Talk:Canaanite religion

message: Isn't this a  violation?
:Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.
I mean, are there many modern Canaanites running around? "Canaanite religion" in and of itself already describes an ancient former belief system and, afaik, there is no "modern Canaanite religion" of any importance that needs to be distinguished. The article itself already starts with Canaanite religion and not ancient Canaanite... — LlywelynII 03:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @LlywelynII: Agreed, done.  Sandstein  09:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Move back to [[Canaanite religion]]

message: One footnote seems to be phrased in a way that is either a departure from the neutral point of view or represents original research.
I don't think it's an unreasonable statement but I'm interested to see how it fits in with the rules.
This is my first time posting so please tell me if footnotes are exempt from these principles. 
Here is a direct quote from the page:
 f. The Bible, I think, is neither historical nor historiographical, but a secondary collection of tradition.  Isaric87 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Isaric87 it appears to be a sourced quote. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes, NPOV and Original Research 

message: Please do not remove good sources and do not insert crappy ones. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were a bad source, Wikipedia would have warned me before I published my work. These are baseless claims that you're making. Pieruto33 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some sources are indeed blacklisted, but not so many as you might think. But wendag.com is on the outskirts of Wikipedia's radar. Or was, till now. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of bad sources are not blacklisted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crappy sources 

message: El is being conflated with Yaweh. This is like saying Thor is Yaweh because he's called a god and so is Yaweh. The El page simply doesn't support this reading. El is just a general term for any god. The idea that Yaweh was split from a Cainenite pantheon seems fringe. Especially in light of Jewish distaste for pantheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For us WP:FRINGE is generally speaking defined by WP:CHOPSY. In other words, Yahweh cannibalizing his father El is not fringe, your POV is fringe. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

text: None of this is the subject of the article, and I've removed this stuff from the lead, where it was undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  El is just a general word for any god. Not for the Jewish God. 

message: Given that the Canaanite religious system was subject to a cultural evolution that ultimately resulted in the earliest forms of the Israelite religious system, think there should be a section on this page that covers the elements of this socio-religious transformation in the region. Mistamystery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any sources that sounds like a great idea, especially since it's so heavily referenced in the bible QueerCB97 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Absolutely agree. I don't know how to add it to the page, but a good source is The Early History of God : Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith. 76.113.21.168 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed section: Evolution into Israelite Religion 

message: The link doesn't work anymore 2A01:CB00:8BDE:6400:9046:F2E9:872E:5097 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  source n°27 is broken