern Libya.
  • Caphtorim, offspring of Mizraim, associated with Caphtor, and Crete, the point of origin of the Philistines (Genesis 10:13). While there has been some debate as to the precise dating, archaeologists have also identified Cyprus as a location in the Philistine migration to ancient Canaan during the 12th Century BCE (Iron Age IA as per Mazar's chronology) largely on the basis of material culture, specifically MYC.IIIC:1b pottery which is virtually identical in style as found on Cyprus and in several Philistine settlements in ancient Canaan, especially Ashdod and Ekron (Tel Miqne).

Shem's descendants

• Ashur, son of Shem. The Assyrians traced themselves to the god-ancestor Ashur and the city he founded by that name on the Tigris or a city built by Nimrod, son of Ham, while the ancient Israelites traced their descent to Abram, who became Abraham through a covenantal relationship with YHWH (Genesis 17), who was identified as a son of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26). In Genesis 10:22 אשור Asshur the son of Shem is identical to אשור Asshur the Son of Ham in Genesis 10:11 (see Ashur above under Nimrod). In Modern Hebrew usage אשור Asshur is identified with the Assyrians and the Assyrian Empire and the geographical region it possessed, which at its zenith included multiple people groups from Egypt (Mizraim) in the South, the Land of Canaan (Canaan), parts of Anatolia, and the entire Fertile Crescent, which included Semitic people groups such as Elam (see above).

As far as changes that's all I've proposed at this time. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"The interpretation of a certain modern school of thought that has been all too popular with Bible translators, forces Hebrew Gen. 10:11 to make Assyria founded by Nimrod rather than Asshur, and some even make the resulting presumption that therefore the Israelites actually thought the Assyrians were Hamitic! (which is a real stretch of logic)." Actually a better tanslation of that verse "reveals that Asshur and Nimrod went out of the land of Shinar to build Nineveh and other cities. There is strong evidence to indicate that Asshur worked with Nimrod, probably in the military field, and helped to build Babel and Nineveh, as well as other cities." This is from Germany and the Holy Roman Empire.72.79.64.123 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on "Ashur son of Nimrod"

"Ashur son of Nimrod" gets exactly one hit, and if you spell it correctly as "Asshur son of Nimrod", you get 5 hits — all from fringe sources. This is fringe material; there is no "Ashur son of Nimrod" anywhere in the Bible by almost anyone's interpretation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

spelling of Ashur as Asshur follows Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze'ev Safrai to note the difference between the Hebrew letter "sin" which is pronounced as "s" and "shin" which is pronounced as "sh". Moot point Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok...you didn't respond...I was waiting for you to point out something very obvious...why does "Assyria" have two "s"s? In the Hebrew text, which I'm wondering did you check? Assyria appears as אשור what you can't see here are the Masoretic pointing that indicate the vowels etc. In the middle of the letter "Shin" which is "sh" there is a dagesh...a dot...which means that this word should be written with 2 (two) "shin"s, thus it would look like Ashshur in English, which doesn't make sense...so it becomes Asshur. Thus, at some point, someone made it into Assyria. this is why I following biblical scholars, etc, write it as Asshur. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To Avoid further controversy and violations of NPOV as per common Wikipedia practice, I have deleted all data on Ashur/Asshur under both Nimrod and Shem until specific scholarly sources are posted to this discussion page first support any position. This has been moved here from the Sons of Noah page: Hkp-avniel (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Nimrod:

Original content: "Sumer, and possibly cities in Assyria. The Hebrew wording of Genesis 10:11 has led to some ambiguity as to whether Asshur here is the son of Shem or a city built by Nimrod; either interpretation can be found in various modern versions."

