Talk:Subartu

message: I believe the taboo that was imposed on Kurdistan, culture, language for long time has  contibuted to the creation of many mystries in mesopotamia and anatolia when it comes to ancient people, languages and their legacy.Perhaps, it is time for scholars and specialists to take advantage of the security, stability and freedom exist in Iraqi Kurdistan to explore these issues including archeological sites that dat back to thousands of years.Among these issues that need to be explored, the relation of Sumerian to Kurds' ancestors, since they are believed to have originally decended from mountains.A huge Kurdish tribe is still carrying the name Zebari, or t-subari in Iraqi Kurdistan. maybe it deserves some background checking by specialists.
When you read some ancient anatolian vocabularies it is not hard to find out the almost exact word in modern Kurdish such as: da -give -da in Kurdish, daru-tree- dar, diu-god-diew,genu-knee-ejnu,gwana-woman-kabani or kavani,hasta-bone-hasti,kes-person-kes, khwen-kill-khewn means blood,krodi or kerd-heart-cerg,lohai-to pour-lihi means flood,phargui or parkui-clean-pak,phrokhu or bherg-high-berz,ser- top-ser,sta-stand-westa,
these are only some words. I am sure a specialists will find better common ground between Kurdish and ancient anatolian languages such as Hittie and Luwian if compared to older Kurdish texts.
Eamad J. Mazouri
Indeed. I've added the Zubari tribe. It is most likeley that the Subarus were kurds. Because the Sumerians said they were a part of "land of Karda" together with Gutians, Lulus, Kassites, Hurrians and more.
--Kurdalo (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: The following text was added by an anonymous editor on the article page, I believe the editor meant it to be here so I moved it here:
The information listed by the writer is full of errors. references are poor and unreliable. The name shubartu occurs in Cambridge ancient history in reference to Urartu, armenia not with Sumer. The writers cofuses far-fetched material without mentioning dates. The article should be discarded as unreliable. Added: Salah Salim Ali
I have no opinion on the subject, this is just done as a service to the anonymous editor.
--Muhandes (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I think this article and Subartu (Amarna letters corpus) should be merged into one article.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, Subartu (Amarna letters corpus) seems to deal with a subtopic of Subartu and does not seem to merit an article on its own. --Muhandes (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Subartu (Amarna letters corpus)?

message: My dear Iraqi friend and anonymous !! Urartu and Subartu were just Tribal confedracies, they were in reality all Hurrian in race, and Armenia was a name of a Hurrian Kingdom, it is not a race. The Modern Armenians are the product of the Haigs who invaded Armenia and imposed their language on the locals, like the Medes did to the rest of HUrrians (Kurds). Armenians as well as Kurds can claim their
heritage, but Kurds maybe more due to their presence in the main areas of these nations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyako2000 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point? If you think the article is wrong, and you have the reliable sources to prove it, be bold and edit. Otherwise, writing it here is a waste of time. --Muhandes (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got things exactly backwards: These far-fetched assertions were inserted without sources supporting them, and it is not the doubters' business to disprove them. The maxim of scepticism is: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence – they can be safely dismissed (hence, deleted) otherwise. Even a solidly demonstrable continuity of names would not prove ethnic continuity (the French don't speak a Germanic language, despite their name going back to the Franks). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who confuse Urartu/Subartu/Hurrian  

