This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nostratic languages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This entire article is presenting a fringe theory with almost no academic acceptance as a serious proposal. There are a huge number of self-published articles by non-experts referenced in the article. I've taken an absolute hatchet to the original research of this article and cleared up as many references to sources which do not meet Wikipedia's standards. It is possible that Bomhard may warrant a mention in here, but as a prominent figure rather than a source of information, though I am not plugged into the fringes of historical linguistics enough to know how important his contributions are. Nonetheless, I encourage other linguists to keep an eye on this and keep working on cleaning it up, as it absolutely appears to have been suffering from a bit of an issue wikipedia's policies around fringe. Specifically WP:NFRINGE:
Warrenmck ( talk) 23:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Proto-Nostratic has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16 § Proto-Nostratic until a consensus is reached. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Warren: Please restore the original version of this article. The current version contains errors. Thanks. Arbomhard ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Warren: Let me have the courtesy of answering one of your questions: "what errors?" As already pointed out, you have the habit of presenting your personal opinions, your personal interpretations, your personal value judgments, as though they were incontroverttble facts, compounded by you intentionally leaving out critical information. You have also quoted out of context. This gives a very biased picture and is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Not only does this reflect badly on you, it undermines the value of Wikipedia as a reliable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been keeping tabs on Nostratic linguistics for a while now, along with the situation here on Wikipedia with Bomhard's disrespectful removal from the page along with the further disrespect here in the talk page. I don't know which outdated 50's scholarly consensus the people here follow, but Bomhard's work is the most up-to-date material that we have on Proto-Nostratic. I don't know what personal issue the people here have with Bomhard, but he's the next name up after Pedersen, Illich-Svitych, and Dolgopolsky whether you like it or not. That's just how the business of reconstruction goes.
Also, before I get basement residents jumping all over me, don't think I'm making any sort of claim that Proto-Nostratic exists or is viable to reconstruct. I personally am not convinced yet, but I'd love to see more work put into it and maybe one day it'll have its big breakthrough of undeniability like Proto-Indo-European. That's how science works. Keep resisting progress and you're going to be stuck in caveman days like the speakers of Proto-Nostratic ;).
Any way, I support having paragraphs on this article stressing that Proto-Nostratic is not widely accepted, but I ask: what is the purpose of this article? If the purpose of this article is to explain that Nostratic linguistics is incorrect, harmful to society, dangerous, etc., it needs to be restructured and titled accordingly to completely disregard everything. No mention of its details, grammar, phonology, etc. If the purpose of this article is, as it should be, to explain what Proto-Nostratic is, Bomhard's work needs to be reincluded.
Why? If Bomhard is going to be removed because he is "not widely accepted", then all of the work that has been done before him needs to be removed because it is just as fringe. Not only fringe, but outdated fringe. So, reinstate Bomhard's work or completely reframe the article to totally disregard Nostratic linguistics. That is the ultimatum here from a perspective of reason. Not Pro-Bomhard or Anti-Bomhard, not Pro-Nostratic or Anti-Nostratic, but pro-reason.
I won't be making any changes to the article myself though. Introducing reason into the talk page is all I'm able to do. I don't have the time to edit-war against the kinds of people who get upset over theoretical linguistics like their lives depend on it. Hrabnaz ( talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
If the purpose of this article is, as it should be, to explain what Proto-Nostratic is, Bomhard's work needs to be reincluded- definitely agree with this. You cannot possibly write a comprehensive article about Nostratic without including Bomhard's work, along with all the criticism of that work. Tewdar 08:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nostratic languages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This entire article is presenting a fringe theory with almost no academic acceptance as a serious proposal. There are a huge number of self-published articles by non-experts referenced in the article. I've taken an absolute hatchet to the original research of this article and cleared up as many references to sources which do not meet Wikipedia's standards. It is possible that Bomhard may warrant a mention in here, but as a prominent figure rather than a source of information, though I am not plugged into the fringes of historical linguistics enough to know how important his contributions are. Nonetheless, I encourage other linguists to keep an eye on this and keep working on cleaning it up, as it absolutely appears to have been suffering from a bit of an issue wikipedia's policies around fringe. Specifically WP:NFRINGE:
Warrenmck ( talk) 23:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Proto-Nostratic has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16 § Proto-Nostratic until a consensus is reached. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs)
21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Warren: Please restore the original version of this article. The current version contains errors. Thanks. Arbomhard ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Warren: Let me have the courtesy of answering one of your questions: "what errors?" As already pointed out, you have the habit of presenting your personal opinions, your personal interpretations, your personal value judgments, as though they were incontroverttble facts, compounded by you intentionally leaving out critical information. You have also quoted out of context. This gives a very biased picture and is, in my opinion, reprehensible. Not only does this reflect badly on you, it undermines the value of Wikipedia as a reliable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard ( talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been keeping tabs on Nostratic linguistics for a while now, along with the situation here on Wikipedia with Bomhard's disrespectful removal from the page along with the further disrespect here in the talk page. I don't know which outdated 50's scholarly consensus the people here follow, but Bomhard's work is the most up-to-date material that we have on Proto-Nostratic. I don't know what personal issue the people here have with Bomhard, but he's the next name up after Pedersen, Illich-Svitych, and Dolgopolsky whether you like it or not. That's just how the business of reconstruction goes.
Also, before I get basement residents jumping all over me, don't think I'm making any sort of claim that Proto-Nostratic exists or is viable to reconstruct. I personally am not convinced yet, but I'd love to see more work put into it and maybe one day it'll have its big breakthrough of undeniability like Proto-Indo-European. That's how science works. Keep resisting progress and you're going to be stuck in caveman days like the speakers of Proto-Nostratic ;).
Any way, I support having paragraphs on this article stressing that Proto-Nostratic is not widely accepted, but I ask: what is the purpose of this article? If the purpose of this article is to explain that Nostratic linguistics is incorrect, harmful to society, dangerous, etc., it needs to be restructured and titled accordingly to completely disregard everything. No mention of its details, grammar, phonology, etc. If the purpose of this article is, as it should be, to explain what Proto-Nostratic is, Bomhard's work needs to be reincluded.
Why? If Bomhard is going to be removed because he is "not widely accepted", then all of the work that has been done before him needs to be removed because it is just as fringe. Not only fringe, but outdated fringe. So, reinstate Bomhard's work or completely reframe the article to totally disregard Nostratic linguistics. That is the ultimatum here from a perspective of reason. Not Pro-Bomhard or Anti-Bomhard, not Pro-Nostratic or Anti-Nostratic, but pro-reason.
I won't be making any changes to the article myself though. Introducing reason into the talk page is all I'm able to do. I don't have the time to edit-war against the kinds of people who get upset over theoretical linguistics like their lives depend on it. Hrabnaz ( talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
If the purpose of this article is, as it should be, to explain what Proto-Nostratic is, Bomhard's work needs to be reincluded- definitely agree with this. You cannot possibly write a comprehensive article about Nostratic without including Bomhard's work, along with all the criticism of that work. Tewdar 08:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)