Moved article from Proto Cushitic Riminerw ( talk) 20:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Riminerw: It was a good idea not to change the redirect target again to Proto-Afroasiatic homeland (section §Northeast African homeland theory). That article does not mention the reconstructed Proto-Cushitic language even once, and only talks about Proto-Cushitic speakers in one sentence. It also doesn't mention the Cushitic homeland, which is a topic that is tied to Proto-Cushitic, although it represents a different topic. Proto-Afroasiatic and Proto-Cushitic are quite different things; if Proto-Cushitic hadn't had innovative features that were not present in Proto-Afroasiatic, there would be no Cushitic language family.
- Let's see whether it is a good idea to shape
Proto-Cushitic language into a standalone article. You should be aware that there is still not much reconstructive material avaible except for Zaborski's and Ehret's work, both of which are difficult to make use of for different reasons. Most reconstructive work so far has been put into the proto-languages of the individual subbranches. But sure, with some effort, we might be able to say at least more than the little paragraph on
Cushitic languages#Reconstruction. It's however important that there hardly any secondary sources about the topic. And let's see what the future brings. –
Austronesier (
talk)
10:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Masudi mentions Beja people by name. It’s primary source Riminerw ( talk) 17:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As it stands, this article really screams draft to me, & I think it might be best to move it to draftspace until a provisionally stable-ish version is complete. At present, there are unwritten sections & it looks like the sections that are written need a little work to reach consensus. At a minimum, I think using the Under construction template might be advisable. Pathawi ( talk) 02:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Pathawi Why do people have a problem with Cushitic languages being eponymous with biblical Cush? Let me quote @ Austronesier from this talk page: “If Proto-Cushitic hadn't had innovative features that were not present in Proto-Afroasiatic, there would be no Cushitic language family.” Do you see where this is going? If Jewish people etc are allowed to claim Semitic heritage, why is this problematic? 148.252.145.13 ( talk) 13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I really don't know what this comment is about. I don't know why I'm being pinged, the comment from Austronesier in fact does not appear on this Talk page (probably just a mistaken link, but I don't know what the context is), & my understanding is that almost everyone does acknowledge that the term 'Cushitic' is drawn from the Bible. What's the issue? What's prompted this?
Pathawi (
talk)
13:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I reverted your edit—that's why you're pinging me. I reverted your edit because it undid without comment a reversion that Austronesier had provided reason for. The place to hash out such issues is on the Talk page: We don't want a cycle of editors reverting one another without engaging and building consensus. I have not gone through the deleted material to develop any opinion of the actual content. I'll look at it now, but it seems to me that what you need to do is address Austronesier's comment in their reversion. Edit: Also, it would be easier for other editors who need to address you if you'd create an account. This is not a requirement.
Pathawi (
talk)
13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pathawi: yet another account? Around a dozen socks were blocked three days ago, in case you've missed it. –
Austronesier (
talk)
13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I absolutely had missed it. I won't push engagement any further then! Pathawi ( talk) 14:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pathawi: yet another account? Around a dozen socks were blocked three days ago, in case you've missed it. –
Austronesier (
talk)
13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I reverted your edit—that's why you're pinging me. I reverted your edit because it undid without comment a reversion that Austronesier had provided reason for. The place to hash out such issues is on the Talk page: We don't want a cycle of editors reverting one another without engaging and building consensus. I have not gone through the deleted material to develop any opinion of the actual content. I'll look at it now, but it seems to me that what you need to do is address Austronesier's comment in their reversion. Edit: Also, it would be easier for other editors who need to address you if you'd create an account. This is not a requirement.
Pathawi (
talk)
13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let me turn it around: why do you have a problem with the fact we don't have to mention everywhere that Cushitic languages were named after Cush in a scholarly whim in the 19th century (when biblical references were still considered a sort of default resource for nomenclature at least in some spheres of academia), especially if that information is entirely irrelevant for the main topic of the article in question? The Cushitic language family is a linguistic construct; its existence as a subbranch of the Afroasiatic entirely hinges on the presence of commonly inherited features that are found in all Cushitic languages, and only in Cushitic languages (it is for this very reason why scholars have ceased to include Omotic languages in the Cushitic family). The mythical figure Cush has nothing to do with its existence, only with its name. Transforming this historical accidence of nomenclature into something essentially related to the eponymous figure Cush is a fallacy. –
Austronesier (
talk)
13:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly whim in the 19th century? Fallacy? None of what you just said made any sense to me. It all seems like a coping mechanism. This whole page was created by force. Every single sentence you removed was sourced aswell. Al-Masudi mentions the Beja people by name explicitly.
