This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uralo-Siberian 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is blatantly POV and completely misleading; some serious editing would be needed. At present, it is not stated anywhere that Uralo-Siberian is a fringe theory that is supported only by a couple of scholars in the world - even Indo-Uralic and Nostratic, both highly controversial, have more proponents. -- AAikio 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You're way too literal and suspiciously hostile towards progressive theories. You don't seem to be fully aware that Uralo-Siberian is merely a subset of Nostratic. So to say that Nostratic is more supported than Uralo-Siberian is a little nonsensical. This shows me that you haven't read what you purport to understand. A simple flip-through in one of Allan R. Bomhard's books on Nostratic will show you exactly where he stands on the Uralo-Siberian connection. Hard to miss if you've paid attention. So please. More reading, less hostility. -- Glengordon01 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify that in articles such as these, we need to keep focus on what the theory claims, not merely the title of the theory. For example, "Nostratic" and its potential subsets of it have been named a variety of things throughout time and depending on the scope of the researcher. So this is why I say that you are too literal. You take the name "Uralo-Siberian" and seem to easily forget the theory behind that name. -- Glengordon01 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Uralo-Siberian theory claims that there is a specific genetic relationship between Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut. Many variants of the Nostratic theory do not include all these language families, so it is not true that Uralo-Siberian is a subset of Nostratic. And the fact remains that this is article is POV and gives the uninformed reader a distorted picture, unlike for example the article Nostratic languages. This is not a matter of hostility but objectivity. -- AAikio 07:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, but Allan R. Bomhard has written a book you never have read called *NOSTRATIC* and the Indo-European Hypothesis (1996) where he even charts out an easy-to-understand tree specifically connecting Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut together. I think you can track it down in Braille format :P
Since Bomhard's work exists to your contradiction, regardless of whether you personally deem him worthy or not, we see that there does exist at least one important variant of the Nostratic theory that considers "Uralo-Siberian" (however we might call it) subset. Trying to hide facts that you find distasteful is a little POV.
PS: Are you really terribly current on Nostratic or related issues? Honestly? Just so that we're on the same page: Vladislav Illich-Svitych died a full forty years ago, even years before the late Janis Joplin performed at Woodstock. In fact, his death was a decade prior to my arrival on the scene as a wee spermatozoid, before which I was possibly an edible mushroom, bottle of alcohol, or even a hot dog. Yes indeed, before Elvis Presley choked on some codeine pills. Before New Wave music. Before " Karma Chameleon"! Sweet feather of almighty Maat, even before Star Trek: TNG! Quite frankly, you may be too far behind to catch up now, hehe :) -- Glengordon01 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to repeat my point: nothing that you wrote above contradicts my main point that "Many variants of the Nostratic theory do not include all these language families". The rest of your message is too bizarre to comment on. I might participate in this discussion again if there are edits to the article. -- AAikio 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Some say bizarre, some say light-hearted. Some are happy, some are cranky. Anyways, until you can specify WHAT variants you're speaking of, your statement is without substance. Variants that you might find from 1840 don't really count nowdays. -- Glengordon01 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article focuses almost entirely on Fortescue. Could someone knowledgeable (AAikio?) read Seefloth's more recent work (see external links) and modify the article accordingly?
BTW, it does not make sense to say that Nostratic does not include Uralo-Siberian. Sure, some published versions do not include all four U-S families, but that's because the authors had not investigated those families. AFAIK there is no case where any Nostraticist has said "no, my colleague is wrong, I present evidence that Eskimo-Aleut (or whatever) does not belong to Nostratic". (Such a claim has only been made for Afro-Asiatic... and soon evolved into the claim that Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic are sister-groups, which actually means it has gone full circle.)
It also doesn't make sense to require that U-S must be better supported than Nostratic. Have a look at Indo-European -- everyone agrees on which families are included and which excluded (ignoring here the purely nomenclatural issue on whether to include Anatolian), but there is very little agreement on the internal stucture of IE: Balto-Slavic is universally accepted, Indo-Iranian nearly so, but that, stunningly, is all, after well over a century of serious research. Nostratic is (currently) similar.
David Marjanović 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
AAikio deleted the sentence "All of these are considered evidence for Nostratic by others.", claiming it was "too vague" and didn't mention who the "others" are. That's why the link is in there: read the Nostratic languages article, and you'll see. So I put the sentence back in, with somewhat clearer wording.