My observation, traditional understanding is that Nimrod, Babylon, and Ashur is a reference to Assyria with its capital in Nineveh. See Genesis 10: 10-12 where Ashur (Assyira) is linked to the building of Nineveh. This is where references to the Assyrian empire should be listed. See any biblical commentary or biblical atalas of the ancient world that identifies Nineveh as the capital of Assyria, listed under "Nimrod" in Genesis 10. sources required for contrary view. Hkp-avniel (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly references to Asshur/Ashur under Nimrod/Ham:

Anson F. Rainey, Tel Aviv University:

"Furthermore, the link between Cush and Nimrud [ed. Nimrod] the mighty hunter is strange. Nimrud is associated with a group of cities in Mesopotamia: Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar (*Sanga = Sumer in Mesopotamian terminology), and Ashur (Assyria), and its political capital, Nineveh and Calah. The Chronicler [1 Chronicles 1:4-23] mentions the connection between Nimrud and Cush but he ignores the list of Mesopotamian cities." [Source: Anson Rainey, The Sacred Bridge, Carta: Jerusalem, 2006, p. 27.] posted by: Hkp-avniel (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Added comment: all text in (brackets) is original. Text I added I put in square [brackets]...edited this to show [ed. square brackets]. Request this editing convention to distinguish between what we add to avoid confusion and what is in the original quote. Hkp-avniel (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments on Rainey: Rainey is considered one of the leading scholars on historical geography of the biblical period and probably is versed in every relevant language (from word-of-mouth sources...sorry don't have a thrid-party article for that one), BUT he is not a biblical Hebrew scholar specialist, but an ancient Semitic language specialist...if there's a difference...don't know, but Semitic linguists tend to identify "Semitic" as something purely linguistic and not ethnic, as per contemporary practice; this is possibly a bias in Rainey. Also, he is not a native-born Israeli, but moved to Israel and at some point converted to Judaism. He rejects the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Tanakh as per Asshur and follows the modern Hebrew to English transliteration of Ashur based on the modern Hebrew אשור which has no pointing inside the ש to indicate a doubling of the ש (modern Hebrew is written without vowels/pointing like ancient Hebrew, but unlike the Masoretic text. Genesis and 1 Chronicles were written at different times, maybe something here...but argument from silence in 1 Chronicles doesn't negate Genesis 10. Will see if I can find 2 or 3 more sources that support Rainey and look for even 1 source that supports the view that Assyria, the Assyrian Empire, its capital Nineveh (which the Prophet Jonah didn't want to convert to Judaism), etc, should be identified as Shem/Semitic. Hkp-avniel (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments on my comments on Rainey: Is Rainey a valid NPOV source? or do we achieve NPOV by having multiple sources on different viewpoints, major and minor? Thus, include Rainey, but also others. Hkp-avniel (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Shem:

Original content: "The Assyrians traced themselves to the god-ancestor Ashur and the city he founded by that name on the Tigris".

I don't see any traditional historical, archaeological, or otherwise justification for linking the Assyrian empire to Ashur, son of Shem. No reference is made in the text Genesis 10:22 where Ashur, Son of Shem is found to any geographical or other place name associated with Assyrians. Compare above. Assyria belongs under Sons of Ham. Hkp-avniel (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

List of English translations: add here

Genesis 10:11 - Asshur under Ham:

JPS - classic Jewish publication socieity of Tanakh translation:

"Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah,"

NLT - one of the newest evangelical Christian translations - a collaboration of the best scholars they have to offer:

"From there he expanded his territory to Assyria, building the cities of of Nineveh, Rehobothir, Calah"

KJV - classic King James version - Christian:

"Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah"

Genesis 10:22 - Asshur under Shem:

JPS - classic Jewish publication socieity of Tanakh translation:

"The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram"

NLT - one of the newest evangelical Christian translations - a collaboration of the best scholars they have to offer:

"The descendants of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram"

KJV - classic King James version - Christian:

"The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkp-avniel (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of Project-level fork: delete Table of Nations redirect to Sons of Noah

Main page: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks

I posted to the redirect page...but it merely indicates to notify the original author in good faith...so here is my notification. The new "Table of Nations" article will focus strictly on scholarly discussions of the biblical text in Genesis 10 with ref to archaeology, biblical textual analysis, etc. Thus, "Table of Nations" will be a "technical" article strictly on the biblical text while "Sons of Noah" can be the general reader article on all sources relating to the Sons of Noah for the novice, high-school, college, etc as your purpose statement indicates. I haven't had any objections otherwise so will go ahead and start this. Your outline is good so I will use the basic structure, but it will follow a different format, and become highly technical: Hebrew text discussion, etc.

