Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habiru
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
- Habiru - dubious?
- The article or the content? Hapiru (the alternate spelling) gets many legitimate google hits. I see some discussion about the contents but I'm not sure why you list it for deletion. - Texture 19:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The page is well written, plausible, but patent nonsense; I suspect that's why it is here. Hapiru was the Assyrian name for the Hebrews, which makes me suspect some kind of suspect agenda is at work here. The referenced site at the bottom seems to go on about flying saucers and the Urantia Book. (The truth, by contrast, is found in Oahspe.) -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:02, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That link was put in by User:Wetman possibly as an attempt to sabbotage. I request the history page is looked at. The topic Habiru is well worthy of a wiki entry why delete? Why not just edit it or re-write it? At least I made an attempt to put something there even if it is considered wrong by those without enough conviction in their own knowledge to edit it. It is a pity some people vdf every time they cannot think how to edit. Must be from terrible insecurity and an act of acknowledgment on their behalf of their self limitations.Zestauferov 14:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) Wetam attempted to sabotage the progress again 07:22, 9 Feb 2004 please comare this version with the previous version in thepage history.User:Zestauferov
- That link is the only relevant "Habiru" link on the Web. Sabotage? Zestaferov's contributions are available to anyone who wants to look at them. If this person isn't a troll, then what is a troll? Wetman 02:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Troll?!Zestauferov 05:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That link is the only relevant "Habiru" link on the Web. Sabotage? Zestaferov's contributions are available to anyone who wants to look at them. If this person isn't a troll, then what is a troll? Wetman 02:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That link was put in by User:Wetman possibly as an attempt to sabbotage. I request the history page is looked at. The topic Habiru is well worthy of a wiki entry why delete? Why not just edit it or re-write it? At least I made an attempt to put something there even if it is considered wrong by those without enough conviction in their own knowledge to edit it. It is a pity some people vdf every time they cannot think how to edit. Must be from terrible insecurity and an act of acknowledgment on their behalf of their self limitations.Zestauferov 14:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC) Wetam attempted to sabotage the progress again 07:22, 9 Feb 2004 please comare this version with the previous version in thepage history.User:Zestauferov
- Delete, it is nonsense, like all the other articles created by User:Zestauferov; judging by his user page, he seems to be pushing our buttons. Adam Bishop 21:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. As others have said, "Habiru" is a real word, and possibly related to "Hebrew", but this article is full of utter nonsense. Josh Cherry 00:08, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Owlish fantasy. Delete Wetman 14:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Owlish is this a reference to the other wiki encyclopaedia with the owl pic?Zestauferov 05:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone can convince User:Zestauferov to assemble reliable information in a plausable manner. I'd like to try to rescue this entry, but I'm tired of having to deal with his fantasies. -- llywrch 20:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The term exists in the corpus, and there is legitimate scholarly debate about who it might refer to. If the current contents are a mismash of fact, speculation-presented-as-fact, and nonsense, then it needs a rewrite, rather than a deletion. Ben
- What "corpus"? Google "habiru" and read the "corpus"! Corpus! Wetman 02:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Wetman, you're letting Mr Z's penchant for creating fantasies blind you. First page of hits on Google returns this [1], which matches what I wrote at Sea People. Habiru is an actual term, & it appears that more recent edits have moved the content of this article from the realm of fantasy. -- llywrch 19:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It was never in fantasy just far from group expectancies of relevance. Name one thing which I have written which is fantasy rather than obscure? At Zestauferov 05:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Zestauferov, the now-deleted Heberite article is the prime candidate. Another is your unique theory that the Phoenicians are related to the inhabitants of Punt.
