Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag

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 keep. Although the article may need improvements, rough consensus is that the subject is of a notable nature. Further content discussions may be held on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag

Kharsag (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)

This is, in essence, recreation of material from a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics) which was then redirected to Christian O'Brien, where there has been a continuing conflict over the same material. This article was created by taking the article on O'Brien and editing away the biography; given the outcome of the previous AFD discussion, I redirected this back to O'Brien. There has been conflict over this ever since, including a deletion review declined as being out of scope. Fundamentally the problem hasn't changed: O'Brien's fringey theory is being presented by the same editor in all three articles in a veritable flood of original research. Numerous peopole have tried to remonstrate with him about this, to no effect whatsoever. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete This is clearly original research. The article's creator, who has a web site promoting this concept, has not brought any sources saying that all these words that he cites are about the same location, person, whatever, but has said said about his claims that one group of scholars " clearly understand to be the same place, as I would argue does the great sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer when his use of the word hursag is put in context" and " I have gone outside Barton to research this and firmly believe that in the time that these great scholars lived, Kharsag as the Sumerian Olympus was well noted and well deserves mention in Wikipedia as due note to their accomplishments in this field. " He has also said "It might help to explain that the actual ancient cuneiform these words are translated from is more like picture language than ours. The picture-sign translated as "khar" or "gar" (or for Kramer "hur") in many of these books is that of a garden or enclosure and that of "sag" is a picture sign of a head. Hence mountain in basic translations, but undeniably used in the context of the home or birthplace of the first Gods (Enlil, NinKharsag, etc.) by all these authors and professors as a singular location." He has no reliable sources confirming what he understands, believes, argues, etc.. We have here a list of words with no sources tying them to each other, only the editor's belief. The word 'Kharsag' is only to be found in a translation of Sumerian texts by one writer, George Aaron Barton. I don't see how we can base an article on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - An obvious attempt to evade the previous merger closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics with a healthy dose of WP:COI and WP:SYN thrown in. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I wonder at how the difference between topics cannot be clearly seen. This article now bears almost no resemblance to the deleted page. Kharsag is obviously a completely different word from the fringe naming of a group of texts and Barton may be the only one to mention it as a singular word, but is still a notable source, which is all Wikipedia requires. None of this is original research, this is what the textbooks say, please read the cites! It is a singular location, a sacred mountain in NE mythology that is always described in similar terms to the Mount Olympus in Greek Mythology - the birthplace and home of the original Sumerian pantheon. I have been working to separate this from the fringe theories surrounding it by providing a veritable torrent of notable sources describing this word or part of a phrase referring to the same location. I therefore suggest it requires it's own page, concentrating on the scholarly work of the noteable, verifiable, non-fringe eminent scholars. I have expanded and grouped the sources of information to make it easier to understand the importance of this location as fundamental to human origins. I do not understand how all these notable scholars research is anything original. It's all been well noted since at least 1918 and to delete this page undermines the work of most of the notable sources in the field. I trust my explanations of the subject will provide editors assistance in making informed decisions. Apologies if my tone is somewhat argumentative, but that's not OR. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - At least this article, unlike the last one, seems to be about the Sumerian word and how it was translated by a plethora of sources, not just Barton. That should be a valid topic. I don't know about the topic at all to know if anything is incorrect, but if so, just correct it. Is any specific statement there incorrect? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is no Sumerian word "Kharsag". It's a merger of the words "Khar" (or "Gur" or "Kur") (meaning either mountain(s), foreign land, or underworld), and the word "Sag" (meaning "head", while some also claim it means "sacred" or "glorious"). But no scholar claims there was a word Kharsag. It's an portmanteau, conviniently used by O'Brien for his book. Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I am going to AGF, but I have the personal belief that the users voting Delete did not even look at the sources. Obviously, from just a visual, article-based standpoint, it is a completely different article that has little of the information from the previous version, Kharsag Epics. I have been watching Paul work on this article and he has been doing an admirable job at keeping his WP:COI out of the picture and also addressing the points raised in the other AfD. If you would look at the sources, which I just went through, I only saw two links that were the same as the previous version. And those links are being used to reference the small amount of material that is similar to the previous version, so I see no problems there. I am not seeing any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH at all in this article. All Paul has done is put in the quoted sections from the cylinders that are about Kharsag. That is far from performing original research on them. No, this article is completely different from the previous version and uses much more reliable sources than the last version did and presents them in a clear, NPOV manner, with little to do with Christian O'Brien besides the singular sentence, which also shows the differences from the previous version (which had a considerable amount to do with Christian O'Brien). For these reasons, I am strongly given to vote Keep for this article, as a worthy, now notable rewritten and edited version. Paul did good work on this. Silverseren^C 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Different articles. Google book search shows over five hundred results for the word "Kharsag". This isn't about the text, but the Kharsag itself. Dream Focus 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think you get the point. Ofcourse one gets 500 results on Google Books, but does that mean those 500 sources are reliable? No. "The Atlantis blueprint" ? "secret of the Freemasons"? Come on, give me a break... Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Secondary, Nin-hursag, also spelled Nin-khursag or Nin-kharsag, is the name for a Sumerian goddess. So actually most of your search results are not actually referring to the Kharsag in this article at all! Your arguement is therefore void. You might wanna read WP:SET#policies: "Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles". Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. It's difficult to tell what the article is even about. Is it about a Sumerian word? Well, Wikipedia is not a Sumerian dictionary. This article would be a terrible dictionary entry anyway, because the word "Kharsag" is, apparently, the Sumerian common noun meaning "mountain".