message: Concerning the recent major edits and the sourcing used to support them:
* Dhorme isn't being cited directly, and to list him as such is likely a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, in addition to the ambiguity of the information contained in Gelb's article, Gelb himself referers to Dhorme's ideas as unprovable, and later writers (such as Speiser) are opposed to the idea. Note also that Gelb and others don't entertain Subartu as anything other than a Near Eastern place name or loosely defined national grouping, and certainly not as some supposed proto-Turkic people. Also, Dhorme was writing in 1911 - this is certainly not any sort of mainstream idea now, and to simply treat it as such - and especially to use it to bring in clear WP:SYNTH such as Sumerian etymologies for Sabir and Turkic etymologies for Subartu - runs into not just the problems with synth, but with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE as well.
* Halûk Tarcan is a stright-up fringe theorist who among other things believes the Etruscans were Turks.
* The quotes from Togan don't make any explicit connection between Subartu and the Sabir or other Turks, and the editor may be adding them based on nothing other than their own belief in the unity of the peoples. The same goes with the "water people" etymology and the references to Ağasıoğlu,  Bilgin, and Zakiev. These can't be used as sources for a connection unless the claim can be confirmed and the sources shown to be reliable and not fringe or undue - given that Subartu precedes the arrival of Turkic-speakers into the area by millennia, this will be extremely important..
* Moravcsik, as with Dhorme, doesn't appear to be cited directly, and also doesn't appear to make any connections between Subartu and Hungarians/Uralic speakers. The "BCSP" source is extremely problematic, beginning with the fact that no author or title is given- surely a WP:REDFLAG. Also, the name of the jourbnal is wrong as well - it's Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, not BCSP, who are the publishers. The journal is also about rock art, not linguistics or ethnography. As the Google Books archive of the article also has no author or title and misidentifies the journal in the same way, it's clear the editor who added it knows the source only through the tiny snippets provided - a big problem with CITE. Further, the BdCCdSP source's claim that Macartney claims Subartoi is from Mesopotamian Subartu looks iffy: assuming that "Macartney (1930)" is C. A. Macartney's Magyars in the Ninth Century (another problem with relying on snippets), the latter book doesn't seem to say anything of the kind. The cite for an Armenian connection shows another problem, in that just because something is referred to as being the "language of ancient Armenia" doesn't mean a connection is being made with the current inhabitants of Armenia or their language.
* The Golan source is self-published, and the author is known as a writer on religious topics, not linguistics. Also, he isn't claiming those words are descended from or otherwise related to Subartu, but that they supposedly bear reflexes of the same prefixes. In doing so, he's using the Nostratic theory - not a mainstream position among linguists - and the only journal review I've found of the book describes the linguistics as unconvincing and based on circular reasoning. There are WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE issues, as well as the questionable interpretation of the source itself.
In short, none of the sourcing is adequate for the claims made, either due to problems with the source or the editor's usage of them. The claims themselves are also in no way mainstream ones, but ones connected to nationalistic pseudohistory. Given that this same editor has previously outright forged a source for the same purpose, used creationist literature, etc., any further contributions like this need to be very closely studied. Ergative rlt (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your elaborations, I have tried to improve the citing style as far as possible and removed the parts which are non-conform with WP:LPG. If there are still left some serious sourcing issues, you are free to name them. With regards. --Hirabutor (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree, User:Ergative rlt. All the Turkic, Hungarian, Kurdish and Armenian crap is extremely fringe and does not belong into any Wikipedia article. I too have noticed Hirabutor before as belonging to a group of editors who pollute Wikipedia with nationalist pseudohistory. This is a systemic problem affecting lots of history- and language-related articles and Wikipedia urgently needs to be cleaned of pseudohistory and its zealous peddlers with an iron broom. I have battled with these editors before, but without support (let alone admin buttons), I'm helpless as a lone fighter against the lunatic fringe in articles that receive little attention from the community at large. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe removing is unnecessary. These "connections" -who claimed by several scholars- are cannot be prove. Whic is already mentioned in the article.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

text: If it is FRINGE, get rid of it.  Pulling Turkic into ancient Mesopotamia is ludicrous. Should have consensus, now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

text:  This garbage has been showing up at Wiktionary lately. Fortunately, it can be almost entirely eliminated on the grounds of not being dictionary material, so we haven't had to really debate this. I did respond to a query on my talk page about the removal of a lot of cruft by pointing out that simply going by superficial similarity of names would lead to the name of a Japanese car manufacturer as the most likely source. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very serious sourcing issues 

message: everything in that article that is actually supported by existing evidence is mentioned in this one and has sources cited for it so we should just get rid of the shupria article 24.17.216.223 (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shupria