Talk:Eberite/Delete
|
|
Heberite or Eberite is acceptable terminology for Hebrew-like peoples who roamed the middle-east from about the end of the 3rd Millenium BCE. Habiru certainly come under the definition of "Hebrew-like peoples" in the middle east at that time. The article does not make any claims but rather gathers info on Hebrew like peoples together in one place for those researching the area. There is a lot of source info quoted in the article as references.
The term Heberite itself is apparently an archaic version seldom used these days except in French.
Zestauferov 14:43, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
From VfD
- The main author of Heberite, a candidate for deletion (see above), has moved its entire contents here. The change in title helps nothing; nobody uses "Eberite" this way either. The article remains pure speculation. An attempt, for example, to connect "Eberite" (or "Heberite") with the Iberians via a Google search turns up nothing other than this article. Josh Cherry 19:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Since the theory is "non-traditional", to put it mildly, a more substantial additional verificaion by references to sources is required. Even if the authour is right, unfortunately his sole word is not enough. Mikkalai 03:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Disect & Keep. There is a lot of good and valuable info there. why not just disect the article and keep it. Eberite is the way the proto-hebrews are refered to and the article makes a good list of all the documented proto-Hebrew tribal names. No-one but myself has ever tried editing it it seems. Suddenly someone just votes it for deletion but shouldn't wikis edit info "mercilessly" before deciding if the core is delete worthy? Please anyone just start editing it mercilessly and chucking out anything you think is irrelevant and we will see what remains. It is strange to see that the people who nominated it for deletion apparently don't even know enough about Eberites to have been confident enough to try to edit it first. I have done just that with appologies here to anyone's info which I have deleted. Or is it because the subject matter is just so obscure? But isn't coverage of obscure subject matter what makes Wiki sometimes superior to more mundane encyclopaedias? Or is the objective to make Wiki into a common encylopaedia with nothing special to offer?Zestauferov 08:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Copyedit it. (linked to by Arpachshad; and that article is link to 3 other articles ... "seems" valid (but I don't know anything about it)) JDR
- Well Arpachshad was written by Zestauferov, the author of Eberite (and he made the links to Arpachshad too), so this doesn't mean anything (not that somebody else linking there would mean much either). To people who do know about it, the article doesn't seem "valid". There's nothing worth copyediting. "Eberite" just means "descendants of Eber". The connections among various peoples suggested by the article are pure speculation. That there was a people in a certain region, speaking a language with certain features, who were related to the Hurrians, who gave rise to the Hebrews and to various other peoples, and who are referred to as "Eberites", are assertions that I cannot find anywhere else. If we don't delete something like this, what's to stop someone from gathering together some names of peoples, some of which sound a bit alike, and making up a history that relates them all? Josh Cherry 02:28, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't mean anything? mabey ... though a search of "Eberite", it turns up that some commentaries suggest Ivri means Eberite (or descendant of Eber) ... and is derived from the "meaning to cross over" [`Ibriy, ib-ree'; patron. from 5677; an Eberite (i.e. Hebrew) or desc. of Eber:-Hebrew (-ess, woman)]. From the Book of Genesis (tenth chapter), listed among the descendents of Shem, the son of Noah, there appears the name of "Eber" [verse 21: "And children were born also to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber"]. [1] (http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFour/TheHebrewConnection.htm) [2] (http://www.blossomingrose.org/yaffahabraham.htm) [3] (http://www.newchurch.org.au/hurstville/Nov_2002_Newsletter.html) Plug in a few other search terms and the article has some facets that seems can be kept ... but a more detailed research would be necessary ... copyedit it and keep what can be verified, matters lil' to me though ... JDR
- Well Arpachshad was written by Zestauferov, the author of Eberite (and he made the links to Arpachshad too), so this doesn't mean anything (not that somebody else linking there would mean much either). To people who do know about it, the article doesn't seem "valid". There's nothing worth copyediting. "Eberite" just means "descendants of Eber". The connections among various peoples suggested by the article are pure speculation. That there was a people in a certain region, speaking a language with certain features, who were related to the Hurrians, who gave rise to the Hebrews and to various other peoples, and who are referred to as "Eberites", are assertions that I cannot find anywhere else. If we don't delete something like this, what's to stop someone from gathering together some names of peoples, some of which sound a bit alike, and making up a history that relates them all? Josh Cherry 02:28, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree and it does seem to be based upon info from an area well known by those interested in it. I trust Zestauferov, but since there seem to be many people online with knowledge about it then please anyone is certain of a mistake then just edit it out.Budo 14:51, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unless it is properly rewritten to show that it discusses the theories of a published author. (Unfortunately, JDR's citations don't support the text of the article as it currently stands.) See my comments at Talk:Heberite, & Zestauferov's failure to respond in a meaningful fashion. -- llywrch 17:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Other Vfd entry
- This article consists mostly of assertions that cannot be found in accepted scholarship. The alleged relationships of various names to the term "Heberite", which are stated as facts, seem to be just speculations on the part of the author. A Google search for "Heberite" turns up few other uses of the term, and none which use it in the way that the author does. Josh Cherry 03:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Agree to VFD: not mainstream history or Jewish Studies material. Too esoteric." GCW
A comment by Llywrch which belongs here.