If this article is about a concept or mythological locale ("the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods and goddesses") then it needs to be entirely rewritten, because the name of this locale is not "Kharsag". That's like writing about Mount Olympus and calling the article "Mount". Again, "Kharsag" just means "mountain". Furthermore, the cosmic mountain home of the gods is not uniquely Sumerian—it's a concept spread throughout Near Eastern mythology, and shows up in Canaanite texts and possibly the Old Testament. In its current form the article is just a platform for O'Brien's strange ideas—please note that the article text is virtually identical (including infoboxes) to material I removed from Christian O'Brien in this edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

According to ancient texts, Kharsag is the name of the mountain. Regardless of the fact that Kharsag is also the word for "mountain". It's the only name we have for it, that's what ancient texts translate it as. And there are different articles on different mountains of the Gods, because they are different places in different religions. That's why we have articles on Mount Olympus and articles on Biblical Mount Sinai. This article is about the mountain for the Sumerian peoples. It is a valid article topic. Silverseren^C 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes to the heart of the AfD... is "Kharsag" the name of a specific mountain? According to O'Brien it is... but most of the other sources seem to be either merely translating the word as "mountain", or using it as a name for different mountains. That is where the WP:SYN come in. The article ties all these different usages of the word/name Kharsag together in an inappropriate way. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• looks again* Hmm, I should have read the article more closely the first time, then I would have already been able to raise the point about why you are incorrect. Kharsag, as long as it is described in texts as relating to the home of the Gods, is relating to the same place. The article even says "It (Kharsag) later used to describe temples or houses dedicated to this location. It is suggested to represent the location of a Sumerian creation story." The word "Kharsag" itself is not just a word, but a phrase, as is noted in the article, and that phrase is always used in conjunction with the home of the gods and the place of the gods. So, Kharsag is relating to a specific mountain, the home of the gods. Is it a real mountain that exists somewhere? Possibly, but just like with Biblical Mount Sinai, who the heck knows where? That's the point of researching. I do not see any WP:SYNTH in this article at all. It is merely stating the translations of various ancient texts in reference to the home of the gods. Silverseren^C 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SYNTH is exactly the problem. It's as if I said that mountain, Mount Washington, Mount Airy, and Mount Sinai were all the same place, and the Sermon on the Mount happened there. Without a source, we can't make that claim; and since any source that did make that claim would be in a distinct minority, to put it politely, that view would have to be attributed to that source and that source only. Now, Silver, what exactly is the source that supports the text you quoted? There is none. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see two. :P (I just added them, but still.) Silverseren^C 03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Those references do not support the article text, so I removed them. See the discussion at Talk:Kharsag for details. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I claim no particular expertise here, but if the epics are built around a location, an article on the location is clearly justified. The content of the article is for discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What location are we talking about? And what's the name of that location? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag. See above comment. Silverseren^C 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the sources mentioning Kharsag as the home or birthplace of gods and goddesses are grouped at the top of the article. Jastrow's perhaps carries the most weight. What you have ignored and failed to provide is the use of Kharsag as the common noun you are protesting against. I have yet to find a source where it is used in context simply as mountain. Please provide one. I have over 10 as a specific, singular, mythological/cosmological mountain including the temples dedicated and named after Kharsag. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's gonna be hard, considering that it is "Kur" that means mountain, not Kharsag. :P And, strangely, "Ekur" can mean "House that is like a mountain" or "House mountain" (Great Mountain). Sumerian is weeeeeird. Silverseren^C 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Blueboar is right in as much as the common noun/specific location question is the heart of the AfD. This should be fairly obvious now though. To try and help, I added Asgard and Valhalla to the 'See also' links last night which in my opinion matches the relationship between Kharsag and Ekur very well. The problem here is perhaps with the understanding of the subject where little research has been published for a while. Whilst the sources convince me, more work on the content may need to be done to clarify perhaps, glad to see people seem to agree it's no reason for AfD. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it all boil down to the apparent fact that there are no reliable sources discussing this location? If this was a notable location it's odd that none of the academic sources make and discuss the link. All the sources do is using varying words to mean varying things, it is only the article (and O'Brien) where we can find the link. This looks like a textbook example of original research to me, yet people still seem to be thinking its acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources are discussing the location. This article is about the mountain where the gods lived. Whichever name each source decides to use, they are all directly referring to this mountain, so they are all about the same subject. There are currently multiple sources that are describing the mountain and it's formation by the gods in a considerable amount of detail. There is not any original research in the article. The only problem with the article is the confusion over the correct name (which is why they are all shown in the first sentence), but confusion over the name has nothing to do with notability. The sources establish notability for the subject. The subject is the mountain. Silverseren^C 08:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed please read the sources more carefully or even provide an alternative usage of the word. Jastrow's discussion should be the most immediately obvious as per my previous comment. Also note the presence within the discussions and translations of the 4 original Gods, most notably Enlil and Ninhursag linking the location specifically. They clearly didn't move their home onto a different mountain every story. Paul Bedson (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the sources provided in the article, Paul. What I see is that no source says that "kharsag" is a specific place, nor do I see any indication that all of the phrases listed in the first line refer to the same place. Where, for instance, is a source that says "Kharsag" means the same thing as "E-kharsag"? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as per above Keep arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Which arguments? We really like specific policy and guideline based reasons for !votes. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, we have read the above arguments on both sides and we find the Keep arguments to be more convincing than the Delete arguments, but we do not feel the need to write a wall of text here. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Perhaps you should read WP:Guide to deletion#Discussion, especially the last sentence: "Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin." Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The page is a essentialy recreation of an earlier page (Kharsag Epics‎) that was merged per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics >> "User:Black Kite: Closing debate, result was merge to Christian O'Brien"
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: the page creator User:Paul_Bedson apprears to have a obsession getting his own views on Wikipedia, as this is his only 'contribution' on Wikipedia:Special:Contributions/Paul Bedson. Together with User:Silver seren they're fixed on their view that there is one physical "Kur" place/house. Think of Kharsag as a geonym, i.e.: "The Hill" can be just a hill, a neighborhood in Washington DC, the physical location of the United States Congress, or even figurly the legislative branch of the US Federal Government.
• Before, this article just redirected to Christian O'Brien, and it was just fine to leave it that way. Why was this changed again??
• Most of the arguements raised on the article's talkpage are assumptions based on what was found on Google. This is wrong. To rephrase: Wikipedians are currently interpreting works on their own. Basically they can be summerized by: "I've read...", "I think..." "..it looks like...". So, Weasel words all over the place, This is plain WP:OR. What should be done is to use secondary sources (i.e. research papers, commentaries by archeologic/linguistic specialists, and books written by scholars, a translation is just an interpretation from a primary source (exept for the annotations). These cannot be used unless accompanied by reliable secondary sources, which is NOT the case with Kharsag, since there exists no (reliable) secondary sources, only pseudoscience. But the dilemma is that unless the University of Pennsylvania, which owns the ancient tablets, publishes a new work, there is not much that we can do or add to this article.
• Furthermore, there is not even an accepted/standardized spelling in the scientific community for "Kharsag": why Kharsag and not khursag or Garsag? It makes no sense. Perhaps some users (see above) prefer this spelling since O'Brien uses this version?
• In fact, kharsag isn't even a single word but an portmanteau! So what's the point creating a Wiki page for a obscure/archaic polysemic term? Kur (Khar) can mean mountain(s), foreign land, but also underworld! >> WP:SYNTH
• No further need for rescue, there is actually only one line that needs saving (merging) in Kur: "Mountains play a central role in archaic Sumerian mythology, associated with deities such as Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag".
• After 2 months discussing, it's time to unloose this Gordian knot we're creating. Patrick1982 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment And merge it with "Kur", which Kramer makes clear is a different place from his Hursag? This seems as ill-informed as your previous claim in the Epics deletion discussion that a text didn't contain a word later found to be mentioned phonetically as "gar-sag-da" translated "netherworld mountain" Sumerian and Semitic religious and historical texts. Oxford editions of cuneiform inscriptions, v. 1. London: Oxford University Press. 1923., P.50-57]. I have however re-worded the article considering your comments. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think you've misread me. I'm not saying this article must be merged with Kur, onle 1 line (see above) needs to be lifted into that article, since it's the only that actually makes sense. Everything else you can use in Christian O'Brien#Kharsag. Patrick1982 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. The article currently begins by asserting that "Kharsag; (ḪURSAG 𒉺𒂅) also Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da is a Sumerian word or part of a Sumerian phrase noted as the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods and goddesses..." This is not supported by the sources given in the article—none of them say that all of these words/phrases are the gods' mountain home.

