Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. willing to consider restoring to produce a redirect, but there is no consensus for a target at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, the reason was The term Iberian-Guanche inscriptions itself is a misnomer not used by epigraphists, rendering an article by that name obsolete. The content relies substantially on the pseudoscientific "findings" of an author not qualified in either linguistics or epigraphy. Cf. [1] for referees. I put it here for your consideration now. Tone 08:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Mainly because historically there are a lot of RS books drawing a connection between Iberian and Guanche, and the matter is open for real discussion. Your ibi-project cite, in fact, accepts that people in the past made such a connection. If you wish to dispute RS for an article, the RS/N board is the place to do it. Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Collect. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Changed to Move and Rewrite. The article needs work, but it looks to be well-sourced. Most of the sources are offline, and not in English, so I'm assuming good faith, but this appears to merit an article. Cool3 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The article looks well-sourced, but is only seemingly so. So do please bear with me if I go a little bit into detail: The only author to propose such inscriptions — even among those many whose works are used as references for the article, mind you! — is the geneticist Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, whose linguistic and epigraphic methodology is severely flawed. The Institutum Canarium [2], probably the academic spearhead on Canarian epigraphy, will confirm on query that there is no such thing as Ibero-Guanche inscriptions. Prof. Werner Pichler, one of its members (the one quoted in the article as the compiler of these inscriptions), does not consider any to be in the Iberian alphabet, which would have been the sole basis for Arnaiz-Villena's transcriptions (he's also the one in the above link [3] dismissing and slightly ridiculing Arnaiz-Villena's attempts at translation); the same is true for Renata Springer Bunk, another leading authority quoted in the article.

My suggestion was that Arnaiz-Villena's theories are more than suited for inclusion on his own page, but that a separate article titled "Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions", and somewhat misleadingly furnished with references to other epigraphic works, should be discouraged. Trigaranus (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• article is pure bs. The name of the valid topic behind this would be Libyco-Berber inscriptions. [4]. Delete, but create an article on the inscription corpus. Note that Libyco-Berber is presently a redirect. Remember to also delete the home-grown imagery that came with the article. --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of creating another article seems reasonable. The article as a whole has some problems with neutral point of view, and possibly with original research. I am not a linguist or an expert on this topic in any way, but it would appear to be a simple fact that there are inscriptions found on the canary islands, and that these inscriptions have been the subject of scholarly debate. An article covering the topic in this manner seems most appropriate. Thus I have changed my vote to Move to a neutral title and rewrite as much as possible. Such a course of action would also naturally move this article out of the AfD process. Cool3 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think dab and Cool3 both have a point, and it looks like a possible way out. As far as inscriptions from the Canarian Islands are concerned, the article in question should be Libyco-Berber inscriptions. There is an academic society, the Institutum Canarium, a brain trust of specialists in the field of Canarian epigraphy who have catalogued and edited all known inscriptions into a corpus. There is scholarly debate amongst epigraphists about the correct interpretation of these inscriptions, but within reasonable limits. It is a matter of unanimous consensus among specialists that the alphabets used are the Libyco-Berber script (currently a redirect) and the Latin alphabet, and that understandably they are not to be transcribed into the modern Basque language. The present article, on the other hand, is based essentially on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, whose methods and results are the source of wry amusement among epigraphists, along with a certain measure of exasperation. There is virtually not a lot in it that could make for a decent foundation to the more appropriate article Libyco-Berber inscriptions. However, there are two very outspoken supporters of Arnaiz-Villena's theories, who have created this article and are now worried that they are being silenced. It is solely in order to act on their concerns that I think the theory should be included with the others under Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena#Iberian-Guanche_theory. Trigaranus (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Arnaiz-Villena is a master of ethno-linguistic BS, usually disguised within articles whose claims to be RS lie in his qualifications as a geneticist. In condensed form this is well suited to form a section on his page, and an article on the inscriptions could legitimately be created as dab says - but not with this title. Paul B (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I have done my best to improve the page :added ISBN of a book and where you can find it in the Canary Islands.Also,I have added scanners from the rocks where the inscriptions are.THEY ARE NOT LYBIC INSCRIPTIONS,they were named as "Latin" as stated in the page because they were not familiarized with Iberian inscriptions.They never called "Lybic" to these inscriptions.This is clear in the page and figures from both kind of iscriptions can be see :

Lybic and Iberian-Guanche (Latin) .Please,read it and go to the links.Even someboby non-familiarized with scripts will be able that the acussations form "Delet2" promoters are not true.

