Talk:Subartu

---

comment

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)

Comment

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)

Merge with Subartu (Amarna letters corpus)?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result is MERGE. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

---

I think this article and Subartu (Amarna letters corpus) should be merged into one article.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

support - in agreement with the preceding, and with wp:fork...

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Those who confuse Urartu/Subartu/Hurrian

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)

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)

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)

Identification with Kurds

Til Eulenspiegel: It is equally impossible that the Saubaru/Sibaru as a tribe mentioned in Sumerian and Akkadian literature (according to the cited source) were Kurdish-speaking (and therefore identifiable with a modern Kurdish tribe 4000 or 5000 years later) as that a tribe the Herodotus mentioned was speaking English or French: that's a ridiculous anachronism. First it needs to be established that the source is reliable at all in view of this glaring mistake that a serious historian should not make; such far-fetched and even impossible connections are symptomatic of nationalistic pseudo-historical BS. Moreover, the source only mentions the name Saubaru/Sibaru without even mentioning Subartu, so the connection of Saubaru/Sibaru with Subartu is totally OR! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The cited material you removed doesn't claim that Kurdish was the language of Subartu, which is uncertain but presumably was Assyrian (Semitic) since Subartu was a name for Assyria. The claim you removed merely states that the ancient name is thought to be preserved in the modern Kurdish region of Zibari by a certain Harvard professor/author. Your exaggerated strawman aside, I see no reason for removing it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, please do not go back to your bad old ways of trolling articles on ancient history. Your statement here on talk is correct. This is an unsubstantiated claim of the etymology of a tribal name. However, the text removerd by Florian from the article page read:

Some scholars, such as Harvard Professor Mehrdad Izady, have identified Subartu with the current Kurdish tribe of Zibaris inhabiting the northern ring around Mosul up to Hakkari in Turkey

which is, of course, complete bullshit. Izady, for better or worse, Harvard or no Harvard, in passing dropped a speculative etymology for Zibari, without presenting any reference. If this is based on any actual etymology discussed in Iranist literature, we will be obliged if you can point us to it. Then we will be happy, I am sure, to include the possible etymology, suggested by some Iranist, that Zibari may possibly derive from the toponym Subartu. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See my comment above – even if there is a continuity of the name (and some random resemblance proves nothing), that does not warrant the chosen wording, which suggests a tribal continuity going back millennia ("[...] have identified Subartu with the current Kurdish tribe of Zibari [...]"). There is nothing to identify except possibly the name Zibari with Saubaru or Sibaru, but not with Subartu. If this Harvard professor/author really means what he seems to say with Many of these tribes have been in existence—with the same names—for several thousand years, he's a crackpot – no appeals to authority will impress me.

Just imagine a German author claiming that the ancient/medieval Alemanni, Bavarians etc. have stayed put since the Chalcolithic, identifying them with archaeological cultures, and saying that they are still around as distinct, identifiable tribes ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean like Johannes Aventinus? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don;t understand. Here we have a published source by a Harvard professor has written a book on Kurdish history, and we have two wikipedians who use their own original personal expertise and authority to declare the source unmentionable? Sounds strangely familiar... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Harvard-backed or not, the source is irrelevant based on the circumstance alone (to reiterate for the umpteenth time) that (wait for it) it does not mention Subartu. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Big deal. Do you think Saubaru / Sibaru refers to something else? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Til, you have never actually stopped to consider if you are wrong, ever, have you. Getting back at your critics is just an automatism for you, you never actually spend a moment thinking about whether they may have some point. At least I have never seen you engage in rational debate on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 17:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Source needed for claims of Turkic etymology