Now, does anyone have access to Seefloth's work? The Linguistlist posts on it are quite impressive, but too confusing for me to make a Wikipedia article out of them. David Marjanović 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The Uralo-Siberian hypothesis is fairly probable from the view of genetics. We know that a part of Mongoloids bearing Y-chromosomal N3-lineage expanded somewhere from Northern China after the end of the Ice Age (ca. 14 000 BP) and colonized Siberia that was then sparsely inhabited by the remnants of Paleoindians (Q). Today, the N3-lineage is the main male lineage of the Uralic and Chukotko-Kamtchatkan speakers. It is also present in the Eskimo-Aleut group that actually came into being as a mixture of North-East Siberian Paleoindians (Q) with N3-Mongoloids. However, the marked presence of the Paleoindian Q-lineage in Kets, Yukaghirs and Nivkhi reveals that their isolated languages may be descendants of the Old Siberian Paleoindian language. 82.100.61.114 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, although previous scholars may have been arguing for a genetic relationship between these languages, Fortescue (1998) does not do so. See the following from his own book: "...although it has not been proven conclusively that the Uralo-Siberian languages constitute a deep genetic stock... the attempt has brought us considerably closer to establishing the reality of an ancient Uralo-Siberian mesh displaying a particular typological profile, out of which most of the existing circumpolar languages of the Arctic arose. Recall... that my conception of a 'mesh' covers any degree of historical relatedness between a group of erstwhile geographically adjacent languages linked by relationships of lexical and/or phonological or structural 'family resemblance'. This ranges from Sprachbunds of unrelated languages, through interlocking chains of languages where the ends are unrelated by where there is considerable overlap and actual language mixing in the core region, to situations where all the ingredient languages are ultimately derived from a single ancestral proto-language but the time depth is simply too great to prove it, and finally to cases of traditional language meshes known exclusively to involve related languages (such as the Northern Athabaskan one)" (Fortescue 1998:230). -- 149.159.2.216 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the links seem to be dead. I'm placing the {{dead link}} tag after the broken links until anyone finds working ones. Pe t 'usek petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Uralo-Siberian languages. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a heck of a lot of content in this which falls very far outside the scholarly consensus, not to mention some very bad linguistics in the word pairings sections. I can respect that that's what was published, but this article should not treat the subject matter as a given or even realistically accepted by scholarly consensus, especially considering the references to Nostratic that were present. I'd definitely ask some other linguists to help clean this up if possible, a theory with this little support doesn't need this in-depth a wikipedia article justifying its existence. At least not without a significant counterpoint making its place in the world of historical linguistics abundantly clear.
I've added the Fringe Theory tag for now, which is absolutely appropriate until a more neutral POV can be established in the article.
Warrenmck ( talk) 03:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Is Fortescue a long-ranger? Is Uralo-Siberian anything like Altaic? I saw Josh(NativLang)'s videos on Proto-World and Altaic. With information provided by him about fringe macrofamilies, I wonder where Uralo-Siberian counts as one... if Fortescue can account and ever accounted for borrowings... if he or any proponent of his hypothesis can do what I call the Blust-Vovin method of gathering six words from Uralic languages like Proto-Uralic or Finnish, Eskaleut or its protolang, and each of the Siberian languages or their protolang(s), each of the six words possessing the same meaning and completely predictable sound correspondences as one of the six words of each of the other languages. Hopefully, they'd guys will remember the requirements to avoid borrowings and unaccounted segments, yet allow identical semantics. Kaden Bayne Vanciel ( talk) 06:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
(This could add more to my previous topic. I forgot I even talked about it.)
Several months ago while looking at a video of its uploader creating a fleshed-out version of Vostyach similar to DJP's fleshing out of the Game of Thrones and Dune languages, I said this: "I heard that Uralo-Siberian is controversial, but I never looked into why. Could it be like Proto-World and Altaic? Is Michael Fortescue(and maybe Diego Marani) anything like G.J. Ramstedt, Nicholas Poppe, Joseph Greenberg, Merritt Ruhlen, Oleg Mudrak, Sergei Starostin, and even Anna Dybo? Is Fortescue a long-ranger fishing for resemblances between words of different languages/protolangs where properly-sharpened minds see differences in complex histories?"