I do not think that Wikipedia will remove a good information because of insults or attacking one name,personally--Iberomesornix (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Were Trigaranus and Paul B the same executioners who started Arnaiz hunt some years ago because of an article about Palestinians?

Did Arnaiz make up the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions 2,000 years ago?--UrkoB (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lovely argumentation in the form of an accusation (ad hominem never fails) and a rhetorical question (ad absurdum is always a winner). Unfortunately, nah: I hadn't heard of Arnaiz-Villena until a few months ago. However, out of curiosity I actually — as you certainly did, too — went and read his article on the Palestinians and Jews last week (seems the library didn't have it torn out of their copy), finding the historical section and the quality of his English a bit sloppy; but nothing that would have justified a modern-day book burning. And no, neither Antonio Arnaiz-Villena nor anybody else wrote any Iberian-Guanche inscriptions that lend themselves to "Basque" translations. So, let's move on. But thanks for the gratuitous suspicions. Trigaranus (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks, UrkoB, for your contributions. They are what makes Wikipedia great! Sorry if I sound bitter. I want this over and done with. No witch-hunt, no "censorship", no low blows, but please do not pretend that this theory warrants an entry in a non-fringe encyclopedia. Trigaranus (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The so-called Iberian-Guanche inscriptions are not related in any way to the Iberian scripts (or Paleohispanic scripts) nor to the Iberian language. No one serious researcher defends the point of view expressed in the article.--Tautintanes (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There are many reasons why the article is simply absurd and fringe science.

In first place I quote some of my own editions on this theme: rejecting the works of Arnaiz and Alonso on Iberian, rejecting the whole usko-theory, rejecting the Iberian-Guanche theory. In these editions I afforded reliable sources, independent experts opinions, and some common sense on why all these theories are simply absurd and pseudo-science; whereas the Iberian-Guanche supporters have never find a reliable source in their favour (at best they have used pseudo-arguments as: if Bengtson believes in Dene-Caucasian and that Basque has relatives, then the usko theory and the Iberian Guanche theory are true). Any person wo read my critical comments can see which kind of lunacy is all the linguistic word of Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García: who claim that egyptologist do not understand old Egyptian and the same on some other well known ancient languages (As Hittite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, etc. etc).

In second place. ON the article itself. It is bad edited and biased. Some quotes from the "article":

"based on phonetic equivalence and semantics that are rejected by other authors" but the reality is that it is rejected by all the experts that have write on Alonso and Arnaiz ideas as absurd, and simply ignored by the rest;

"but are rejected by many authors (see discussion)" again : by all authors, but to hide these references in the talk page is against WP:NPOV

"he methodology has been based on the old inscriptions meanings of the Usko-Mediterranean " a methodology debunked as can be seen in my reference [5]. And I could add more authors.

In the same sense: references to Gómez-Moreno, Gimbutas, Garibay, Humboldt, Mitxelena and other considerations on the languages related to Basque are simply off-topic, and the bibliography is full of books who do not believe Arnaiz ideas (the only who believed him was the amateur Pellón, and I think that in the second edition of his book he changed his mind). There are many other authors who have studied these Canarian inscriptions and they are not quoted.

The name Iberian-Guanche is absurd as the authors pretend they are inscripcions in Iberian script and Iberian language, so at best they should be in the Iberian language page (as there is no a page on Sardinian-Iberian for the one Iberian inscription found in Sardinia, nor on Iberian-Gaul for the many Iberian inscriptions found in France).

Third. The references of the articles of Arnaiz and Alonso lack the identification of the inscriptions (their corpus reference, their place of origin), this complete amateur reference system by A & A make it difficult to find these inscriptions in the web of the Institutum Canarium. But some of them can be found and with a good explanation.

FOurth. The Iberian question:

You may see how signs as A I V are frequent (just as man can expect from an alphabetical inscription) whereas its Iberian values (KA, BA, M; this later wrong, it is not M in Iberian) are not as frequent in Iberian (of course any syllabic sign is less frequent that an alphabetical). The result is the absurd KAKAMMBABAMKA and similar of the A & A readings.

The shape of the signs is odd as Iberian: for example try to find some of their alleged CE (in nº 25), BU (in 81), R (in 15) or L (in 229 et alii), simply can not be found in an Iberian table of signs.

Finally they lack some Iberian signs (specially those who are different from LAtin or Punic ;-): such as BE, BI, BO, TA, TE, TI, TO, TU, KI, KO, KU or the vowel A (more than a third of the Iberian possible signs!!!). Very frequent Iberian signs as are the vowels E, I or U are odd and dubious, whereas as stated the very frequent A is missing.

