Talk:Baal Hammon

incorporating additional content

This article was shorter than the section on the god in the overview article Baʿal. I've incorporated some of that material here, if it's sourced, but I don't claim to have verified it independently. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Move to Baal Hammon

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Baal-hamon → Baal Hammon – Per WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs.

User:Cynwolfe was well-meaning with his move here but the current placement is incorrectly capitalized, hyphenated, and spelled. You can't use vanilla Google for stuff like this, but Google Scholar shows that

• #1): Baal Hamon is preferred to Baal-Hamon, both are preferred to Baal-hamon, and
• #2): Baal Hammon may have added an ⟨m⟩ but is used 3× more often in the scholarship (presumably to keep the vowel correct). Ngram concurs.

Our own article already uses Hammon for most of its running text (including in the lead immediately after the current infelicitous form) and I'll patch up what's left.  — LlywelynII 01:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as nominator clearly demonstrates.--Staberinde (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2020 Not enough information relating to baal hamon

This article has fallen victim to "Citation policing" and information removal, resulting in information missing on Baal Hamon. A important deity. Yet, claims that Baal Hamon was famous for "Child Sacrifice", a Roman smear campaign allegation against the god to demonize him, remains in the article. Editors should refrain from Deleting information, and instead adding a "citation needed" template for people to confirm the information, and not destroy the article, as is the case with many editors these days. Biomax20 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There is new archaeological evidence that suggests that it was not a smear campaign by the Romans, and that there were in fact Child Sacrifices committed by the Carthaginians https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study Deni Mataev (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! @Deni Mataev: I do not have expertise in this field, so if you do, I'll happily defer to your thoughts. The 2014 article you linked doesn't specifically mention sacrifices in the name of Baal Hamon. It does mention Cronus (who seems to be the Greek equivalent), but even then only in the words of an ancient historian, not the academic paper itself. I tracked down the academic paper [here]. They conclude there is evidence for Carthaginian child sacrifice in general and cite 2 ancient historians' specific mentions of child sacrifices to Kronos (Plato and Kleitarchos); as well as inscriptions near the tophets "specifying that something has been given, dedicated, done, vowed or offered, usually to the god Baal Hamon (sometimes with the goddess Tanit)" but only some mentioned what was sacrificed (a child). Baal Hammon isn't mentioned specifically in their conclusions though. Not sure if that's enough to keep the claim in, esp. given that there seems to be a lot of academic papers arguing about whether there was child sacrifice at all dating back to the 1960s. Again, not an expert, so just gonna leave this here as food for thought. Carla.Abra (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)