- You appear to be intent upon linking the word habiru to an article Heberite that you largely wrote. When I read Marc Van de Mieroop's book, A History of the Ancient Near East (Oxford, 2003), whence I took the word, he gave no suggestion that implied he endorsed the thesis espoused in your article. And as it stands, the article Heberite reads as if it is stating irrefutable fact, rather than a theory. (Which is how I expressed what both Van de Mieroop and Nicolas Grimal wrote.) Do you have published sources for this theory? Unless you can add them to the article, explaining that the article is reporting a theory held by some individuals, that article could be listed as a candidate for deletion -- & removed. llywrch 01:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I cannot take credit for the whole article but I will defend it. Heberite or Eberite is acceptable terminology for Hebrew-like peoples who roamed the middle-east from about the end of the 3rd Millenium BCE. Habiru certainly come under the definition of "Hebrew-like peoples" in the middle east at that time. It does not make any claims but rather gathers info on Hebrew like peoples together in one place for those researching the area. It seems to me that there is a lot of source info quoted in the article so I don't understand your complaint about references. I have no problem if anyone votes it up for deletion since I already know alot about the subject and it is for the public to decide if they are interested in it or not. -Kaz
- You state "It seems to me that there is a lot of source info quoted in the article so I don't understand your complaint about references." Allow me to illustrate what I'm looking for with quotations from the main article:
- "Due to the limited conventional uses of the term Hebrew, Heberite is the term used for a much wider sense." - Who established this term? I've never ran across it in my omnivorous reading, & the first time I saw it I thought it was a misspelling or illiterate form of Hebrew. Is this variant attested in any ancient source?
- "Heberites are thought to have been a people from the Northeast-Mesopotamian Northwest-Iranian & Caucasus areas closely related to the Hurrians." - Who thinks this? My source for the term habiru - Van de Mieroop, whom I cited above - makes it clear that this word is a social term, not an ethnic term. He makes no reference to any other usage in the text I refer.
- "Heberites, also known as Iberians, inhabited a vast teritory in the Caucasus and Anterior Asia in the third and second millennia B.C." - While I acknowledge that there was a people in the Caucasus known as the Iberians, I am unaware of any connection between them and the habiru or Hebrews. While the two names appear to be similar, is there any cultural/social/linguistic proof of connections between these inhabitants of the Caucasus & the Near East?
- "They were first mentioned having settled in Eastern Spain and the Ebro valley in the 6thC.BC. and are still represented, despite fervantly funded political opposition to the fact, by the Basque population there whose reconstructed language shows strong affinity with Caucasian languages." - What source first mentions that the Heberites settled in "Eastern Spain and the Ebro valley"? While the original inhabitants of Spain are known as Iberians, the historians & ethnologists I have read are careful to point out that it is an accident that their names are so similar. Further, I'm again unaware of any study that shows specific connections between Basque & the Caucasian languages - beyond the fact that both have the Ergative case, but then so do many Oceanic & Native American languages.
- I could continue this critique much further, but my point is that what I'm looking for is something that explains who first expounded these theories, & who is currently offering research that supports them. Otherwise, as I said originally on Zestauferov's talk page, this article appears to be original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia, & can result in the deletion of this page. However, if this is a summary of the published work of a scholar -- no matter who that scholar is -- & that source is clearly identified & given proper attribution, then the article should remain in Wikipedia. -- llywrch 19:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Obviously you cannot read French, Russian or Georgian. There are plenty of articles which do not do as you suggest on wiki so why dont you just vote it for deletion and spend some time adding the other articles to the list. Wiki is just a hobby for me I am not going to invest too michc of my time in writing articles which others less informed may well "correct" later. In compensation for mu lack of time the best way in which I can contribute is financial. All the best Bro. Kaz
Well, Zestauferov obviously you have not left Wikipedia, & continue to edit both this & other articles concerning your alternative theories. Will you please add to this (& your other edits) the sources you have drawn your information from? Or should we conclude that everything you are writing is your own personal research? Please see the guidelines at wikipedia:verifiable to understand my concern. -- llywrch 02:50, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is the kind of uncorrectable zaniness that gives Wikipedia a kooky reputation. What can we do? Wetman 02:34, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I've nominated this article for deletion. See Votes_for_deletion. Josh Cherry 03:24, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)