The recent edits proposing a Turkish etymology for Subartu gave no actual source, just saying that it was an idea of one Mark Hubey (CS professor at Montclair). Hubey doesn't appear to have published this in a reliable source, and in fact the text of the edit comes directly from a mailing list/forum post of Hubey's which has since been copied to a few other places. The random quotes from the "Cambridge Ancient Near East" don't support the claim (and are again just a repetition of Hubey's post), and that source doesn't even seem to exist in the first place - I think it may be a mistitled version of the Cambridge Ancient History, but I can't say for sure. If the editor wants this claim to remain in the article, they need to find a statement by Hubey or others that appears in a reliable source, and that passes the guidelines for undue weight and fringe; it also needs to be cited properly so that others can follow up on it. Ergative rlt (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed similar text not too long ago, having searched but failed to find any RS suggesting Turkic is linked to Subartu. However at one point they had neighbors called Turukku, which has probably been compared in sources. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Followup: the source of the quotes really is the Cambridge Ancient History, and it does not support the claims attributed to it: there's nothing about Subartu being inhabited by Turks etc. In Hubey's original message he credits Miziev (presumably Ismail Mussaevich Miziev) who is most certainly a fringe theorist. The quote that was added to this article removed the bit about Miziev, conveniently making it seem that a more reputable source backed the claims. Ergative rlt (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also could not find any hint that the so called Montclair State University Professor H. Mark Hubey has ever cited from the so called source "Cambridge Ancient Near East" series of books. But I added another source of a Hungarian author. Is it reliable? --Henephon7 (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Could we add a reasonable translation there? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Bartha holds the orthodox view that Hungarians are Uralic speakers who came from the steppe or forest steppe region. I believe the quoted section is talking about Siberian tribes and others who came from that region, and while there is a folk belief that "Siberia" derives from "Subartu", this isn't the accepted etymology. Also, much as the quotes in the prior edit derive from a fringe theory that's been copied around the net, and which the sources quoted from don't support, the particular quote of Bartha's used here appears in a very fringe-y article by Biro Joszef (surname first) which has likewise been copied about. I've seen nothing to suggest that Bartha agrees with this interpretation of the section or any of the other claims Biro is making. Shorter me: find better sources. Ergative rlt (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The text is from Antal Bartha from page 233. I can not translate with every word but as I understood it can be outlined as following:

"our turk 'style' is showed by our 3 names from sources; sabartoi,that people who came from Siberia,the ugri[ongri],the onogur bulgars,turk- is from turk origin-, about sabir could be suspected that is a tukr originated name.But about sabirs we know little,and theirr origins are waiting to be resolved." --Henephon7 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, it's dealing with Siberian peoples and others who didn't come to the region until long after the period that this article is about. There's nothing about Subartu there, and using it to back claims of Turkic etymology/identity is a misrepresentation of the source. Ergative rlt (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Greek Sabiroi (Σάβιροι) = Turkic Sabir

Concerning the edit war between me and Ergative: 1, 2 - Hirabutor (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Turkic Sabir = chin. Hsien-pei

1, 2 - Hirabutor (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does this say the classical Subar etc. are the same as the medieval Sabir? Once again, you seem to be confusing the two peoples. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ergative, are you serious? Classical antiquity - Hirabutor (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Please provide sources showing that mainstream scholars consider the medieval Sabir to be the same people as the Bronze Age Subar, Subir, etc. Also:

• Dhorme says nothing about the medieval Sabir or Turks in general, and thus can't be used. This has been pointed out to you here and at the RS noticeboard, so you've gone from possible misunderstanding to outright misrepresentation. Your linking of the Turkic Sabir to the quote about Dhorme is a clear instance of original research to boot.
• Old Turkic can't be used as an etymology for Subartu, since Old Turkic isn't attested until some 2000 years after Subartu. Putting etymologies of Turkic Sabir into this article is another instance of synthesis and original research.
• Given that you've outright falsified one source (the "Hubey"), blatantly misrepresented others (such as Christian) and used things like creationist literature as sources, why should any other of your sources be trusted?
• That you claim that you're edit warring is interesting. I make no such claim about my own behavior. Ergative rlt (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Dhorme, see here: 1.
• Old Turkic is not used as a reference for for Subartu, but as a linguistic backing for Velidi Togan, F. Ağasıoğlu and M. Zakiev's etymologies, that's all, nothing exciting here at all.
• Regarding Hubey and Christian I already gave my acknowledgment. - Hirabutor (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Very serious sourcing issues

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shupria

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)