A few weeks ago, someone named Sophia Schlier-Hanson replied: "Some long rangers are fringier than others. Ruhlen and Bengtson do nothing BUT their thing— collecting dictionary words that kind of look similar and arbitrarily making up a word that kind of sounds like all of them, a far MORE primitive and amateurish than the approaches 18th century philologists who first noticed pan-IE cognates were using. Greenberg is a decently well respected Africanist who HAS successfully identified some large, very old families on JUST the right side of max time depth for the comparative method, but in his old age he got cocky and got in with Ruhlen and Bengtson for some reason. Starostin overextended the comparative method a few millennia past its usual limit, did all his work with midcentury through ‘80s reconstructions which are now badly dated, and doesn’t do well at filtering out loanwords, but he WAS the first to attempt comparative method reconstructions of several Siberian indigenous language groups and his work is close enough to methodological respectability to be okay for plausible, consistent diachronic conlanging if not actual academic work building on it. Fortescue, about whom you are asking, is an actual Siberianist who from everything I’ve seen uses perfectly solid methodology, iirc has published a couple etymological dictionaries that were first of their kind, and is one of the foremost experts on some of the languages he’s studied."
I thanked her, and she responded: "You're welcome! I actually quite like Fortescue (and Vajda, the other big name in Pacific Rim historical linguistics, a rather niche special interest of mine). Happy researching/ conlanging! :D"
I would look up the Uralo-Siberian article on Wikipedia, and the preface says it is "considered a fringe theory by linguists" and "utilizes mass comparison", though those pieces of information lack citations. Whoever decided to put those in the article... where did they even get those ideas? As in, where is the evidence to prove it? Which well-ranked linguistics(Campbell, Nichols, Georg, the late Vovin, etc.) are against the hypothesis?
I would ask people on Reddit, and they told me about Georg writing a review a few decades ago for "Language Relations Across the Bearing Strait". https://www.jstor.org/stable/30028571 This information could help out, though it might be outdated. Kaden Bayne Vanciel ( talk) 02:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Should we merge this article with Eskimo-Uralic? Uralo-Siberian still is a one-scholar hypothesis that builds on the much wider studied Eskimo-Uralic proposal. In its latest version, it only differs from the latter in the inclusion of Yukaghir.
So we could well turn this article with borderline WP:SIGCOV into a short section in Eskimo-Uralic, describing its more extensive scope and whatever is written about it in secondary sources. I haven't seen a secondary source yet that goes into such detail about Fortescue's evidence as the current version of the article does, even after the moderate trimming by User:Warrenmck. Which of course means that we should cut down the presentation of his evidence to a minimum to maintain due weight. Austronesier ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uralo-Siberian 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is blatantly POV and completely misleading; some serious editing would be needed. At present, it is not stated anywhere that Uralo-Siberian is a fringe theory that is supported only by a couple of scholars in the world - even Indo-Uralic and Nostratic, both highly controversial, have more proponents. -- AAikio 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You're way too literal and suspiciously hostile towards progressive theories. You don't seem to be fully aware that Uralo-Siberian is merely a subset of Nostratic. So to say that Nostratic is more supported than Uralo-Siberian is a little nonsensical. This shows me that you haven't read what you purport to understand. A simple flip-through in one of Allan R. Bomhard's books on Nostratic will show you exactly where he stands on the Uralo-Siberian connection. Hard to miss if you've paid attention. So please. More reading, less hostility. -- Glengordon01 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify that in articles such as these, we need to keep focus on what the theory claims, not merely the title of the theory. For example, "Nostratic" and its potential subsets of it have been named a variety of things throughout time and depending on the scope of the researcher. So this is why I say that you are too literal. You take the name "Uralo-Siberian" and seem to easily forget the theory behind that name. -- Glengordon01 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Uralo-Siberian theory claims that there is a specific genetic relationship between Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut. Many variants of the Nostratic theory do not include all these language families, so it is not true that Uralo-Siberian is a subset of Nostratic. And the fact remains that this is article is POV and gives the uninformed reader a distorted picture, unlike for example the article Nostratic languages. This is not a matter of hostility but objectivity. -- AAikio 07:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, but Allan R. Bomhard has written a book you never have read called *NOSTRATIC* and the Indo-European Hypothesis (1996) where he even charts out an easy-to-understand tree specifically connecting Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut together. I think you can track it down in Braille format :P
Since Bomhard's work exists to your contradiction, regardless of whether you personally deem him worthy or not, we see that there does exist at least one important variant of the Nostratic theory that considers "Uralo-Siberian" (however we might call it) subset. Trying to hide facts that you find distasteful is a little POV.