There is a basic problem with the way the article is rendering these words, also. As far as I can tell, kharsag and hursag are the same word, transliterated differently; if one searches for "kharsag", one finds scholarship that's a century old and modern fringe authors. If you search for hursag, you get more recent scholarship.

Furthermore, if one consults a resource such as J. A. Holloran's Sumerian Lexicon: a dictionary guide to the ancient Sumerian language, it becomes obvious that these words mean different things. I consulted the print version, but an online version can be found here: [1]. On p. 116, Halloran glosses hur-sag as "hill country; mountainous region". For HUR-SAG, on the other hand, we're referred to the entry for "azugna, azukna, azubir", and on p. 25 it turns out these words mean "saffron". No mention of a home of the gods here!

If one consults the University of Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary online for hursaĝ, one gets a nice definition, "mountain, foothills", along with a list of occurrences, nicely linked to The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian literature, where we can find Sumerian texts with English translations online. There's a nice page of proper nouns: [2]. "Hursag" and "Kharsag" do not appear, because they're not proper nouns. "Hursag" just means "mountain", remember. "Hursag-galama" and "hursag-kalama" appear, as names of temples, not as the mountain home of the gods. "E-hursag" appears, as the name of a temple, not as the home of the gods. The other phrases listed in our article don't appear in this list of proper nouns, which is mighty strange if they're supposed to be the name of a place.

To be more precise about Hursagkalamma, it is a temple complex in Kish, dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. Basic definition here, excavation report here (see especially the map on p. 114). That's S. Langdon and D. B. Harden, "Excavations at Kish and Barghuthiat 1933," Iraq, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1934), pp. 113-136 for those of you without JSTOR access. This translation renders the name of the temple as Hursaj-kalama, but it's the same place—and none of these sources make it the mountain home of the gods, they make it a temple in a particuar city (which is a normal residence for Mesopotamian gods).

As for E-hursag-gal-kurkura, one of the sources cited in the article says that this was the name of a temple complex in Nippur: [3], search in that text for "kurkurra", and on p. 45, you find: 'Hence, Sargon II, king of Assyria, who was of an antiquarian turn, speaks of "The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra," i.e. "The House of the Great Mountain of the Lands," the name given to the temple at Nippur.' This article says E-hursag-gal-kurkura was a temple complex in Assur on p. 1069: "On this site lies the great temple E-hursag-gal-kurkura, said to have been founded by Erisu, viceroy of Assur, about 1920 B.C."

The sources cited in the article do not show that all of these words/phrases refer to the same place, but illustrate that they refer to different things; and this is confirmed by the other sources I've found. There's no reason for the article to combine all these ideas; to do so is original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we can remove some of the names, sheesh. It's not like that's a big deal. And, by the way, "Hursag-kalamma" means "Mountainhead for all the Lands". That's what the word itself means. If they also named a temple after it, good for them, that doesn't change the fact that the sources are talking about the mountain of the gods, for whichever name they use. There's also the fact that "Kharsag" itself doesn't translate, because it doesn't mean mountain or anything like that, it's a name. But, like i've said before, naming is not important for this discussion. The sources all talk about the mountain of the gods, whichever word they use to describe that, and that mountain is what this article is about. Are the sources notable? If so, then the article is notable and we're good. It feels like you're purposefully trying to drag this into a discussion about the proper name, when that's something that should be discussed elsewhere, not here, as it has nothing to do with notability. Silverseren^C 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren, please read what I wrote again, more carefully. I said, quite clearly, that Sumerian dictionaries define "Hursag" as meaning "mountain". I cited two different dictionaries on this point. The dictionaries don't contain "Kharsag", because that is a different way of transliterating "Kharsag". If you have some evidence that hursag means something else, please provide it in this discussion. If you have a source that says that any of these words refer to the "mountain of the gods", please provide it, with a direct quote, right here in this discussion. Because your idea that these sources are talking about the mountain of the gods is exactly what I'm disputing—none of the sources cited so far establish that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) User:Akhilleus has been actively removing all of the sources that I put into the article, stating that they do not represent the information they are being paired with. These sources are:

"Journal of the American Oriental Society" - Google Books

A super-Tunguska event circa 1447 BC: a scenario for the Phaethon explosion, the Indo-Aryan migration and the Exodus events"

"Temples of the Orient and Their Message" - Google Books

"In and Around the Book of Daniel" - Internet Archive

It can clearly be seen that they are discussing the mountain in the text and, now, I will go about explaining why they are relevant to the sections I added them to.

The first source, the JAOS one, states "They were agreed that this form was intended to represent in a symbolic miniature the vast mountain, Kharsag-kurkura, on which mean and the gods most closely related to men were believed to have been created." The "form" is the fundamental form of temples they built to represent the mountain. I admit I put this in the wrong place, this should be with the mountain home of the gods section.

