Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Christian O'Brien. Black Kite 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kharsag Epics

[edit]
Kharsag Epics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The name 'Kharsag Epics' is the personal creation of the fringe writer Christian O'Brien and is only mentioned on sites relating to him, it seems to have no recognition in any reliable sources that I can find. So, no notability and Wikipedia is the only respectable site I've found mentioning these 'epics' (or indeed O'Brien, who has no qualifications in history or linguistics, he was a geologist and apparently basically self-published, his books are described as 'printed[1]' not published by Dianthus Publishing, whose output seems to have been his books and a cricket book.). Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You can't just say that they're self-published books, prove it. And can you please link me to the policy against self-published books?
Please also explain which ones are personal websites and which are blog responses as well. SilverserenC 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on self-published books as sources (you're saying they should be in the article) is at WP:SPS. Iuniverse is a self-publisher[2] ditto Perfect World [3] which is his own imprint. Mysterious Planet is Geoff Ward's personal website, Red Ice couldn't be used as a RS in any case, the blog response on that page is clearly labelled 'blog response' so is WP:ELNO, and the statement about creators creating humanity as a slave race - "This is also mentioned in the Kharsag Epics and The Epic of Giigamesh." it just a trivial mention in a fringe book. Only a handful of fringe sites recognise these 'Kharsag Epics'. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources independent of O'Brien can be found to source the name of this article and the accuracy of the translated descriptions within this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name Kharsag is clearly translated reliably and independently of O'Brien by George Aaron Barton, Hursag is the later translation again independent and reliably by Samuel Noah Kramer. The Museum tablets themselves should qualify as sources and numbers have been listed. I have added additional citations from other published sources (Gagnon and Gagne) to show printed sources have sufficient peer review. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that Kharsag is mentioned by Barton, the issue is whether there is a group of documents known as the 'Kharsag Epics'. Gagne's book on Food Energetics and Gagnon's book which even with the title or the correct ISBN isn't turning up on WorldCat and is #2,242,309 on Amazon.com's sales rank is not a reliable source either. We shouldn't be using translations by a non-linguist when we have accepted translations. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — None of the sources for "They were gathered from Sumerian tablets..." seem to be good. One attributes the belief to "esoteric scholars," one seems to be a work of fiction, and one is an abstract of a poster session. Rees11 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the problem is with the name, I would argue that Barton's original title "Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions" has lost relevance and could prove misleading due to the growth and acceptance of Sumerology since it's publication in 1918, and that a majority of scholars (fringe or otherwise) studying the subject nowadays refer to the poems as 'The Kharsag Epics'. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I have found the following personal scholarly references to the epics, some well qualified, any ideas how to link or use them to support elements of this article would be appreciated.

Genius of the Few References

"Of no less importance and substance than the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the O'Brien scholarship applied to the linked Kharsag Epics now demands the recognition and respect it has long deserved from the archaeological establishment" - "The fact that O'Brien, using his milti-disciplinary skills, brings so much additional evidence in support of his basic thesis for the revision of the Genesis text into a down to earth farming story, must encourage other scholars to climb out of religious straightjackets and seek to confirm the truth."

Edmund Marriage The Patrick Foundation.

"This book is a neglected classic which has a revolutionary thesis of fundamental importance to our understanding of the ancient past" - "Based on the O'Brien deep knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern sites and languages, it completely re-interprets the origins of civilisation and pushes the dates back by thousands of years".

Nigel Blair Author and Coordinator of the Wessex Research Group Network.

"As a result of Christian O'Brien's translation of this ancient story from these clay tablets from the Nippur library, the whole Genesis story lies open for re-examination" - "In writing about books, Francis Bacon declared that there were some few to be chewed and digested - The Genius of the Few is such a book".

Joel Disher The Rosicrucian Digest, USA.

"The thesis of the book is so startling that it should have caused a major controversy when it was first published. However it was too controversial for the scholars and too sober and erudite for the popular audience, yet since that time it has attracted a growing number of readers. With its careful, scholarly and un-sensational approach, the evidence for the real existence of the Anannage as the founders of civilization strikes me as fascinating and convincing".