PS: Are you really terribly current on Nostratic or related issues? Honestly? Just so that we're on the same page: Vladislav Illich-Svitych died a full forty years ago, even years before the late Janis Joplin performed at Woodstock. In fact, his death was a decade prior to my arrival on the scene as a wee spermatozoid, before which I was possibly an edible mushroom, bottle of alcohol, or even a hot dog. Yes indeed, before Elvis Presley choked on some codeine pills. Before New Wave music. Before " Karma Chameleon"! Sweet feather of almighty Maat, even before Star Trek: TNG! Quite frankly, you may be too far behind to catch up now, hehe :) -- Glengordon01 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to repeat my point: nothing that you wrote above contradicts my main point that "Many variants of the Nostratic theory do not include all these language families". The rest of your message is too bizarre to comment on. I might participate in this discussion again if there are edits to the article. -- AAikio 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Some say bizarre, some say light-hearted. Some are happy, some are cranky. Anyways, until you can specify WHAT variants you're speaking of, your statement is without substance. Variants that you might find from 1840 don't really count nowdays. -- Glengordon01 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article focuses almost entirely on Fortescue. Could someone knowledgeable (AAikio?) read Seefloth's more recent work (see external links) and modify the article accordingly?
BTW, it does not make sense to say that Nostratic does not include Uralo-Siberian. Sure, some published versions do not include all four U-S families, but that's because the authors had not investigated those families. AFAIK there is no case where any Nostraticist has said "no, my colleague is wrong, I present evidence that Eskimo-Aleut (or whatever) does not belong to Nostratic". (Such a claim has only been made for Afro-Asiatic... and soon evolved into the claim that Nostratic and Afro-Asiatic are sister-groups, which actually means it has gone full circle.)
It also doesn't make sense to require that U-S must be better supported than Nostratic. Have a look at Indo-European -- everyone agrees on which families are included and which excluded (ignoring here the purely nomenclatural issue on whether to include Anatolian), but there is very little agreement on the internal stucture of IE: Balto-Slavic is universally accepted, Indo-Iranian nearly so, but that, stunningly, is all, after well over a century of serious research. Nostratic is (currently) similar.
David Marjanović 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
AAikio deleted the sentence "All of these are considered evidence for Nostratic by others.", claiming it was "too vague" and didn't mention who the "others" are. That's why the link is in there: read the Nostratic languages article, and you'll see. So I put the sentence back in, with somewhat clearer wording.
Now, does anyone have access to Seefloth's work? The Linguistlist posts on it are quite impressive, but too confusing for me to make a Wikipedia article out of them. David Marjanović 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The Uralo-Siberian hypothesis is fairly probable from the view of genetics. We know that a part of Mongoloids bearing Y-chromosomal N3-lineage expanded somewhere from Northern China after the end of the Ice Age (ca. 14 000 BP) and colonized Siberia that was then sparsely inhabited by the remnants of Paleoindians (Q). Today, the N3-lineage is the main male lineage of the Uralic and Chukotko-Kamtchatkan speakers. It is also present in the Eskimo-Aleut group that actually came into being as a mixture of North-East Siberian Paleoindians (Q) with N3-Mongoloids. However, the marked presence of the Paleoindian Q-lineage in Kets, Yukaghirs and Nivkhi reveals that their isolated languages may be descendants of the Old Siberian Paleoindian language. 82.100.61.114 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, although previous scholars may have been arguing for a genetic relationship between these languages, Fortescue (1998) does not do so. See the following from his own book: "...although it has not been proven conclusively that the Uralo-Siberian languages constitute a deep genetic stock... the attempt has brought us considerably closer to establishing the reality of an ancient Uralo-Siberian mesh displaying a particular typological profile, out of which most of the existing circumpolar languages of the Arctic arose. Recall... that my conception of a 'mesh' covers any degree of historical relatedness between a group of erstwhile geographically adjacent languages linked by relationships of lexical and/or phonological or structural 'family resemblance'. This ranges from Sprachbunds of unrelated languages, through interlocking chains of languages where the ends are unrelated by where there is considerable overlap and actual language mixing in the core region, to situations where all the ingredient languages are ultimately derived from a single ancestral proto-language but the time depth is simply too great to prove it, and finally to cases of traditional language meshes known exclusively to involve related languages (such as the Northern Athabaskan one)" (Fortescue 1998:230). -- 149.159.2.216 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the links seem to be dead. I'm placing the {{dead link}} tag after the broken links until anyone finds working ones. Pe t 'usek petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Uralo-Siberian languages. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a heck of a lot of content in this which falls very far outside the scholarly consensus, not to mention some very bad linguistics in the word pairings sections. I can respect that that's what was published, but this article should not treat the subject matter as a given or even realistically accepted by scholarly consensus, especially considering the references to Nostratic that were present. I'd definitely ask some other linguists to help clean this up if possible, a theory with this little support doesn't need this in-depth a wikipedia article justifying its existence. At least not without a significant counterpoint making its place in the world of historical linguistics abundantly clear.