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This really isn't a way to handle this. If you don't follow Austronesier, tell them what you need explained. It will be impossible to move forward by diagnosing the people you disagree with.
WP:GOODFAITH As for sourcing, you should check out
WP:RSPRIMARY: I don't think it totally bars the use of al-Masʿūdī here, but that use should be in the context of what contemporary scholarly sources say. Additionally, if you are a sockpuppet, this is really just going to be over very quickly and you will not be able to effect the changes you want. You're right that it's an encyclopædia, but it's a collaborative encyclopædia.
Pathawi (
talk)
18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I’ve had enough. We have been through this before with
Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples#Somalis, Somalia. Why are the same people here arguing? So absurd. 👍
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
18:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm looking at that place where you're arguing with CookieMonster1618… You are one of "the same people… arguing". If you want to engage Wikipedia successfully, your best path forward is to give a little attention to the policies & guidelines to understand how this thing works. Pathawi ( talk) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I’ve had enough. We have been through this before with
Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples#Somalis, Somalia. Why are the same people here arguing? So absurd. 👍
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
18:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This really isn't a way to handle this. If you don't follow Austronesier, tell them what you need explained. It will be impossible to move forward by diagnosing the people you disagree with.
WP:GOODFAITH As for sourcing, you should check out
WP:RSPRIMARY: I don't think it totally bars the use of al-Masʿūdī here, but that use should be in the context of what contemporary scholarly sources say. Additionally, if you are a sockpuppet, this is really just going to be over very quickly and you will not be able to effect the changes you want. You're right that it's an encyclopædia, but it's a collaborative encyclopædia.
Pathawi (
talk)
18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly whim in the 19th century? Fallacy? None of what you just said made any sense to me. It all seems like a coping mechanism. This whole page was created by force. Every single sentence you removed was sourced aswell. Al-Masudi mentions the Beja people by name explicitly.
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The main article does make not any mention of the etymology of the 19th century coinage "Cushitic". We could add a word or two about it there, maybe as part of a short introduction into the early history of Cushitic studies. Of course without OR and without concessions to the sockmaster's obsession with an etymological fallacy that turns the terminological reference to a figure of the Hebrew Scriptures into a real thing. – Austronesier ( talk) 18:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Moved article from Proto Cushitic Riminerw ( talk) 20:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Riminerw: It was a good idea not to change the redirect target again to Proto-Afroasiatic homeland (section §Northeast African homeland theory). That article does not mention the reconstructed Proto-Cushitic language even once, and only talks about Proto-Cushitic speakers in one sentence. It also doesn't mention the Cushitic homeland, which is a topic that is tied to Proto-Cushitic, although it represents a different topic. Proto-Afroasiatic and Proto-Cushitic are quite different things; if Proto-Cushitic hadn't had innovative features that were not present in Proto-Afroasiatic, there would be no Cushitic language family.
- Let's see whether it is a good idea to shape
Proto-Cushitic language into a standalone article. You should be aware that there is still not much reconstructive material avaible except for Zaborski's and Ehret's work, both of which are difficult to make use of for different reasons. Most reconstructive work so far has been put into the proto-languages of the individual subbranches. But sure, with some effort, we might be able to say at least more than the little paragraph on
Cushitic languages#Reconstruction. It's however important that there hardly any secondary sources about the topic. And let's see what the future brings. –
Austronesier (
talk)
10:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Masudi mentions Beja people by name. It’s primary source Riminerw ( talk) 17:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As it stands, this article really screams draft to me, & I think it might be best to move it to draftspace until a provisionally stable-ish version is complete. At present, there are unwritten sections & it looks like the sections that are written need a little work to reach consensus. At a minimum, I think using the Under construction template might be advisable. Pathawi ( talk) 02:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Pathawi Why do people have a problem with Cushitic languages being eponymous with biblical Cush? Let me quote @ Austronesier from this talk page: “If Proto-Cushitic hadn't had innovative features that were not present in Proto-Afroasiatic, there would be no Cushitic language family.” Do you see where this is going? If Jewish people etc are allowed to claim Semitic heritage, why is this problematic? 148.252.145.13 ( talk) 13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I really don't know what this comment is about. I don't know why I'm being pinged, the comment from Austronesier in fact does not appear on this Talk page (probably just a mistaken link, but I don't know what the context is), & my understanding is that almost everyone does acknowledge that the term 'Cushitic' is drawn from the Bible. What's the issue? What's prompted this?