- Why are you bringing up arguments against the deleted Heberite page here -incidentally the sane info in which I see you are now censoring anywhere it pops up? As for the relationship of the Poenite and the Phoenecians the theory is not mine but might belong to Flinders Petrie. Why don't you read a little more and accuse me less?Zestauferov 01:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- If it had not been for the far more sober contributions of Levzur, who apparently has no problem offering a "Regurgitation of Mainstream Oversimplifications", I would lump your contributions to this article in the same pile. -- llywrch 20:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Levzur made no contributions to this page. You are confusing with hetto-Iberians which incidentally at least gets 2 hits on google while I notice no-one even raised an eyebrow over his use of the term Hatto-Iberian. My Hetto-Iberian stub has not been re-written nor deleted like this one so it is easy for anyone to see that there was nothing absurd about it. It has been greatly contributed to thanks to Levzur who was the only one who knew what I was talking about, but please note it hnow has a very heavy Georgian POV (while my original one tried to avoid this) which again I notice no-one has raised an eybrow about.Zestauferov 01:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Wetman, you're letting Mr Z's penchant for creating fantasies blind you. First page of hits on Google returns this [1], which matches what I wrote at Sea People. Habiru is an actual term, & it appears that more recent edits have moved the content of this article from the realm of fantasy. -- llywrch 19:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- If you do the rewrite, then I'll be happy to change my vote. Just be prepared for Mr Z -- llywrch 00:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- What "corpus"? Google "habiru" and read the "corpus"! Corpus! Wetman 02:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Why delete the history of a people? Whatever version is there at this time is not quite refereed journal material, but is an accurate representation of a widely accepted scholary interpretation of history of Habiru/Abiru and Hebrew people. The veracity of the content easily stands up to comparison with several unrelated pages listed by Google, but is not readily identifiable as being sourced from those pages. It is worded as fact when a tone of academic scepticism about some of the speculation presented there might be more appropriate, but if this site deletes articles for talking out of school, there goes the whole e-book. This is informative original work about a topic in history i've scarecely heard discussed in 40 years. It is certainly no person's fantasy, and it is not nonsense to authors who have published on the topic. What is it doing listed here? Read794 04:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Note:User:Read794 has only 2 edits, both to this page. Maximus Rex 04:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Note: Read794's edit history is interesting, but readily available. Hibaru history is informative, but requires work to accurately compile. Read794 016:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Note:User:Read794 has only 2 edits, both to this page. Maximus Rex 04:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. And keep the research going forward. Please do not act like a censorship bureau. 2004-02-15 02:57
- Note that the above is from User:Zestauferov, the creator of the page in question. My vote is to delete. False history. RickK 05:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- False accusation from RickK easily verifiable by checking the IPs. Zestauferov 05:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I apologize. I made an unwarranted assumption, that the last edit on the page was by the last person who edited. You should put your comments at the bottom, that would make things easier to figure out. RickK 05:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I always do. By the way it seems like you have not read the article which part in particular do you ascribe as false history?Zestauferov 05:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the existence of anything called Hetto-Iberian, to begin with. It's a madeup term. RickK 05:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- by made-up do you mean fabricated by myself? Hetto-Iberian is not a made up term and Ben has since appologized for inferring such in his initial edits. Please read the article the term links to. It would be nice if you stopped your prejudice about me or at least let me know where it stemmed from.Zestauferov 06:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Whoa, now -- there's a big difference between an article on a theory linking two languages (which I'd like to see more on, and would like to continue to contribute on), and an article on any sort of associated "people" or ethnic group who might have been speakers of that language. I support a Hetto-Iberian article, but have a lot of problems with "Ibero-Caucasian Peoples". Maybe other research will convince me I'm wrong about this like a few other things, maybe not. Nevertheless, I don't have time to deal with that and the Habiru source collection at the same time. However, one of you guys might be interested in I. M. Diakonoff and S. A. Starostin, 1986, Hurro-Urartean as an Eastern Caucasian Language, Munich: Kitzinger. to see what English-language term they use for the language family.Benwbrum 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- You mean Alarodian (please note the history of that page). And I agree that Hetto-Iberian is a better term but lets just say that in trying to burn up what was mistaken as chaff they may have started a forest fire. Zestauferov 15:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Whoa, now -- there's a big difference between an article on a theory linking two languages (which I'd like to see more on, and would like to continue to contribute on), and an article on any sort of associated "people" or ethnic group who might have been speakers of that language. I support a Hetto-Iberian article, but have a lot of problems with "Ibero-Caucasian Peoples". Maybe other research will convince me I'm wrong about this like a few other things, maybe not. Nevertheless, I don't have time to deal with that and the Habiru source collection at the same time. However, one of you guys might be interested in I. M. Diakonoff and S. A. Starostin, 1986, Hurro-Urartean as an Eastern Caucasian Language, Munich: Kitzinger. to see what English-language term they use for the language family.Benwbrum 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- by made-up do you mean fabricated by myself? Hetto-Iberian is not a made up term and Ben has since appologized for inferring such in his initial edits. Please read the article the term links to. It would be nice if you stopped your prejudice about me or at least let me know where it stemmed from.Zestauferov 06:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the existence of anything called Hetto-Iberian, to begin with. It's a madeup term. RickK 05:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I always do. By the way it seems like you have not read the article which part in particular do you ascribe as false history?Zestauferov 05:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I apologize. I made an unwarranted assumption, that the last edit on the page was by the last person who edited. You should put your comments at the bottom, that would make things easier to figure out. RickK 05:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- False accusation from RickK easily verifiable by checking the IPs. Zestauferov 05:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Note that the above is from User:Zestauferov, the creator of the page in question. My vote is to delete. False history. RickK 05:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. And keep the research going forward. Please do not act like a censorship bureau. 2004-02-15 02:57