The readings are simply garbage, and very different from the words that can be read in the Iberian inscriptions.

You can find in the Iberian language page reference to two recent doctoral dissertations on Iberian: try to find in them any reference to the Iberian-Guanche. As a matter of fact Arnaiz himself claimed that his proposal has been ignored by all the linguists expert on Iberian.

Last but not least. I am upset by the lack of civility, accusations, personal attacks and victimism (an some vandalims and manipulations Btw) made by the supporters of this article (see the editions of user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6). Some users have afforded reliable data, and have been rewarded with offending comments, accusations, insinuations, and ad hominem. It's not fair.

It's also not fair their claim against an alleged censorship, as Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García have published (often or always self-published) more than ten books on their alleged discoveries.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep

The late Federico Krutwig was one of the ETA founders (Basque Freedom Movement) under the Franco's regime.He repented and left as soon as they started killing people. He wrote a book ,GARALDEA, and assimilated some "Guanche " words to Basque words.He also wrote in the book (Edited by Txertoa,Donosti) that the first Catholic bishop appointed for the Canary Islands after their conquest was Basque.Both the Norman and Castillian conquerors were convinced that Guanche people spoke Basque,because they could understand quite a lot of words as Basque language. Why not relating Guanche and Basque,particularly when now many people here in the Basque Country can understand Iberian scripts transcriptions? --Elorza (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep .My impression is that if Iberian is related or not to Basque is not the point.

The point is:Do Iberian rock scripts exist in the Canary Islands?

After carefully reading the page and appended documents my opinion is YES.

However,if any of the readers is close to Iruña (Pamplona) ,a Basque speaking area ,go and watch at the monument to the "Fueros" (particular Pamplona Laws),built in the past century..One can see a text in Iberian script written by the Catalan historian Fidel Fita ,asserting agreement with "Fueros" and not with another laws.Basque speakers all believed that Iberian and Basque were derived or close,anyway-

Dumu Eduba position today is out-dated.Nowadays,many people speak Basque in the Basque Country,while it was forbidden in Fanco's times,when you was built up and protected. Students here in Euskal Herria,do not pay any attention at that period appointed professors:to whom you call scholars.

We all understand Iberian trascriptions ,more or less. Iberian is related to Basque.Do you know Basque?.Do you know Iberian?--Askatu (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Careful: Let's try to return to the content of the article, and centre on what the proposed deletion is all about (dear Dumu and his contenders have trailed off a little bit). This article is concerned with inscriptions from the Canaries, so let's stick to that. There are only two questions relevant to the standing of this article:

a) have trained epigraphists identified Iberian rock carvings on the Canaries?

b) is there any reason why these writings should be translated into Basque?

The answer to both of these questions is No:

a) The only epigraphist to suggest such a reading and translation is geneticist Arnaiz-Villena. Epigraphists specialised in Canarian inscriptions dismiss or even ridicule his theories as nonsensical, which should warn us to treat what A-V suggests with caution. Specialists have identified the writing systems used as the Libyco-Berber and the Latin script.

b) We as WP editors cannot make any attempt at determining the relationship of the extinct Guanche language; even the linguistic community is hard pressed, owing to the fragmentary nature of the corpus. At present, consensus among linguists favours a connection to the Berber languages, due to minor but compelling shreds of evidence (such as the numerals); but the last word on this has not yet been written. Now, if a methodologically sound paper suggesting a (modern) Basque transliteration for ancient Canarian inscriptions were to pass the first few stages of peer review, it would certainly warrant an article on WP, even if such a theory were not adopted by the mainstream. Unfortunately, no serious scholarly publication has achieved this so far.

So, sorry to expand: Given that peer-reviewal has rejected the core theories of this article and that we are trying to build up a reliable encyclopedia here, we should be clear about one thing: "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first." Due to its important methodological shortcomings, Arnaiz-Villena's theory is unlikely to make it much farther into academic publications than it already has. This deletion suggestion is not about silencing Arnaiz-Villena or his proponents (in spite of a rather clumsy attempt at sock puppetry in this discussion), but about undue weight. A sub-section on the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page is as much as this matter deserves. To say it in the words of Jimbo: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Trigaranus (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin At least 3 of the people who voted for keep have made no edits to WP other than to this page. What of course does not make their arguments less valid but should be pointed out nevertheless. --Tone 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for moving you down here, Tone! No offense. It's just to make it easier to see where I had started writing. The last few edits had strayed off-topic a little. Trigaranus (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.