The second source, about the Tunguska event, states "The Turanians were the people living north of the Amu river, a large river, always full of water, not easily crossable, whose sources are found in a very special land, by us identified with the Biblical Eden and the Sumerian Kharsag, It is very likely that they are the people known in the Egyptian documents as the Amu and in Exodus and other Biblical passages as Amalek (to be interpreted as people of Amu /Amol, Amol being a very ancient town quoted in the Shahnama, near the Amu River, whose name has been changed only recently." This just explains about the original god-like people, the Anunnaki. Thus, this source was on the section about the Anunnaki.

The Orient source has multiple sections, five of them, where it discusses Kharsag and the fact that it is the mountain of the gods, their "Great Home".

As for the David source, Akhilleus misquoted it above. I will AGF and believe it wasn't purposeful. What he quoted was "The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra," 1 i.e. " The House of the Great Mountain of the Lands," the name given to the temple at Nippur." This makes it seem like the mountain is the temple, but it is not. The temple was modeled after the mountain and given its name, as a miniature. Look up to see what I said about the first source. The next sentence after this says "In Babylonian mythology the gods were supposed to dwell in the sacred mountain called " the Mountain of the Lands," and, according to Jastrow, Enlil, as being the chief of the gods, was more particularly associated with this mountain, and from being regarded as the inhabitant of the mountain became identified with the mountain itself." As you can guess, the fact that Enlil can also be referred to as Kharsag from this makes for a very confusing time. The Sumerians don't make things easy for us.

But, either way, all of the sources in the lede, at the very least, were discussing the mountain of the gods. Akhilleus has removed these sources, saying they were not relevant to what they were citing. But I believe I have explained all of that away here and I believe they should be reinserted. Silverseren^C 19:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They should not be reinserted. Especially not the fringy source about the Tunguska impact; what could this have to do with Babylonian cosmology in a rational world? Do you really want Wikipedia to say that a people in Siberia are named as Mesopotamian gods?

The other sources do not support the article's text. Remember, the first sentence asserts that Kharsag, (ḪURSAG 𒉺𒂅), Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da are all names for the mountain home of the gods. This, according to the sources that Silver seren has just cited, is not so. E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra is "the name given to the temple at Nippur." Yes, the temple is modeled after the cosmic mountain, but that's not the same thing as being the mountain. E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra is not the name of a mountain, it's the name of a temple; just as Mount Sinai Hospital is not the name of a mountain—it's the name of a hospital. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There, I have fixed the naming problem. Are we good now? Your only problem seems to be with the names, which has nothing to do with notability. But it's fixed now, so let's move on. Silverseren^C 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'Oriental' source is over a century old by someone now remembered mainly as a very good University president and as someone who believed in Eden at the North Pole, but not for his works on Babylonian cosmology. The 2nd source is fringe, not published. The third souce is from "Temples of the Orient and their message in the light of Holy Scriptures, Dante's vision, and Bunyan's allegory" by Mrs Gordon, E. A., again over a century old and by a virtual unknown, a British author but not in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The fourth source, Jastrow, mentions a Babylonian 'Mountain of the Lands'. I've also seen discussed in the context of this article 'mountain of heaven and earth' with the belief that it was a location rather than a description of the universe before Enlil separated the heaven and earth."mountain+of+heaven+and+earth"&source=bl&ots=9sIXLVr-8d&sig=S4Kdt520Ev7FUceiwtoyXNFkhcs&hl=en&ei=PGTQS9iGOYWCmwPalqlB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22mountain%20of%20heaven%20and%20earth%22&f=false It isn't clear how Jastrow's mountain fits with any of the other names. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep seems to have lots of interesting scholarship. Right now the presentation isnt the best, but this can likely be readilly resolved by knowledgeable editors such as Paul Bedson, Silver seren and / or others, once folk are no longer contesting the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work Akhilleus, your grasp of the subject is impressive and informative, even if your understanding of the wikipedia rules, chronology and temple dedication seems somewhat lacking. Kharsag, as a proper noun, mentioned by the only required verifiable, non-OR, non-SYNTH, non-fringe source, George Aaron Barton quite obviously cites the primary name of the article as the same location in several texts. I am surprised you question this or have simply ignored it, as I am suprised have the dictionaries and lexicons you've mentioned. It's also very important to note that Barton's translations are from a foundation cylinder from Nippur's temple (i.e. written before it was built), which he cites as possibly the oldest religious text in existence, pre-dating the Pyramid texts. This could go back as far as 2700BC, perhaps markedly further. It's the oldest text of the bunch in any case and possibly why Kharsag doesn't appear singularly elsewhere. In judging sources weight by time and quoting 'old scholarship' r.e. hursag/kharsag you are again trying to judge notability as time-dependent, when Wikipedia rules clearly state not so. We've been through this already in previous discussions.

Your investigation of the temples is interesting, and possibly parts of it need adding to the article for clarification. I have added the use of the word when describing temples dedicated to kharsag to clarify the article, yet you seem to be confusing a very simple concept here. Even when you cite it as a temple complex, it's also cited as 'Mountain of the World', which is again veriying this word as a specific location that the temples are dedicated to Kharsag and it's Gods. Like the Greeks no doubt dedicated temples to Olympus and the Greek Gods, Norse dedicated temples to Asgard and the Norse Gods, etc. This is not strange at all.

As for the 'normal residence of Mesopotamian Gods' being in the temple, please quote me a source for that statement. That seems like a good example of either OR or completely fictiional speculation. To my knowledge there is no evidence for this in Mesopotamian or any other similar culture. Greco-Roman temples for instance are always dedicated to Gods, who usually live on a sacred mountain.

Lastly, you seem to have totally ignored the cites showing use in Sumerian cosmology and their view of the world revolving around a great, sacred mountain, which I have included again for clarification because it essentially means the same concept.

Basically, this word was used over a period of thousands of years, so inevitably it's usage changed during that period and had meant different things. Why we are even discussing this at all when Barton has 3-4 seperate texts referring to Kharsag as the mountain home of the Gods, I wonder? All the other texts reference 'Mountain of the World', 'Netherworld Mountain', 'Mount of the Nations', etc., which should make it blindingly obvious that the word is referring to the same place. If not, simply consider the name Ninkharsag/Ninhursag - was she the "Lady of Mountain", "Lady or all Mountains" or "Lady or one specific mountain - her home", even cursory examination of the texts should clearly reveal it to be the latter.

