Talk:Ebla tablets

Controversy

I think its important to mention the controversy that emerged following their discovery is-a-vis its relation (or lack thereof) to biblical events. Yazan, you've done a good job of summarizing it. Perhaps you might make it a sub-section of the "Content and significance" section and retitle it though to read "Biblical archaeology". I would then expand its contents a bit to note that biblical archaeologists were very excited by it initially, but its impact in this field has turned out to be minimal (per Moorey p. 152). Great work though Yazan. Tiamut^talk 07:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I just added a tag for this while checking the article's DYK nomination as the article seems to be too close to the main source, with phrases and even sentences lifted with few changes. For more info [[WP:PARAPHRASE}] puts it better than I can. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting the section that you may be referring to, and removed the tag. If you still feel the tag is needed, feel free to add it, but please be more specific in your discussion here, so I can attempt to fix the problem. Best. Yazan (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How?

Were the writing systems already well understood? Did these 14,000 (!) new tablets force re-interpretation of any symbols? Lonestarnot (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR

Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Please, find somewhere else to post political opionions. (Like this article - Ebla-Biblical controversy) --92slim (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What OR ! those are infos that exist in the article Ebla and this article and I moved them into one place because they are enough of a material to constitute and article and they make you stray from the main subject when inserted in the main articles !

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist !! but the article is full of sources ! I havent contributed in any of my own words ! you should understand what OR mean before making accusations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

the reason is changing the content included in the sources, when there is no such phrase included. i have included that above article in the section, but please refrain from changing the content of the source. --92slim (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Keeping it like this is creating repeated infos on both articles ! why are you so passionate about this ? this article is about the tablets not the controversy and a small summary should do fine !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not the reason of the revert. The reason is mentioned above already. --92slim (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Then to avoid forking, we should move the whole section with its sources to the new article that is focused on this subject and add a summary in here. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

a small summary is already included, there is no need to move the whole section. --92slim (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the whole idea of the summary ! you add a summary of a sub-article (Ebla-Biblical controversy) in the main article (Ebla tablets) ! you dont add summary and a whole section to repeat information ! I dont think we can work this out, Im gonna ask an administrator help--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:92slim, You should read this WP:Summaries. AND by the way, you objected changing the words of the source ! but any way, since you are new here then Im gonna tell you this : YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO DO THIS ! because copying and pasting the exact words of the source is a copyright violations ! read this Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing the meaning of what is contained in the source is the problem. Of course, the source is not to be copied. Read WP:SYNTH. --92slim (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well since I wrote nothing of it then I made no SYNTH. I hope you read the summary article and understand that the section is good as it is now--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Tangling [1] with the meaning of the source already constitutes SYNTH. The problem is that you are presenting it in an unbalanced way. Also, the "recent scientific consensus" that you have provided comes from 1991. This is hardly recent, is it. --92slim (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, this controversy is dead from a long time, and again I DID NOT WROTE THIS ARTICLE or any of its sections and that edit you pasted wasnt written by me ! , I just organized it in one place because it was shifting the attention from the main subjects (Ebla and its Tablets). Now you can go to the controversy article and edit it as you wish I DONT CARE FOR THIS DEBATE ABOUT THE BIBLE !

By the way, you need to rewrote this sentence about the election because its copy-pasted from the source 1 which is a violation of copyrights

and I advice to read the source, even the author say that the controversy was based on speculations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. Opinions don't matter here. Sources do. The biblical argument was written for a reason, that is why changing deleting it/tangling with the meaning of the source conveys an unbalanced view of the subject, apart from being against WP:Policy, regardless of the controversy being recent or old. All the sides of the argument should be attempted to be included. I can rewrite it in due course, but seeing that you have a bigger interest in the subject, try fixing the error and making it neutral as well. --92slim (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I have no opinion, and I didnt delete now, I only moved it to its article, the one that is dedicated to it ! Now the controversy article is there, go ahead and edit it with reliable sources if you think its unbalanced.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Clumsy

"From the clumsier system developed by Sumerian scribes ..." Clumsier?? Perhaps 'earlier' but not clumsier. What is observiable is the development of writing and communication in general. Shouldn't be labeled 'clumsy'. As well as the use of a lable introduces a political slant. Please change the word to a neutral one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.39.83 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time I have noticed the word clumsy ! Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)