I've added the Fringe Theory tag for now, which is absolutely appropriate until a more neutral POV can be established in the article.
Warrenmck ( talk) 03:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Is Fortescue a long-ranger? Is Uralo-Siberian anything like Altaic? I saw Josh(NativLang)'s videos on Proto-World and Altaic. With information provided by him about fringe macrofamilies, I wonder where Uralo-Siberian counts as one... if Fortescue can account and ever accounted for borrowings... if he or any proponent of his hypothesis can do what I call the Blust-Vovin method of gathering six words from Uralic languages like Proto-Uralic or Finnish, Eskaleut or its protolang, and each of the Siberian languages or their protolang(s), each of the six words possessing the same meaning and completely predictable sound correspondences as one of the six words of each of the other languages. Hopefully, they'd guys will remember the requirements to avoid borrowings and unaccounted segments, yet allow identical semantics. Kaden Bayne Vanciel ( talk) 06:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
(This could add more to my previous topic. I forgot I even talked about it.)
Several months ago while looking at a video of its uploader creating a fleshed-out version of Vostyach similar to DJP's fleshing out of the Game of Thrones and Dune languages, I said this: "I heard that Uralo-Siberian is controversial, but I never looked into why. Could it be like Proto-World and Altaic? Is Michael Fortescue(and maybe Diego Marani) anything like G.J. Ramstedt, Nicholas Poppe, Joseph Greenberg, Merritt Ruhlen, Oleg Mudrak, Sergei Starostin, and even Anna Dybo? Is Fortescue a long-ranger fishing for resemblances between words of different languages/protolangs where properly-sharpened minds see differences in complex histories?"
A few weeks ago, someone named Sophia Schlier-Hanson replied: "Some long rangers are fringier than others. Ruhlen and Bengtson do nothing BUT their thing— collecting dictionary words that kind of look similar and arbitrarily making up a word that kind of sounds like all of them, a far MORE primitive and amateurish than the approaches 18th century philologists who first noticed pan-IE cognates were using. Greenberg is a decently well respected Africanist who HAS successfully identified some large, very old families on JUST the right side of max time depth for the comparative method, but in his old age he got cocky and got in with Ruhlen and Bengtson for some reason. Starostin overextended the comparative method a few millennia past its usual limit, did all his work with midcentury through ‘80s reconstructions which are now badly dated, and doesn’t do well at filtering out loanwords, but he WAS the first to attempt comparative method reconstructions of several Siberian indigenous language groups and his work is close enough to methodological respectability to be okay for plausible, consistent diachronic conlanging if not actual academic work building on it. Fortescue, about whom you are asking, is an actual Siberianist who from everything I’ve seen uses perfectly solid methodology, iirc has published a couple etymological dictionaries that were first of their kind, and is one of the foremost experts on some of the languages he’s studied."
I thanked her, and she responded: "You're welcome! I actually quite like Fortescue (and Vajda, the other big name in Pacific Rim historical linguistics, a rather niche special interest of mine). Happy researching/ conlanging! :D"
I would look up the Uralo-Siberian article on Wikipedia, and the preface says it is "considered a fringe theory by linguists" and "utilizes mass comparison", though those pieces of information lack citations. Whoever decided to put those in the article... where did they even get those ideas? As in, where is the evidence to prove it? Which well-ranked linguistics(Campbell, Nichols, Georg, the late Vovin, etc.) are against the hypothesis?
I would ask people on Reddit, and they told me about Georg writing a review a few decades ago for "Language Relations Across the Bearing Strait". https://www.jstor.org/stable/30028571 This information could help out, though it might be outdated. Kaden Bayne Vanciel ( talk) 02:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Should we merge this article with Eskimo-Uralic? Uralo-Siberian still is a one-scholar hypothesis that builds on the much wider studied Eskimo-Uralic proposal. In its latest version, it only differs from the latter in the inclusion of Yukaghir.
So we could well turn this article with borderline WP:SIGCOV into a short section in Eskimo-Uralic, describing its more extensive scope and whatever is written about it in secondary sources. I haven't seen a secondary source yet that goes into such detail about Fortescue's evidence as the current version of the article does, even after the moderate trimming by User:Warrenmck. Which of course means that we should cut down the presentation of his evidence to a minimum to maintain due weight. Austronesier ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)