Colin Wilson Best selling author and broadcaster.

"Stunning ! - This book has everything to commend it as a valuable academic gem - it certainly rates as a Five Star accomplishment".

Sir Lawrence Gardiner Author and acclaimed sovereign and chivalric genealogist.

"I have placed it in the Department Library where I am sure it will be most useful as it is likely to provoke response from archaeologists and scientists of all types. You are to be congratulated on producing such a work".

Dr Irving Finkel Western Asiatic Department of the British Museum.

References for 'The Shining Ones'

A valuable source would be The Shining Ones, by Christian and Barbara Joy O'Brien. I need to add that book to my References page and may have done so by the time you read this. I had not covered it in Open SETI because of its occasional dependence on "supernatural" explanations, which I felt would be out of bounds for the target readership. It is not out of bounds for this discussion, however! At any rate, what distinguishes this book (and others by the authors, though this is the complete compendium) is its use of important material from the Kharsag Epics and recent translations of various Codices and other apocryphal and gnostic works. The O'Briens have assembled a strikingly detailed, logical, and coherent picture of an early project or colony that resulted in the institution of the Mesopotamian cultures. Much of the story can be discerned in more well-known scriptural texts, but MUCH less clearly - Gary Zetlin - SETI Institute. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment All of the above are from fringe writers/groups except Finkel, and the source for that is the 'official' website[4]. And it's out of context. Gardiner is not considered a genealogist by mainstream genealogists (I won't write what they say about him, but it isn't nice). Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you have a problem with the name, discuss renaming it. That isn't a reason to delete something that is clearly notable.
The Kharsag Epics is the name given by geologist Christian O'Brien to a series of epic poems from Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq) and are among the earliest known works of literary writing. Scholars believe that these texts originated as a series of legends and poems about the earliest mythological hero-gods including An, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsag in a location called Kharsag.

