Talk:Christian O'Brien

Conflict of interest

The creator of this article is acting in good faith but (understandably) without an understanding of our COI policies. He is personally and financially involved in this article, see [1] Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am currently under contract to a UK telecoms company and cannot profit financially from Eden Tourism at the current time or be employed by any other organisation. Hence it is a non-active, not-for-profit venture, any potential future profits will be directed into further scholarly research of the subject. I am personally involved after having visited the theorised location of Kharsag recently, but this is only for experience in the subject. I was not an associate of Christian O'Brien when he was alive and so should not be directly associated with the topic of this post. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you are part of the 'Kharsag Research Project', which is dedicated to promoting O'Brien's ideas. Isn't that correct? Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have undertaken work in conjunction with the project, but have never been employed financially. I am an independent researcher and my views do not entirely correspond with O'Brien's due to improvements in our understanding of subjects and satellite imagery since his death although I do favour some of his arguments after visiting his proposed Kharsag site. My views of diffusionism for instance are heavily influenced by Colin Renfrew's amongst others later mainstream works and discussions. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

O'Brien's view of history

O'Brien believes that after a global catastrophe, there was a "diaspora of the Shining Ones from the Southern Lebanon site around the world, their advanced technology and their influence over the next 8,000 years.

This starts with the establishment of a further six major settlements by members of the senior council at Jericho, Ba'albek, Ebla, Catal Huyak, Olympus and On, which soon followed their establishment of the Kharsag (Eden) site. The development of the city states eventually led to the great civilisations in the Mesopotamianplains, Egypt, Iran, India, China and the Americas.." [2]. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That is quite the claim. Genetic evidence makes such impossible. You can learn all about the human genome as it relates to human migration at this site: http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ If you wish to have more, I can find it for you. Though I can assure you, the people of China, Iran, India and Egypt come from 4 distinct groups, none of which overlap in Lebanon in any of the history of our species. Abdishtar (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger Interests

I have published a Kharsag page to assist the merging of The Kharsag Epics page. This would seem verified (by Barton) and noteable to me, so thought I'd post it for discussion. Please let me know if anyone feels I am acting inappropriately. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I already said it was inappropriate. Sorry Paul, but a geologist who teaches himself cuneiform doesn't belong in this article, nor does a self-published book (the one by Scales). A survey not published at all doesn't belong in any article -- see WP:Verify. And it would only belong in an article if it were published in a reliable source, as per WP:RS. Here we go again. I'm going to have to take this to AfD.

Did you see I edited the Barton article (and I applaud you for creating that one). I removed from the lead the bit about being notable because of Kharsag -- nothing I could find showed that any scholarly sources have suggested that. I also had no idea what you meant by worked for 3 years to become a professor emeritus, a title he only received in 1932, he worked from 1922 (if I recall correctly) to 1931.

If you got my email about the book review of O'Brien, you won't be surprised to know that I have absolutely no confidence in anything O'Brien says about ancient history. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I've finally had some time to track down a large number of scholarly cites of the Barton standard that I hope you will have confidence in to support the Kharsag article - Charles Boutiflower, William F. Warren, Morris Jastrow, Arthur Bernard Cook, G. A. Wainwright, Robert William Rogers, Professor A.H. Sayce. Your opinions and assistance splitting it back off would be much appreciated. It looks a bit stupid here now. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a big problem here in that you're taking a number of words and a number of sources and using them to back up a statement that I don't think that they actually back up or even deal with. What we seem to have here is original research, the sort of thing you can do in an essay or article, use a variety of sources to make an argument, but not here. You can't link the words together without sources specifically linking the words, all of them. amd saying they all mean "as a sacred mountain and home of the first recorded "Gods".". And Sargon? Where does he do any translating?

You need to read WP:OR if you haven't already. Also you simply can't mention something we can't verify in a reliable source, eg your archaeological survey, and if it is ever published in a source we can use, your role needs to be confined to mentioning it on talk pages and not adding it to articles, this is what WP:COI says you should be doing.

Finally, no self-published books (unless they are by the subject of an article). Thus I removed Scales and one other link. I think Spedicato (sp?) is also basically self-published. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement about the survey and self-published stuff, I'm getting the rules better now and will take it out, if you haven't already. When it gets in the news, you'll be the first to know. I'm planning another visit there for August, to join the whole town of Rachaya in an ancient ritual of walking up Mount Hermon for sunrise. You'd be welcome to come along! I don't mean it to be WP:OR, I believe all those sources talk about Kharsag in context, and it's a very important context. Many studied with Barton, and a couple mention Sargon's translation. They do need sorting better as you say and I'll see if I can have a go at that if you don't get there first. I hope that I've answered the COI point adequately above. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And the Sargon thing also supports the very valid point raised on this material about notability not being limited by time. Paul Bedson (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What did Sargon do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Boutiflower "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. In Babylonian mythology the gods were supposed to dwell in the sacred mountain called " the Mountain of the Lands," and, 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."

