Talk:List of Canaanite rulers

WP:NPOV
As it stands, this article is written from a biblical literalist/Creationist point of view. Some of this may be solved by restructuring, I'll start a new section for this. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure
The way this is set out conflates biblical claims with those that can be confirmed by non-biblical sources. It also makes it very difficult to show the controversies over dating, etc. It has 'Synchronicity' sections that are very difficult to deal with due to disputes over dates, lack of information, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest dividing up: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Biblical vs epigraphic (trying to conciliate the two is likely to prove messy)
 * Second, locality of rule (Ugarit, Edom, etc)
 * Third, (order by) date of rule
 * 'Syncronicity' should only come into play if we have a WP:RS stating that they were contemporaries (e.g. because of correspondence/battle/etc between them).

Synchronicity
The Synch section I added with remarkable ease: Abimelech, the king of Canaan that sold land to Abram, is in Synch with (guess what) Abram! Og, the "remnant of the Giants" killed by Moses, is in Synch with Moses. Job is in Synch with the Book of Job, etc.LutherVinci (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC) My structure is (was) exactly the same as that suggested above! No difference I can see, anyway. So... why was it deleted?LutherVinci (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just redirected it. If you want to build this article, you are certainly welcome to, but it's clearly a case of WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That only applies if the article is unfix-able. I argue it can, but no one gave me the chance before deleting it!LutherVinci (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice a "synchronicity" section. However, nothing should be there unless reliable sources comment on it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * it wasn't a section, it was a column.
 * LutherVinci, the article isn't "deleted", you are free to take what you think is salvageable from the edit history. Just make sure that whatever you restore is sourced properly.
 * the article was actually purely biblical if it were not for the attempt to give a real-world date in the "possible date" column. It would be possible to restore this in a context that is entirely limited to the Biblical Canaanites. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)