Just for your info on Forks wikipedia writes:

"There is a difference between article forking within Wikipedia and the legitimate practice of project-level forking. This latter occurs when someone wishes to create their own wiki, according to their own standards and practices, but they want to use Wikipedia's content as a starting place. As long as the new project adheres to their obligations under the GFDL in exchange for use of this content, this is perfectly acceptable. Project-level forking is discussed in more detail at Wikipedia:Forking FAQ."

So rather than "avoid consensus" I wish to make the Table of Nations article a more detailed and focused project within the allowed usage Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. This will include VERY detailed discussions of Asshur - Nimrod as well as all other people groups refered to in Genesis 10 - which the title given to it is "Table of Nations." I think your focus is fine, for a general reader article who wants an overview. "Sons of Noah" should properly include more than just Genesis 10, such as Josephus, etc...so I will put a link to your page in the very first paragraph indicating "for a general discussion of the Sons of Noah" of something to that effect. Sound reasonable? Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that you "haven't had any objections." I have objected, and I do object, because this is a blatant WP:POVFORK, and there is no need or precedent to have two separate articles about the same thing to accomodate two different editors. They need to be merged.

I have said it thrice before and I will say it a fourth time: If you want to make a new article, the place for you to start would be to create a needed article Asshur, son of Nimrod where you can discuss all the bare minority of recent sources who acknowledge any such figure, or who deduce his existence from some extension hypothesis to the (already fragile) documentary hypothesis. Please, don't go into articles laying out your theories involving this Asshur, son of Nimrod until you've done that minimum groundwork, that we can link to from the other articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Til...you will get full credit for the original framework in the edit summary and I will link to your article Sons of Noah, but frankly, you are being unreasonable. I've done my good faith notification, Wikipedia has grown precisely because editors take what someone has started and build on it and improve it...it's the same in the protocol in the Open Source world, is it not? I was only an e-Business manager (can't believe that doesn't have a wikipedia article...will add that to the to-do list), but not an open source programmer, but only a web programmer and served my time with VB.net at the intro level so I could understand it enough, but the protocol above is how I understand open source and I believe this is the spirit of Wikipedia. I will link to your Sons of Noah article, but will make an article that ONLY discusses the Table of Nations...I think it best to have a brief summary of the Table of Nations for the existing Sons of Noah page which will link to the main article on the Table of Nations and vice versa on the Table of Nations page a summary of Sons of Noah with a link to the main article on the page you created. Hopefully, collaboration...not arbitrary DELETE will continue. If you do continue to arbitrarily delete and stand in the way of this process of expansion of wikipedia I will continue to seek resolution to this dispute at higher levels of authority on Wikipedia.

By the words you use, it seems that you are more concerned about controlling consensus rather than reaching it. You have been given notice, unless any third party indicates otherwise I will go ahead with the Project fork deleting the Table of Nations redirect and replacing it with a relevant article. This is a reasonable and fair solution, as at present, in my opinion, you are "cyber-squatting" on Table of Nations.

The learning and research process, in general, is built on a general overview and survey followed by more in-depth study and analysis. Sons of Noah is a perfect place for the general overview and Table of Nations will be the more in-depth study...not everyone wants so much detail so they may prefer the Sons of Noah article...your hard work is not wasted or overlooked...it will be the foundation upon which Wikipeditors build something new.

I will wait and if no third party objections or comments are posted will proceed as I have detailed in this post. שלום salem or however you prefer to say peace Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not proceed without explicit 3rd party consensus, which will be highly unlikely, considering it's a blatant violation of WP:POVFORK. I'm not being unreasonable here; there is simply no such thing on wikipedia as "my article" and "your article"... (See also WP:OWN). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait one more day...if no one has posted any objections then will proceed as outlined above. I've posted to both the redirect page and active disagreements page. If no one lists any objections then the fork will proceed. Hkp-avniel (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE posted objections. You still don't get it, or pretend you don't read them, so I guess I'll keep repeating. Making a blatant WP:POVFORK of the same topic for no reason given, other than to accomodate two disagreeing editors' disparate points of view, is most improper and would be speedily reversed. To do so without any consensus, is even more improper. One editor in favor of a POVFORK, and one against, does NOT a consensus make. If you need a 3rd opinion besides myself to explain WP:POVFORK to you, please seek it, before proceeding unilaterally against consensus and policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please read again what a "project-level fork" refers to. It clearly states that it does not refer to creating a second article about the same subject, ie a "povfork". What it actually refers to is creating a whole new website apart from wikipedia. Is that what you want to do? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A legitimate project-level fork within wikipedia is described here: Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking. You can also read: What content forking is not.

