Talk:Tiras

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dacia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Could someone please add a citation for Josephus here?[edit]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.84.129 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible[edit]

The IP editor 172... insists that the article explicitely states that Tiras is "unmentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible".

I object (1) mainly because by stating that he is mentioned in Genesis (ch. 10) and 1 Chronicles (ch. 1, which merely recaptures the genealogies from Genesis) we already imply that he is not mentioned anywhere else. Otherwise we would also mention these other verses. (2) Furthermore, since Tiras is only a name in a genealogical list and not important in any way to anything reported in the Bible. Let's face it: the Bible is about Abraham and his descendants, mainly the people of Israel, and not about any distant relatives. (3) The wording "in the Hebrew Bible" preferred by the 172... also implies that he is only "unmentioned" in the Hebrew Bible and not in other version of the Bible (translations like the Septuagint or more expansive versions like the one encompassing Old and New Testament).

Str1977 ^(talk) 13:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] What poor logic. All the other grandsons are mentioned elsewhere. This one isn't. That in itself is obviously significant, but it is not expressly implicit that he is not otherwise mentioned if this is not stated, and it seems you are trying to remove content just for the heck of it, which I will oppose :-)172.56.35.21 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the other grandsons are mentioned elsewhere? Can you elaborate where the following are mentioned:

Gomer
Madai: as a person or patriarch, not as "the Medes"
Javan
Tubal
Meshech

I'll leave out Magog because he is prominent in the term "Gog and/of Magog".

I'm also restricting myself to the sons of Japheth. There are numerous names mentioned in Genesis 10 that are never or almost never heard from again. just look at the grandsons of Japeth, many descendants of Ham or Shem (Arpachsad, Lud or Uz, anyone).

Finally, on a minor note, "unmentioned" is not an English word. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What language do you say wikt:unmentioned is then? The others are well known to be mentioned in Ezekiel, but Tiras is unmentioned :-)- Are we even on the same page here? 172.56.35.21 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May you please put your money where your mouth is and provide VERSES for the ALL the names I indicated - if you can't even do it for five names, your contention that "All the other grandsons are mentioned elsewhere" seems to be hot air. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Not that it matters much but Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you seriously still want to try to assert then that "unmentioned" is not an English word? Are you Samuel Johnson now? 172.56.35.21 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Oh and please don't drag me into a total red herring and demand proof, why should I have to prove where the other 16 names occur in Daniel, Ezekiel etc when that is a different topic for this article and not really in dispute anyway! 172.56.35.21 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made an assertion and are unwilling to back it up. I have no problem with this but don't expect me to take your claims seriously then. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is click on each of the names you linked and there it will inform you where they occur in Ezekiel 36, Daniel 8 etc, it's a little silly that you expect me to spoon feed the verses to you here when all this has no bearing on this article. 172.56.35.21 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as little bearing on the article as your cherished sentence that "Tiras is unmentioned (sic!) elsewhere". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not new material by any means, it has been pored over for thousands of years when in fact there was little else to pore over. I can give you every assurance that it has not escaped the notice of past scholarship that the name Tiras is notable for being the only one of the sixteen grandsons of Noah whose name does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. All fifteen of the others do. This is common knowledge in hundreds of sources and among anyone who has really looked at the topic. So do you wanna drop the stick and walk away, or have it all excruciatingly dragged out with proof that yes, Tiras is unmentioned and the others all are, and yes this has been noticed and is common knowledge? Your tack of asserting "unmentioned" is not English suggests this isn't goingto be easy and tthat you're not really here but just want to bicker 172.56.35.21 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized, More Work Needed[edit]

I've reorganized the whole article, because it had ancient and modern sources indiscriminately mixed together. As it stands now, the opening paragraph contains a summary of modern scholarly views, followed by two paragraphs on views in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After that, all of the ancient and medieval sources are now presented in chronological order. There's still work to be done, though, especially in finding sources for all the claims in the article.Alephb (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turcsha[edit]

There are no such people as the Turcsha, despite the citation to Waltke in the lead. What we're dealing with here is a typo. In all of the JSTOR database, there is no mention of "Turcsha," and on Google Books there are only two mentions. The first is the Commentary by Waltke, while the second is in a note from a Study Bible, published two years after Waltke, which appears to be lifting a bit of Waltke's wording.

Among all the actual literature on the Sea Peoples, no Turcsha. What you will find is a group called Teresh or Tursha, occasionally spelled Turisha in older works. Teresh and Tursha appear over and over, in tons of works mentioning the Sea Peoples. It also makes sense that Turcsha would be a typo — Teresh and Tursha both sound a good deal closer to Tiras than Turcsha does.

Therefore, we should remove the citation to Waltke, so as not to lead our readers down a rabbit-trail to nowhere. Alephb (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]