Talk:Canaan (son of Ham)

message: Please 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)
replies: text: Done. Jasonasosa (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename article

message: It 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)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: I 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scope of this article 

message: The 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)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: One 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)
thread_title:  Genetics not needed