By your judgement calls here, you would also have to argue for deletion of Asgard if a temple or house was ever dedicated to it and this clearly makes no sense. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The notion of a temple as a Mesopotamian god's dwelling place is a perfectly normal notion. What's not normal is taking a common noun, Hursag, and turning it into a proper name, and claiming that temples are dedicated to it. It's also not normal to take a bunch of different words and phrases and claim that they're all the same word. I've fixed this, with reference to basic resources like dictionaries. Can you please provide some clear evidence that 1) Kharsag is a proper noun that refers to the gods' mountain home? 2) all of these different words/phrases refer to the same place, especially since you acknowledge that some of these phrases refer to specific temples?

Where? You think people used to believe their Gods lived inside a physical temple? Again, please show sources for this concept I have never heard of. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As for Asgard, no one would argue for deleting that article, since we actually have sources that tell us that Asgard is a proper noun, and the word refers to the home of the Norse gods. Can you give us something similar for Kharsag? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, unsurprisingly, I got reverted. Never mind that we have no evidence that Kharsag/Hursag means anything but "mountain"... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Harvard 1985), p. 88: "The temple is the dwelling place, naos, of the deity..." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained and quoted the sources for you above, you seem to be ignoring them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is not about the word Kharsag as a definition for mountain. This article is about the mountain of the gods. And, as the sources I quoted earlier show, that is (one of) the name for it. You seem to be blatantly overlooking the sources at hand. Silverseren^C 19:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring them, I don't think the prove what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, which is why there should not be an article on kharsag—all it can be is an article about a word. If this article is about the mountain of the gods, it needs a different name.

Let's try this again. Please give me a direct quote illustrating that "kharsag" is a proper name that refers to the mountain of the gods. Not any of the other words/phrases, just "kharsag". --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Turanians were the people living north of the Amu river, a large river, always full of water, not easily crossable, whose sources are found in a very special land, by us identified with the Biblical Eden and the Sumerian Kharsag, It is very likely that they are the people known in the Egyptian documents as the Amu and in Exodus and other Biblical passages as Amalek (to be interpreted as people of Amu /Amol, Amol being a very ancient town quoted in the Shahnama, near the Amu River, whose name has been changed only recently." Silverseren^C 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So you *do* want the article to say that a tribe from Siberia were the Mesopotamian gods! Seriously, Silver seren, do you think this meets Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source? We might as well change this to Velikovskyopedia, then. Or perhaps we should stick to actual scholarly literature. Can you produce any? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think the name should be then? Silverseren^C 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Silver may have gotten ahead of me there, but I'm at a loss to answer 1) and 2) as none of the cites make any sense whatsoever using the common noun. Mountains don't generally go around getting established, building furnaces and having gardens of the gods that are green, having temples dedicated to a common noun mountain, having the centre of the universe as a common noun mountain, etc. I could go on but have mentioned Barton and Jastrow as the primary cites for 1) and refer you to my previous answer about the word being used for different places through a long period of time already for 2). Paul Bedson (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

'

Incidentally, if we are answering questions in a sensible manner, please can you provide me with a cite of kharsag, hursag or garsag in context as the common noun? Thanks. You didn't get back to me on that one , despite the impressive dictionaries. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention also, that Ninhursag was later translated into Akkadian as Inanna and later still into Babylonian as Ishtar. Plenty of cites should show this if you want to investigate and it should clarify the temple issues being dedicated to equivalent goddesses at later times. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy issues Once again I need to point out that this is original research so far as I can see. Most of the argument is based on primary sources, and WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." It also says that primary sources "are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." We have zero primary sources being used that discuss the subject. And the 'Keep' !votes don't seem to be facing this issue, or perhaps aren't even worried about it. Sorry guys, but that's the way I see it. It's one of the strengths of Wikipedia in my opinion that we don't allow original research, and if it creeps in here it will be to our loss. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read anything at all that I said about the sources? Anything? The sources I have added and the other sources regardless are talking about the Mountain of the Gods. They are not primary sources, they are secondary sources with historical information. And you have yet to state exactly what in the article is original research. You seem to be completely ignoring everything that has been said in this discussion. Silverseren^C 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Along with Barton's undiscussed translation, the word is a notable part of a phrase. Leading as such, there's plenty of discussion in primary sources of this. Hence no OR in my opinion. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The persistent problem here appears to be that none of the sources says that "Kharsag" means specifically "Mountain of the Gods". The best that seems to be shown is that the word is (sort of) an element of several other words which may denote the Sumerian equivalent of Asgard, but by itself it doesn't mean this. The claim that it does have that meaning is an argument being constructed in this article, and it doesn't come from the cited sources. That's exactly original research. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources specifically talk about the mountain. I quoted the sections from the sources above that said so. Regardless of the name, this article is about that mountain, the sources talk about that mountain, the sources are reliable sources, thus the article subject is notable. Silverseren^C 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "part of a phrase" despecifies it, which I argue is obviously required in this field. Nevertheless, Barton presents us with 3 or 4 stories about all the same Gods, all in Kharsag with cattle, sheep, furnaces, pi-pi plants and a garden in it and other features. The location the stories take place is clearly called "Kharsag" by it's primary translator. Again I do not agree this is original research. You're welcome to change it to "home of the Gods" or even "garden of the Gods" if you feel that is better supported. It will not blend as well with Wikipedia's current articles on Ninhursag however. Paul Bedson (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The problem here is that while the sources use the word "Kharsag" or some plausible equivalent (in passing and with apparently differing meaning), they don't actually discuss the concept of "Kharsag" and how it is notable. That is where the OR comes in. Without reliable sources that discuss the topic of Kharsag, all we have is a Babyloninan-English dictionary entry. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• keep. AfD is not the place to deal with problem editors. This is just the Sumerian term for "mountain". Mountains play a certain role in Sumerian mythology. Wikipedia needs an article discussing mountains in Sumerian mythology, so let this be it (but move it to Hursag). Of course it needs to lose the UFOlogy/fringecruft material. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• it transpires that all this article needs are a few eyes of editors who actually know something about the topic, so the nonsense can be kept out and the coverage put on its feet. This is just a case of WP:FRINGE pov-pushing, let WP:FTN handle it. No need for deletion. So far the article clearly hasn't been touched by anyone with Sumerological background knowledge, seeing as it consists merely of a handful of soundbites collected on Google Books. This is the raw material for an article, but it is not itself an article. I would be interested in writing this article if the revert-warriors can be kept out of my hair. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Great news! I'm grateful for your help and have no interest in reverting sensible edits. I do need to clarify that we still lack evidence of kharsag, hursag or garsag's use in archaic Sumerian as the common noun "mountain", it is originally used as the proper noun "head mountain" in these texts and the article should reflect that. Arkilleus's Akkadian text with different Gods, and one liner about Enlil having sex with the Hursag is insfficient in my opinion. I have distinguished this in the article from the later Akkadian sources where it is used as the common noun and feel this is important not to be misleading about it's usage in archaic Sumerian cuneiform. This is why I also feel kharsag is a better term than hursag which could be an article, but it's Akkadian verses Sumerian usage must be distinguished. I trust as a scholar, you will agree this is a sensible argument that considers the chronology of the texts and the differences between archaic and Akkadian cuneiform. I look forward to further improving this article with your help. Kind Regards, Paul Bedson (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as per Dab. Mountains do play a role in the mythology of much of the mid-eastern ancient religions. Further concur about that the fringe material doesn't belong, so the ultimate article is unlikely to look much like the original. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- I also lack expertise on this subject. However, if there was a home for the gods in Sumerian mythology, we clearly need an article on it. What it should be called is a differnet matter, which needs to be determined according to how most scholars (prefereably recent ones) transliterate the text. However, if there are rival transliterations, the less authentic ones should survive as redirects. What I do know is that the Sumerians and the Akkadians were different peoples at different the latter being dominant later. It thus seems to me that Akkadian documents are not necessarily a proper source for saying what the people of Sumer did (or did not) believe. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very fair comment Peter. The problem with this whole subject area is the length of time we're covering in the development of writing and religion, you've hit the nail on the head there. Wikipedia and the entire subject area requires clear explanation of the different time periods and deities worshipped, when and named what. We're going back to the start here and the differences between myths in Ur III, Lagash, Archaic and later Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian cuneiform. I've repaired that article after it's been a bit hacked apart lately and expanded the definition to mention the differentiation needed due to chronology, putting back the notable cites without quote farming if that is what is preferred. Personally, I found the quotes highly informative in their own right. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