Similarly Jastrow tells us "Again, it is Sargon who in consistent accord with his fondness for displaying his archaeological tastes, introduces Bel, the 'great mountain,' 'the lord of countries,' who dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, i.e., the sacred mountain on which the gods are born" Paul Bedson (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit says Sargon translated the word Kharsag. One major problem for me is that what I see is that actually no one except Barton uses Kharsag as a word, it is always an element of a word and seems to mean mountain in the generic sense. In other words, why are we talking about Kharsag rather than, for instance, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra? And how does that differ from E-khar-sag-kurkurra? Then as Jastrow says we have E-kharsag (the mountain house which is a temple in Ur), E-kharsag-ella, (house of the glorious mountain,' the name of a temple to Gula in Babylon). As for Gharsagn, this seems to be a creation of the UFOlogist Parks. I can only find it mentioned by him and on another fringe website quoting him. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed we should remove Gharsagn and concentrate on the scholarly sources. In all instances the scripts are relating it to sacred mountains, sacred houses or temples on mountains, with locations varying, but more than one fixing it as an original, for the original Gods - Enlil, Ninkharsag, etc., which settlement structures typically copied and temples dedicated to, along with copying the names. Hence "edin" as "plain" or "steppe" being referred to in more than one Sumerian location. Barton may have created this word by shortening other versions, and O'Brien may have brought it to greater attention, but in his context - "The sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag" makes more sense than "The sceptre of Enlil establish foothill". Paul Bedson (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've practically re-written the Kharsag section in hope of getting it's page back under the weight of credible sources. Took out Gharsagn, but added Garsag, as this is the same word mentioned in Barton's translation. Still some work to do on the other sources, but it's a start. Anyone favouring enough to make a new page would have my appreciation. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Article issues

I've seen several posts about this article on WP:FTN. This article needs some serious work. The basic problem is that it's written in a kind of in-universe style; that is, when I read this article I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension where O'Brien's decidedly odd theories are treated as great discoveries and serious scholarship. The "Kharsag" section is especially problematic because it seems that a number of distinguished scholars are enlisted to support O'Brien's ideas (and Gerald Massey is mixed in there as if he's a good source on this sort of thing). There's also a lot of extraneous information--this article doesn't need to say that Sumerian literature is among the earliest writing, or that the "Kharsag epics" were found by John Haynes and now reside at the Penn Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology, or give a concordance for O'Brien's idiosyncratic numbering of the texts. Some of this information is valid, but belongs in different articles; O'Brien's numbering system is insignificant and shouldn't be covered anywhere on Wikipedia. What needs to be covered here is the substance of O'Brien's ideas, and it needs to be made clear that his ideas are not mainstream. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree and am engaging in discussions to unmerge the somewhat unfairly merged Kharsag page back into it's own section. I am hoping Doug Weller will agree to this and help me edit both to satisfactory standards. Paul Bedson (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Copying over from my comments at FTN and referring to your comments there. Paul, you have made it pretty explicit that you are doing original research. You say 'clearly understand', 'I would argue', 'firmly believe', etc., but not 'this reliable sources says that these are the same place', etc. which is what our policies require. I think I've asked you to read WP:OR. 'Undeniably'? Where is your reliable source for this? None of that belongs in Wikipedia. And as Akhilleus says, this is bad philology. All that this article merits is a brief mention of his ideas on Kharsag. It has little notability outside of a small number of fringe writers, and is tied in with his ideas of beings from another dimension, his 'Shining Ones'. I'm glad to see Akhilleus's changes to this article and back them. I'm even more convinced that there should be no unmerger. You can take it to WP:DRV if you wish, but I doubt that you'll get very far. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have provided over 10 reliable sources saying Kharsag is the same place, it is their reserach, not mine that you have deleted. O'Brien nowhere writes about beings from another dimension and provides little speculation on the origins of the Sumerian Gods. This has unfortunately been left to Stitchin and confused. I will indeed take all these reliable sources to WP:DRV and start spreading these 10-12 professors research (not mine) around all the NE Mythology articles applying WP:UNDUE to the Kramer translation. What you have done is an insult to their work. Paul Bedson (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is someone's else's speculation I think that O'Brien thinks these are from another dimension. He certainly does not seem to see them as Homo Homo Sapiens. I don't know what you mean by those last two sentences but you need to read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability and balance of article

O'Brien is notable for what he did before he got involved with this fringe stuff. If all he'd done is write about his 'Shining Ones', he probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article. His biography needs to be balanced to reflect this. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if O'Brien would be notable without his pseudoscholarly publications. Hell I don't know if he is notable at all. Some humorist added the Turkish interwiki tr:Karsak, Orhangazi. Apart from that we don't seem to have much in the way of dedicated third party references. The references section for some reason lists three articles on "Early Domesticated Fig in the Jordan Valley". All of this is rather surreal. If this is about a notable fringe author, list third party sources dedicated to discussing his notability, not links to Turkish villages and literature on the domestication of the fig. If notability cannot be established for his Eden or Kharsag stuff, we can always cite him in an article on crackpot biblical archaeology. It should go without saying that nothing of this stuff has any sort of credibility, but we can still look into how to accommodate this within proper due under WP:FRINGE. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed the fig stuff, which was part of an earlier OR attempt at showing why Kharsag should be where O'Brien claimed it is. I've removed that section. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added it back at Gilgal I for you there. I've also added a Sunday Telegraph and 4 x Western Daily Press Articles to show greater notability to his fringe work. Paul Bedson (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's borderline, but if the other two articles are AfDed (as I have just supported), keeping this would give a place for people to go on wp to get some balance from what will be out there in the blogosphere. He have Ronald Eldon Wyatt's ark and Vendyl Jones' flask.... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanking section

I just deleted the following from the article:

==Latest reception of work==

In 1996, British author Andrew Collins expounded on O'Brien's work in From the Ashes of Angels. He goes on to mention that "When these tablets, now stored at the University of Philadelphia museum, were first translated, they were believed to be a Sumerian creation myth, and the personalities depicted in the epic stories were interpreted as gods.

In his book Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men, Joseph P. Farrell discusses O'Brien's work describing it as proactive analysis.

Collins (who is not the subject of any of the articles at the disambig page to which that link leads, btw) and Farrell are both WP:FRINGE thinkers. Citing their praise for their fellow fringe thinker O'Brien in the way the deleted section does give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe views. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The article was created solely to showcase these fringe ideas by O'Brien by a now blocked and banned editor. The original version had in its first sentence "noted for his discovery in 1980 of Kharsag". Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Christian OBrien Full Scan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)