Talk:Gentile/Archives/2016/January

because of idolatrous practices
, your reverted text now states that the Phoenicians committed idolatrous practices. You need a source for that statement apart from to the Bible and the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is not a RS history book. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I just reverted an edit which was incorrectly described. Editor2020, Talk 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You reverted two edits which were correctly described in the second edit note. I will repost with correct description. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you added material which is not in either reference. That is source falsification and grounds for a topic ban. Be more careful next time. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you ask us to presume that the Jewish Encyclopedia is a RS on Gentile practices of "idolatry and the immoralities connected with it". That is a false statement, even worse than before I worked on it.  The JE is not an RS authority on Gentile history, nor is the Torah.  I invite you to find a better wording or revert your changes. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I ask you is to edit in accordance with wikipedia policies - which means material you add must be in the source provided. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have deleted the word "barbaric" from my text, yet the JE states "That the laws against the Gentile as a barbarian were not entirely expunged from the rabbinic literature after the advent of Christianity, was due to the persecutions and the barbaric treatment of the Jews in the Middle Ages." I cited and the JE cited Deut 6, which requires expulsion or extermination of the Gentiles.  "To cast out all thine enemies from before thee ..."  I will add other sources to improve the article. (http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/why-did-god-order-death-of-gentile.html)

So suddenly, when it suites you, the JE is a reelable source? Didn't you just state, a couple of hours ago, that the JE is not a RS on Gentile practices? If you are incapable of minimal intellectual integrity, there's really no point in discussing anything with you. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:civility. Please read the text in the article as it currently exists.  JE is a RS on the statements in the Torah -- even statements in the Torah about Gentiles -- but not an RS on the history of Gentiles.  That is the difference.  We cannot say that "Since the Gentiles were idiots who burned their own children ..." But we can say that the "The Torah alleges that the Gentiles had barbaric practices (etc.)".  There is a world of difference.  Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement that you quote above and source to the JE is "the laws against the Gentile as a barbarian were not entirely expunged from the rabbinic literature after the advent of Christianity, was due to the persecutions and the barbaric treatment of the Jews in the Middle Ages. - that is not a statement about statements on the Torah. I am happy to see that you agree it is a reliable source  on that, and it is just as reliable  with regards to statement about the practices f Gentile nations. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent my words. The JE is a RS about the rabbinic views of, and thoughts about Gentiles, just as it says.  It is not an RS on the Gentiles. Do not use it to support a statement about the Gentile nations, either in the past or the present.  The view that Gentiles were barbarians, barbaric, etc. dated to a time before 1 AD, according to that statement.  It continues from the context about the Canaanites, where the word is used repeatedly in the JE article in various forms.  JE goes to some length to justify the term by Roman view of non-Romans, Greek view of non-Greeks, etc.  There is no question that "barbarians" appropriately summarizes the JE source.  Please read the source before deleting the work of other editors. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

'expel the original inhabitants of Phoenicia (Canaan)'
This was again added to the article, soured to http://www.ancient.eu/canaan/. I could not find support for that statement in that reference. Please stop falsifying sources. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The ancient.eu website is RS only for the statement that the Canaanites are the Phoenecians. Nothing else.  That is where the footnote appears.  To confirm that the Torah says the Israelites were instructed by Jehova to exterminate or expel the Canaanites, look to the other sources.  The two Christian web pages tell that the Canaanites were to be killed and they quote the plain language of the Torah that so states.  The JE says the Gentiles were to be "exterminated," but then says that in fulfillment of the command, Joshua attempted to "drive them out." "The seven nations in the Holy Land were to be exterminated for fear they might teach the Israelite conquerors idolatry and immoral practises (Deut. vii. 1-6, xviii. 9-14, xx. 16-18); but in spite of the strenuous efforts of Joshua and other leaders the Israelites could not drive them out of the Promised Land (Josh. xiii. 1-6)."  Please examine the RSs and be more courteous in your comments. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Three was nothing uncourteous about asking you (or others) to provide support for a statement you added. The way it is now is very misleading, as placing the reference at the end of the sentence makes it seems that the ancient.eu source is used as a reference of the statement 'expel the original inhabitants of Phoenicia (Canaan)', which it does not support. If you just want to use it to support that the  Phoenicians are the Canaanites, a better formulation would be something along the lines of  'the The torah requires that the Phoenicians (also called the Canaanites )[ref here]) be expelled. But why even bother with adding that the Phoenicians are the Canaanites?  Why is that needed?


 * Taylormarshll.com is not a reliable source (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Ftaylormarshall.com.2F) and I will be removing it shortly. The Torah itself is a primary source. You need to find reliable  secondary sources for that statement. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason for indicating that Phoenicians are Canaanites is that no one outside Bible college knows what a Canaanite is, and the Bible never mentions Phoenicians. Using either of the terms alone leaves the reader in mystery. Can explain why you hold that a Bible scholar and teacher with a PhD is not a RS on the Bible?  Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that aylormarshll.com is not a reliable source is that it is a self-published website/blog, and as WP:SPS tells you "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such ... personal websites, ...are largely not acceptable as sources.". But I am not relying on my personal  opinion here- I took this to the relevant notice board, where experienced editors judged it to be unreliable (and also pointed you to where you might find more reliable sources for that same claim. ) When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At this time, only one editor commented and offered an opinion, not a ruling. I have added that editor's improved source.  If you prefer the "genocide" from that source rather than the "exterminate" statement from Marshall, I have no problem with you removing the Taylor Marshall footnote, even though what he says is in agreement with most other commentators. His six published theology books are not self-published. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no 'rulings' on WP:RSN, just a consensus of opinions. If you want to use Marshall's non-self-published books as sources, go right ahead, but reliability is not inherited, and his self-published blog is not a reliable source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When Other Legends Are Forgotten... has been blocked as a sock . I have reverted his edit whereby JE/Torah is used as an RS to say that the Gentile nations practiced idolatry and other immoralities.  Also removed the Taylor Marshall footnote as agreed earlier in that and in this discussion.

I am rather late in this discussion, but it is not surprising that the term "Phoenicians" is not used in the Bible. See our article on Phoenicia, where it is explained that the term derives from a Greek exonym for these people. In Greek (both ancient and modern, from my experience as a Greek) they are called "Φοίνικες" (Phoínikes). The term was a reference to the famous Tyrian purple. Phoenicians figure heavily in Greek mythology, with founding heroes from Tyre such as Cadmus, Phoenix, Cilix, and Europa.

There have been various attempts to reconstruct what the Phoenicians called themselves or their land. They include knʿn/kanaʿan, Kenaani/Kinaani, khna, kana`nīm/chanani. They are probably cognates to the terms Canaan and Canaanites. The Greek sources for the term "Canaan" use the version "Χαναάν" (Khanaan), the Latin sources use "Canaan", and some Ancient Egyptian sources use the term "ki-na-ah-na".

There is a difference to how the term Canaan is used in the Bible and how the term is used by modern scholars. The Jewish writers differentiate themselves from the Canaanites, and also exclude several other people/tribes of this area from the description. But linguistic and archaeological evidence points that "Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites and Phoenicians" were all Canaanites. The term Canaanite languages is now used to refer to the languages of the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and possibly the people of Ugarit. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dimadick. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)