another break

• Redirect to Hursag. I am now of the opinion that it shouldn't simply redirect to Christian O'Brien. Hursag is the most common transliteration of the relevant Sumerian. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this as the article is not about the later Akkadian use of the word hursag as a common noun, which would prove misleading. It's about Barton's Kharsag or derivations therof in archaic Sumerian. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Barton's transliteration is not the most used transliteration of the term. It is clear from the sources I've read on the subject that Barton's transliteration to Kharsag is what most modern scholars transliterate to Hursag. It is by no means established that this words was ever intended to be used as a proper noun and most modern Sumerian scholars would not accept this. Even some of the sources which use "kharsag" don't accept that it is a proper noun, so Wikipedia should relegate that approach to WP:FRINGE idealizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 April 2010

Please, then for the 4th time, please provide a citation showing it to be used as a common noun in archaic Sumerian when dealing with the ORIGINAL pantheon. Without this, I cannot accept that argument as valid. Plus I would argue that the number and notability of the sources using kharsag outweighs the number using hursag, regardless of age. The tablets these myths were written on (the oldest in the world) were only studied for a brief period of time at the beginning of the last century. This is why all the research about the subject is old and we have few recent (non-fringe) sources about this particular subject in these particular myths. I think it would be good if we could find someone's translation of 'gar' or 'khar' discussed somewhere, but without this, I have reverted the 'akin to'. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Only ONE source, Barton, uses the word Kharsag. It doesn't matter if Kharsag is part of the name for temples, etc. The word is only used by Barton. All this argument about a word suggests that we are discussing a dictionary definition. If there should be an article including the word, the article should focus on Mountains play a central role in archaic Sumerian mythology, associated with deities such as Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag. That could include the 'cosmic mountain, the 'mountain of heaven and earth', that is part of the Sumerican creation myth and means the universe. It could include Jastrow's statement that "Kharsag-Kurkur" does not refer to a mountain but is " a designation for the earth, though at a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak, may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods". Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The one source is all that is required, and it's discussing the earliest religious statement of the human race and a notable unique word within it. It is also 'eminently notable' due to the nature and age of the original Sumerian sources. As part of a phrase it has many, many sources from almost all the scholars working in the field at the time the tablets were translated. I agree we should include "cosmic mountain" and "mountain of heaven and earth" statements. Jastrow makes his views clearer in that text and directly claims it is the birthplace of the Gods as I have cited in the article. Boutiflower also describes it as their home and it's close association with Enlil in later temple culture. That quote is evasive. Also , please note there are no contrary quotes about this word being used as a common noun mountain or mountain range. Doug has claimed to have quoted page 75 of "Sumerian Mythology" as a reference containing it's use as 'mountain ranges' as a common noun in connection with this pantheon, which I have questioned as seemingly erroneous and non-existant and had no reply on this yet. Paul Bedson (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But you and I agree that even the one source does not use the word Kharsag to refer to a mountain. Also, Barton dated this incorrectly, he thought the Akkadian empire was 2800BC to 2600BC, whereas as almost a century later modern scholarship dates it to 2350-2150, and the Pyramid Texts are older. As for page 75, I'm sorry I didn't respond and sorrier that I've lost the reference, it was a messenger crossing several mountain ranges, almost certainly the messenger to Aratta, but there are plenty of references to Hursag meaning mountain range, eg [4] [5], Kramer "it+often+refers+to+the+mountains+just+east+of+Sumer"&dq=kramer+"it+often+refers+to+the+mountains+just+east+of+Sumer"&hl=en&ei=jQPSS6XBDqOJOL6t0d0N&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA ""Hursag may mean 'mountain', 'mountain range', it often refers to the mountains just east of Sumer." (p. 216. footnote 10. Kramer)" etc. I didn't mention common noun or pantheon, all I wrote was "And Hursag simply means mountain. Look at page 75 of this where it is used repetitively while describing a messenger crossing a number of mountain ranges (so here it means mountain range, not just a mountain)" Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed hursag/Hursag re-added the 'and variations' and revised in line with your suggestions. Thanks. Still, you will have to agree with me about the 'Notability not being temporary' rule. The citations provided so far to the contrary (which have been fascinating incidentally) are from such as a business document dating to the Ur III dynasty, mentioning hursag, which is used as a proper and common noun in later Ur III cuneiform, dating later than ca. 2047BC. The Archaic cuniform proper noun Kharsag or phonetically gar-sag used on it's own or in variations that the article is about, NEVER uses this word as a common noun and is estimated to date from the reign of Naram-Suen ca. 2254–2218 BC or before. All using short chronology, which is highly debatable. It is also only ever referenced to the original pantheon of Gods, to my knowledge. I was wondering if you could prove me wrong, but not yet it seems. To understand the differences between the 3 main different versions of cuneiform (Archaic, Ur III and Standard Assyrian) I'd suggest looking at the chart halfway down this page [6] which shows the differences in form, or within wikipedia[7]. Imkharsag, Kharsag-kurkura and E-khar-sag-kurkura and gar-sag-da clearly are variations the same word amongst others. We need to concentrate on what was notable at the time of Barton, Jastrow, Langdon and Hilprecht, as well as in ancient Sumer, where they all clearly understood the same word or central part of a word as the same concept. Please read about Notabiliy not being temporary WP:NOTE for further explanation. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Paul Bedson (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Imkharsag, Kharsag-kurkura and E-khar-sag-kurkura and gar-sag-da are clearly different words. Unless you think compliment, complement, complimenting, and complementary infinitive are all "variations", and therefore the same word... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Different spellings but clearly same concept, which many of your examples are not. It's very clear if you bother to read the translations. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, please stop saying that I haven't read the translations. I've read everything you've brought up—it just doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. And I'm surprised to see that you think compliment and complement are different spellings of the same concept, and that complementary infinitive is...what? another alternate spelling? Are you now going to claim that imkharsag and kharsag-kurkurra are different spellings of the same word? Can you back that up with a citation? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I will, however, complain that you haven't bothered to read material that I've brought up. Just above, you incorrectly state that "The citations provided so far to the contrary ... are from such as a business document dating to the Ur III dynasty," when the Jeremy Black article I've mentioned deals with literary texts including the Barton Cylinder, so the scope of the article isn't limited to Ur III. The article says nothing about the meaning of hursag as "hill" being limited to the Ur III period; it uses documents of this time to show what hursag means in the Debate between Sheep and Grain and How Grain Came to Sumer. The argument that Black's argument only applies to Ur III is yours, not Black's.