Its among the earliest known works of literary writing. That makes it notable. Does anyone doubt these works were quite famous in that nation way back in the day? Notability is not dated after all. There are no suggested guidelines on how to deal with ancient literature such as this, so use common sense. Verifiability and all other policies have been met. Dream Focus 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Dream Focus, the article is about a carefully selected and small number of texts which doesn't seem to be grouped in this way by any scholarly sources. That's the problem. If we retitle it 'Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions' it would be an entirely different article. Is that what you are suggesting? This article is about a non-notable fringe view of this subset of existing Babylonian texts. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions by George A. Barton, 1918, Yale University Press
This one alone should count for a considerable amount. SilverserenC 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now added conflicting theories that mention kharsag and the kharsag epics along with review of the O'Brien material by Professor Emilio Spedicato and published on better websites like The University of Louisiana and The University of Bergamo. Hopefully this will resolve the reliability issues. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop voting Keep. You already voted once and once is all that you are allowed. Anything else you say in this AfD after that should be labeled Comment instead. Otherwise, it looks like you're trying to game the system, which won't work anyways, because Wikipedia isn't a poll. SilverserenC 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I wasn't familiar with the system and have amended the posts as suggested. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just had to get all policy on you there, for a second. ;P SilverserenC 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must have closed down on an edit conflict. The 'theories' mentioned by Paul are not published by any university, they are simply on university web servers, quite a different thing. They are fringe and self-published. Spedicato is a mathematician who also writes about subjects such as Atlantis, no matter where he writes he is still fringe when he writes on this subject, not what we need which are mainstream sources calling these particular texts the 'Kharsag Epics'. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you just have a problem with using the right name and not with the notability of the subject? SilverserenC 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found a good published German source calling them 'The Kharsag Tablets', not sure if that helps. I'll bow to a name change if it does. Paul Bedson (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think calling them either the "Kharsag Tablets" or the "Tablets of Kharsag" sounds good. I'm not sure what the naming policy is in this case, though I know there is one. According to the formatting policy, i'm pretty sure the former is the one we should be going with. SilverserenC 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found that Googling "Kharsag tablets" found a few more sources that I added into the External Links section. It kind further shows we should rename to Kharsag Tablets. SilverserenC 03:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That copyvio link got put back, I've deleted it again. Carlos Calvet (the German source) got the name from Colin Wilson's book who cited O'Brien, so not only does that not help, the magazine isn't an RS and Calvet's own book is selfpublished.[5] Every source that mentions Kharsag Tablets so far is fringe, quite a few self-published. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Paul, you've linked to the French Wikipedia article for Anton Parks. We don't use Wikipedias as RS, but you've made my point here, it says "Anton Parks is a Franco-German writer who covers the topics of 'Ufology, the hollow Earth, the humanoid reptiles and civilization of Sumer. His next (and 4th) book called The Awakening of 1Phoenix. It is a great admirer of Joseph F. Blumrich. His theories are similar to those of Zecharia Sitchin, although they are challenging them on certain points." That's the sort of support O'Brien's idea gets. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I share many of your views on these topics (especially Stitchin) Doug and really wish that the references could be limited to Kramer, Barton and O'Brien where mention of these wild, fringe theories - reptiles, UFOs, hollow earth and the like are avoided or minimised. I personally feel that this is where the scholarly, academic research has been perverted and perhaps the root cause that few verifiable sources are published. I am hoping Gardner's previous books (which like you I will refrain from comment about) that have been bestsellers with high sales ranks, and other non-self-published sources will prove adequately verifiable for the purposes of rescue. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note the only real scholarship glanced at in that article are the original translators etc. whose work O'Brian has piggy-backed off in elaborating his whimsical theories. Could be mentioned in the article on him, but given that no serious scholars in the field care about it we needn't either. Misarxist (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI suggest further study of O'Brien's theory that agriculture developed from a location in Lebanon, which is something no serious scholar could do in the last 30 years of wars there. O'Brien has made the only updated complete (as possible) translation of these tablets since 1918 which are 92 years out of date. I'm happy for name change in any case, but how we can let some of our civilization's earliest writing become something we shouldn't care about is a matter of deep concern. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment O'Brien is not qualified as a translator or an archeologist. I don't understand your last sentence. If you are suggesting that it is Wikipedia's role to somehow bring some idea to public attention, you completely misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I fully understand it's not to bring ideas to public attention and will run off and try to clean up this article along those guidelines to prove it ;-). I was expressing my concerns over opinions about lack of notability and only hope more editors agree that some of these sources do meet that, neutrality and verifiability requirements. Further advice to help always welcome. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ClovisPt (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of what was even said in here? SilverserenC 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original cylinders exist and are amongst the oldest writings by man. for example the Nippur archaic cylinder, dated 2,500 BC by prof. Barton, see Miscellaneous Babylonian inscriptions (New Haven, 1918), or see external here: [6]. "Kharsag chapter 2" is based on this cylinder (Pennsylvania's tablet no. 8,383). However note that Barton Equates "Kharsag chapter 1" / Pennsylvania tablet no. 14,005 with Dilmun: [it's]"a didactic poem in 61 lines on the period of pre-culture and institution of paradise by the earth-god and the water-god in Dilmun", see [7]. I have the feeling that O'Brien combined several unrelated tablets to make up a wonderful story. The cylinders and tablets might even be from various time-periods, rendering O'Brien's version void as he presents all as one. Patrick1982 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - probable nonsense, but notable nonsense nonetheless. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Just out of curiousity, how is this cherry-picked collection of texts, translated by someone who is self-taught, notable in its own article? Not the Sumerian texts, not the archaic cylinder, this cherry-picked set with a translation no academic has accepted. We can't retitle it because it is about O'Brien's ideas, not actually about the texts themselves which wouldn't normally be grouped this way. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that even if we had an article about these Sumerian texts, I think that O'Brien's take on them is not significant enough to be included, ie it falls under WP:Undue. I think he is notable enough to have his own article (I've found a journal review of one of his articles), and anything about this belong there. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is typical that an ancient text will only be transcribed and publihsed by one author. For WP authors to rubbish it is actually a variety of WP:OR. If it is rubbish, some one needs to find WP:RS dismissing it as such, preferably from academic authors. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but it is not mere patent nonsense. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Christian O'Brien. We need to distinguish between the texts themselves and O'Brien's Fringe theories about them. Those parts of the article devoted to O'Brien's theories should be merged into the article on O'Brien. That said, I would think that ancient Babylonian texts would be considered notable a simply for their rarity and age ... The question is what to call that article (or individual articles if they are better discussed individually). If the name "Kharsag Epics" is associated with O'Brien's Fringe theories, then we need a different article title (or set of titles) for articles on the text themselves. Question... are these texts ever discussed by legitimate scholars (individually if not as a group), and if so, how do the scholars refer to them? Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI've been trying my best to find out more. Some of the texts have only been translated by O'Brien, who is self-taught, and although they might be mentioned in O'Brien's article briefly (remembering WP:UNDUE, I don't see how they could be included in a serious article about Babylonian texts. The two that I can find references to aren't grouped by the references. (Sorry, I'm repeating myself I think). One of the ones that could be mentioned is the Nippur archaic cylinder mentioned about by Patrick1982. If it helps, Kharsag is often spelled Hursag (both are used by reputable sources), Anannage is O'Brien's name for the Anunnaki which isn't normally translated as 'Shining Ones'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dougweller's got the right view on this. O'Brien's fringy views can be covered at the article about him. The individual Sumerian texts should have their own articles (also Sumerian religion, Mesopotamian mythology, etc.) and since they're studied by specialists (not self-taught geologists), O'Brien's views do not need to be covered in those articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability suggested, as alternative history it has not reached Von Danikenesque proportions of popularity, I can see no reason why wikipedia needs an article on this subject. Move the concept-outline parts into the author page, with sections on what book contains what ideas. Completely remove the list of specific Sumerian texts the author used as being undue weight is being placed on trivia - the authors imagination is more significant than his selection of sources. Davémon (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If ancient texts really mention a mythical place called Kharsag or Hursag, and if Samuel Kramer et. al. do allude to such a place, then what we should really have is an article titled Hursag or Kharsag, to include whatever information or speculation there is published on it. (I don't know which spelling is more appropriate or common, but someone else might...) I agree that the "other dimension" stuff is flaky, but I suppose it could be very briefly mentioned, per due weight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kharsag is never mentioned in any scientific paper I've found so far. I tried to Google every tablet, but information remains scarse, as there are no recent translations of these tablets it seems. There is referral to them in serveral old books and publications, but most are only accessible through membership library websites (i.e. jstor.org & atypon-link.com). Hursag just means "natural dam" or "foothill", so there's plenty of references of this word, but not as the name for a settlement for some "shining ones"! in fact, tablet 8384 talks about a temple of Kêš in Erech (so no Kharsag!), where "the Anunnaki are the high priests" ([8], P.50-57). It really looks like "Kharsag" is just fictional and nothing more. How about it's notability then? It is reffered to in some (fringe) books like 'From the Ashes of Angels' by Andrew Collins and some websites, but this does not meet WP's criteria enough to justificate it's own article, but it can be seen as Panbabylonism. Patrick1982 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Christian O'Brien. As per my comment above. Patrick1982 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for joining the discussion and research on this subject. I am very tempted to publish a Kharsag page to further the merge discussions better and have one in my sandbox that was just waiting for a verifiable source. Barton's document should be considered scientific however and his use of the word in one of the first creation myths in the Nippur cylinder "The holy Tigris, the holy Euphrates, the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag" surely establishes this as a noteable and verified word that requires further investigation into it's specific use in this context. Similar to words like "Edin" which have become very specifically used, despite being commonly translated as "steppe" or "plain". Paul Bedson (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kharsag_Epics&oldid=1074050168"