Pathawi (
talk)
13:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I reverted your edit—that's why you're pinging me. I reverted your edit because it undid without comment a reversion that Austronesier had provided reason for. The place to hash out such issues is on the Talk page: We don't want a cycle of editors reverting one another without engaging and building consensus. I have not gone through the deleted material to develop any opinion of the actual content. I'll look at it now, but it seems to me that what you need to do is address Austronesier's comment in their reversion. Edit: Also, it would be easier for other editors who need to address you if you'd create an account. This is not a requirement.
Pathawi (
talk)
13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pathawi: yet another account? Around a dozen socks were blocked three days ago, in case you've missed it. –
Austronesier (
talk)
13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I absolutely had missed it. I won't push engagement any further then! Pathawi ( talk) 14:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pathawi: yet another account? Around a dozen socks were blocked three days ago, in case you've missed it. –
Austronesier (
talk)
13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I reverted your edit—that's why you're pinging me. I reverted your edit because it undid without comment a reversion that Austronesier had provided reason for. The place to hash out such issues is on the Talk page: We don't want a cycle of editors reverting one another without engaging and building consensus. I have not gone through the deleted material to develop any opinion of the actual content. I'll look at it now, but it seems to me that what you need to do is address Austronesier's comment in their reversion. Edit: Also, it would be easier for other editors who need to address you if you'd create an account. This is not a requirement.
Pathawi (
talk)
13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Let me turn it around: why do you have a problem with the fact we don't have to mention everywhere that Cushitic languages were named after Cush in a scholarly whim in the 19th century (when biblical references were still considered a sort of default resource for nomenclature at least in some spheres of academia), especially if that information is entirely irrelevant for the main topic of the article in question? The Cushitic language family is a linguistic construct; its existence as a subbranch of the Afroasiatic entirely hinges on the presence of commonly inherited features that are found in all Cushitic languages, and only in Cushitic languages (it is for this very reason why scholars have ceased to include Omotic languages in the Cushitic family). The mythical figure Cush has nothing to do with its existence, only with its name. Transforming this historical accidence of nomenclature into something essentially related to the eponymous figure Cush is a fallacy. –
Austronesier (
talk)
13:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly whim in the 19th century? Fallacy? None of what you just said made any sense to me. It all seems like a coping mechanism. This whole page was created by force. Every single sentence you removed was sourced aswell. Al-Masudi mentions the Beja people by name explicitly.
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This really isn't a way to handle this. If you don't follow Austronesier, tell them what you need explained. It will be impossible to move forward by diagnosing the people you disagree with.
WP:GOODFAITH As for sourcing, you should check out
WP:RSPRIMARY: I don't think it totally bars the use of al-Masʿūdī here, but that use should be in the context of what contemporary scholarly sources say. Additionally, if you are a sockpuppet, this is really just going to be over very quickly and you will not be able to effect the changes you want. You're right that it's an encyclopædia, but it's a collaborative encyclopædia.
Pathawi (
talk)
18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I’ve had enough. We have been through this before with
Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples#Somalis, Somalia. Why are the same people here arguing? So absurd. 👍
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
18:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm looking at that place where you're arguing with CookieMonster1618… You are one of "the same people… arguing". If you want to engage Wikipedia successfully, your best path forward is to give a little attention to the policies & guidelines to understand how this thing works. Pathawi ( talk) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. I’ve had enough. We have been through this before with
Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples#Somalis, Somalia. Why are the same people here arguing? So absurd. 👍
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
18:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This really isn't a way to handle this. If you don't follow Austronesier, tell them what you need explained. It will be impossible to move forward by diagnosing the people you disagree with.
WP:GOODFAITH As for sourcing, you should check out
WP:RSPRIMARY: I don't think it totally bars the use of al-Masʿūdī here, but that use should be in the context of what contemporary scholarly sources say. Additionally, if you are a sockpuppet, this is really just going to be over very quickly and you will not be able to effect the changes you want. You're right that it's an encyclopædia, but it's a collaborative encyclopædia.
Pathawi (
talk)
18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Scholarly whim in the 19th century? Fallacy? None of what you just said made any sense to me. It all seems like a coping mechanism. This whole page was created by force. Every single sentence you removed was sourced aswell. Al-Masudi mentions the Beja people by name explicitly.
148.252.145.13 (
talk)
14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The main article does make not any mention of the etymology of the 19th century coinage "Cushitic". We could add a word or two about it there, maybe as part of a short introduction into the early history of Cushitic studies. Of course without OR and without concessions to the sockmaster's obsession with an etymological fallacy that turns the terminological reference to a figure of the Hebrew Scriptures into a real thing. – Austronesier ( talk) 18:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)