Talk:Remphan

A "v" character is identified (yod) - this can't be right. A Hebrew speaker should correct this. The whole thing reeks of sloppy syncretic sourcing.

I have tried to update the Hebrew. WeDoSome (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the Star of Chiun the same as that of David?

I'm not trying to conspiracize or anything, but it seems bizarre to me that the symbol of Remphan's star has never been researched by biblical scholars, and instead all you see on Google are anti-semitic blogposts bashing Jews for using the Star of Moloch as their symbol. If anyone knows what that star looked like, let me know.

Also, it seems like the relevant Bible verses explicitly state that it was the Israelites who worshipped Moloch/Remphan during their exile in the desert. Correct me if I'm wrong on that but wouldn't that reinforce the idea that the star of David was originally that of Moloch?

Another thing that's worthy of note is the fact that David was never associated with a certain symbol (much less a star) until much later in the historical timescale. ConfusedEnoch (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling with whether to just say "some say" versus "anti-Zionists say", on the relevant sentence here. WeDoSome (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point. But regardless of this...we could just add a picture of the actual thing that has been referenced several times in the article and people could search it themselves and decide.

It seems intentional to leave a picture of this out. What are we worried about here? We are not making an accusation. We are just showing a picture of the thing being spoken about. P7i7d9l1uk (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Since "Star of Remphan" is mentioned several times...would it be helpful to perhaps provide a picture of this?

I searched on Google Images for "Star of Remphan"...and, yes, it does look very similar to the Star of David.

Maybe this is the reason why the image cannot be shown?

I suppose the ADL would be upset as that could be seen as anti-semitic, regardless of whether the picture truthfully depicts what it very similar to the image. P7i7d9l1uk (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey it would be great if you could not antisemitically conspiracy about the (((ADL))) suppressing free speech or whatever nonsense you believe in.

There is no description of either the "star of Remphan" nor the star of David anywhere in the bible. Therefore you cannot say "it does look very similar to the Star of David", and this is why it is not depicted in Wikipedia, because there is no source. The allegation that "it does look very similar to the Star of David" reached by looking at whatever shows up in a google search is working backwards from the conclusions of idiots online who've connected the only two dots that exist in their tiny brains, Google does not show what is correct, it shows what matches certain keywords and what gets clicked on most. Yilmaz1001 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

User:WeDoSome additions

@WeDoSome:. You're quoting excessively from a website biblegateway.com which hardly counts as a reliable source. Translations, even if published thousands of years later, are still primary sources so please find reliable secondary sources.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not mischaracterize, or mass-revert all my improvements to the article. Biblegateway.com is only used three times, to provide a link to the Bible verse in which Remphan is mentioned. It is not used as a "source" for any statement. The books on which I'm relying as sources are not Bibles or translations of Bibles, again please do not mischaracterize or vandalise the article. WeDoSome (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources, nor are self-published books. Sources must be from reliable publishers. Drsmoo (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

lol, now I understand the "problem" - relax, Wikisource is not "a Wiki", it is a link to the actual published books. If I'm quoting "The History of the Hutterite Clan, 1914", I can LINK TO IT on Wikisource as it in fact improves reliability by providing a quick and easy link to ascertain the book does indeed say that. Wikisource is consistently and properly used in references on WP. Please do not remove. Was there a specific other reference you felt was not reliable? WeDoSome (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No, user-edited sources are not reliable on Wikipedia. Neither are self-published sources, for example, the self-published nonsense you included in your edit that describes itself as a "prophetic book with supernatural revelations, that would shake the world" that alleges the star of David is related to the "antichrist". Drsmoo (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm done, I see why Larry Sanger said Wikipedia was beyond saving. I can spend hours collecting resources and you'll complain because they're hosted on...get this, your own servers. I'm not citing user-contributions, I'm citing Origen, Tertullian, Voltaire...with LINKS to the authors on Wikisource. I'm out. WeDoSome (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)