Forking would be to have two articles: 1 on the Table of Nations and a 2nd on Genesis 10. Currently, this article Sons of Noah discusses multiple ancient texts, including Genesis 10/Table of Nations. A legitimate project for is a dedicated article to Table of Nations/Genesis 10. A good example is the article on Stratigraphy, in the body text you'll see section 6 on Archaeological stratigraphy which is then linked to the main article: Archaeological stratigraphy This is directly analogous to what I'd like to do with the Table of Nations/Genesis 10. Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking does not refer to creation of new articles within Wikipedia. It's talking about use of some or all of Wikipedia's content in a non-Wikipedia project. The example of Stratigraphy shows the use of a daughter article to provide more detail about a specific aspect of the broader subject, as explained in Wikipedia:Summary style. There's also a relevant discussion in Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles.

The question here is whether your proposed new article goes into more detail about one particular aspect of the Sons of Noah article, or whether it is instead a POV fork. You need drop your reference to the inapplicable "project fork" material and instead address this genuine concern. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see...I think you are correct, project fork is the wrong term. I don't want there to be an overlap of articles either...but similar to the Stratigraphy article example above. So my proposed article will be a brief intro paragraph to set it in context (based on Til's work), and the actual Hebrew text of Genesis 10 (will also add redirect for Genesis 10), with 2 english translations JPS and NLT below it (allowed usage since won't exceed 500 verses), verse by verse, plus annotaions to scholarly sources, other translations, and commentaries from all faiths and non-faiths/atheists, etc. This is intended to be useful to the archaeologist or biblical scholar who wants to go into more detail on any given point in this article with quick reference to articles, etc annotated. I'd like to do this in a manner that Til will perceive as building on his work, not competing or reduplicating it. Til please comment on how best I can proceed to the next step to have you on-board for this. thanks for the input.

Reference re: redirct Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_29 Hkp-avniel (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The next best step to have me on board, as I said above, is to create an article for this "Ashur son of Nimrod" and mention exactly what sources have ever postulated his specific inclusion among the Table of Nations. That would help you, help me, and help wikipedia, as it is a needed article, especially if you are going to refer to this theory in other articles. Each time I have suggested this, you have not responded to this proposal of mine, so its hard to gauge your opinion on it. Let's do that first (I'll be glad to help) and then talk about what the most useful daughter articles to split off from here might be, if any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See below notice as per above link in case you didn't follow it. I have exams the next few weeks and then Pesah so probably won't post the proposed article on Hebrew text of Genesis 10/Table of Nations as detailed above until after then. Will follow biblical Hebrew spelling for English transliteration in comments to preserve original Masoretic text (as per Asshur versus Ashur). modern Hebrew will be used as additional commentary, but not source text. Was hoping to have you on-board. Hopefully, you'll come around. Please see below:

Source: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_29

The result of the debate was Kept. If an article is desired, the redirect can be changed to an article. We don't delete redirects in these cases as the history is still valid. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it and just create the new article in its place- just make sure the two articles aren't overlapping in what they cover. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else besides you "on board"? If so I missed it! I don't see how you could avoid an overlap... Why will you not respond to the request for a needed Ashur son of Nimrod page beforehand? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, paticence. I will add the new article on the Table of Nations/Genesis 10 as specified above and supported by JLaTondre and JeremyMcCracken. The new Genesis 10 redirect you created will also be changed to point to Table of Nations/Genesis 10 (as per my original post on 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC), before you created the new redirect - see above), since it will contain the actual text of Genesis 10, and thus Genesis 10 is more appropriately linked to the actual text, but thanks for saving it from any other article for me. The new article will have notes on sources, which will then be used and expanded in "encyclopedia style" - but with footnotes, and not inline citations to add to all the individual Sons of Noah pages step-by-step, including Ashur/Asshur. Method is to move from verse 1 through to the end of the chapter, Hebrew, and Greek (Septuagint) and English translations. I am recruiting other students/scholars to work on this project as well, who are versed in other ancient languages. This new article and Sons of Noah are very imporant as it reflects ancient ethnographic research that is invaluable, and potentially challenging, to current genetics research on modern populations. Citations are VERY important. Please, patience, thanks. Hkp-avniel (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be wrong to infer consensus for a POV fork from these two editors comments not to eliminate the redirect. They are only concerned with not eliminating the redirect. A POV fork, having two proposed articles covering the same subject that you have above consistently referred to as "your article" and "my article", is explicitly forbidden and unjustifiable by any policy or guideline. We have to work together within this article. Since your version seems to involve some fringe POV that includes an untestified "Asshur son of Nimrod", I am once again pleading with you to respond to my request to create a needed article on this Asshur son of Nimrod, where we can explain exactly how much (or how little) there is on this character, and who the published sources for him would be, before proceeding to add your claims involving him to a whole slew of other articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this from the whatlinkshere of my user page. As Til Eulenspiegel said, I voted not to delete simply because deletion was not necessary per the nomination. No opinion on creation of an article, or article content. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Since "Sons of Noah" and "Table of Nations" are the same subject, it would be inappropriate to have two separate articles under those names. Furthermore, this article needs extensive rewriting and reliable sourcing before any article split is considered. Poorly sourced articles should be mercilessly edited down and then expanded using reliable sources, and/or significantly rewritten using reputable references. If after that point a section is outgrowing the article, it would be appropriate to split off the section into a new article. Only when the article is in decent shape and in accord with the available reliable sources can an accurate determination be made about what, if any, content needs to be spun off into new articles. Vassyana (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Historicity

The article now reads as if the literal interpretation of the story of Noah was the primary Christian position. That is not necessarily true. Many Christians and Jews read some of these passages symbolically, allegorically, poetically, etc. We should should improve the wording in the article so that it does not claim to represent the full specrtum of Biblical views. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All we need are reliable sources that tell us exactly which specific denominations have rejected Genesis, and when and where those denominations made such a declaration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about rejecting any part of the Bible. Most Mainline (Protestant) denomintions do not have a dogmatic stand on whether Biblical inerrancy or Biblical infallibility is required: members with both interpretations are often in the same pew. Likewise strict young earth creationists, and theistic evolutionists could share coffee after church. The strict literal interpretation is followed by some but certainly not all Christians. It is incorrect for this article to assume that most are Biblical literalists. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, all we need are reliable sources that tell us exactly which specific denominations have rejected Genesis (in whole or in part, or any "strict literal interpretation" you care to call it) or have ever made any statements on the subject of any kind whatsoever. If the sources are there, it will be easy to include their viewpoints and represent them accurately. If the sources are not there, it will be difficult to represent their viewpoints accurately.

It seems that the default for most Christian denominations is the canon established by the Council of Nicea, but I understand there may be some variations from this, including some Churches that have issued their specific positions explicitly stating that they do not interpret Genesis "literally" but rather in some other way, or even leave it up to the individual whether or not to accept it as canonical. All we need are solid references as to exactly which churches those are. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should be about the Sons of Noah. Arguments about the various interpretations of Biblical historicity belong perhaps in Biblical literalism. But yes, there are several views of the story of Noah. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance gives a nice overview of conservative and liberal views [1]. Commentary in "The Learning Bible" from the American Bible Society suggests that the flood story is "pre-history" and the first historical character is Abraham. The more accademic Harper Collins Bible Comentary indicates that some consider early Genesis stories as myth and suggests that they be read as parables or "theological naratives". Many other citations for multiple interpretations are also available. These differences do not need to be resolved (particularly here) but the existence of multiple views needs to be reported. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)