Also, you appear not to have read this dictionary entry for hursag in the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, at least not carefully. Start with the first line, "hursaĝ [MOUNTAIN] (598x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. hur-saĝ..." That information in parentheses says that the word occurs 598 times in the corpus used by the dictionary, starting with the ED IIIb period through the Old Babylonian period. The reign of Naram-Suen falls within that period, yes? What's more, the dictionary entry has a timeline of the word's occurrences; if I'm reading it right, it says the word occurs 284 times between 2500-2000, and Naram-Suen is right in the middle of that range. So the Barton Cylinder is written in a period where we have ample documentation of its use as a common noun meaning "mountain." All that information is in a dictionary entry I linked to on April 21.

I'm also going to guess that you didn't read [8], the transcription of the Barton Cylinder at the CDLI. I wouldn't blame you for not reading this, since the site seems to be inaccessible at times. At the moment the site is working for me. Its transcription is based on Alster and Westenholz's edition of 1994, which I have been unable to access. But from the webpage we can see that the lines transcribed by Barton (p. 5) as:

gat azag en-lil

gar-sag mu-gub

are transcribed by Alster and Westenholz as

4. gidri-ku3# {d}en-lil2

5. hur-sag#? mu-DU

In other words, the same word gets transcribed as gar-sag by Barton and hur-sag by Alster/Westenholz. The hur-sag transcription is also used in the Pennsylvania Dictionary's version of the Barton Cylinder. Your assertion that the "Archaic cuniform proper noun Kharsag" was different than hursag was OR to begin with. Now that we can see that the same sign in the same text is transcribed either as gar-sag or hur-sag, your assertion is falsified by secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work. This is the sort of help we need. Thanks for the cites. They were worth the wait. It is a shame this source has come along and muddled Kramer's hursag with this text 10 years after O'Brien's translation. He appears not to have read it and caused a big problem here. The question looms whether the notability is still temporary for this period between 1918 and 1994. I'd also appeal for anyone who can access Alster and Westenholz's commentary on the Barton cylinder to see what they say about this subject and hope no-one closes this discussion before that is examined fairly. I'll have a got at getting it once I finish my work rotation. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I have noticed that the article's creator, Paul Bedson (talk · contribs), notified a number of people on April 20th about this AfD, in one case (only) suggesting what the editor should do. These were editors who had either !voted Keep or commented favorably at the earlier AfD of a similar article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, and those who had commented or !voted otherwise were not so notified. I am going to WP:AGF and assume that this new user didn't know of our guidelines on this but I have now notified the other editors of this AfD. As this discovery and notification has occurred so late the in AfD's process, I think that's a problem which may be skewing the discussion. I ask whoever considers closing this to keep this in mind.

I also believe that all those involved have been under the impression that the unadorned word Kharsag, only used by Barton, was used in conjunction with a mythological mountain, thus giving us the lead which starts "Kharsag; (also transcribed as Khar-sag & Gar-sag) or variations is an archaic Sumerian term used to denote a mythological location, meaning "head mountain", "sacred mountain" or "glorious mountain" ". Paul Bedson now agrees "that Barton doesn't refer to this as mountain" (his words) and says that other variations do, such as that used by Jastrow (although he doesn't deny that the edit is correct that says " Morris Jastrow, Jr. mentions a E-khar-sag-kurkura as "The sacred mountain on which the gods are born". He also mentions Kharsag-Kurkura in Babylonian mythology, pointing out that "The popular early theology conceived the gods as sprung from the earth. The are born in Kharsag-Kurkura, 'The Mountain of all the Lands', which is again naught but a designation for the earth, though at a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak, may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods." In other words, Jastrow says that this 'variation' does not mean a mythological mountain. This dissonance between what the lead says (and the article's title) and the actually usage of the unadorned word without 'variations' may or may not have affected the comments by other editors. I don't see how we can have an article based on a demonstrably false statement. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to notify the participants about what I think is a major problem that they would not have taken into account. What I do think we can have is an article called something like Mountain symbolism in Ancient Near East mythology or just Mountains in Ancient Near East mythology as Dab has suggested above, but this title and this lead do not belong on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that Paul Bedson's notifications are more than balanced by the campaigning at WP:FTN, which includes the following call-to-arms from Akhilleus: "note the existence of Kharsag, which looks like an attempt to sneak the material of Kharsag epics into a different article. Comments welcome at Talk:Kharsag and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Make this Mesopotamian mythology#World mountain or World mountain#Ancient Near East at first. I cannot understand why people always insist on creating crappy stubs and then spend time defending them when they could just sit down and help the project by compiling a clean paragraph in an existing article.

Editorial incompetence is hardly a new phenomenon in our Ancient Near East topics, and of course we need to work with what we can get, but there should be some efficient means of pooling contributions and avoiding unproductive debacles such as this. --dab (𒁳) 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify about the title, not only do I think that the article should not be about a word/words but the concept that the cuneiform signs were meant to embody, but as the unadorned word 'Kharsag' is used by only one article to denote a mythological location, it fails WP:Title as the 'variations' are more commonly used by scholars. I wouldn't want 'hursag' or 'hur.sag' etc s the title either. Dab's suggestion that it be a redirect to a section of an article is a good one. If it is to be restricted to Sumerian mythology, our article on Sumerian religion (why do we have 'Sumerian religion' but 'Greek mythology'? which is sorely lacking anything on mountains, and mountains played a vital part in their religion. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still trying to find out what the Alster & Westenholz 1994 translation calls Kharsag in transliteration and if there is any commentary on that. This seems like a big hole in the argument until it's been checked. It's a very exciting discovery that an updated non-fringe transcription and transliteration has been made after O'Brien's. The direct translation cited has many of the extra lines not in the original Barton document and only in O'Briens'. These lines include the proliferal use of the Sumerian word "EDIN", a 'variation' of which is where I suggest the merge will end shortly after the press coverage finishes of the U.K. elections in May. I would comment that this discussion needs to be closed by revealing what the additional source we have for the subject of this article says, which I would argue is primarily about the use of this word in the oldest cuneiform myth ever found.

Doug and Professor Bachman raise some good questions too and I feel honoured to receive the advice and opportunity to contribute better to the wider subject. The question regarding Sumerian Mythology is well raised. I would still argue that I am not here to promote this topic on Wikipedia, I am here to prepare Wikipedia for this article by attracting leading expert editors such as dab. I intend to follow his advice, read his sources and do some cognitive thinking rather than debating this any more or making any great changes to his proposed form. Rachaya El-Wadi hasn't even got a Wiki article! So there are better things for me to be getting on with. I would only appeal for him to help access Alster & Westenholz and reveal what the latest evidence transliterates and discusses about the direct topic of this article before final deliberation. Thanks again for all your efforts, I look forward to working productively with you in future. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Rachaya El-Wadi did have an article, just not a redirect to Rashaya - I've created two, one with the sh spelling. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice article Doug, glad it features the independence citadel. I've ordered a copy of Acta Sumerologica Volume 16 (1994), from Maruzen's Polish distributor featuring the Alster & Westenholz article published by The Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, ISSN: 0387-8082. Should make interesting reading. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the Alster/Westenholz article. It has a transliteration and translation of the text. The lines most relevant to this discussion are translated:

The [pure] Tigris and the [pure] Euphrates

Enlil's pure scepter
... the mountain(?).
Let its roots...
[Let] its top...
On its side [let]...

[Let] eggs [be laid] on the ground.

No sign that hursag is translated as a proper noun or that it's a particular place in these lines. Near the beginning of their article, Alster and Westenholz write "We are painfully aware that our understanding of the text is often tentative and incomplete." (p. 17) So we shouldn't be making grand interpretations based on a text that's so uncertain... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is that question mark next to mountain. That's kinda a sign. Unfortunately, this seems like complete gobbledeegook - eggs laid on the ground? This is one confused translation. Bah. I'll just have to study cuneiform and do it myself. *runs off to apply to Oxford's M.Phil. Cuneiform Studies* Paul Bedson (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The question mark is surely a sign that they aren't sure the word means mountain?

I still don't see having an article on the use of the word in one myth, even if it is the oldest ever found. That's what dictionaries are for. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just created Barton Cylinder for this text. Material on mountains in ANE myth should be covered according to dab's suggestions above; I'm not sure we need to retain Kharsag even as a redirect.

Oh yeah, the question mark means they're not entirely sure that the sign is sag; they are reasonably certain (otherwise they'd just print an ellipsis instead), but there's room for doubt. So hursag was probably on that line, but it's possible that something else was... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good idea. I think anything else should go in our article on Sumerian religion, which needs amplifying and certainly needs mention of mountains. I think that would be a better idea (sorry Dab) although it's in the same spirit. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

An excerpt from Alster and Westenholz's 1994 article is here: [9]. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So where are we? This AfD has real problems in that not only are most of the Keep !votes from people who were selectively canvassed, we have an article whose title is not in line with WP:Title and concerns what is now shown to be at best a dubious transliteration of the text and at worst a clear mistake. Maybe it says hursag (not Kharsag), maybe it doesn't. The good thing is that with agreement the content of the article has changed drastically. I think we can salvage most if not all of the current content and place it elsewhere, but there should be no redirect. That would be in line with I believe both the spirit and the letter of the relevant policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply want to thank everyone who has worked on this and topics around it. I think Wiki still has lots of work to do regarding this subject and still argue a question mark hangs over this word. I have just been reading Langdon [10] (page 263) and found another mention of gar-sag as 'Mountain(?)' which seems not to be soley due to A & W's missing the complete 'sag'. Some of Bartons other documents mentioning Kharsag appear to be the latest translations and that still warrants investigation (when Penn Uni's website mysteriously comes back online). Particular thanks to Arkilleus for mailing me the A & W article. One thing I gleaned from it is their dating pushes it back further than Naram-Suen to Early Dynastic or Sargonic times. I think valid points are raised about the difference between this word and Kur. I suspect time would be better spent developing a page for Kêš. Also distinguishing Ki, which apparently means 'Earth' from Ninhursag. There are lots of things to move on with here, whatever the outcome of the discussion and I presume it still only takes one big press story to re-open the debate. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (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.