Talk:Armenian hypothesis

"undue weight"??

If anything is "undue" here, it is to mention Kavoukjian at all. The discussion of the role of the hypothesis in propaganda is perfectly valid and well sourced. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not. It is pov. Calling Kavoukjian a nationalist (which may be true) is also pov. This is your original research Db. You connecting that statement to Kavoukjian is your original research. Thus per your suggestion we will remove it altogether.--Eupator 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind the current version. Although how could Diakonoff in 84 reject Kavoukjian's thesis of 87? Diakonoff can manipulate the space/time continuum?--Eupator 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

sigh, that's why the article has "English 1987". I was unable to find the date of original publication. Kavoukjian is also just an example of what I assume are several authors. I am also only quoting a source referring to Diakonoff's refutation, that's it. If you have another source that says something different, feel free to quote it also. dab (𒁳) 10:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, even if use of the hypo for propaganda is relevant, the way it's worded in the text is POV. "firmly rejected by Diakonoff" says "Dyakonoff was right, those Armenian nationalists were wrong"--i.e. it takes position, which we dont' do on Wiki. "Embraced by Patriotism" is too vague, and therefore too vulnerable to POV (like any other Weasel Word)--who are these "patriots?" Is there a procedure to label some as "patriots?" Who is the authority to make that decision? Are there non-patriot Armenians, and if so, what do they think? It's best to stick to specificity.--TigranTheGreat 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

paragraph deleted

I deleted this:

Many scholars place the Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highlands and the plateau of Asia Minor to the southwest. Others believe that it was in Eastern Europe or southern Russia.

References

This paragraph is misleading at best, more likely POV. It uses weasel words ("many scholars") to give the incorrect impression that the Armenian hypothesis is more than a fringe idea and that the Kurgan hypothesis is other than mainstream. It also lists some pro-Anatolian refs as if they support the Armenian hypothesis. (It should also be noted that Gray and Atkinson do *not* support the idea of an Anatolian origin; all they do is support the idea of a breakup farther back in time, similar to what the Anatolian hypothesis claims. Nothing in their paper says anything about locations.) Take out the Anatolian and Kurgan refs, and all you're left with is a reference from 1890, which is so early that it's basically worthless -- nobody considers homeland speculations from that era as having anything other than historical interest. Benwing (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, again one of these completely blue-eyed articles. HJJHolm (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

David Reich / Genetics

In his last book, Who we are and how we got here: ancient dna and the new science of the human past, David Reich mention the Armenian hypothesis asf :

From seven thousand until five thousand years ago, we observed a steady influx into the steppe of a population whose ancestors traced their origin to the south —as it bore genetic affinity to ancient and present-day people of Armenia and Iran— eventually crystallizing in the Yamnaya, who were about a one-to-one ratio of ancestry from these two sources. A good guess is that the migration proceeded via the Caucasus isthmus between the Black and Caspian seas.

So Reich confirm direct and massive genetic relationship between Armenian-like population from the Armenian highlands and Yamnaya. One to one is a very high ratio. Although it doesn't explain the relation between proto Armenian language and PIE, it gives undoubtedly weight to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov hypothesis and its worth to mention that Armenian-like population directly contributed to the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya which is accepted as Late PIE by linguists, archeologists & paleogeneticians.

I would like to add it consensually, so I ll wait for the feedback from the previous editors.Aramazt (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait for WP:RS to make the connection (there probably already are; this info is not new); otherwise it would be WP:OR. But of course, it reminds of the Armenian hypothesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes: The Armenian Plateau Hypothesis Gains In Plausibility. But, see Haak, as cited in Languages of the World: An Introduction by Asya Pereltsvaig, p.38: "ancient DNA is silent on the question of the languages spoken by preliterate people." No doubt those Armenian-Iranian people will have brought their own language, but it may have morphed into another, distinctive language, c.q. proto-Indo-European, due to the language spoken by the EHG-component (from their wives?). Compare the proposed farmer-substrate in German, and the possibility that Dravidian originated as recent as the 3rd century BCE in India itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is very interesting and relevant information, which definitely needs to be included in the article. I am lucky to have checked the talk page, but not anyone would do so. The consider a book published by a field scholar to be RS, what else could be expected? Darwwin (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice coincidence: Undo-european.eu (march 30, 2018), Proto-Indo-European homeland south of the Caucasus?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Joshua, apparently Reich conclusions are based on new unpublished datas. So better to wait for the paper. Indeed the conclusion is not new (Krause, Haak and others before him) but Reich who is usually extra cautious with wording is giving an unexpected high ratio which is apparently both male and female mediated, we will see soon enough. I can only agree with your quote of Pereltsvaig, genes does not carry language, and pots are not humans, nevertheless in absence of any written source both are important and the scope of indices is narrowing. I think, depending on the conclusions of the coming paper, that it would be fair for the glottalic theory to mention - extra carefully- the latest ADNA development since it will place Gamkrelidze/Ivanov model and Proto Armenian reconstruction under the spotlights until new datas/models are found. As for Quilles, he has strong bias against geneticists (somehow justified by the lack of contextualisation etc...) as you probably noticed, and he also disagrees with the glottalic theory. But be it pre PIE, early PIE, middle PIE and late PIE, he like others will have to take this into consideration and adapt their models accordingly (as they did for CW). Also although we are not here to debate, I think the main problem is coming with the "Ureimhat" definition itself. It doesn't leave much room for nuances and more complicated development models.Aramazt 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramazt (talk • contribs)

This new info is very interesting and has actually made me reconsider my personal position on this idea although I will have to read the papers. However, that doesn't change the fact that this page has a severe WP:NPOV problem. It reads as an ad for the theory without considering hte (very serious) historical criticism it has incurred over the decades. Both sides need to be discussed and it is giving much more space to the "pro" side.-- Calthinus (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

External link to map

I've deleted the following link from the External links-section: Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands. It presents an idiosyncratic map, accoridng to which the IE-languages originated in the southern Caucasus, and reached the Pontic steppes via a route east of the Caspian Sea. Frankly, I don't know what Gamkrelidze and Ivanov say about the route from Armenia to Pontic Steppe, but the only explanation to this map is "indoeuropeanlanguagemigation." That's not enough; according to whom is this the way IE spread? A similar map is contained in an article on, or by, N.S. Trubetskoy, who died in 1938... NB: a similar map is being used here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I found more: Alexander Nash (2015), THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT: THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS. It's a bachelor thesis, but at least it contains usefull information at p.13-14 (emphasis mine):

The Armenian Theory, as argued by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1990), places the PIE homeland in or near the Armenian Highland. According to this model, the eventual speakers of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages split off no later than 4000 BC, invading Anatolia from the east by 2000 BC and subjugating it by 1400 BC.
The PIE community continued to fracture at this point, beginning to split into several groups -- the Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics -- around 4000 BC.
From about 3000-2500 BC, these groups (and their respective languages) split further as population booms, the results of developments in agriculture in the region, sparked waves of migration in search of unfarmed land. The Greeks travelled to the west, followed by the Indo-Aryans to the east, along with the CeltoItalo-Tocharians and Balto-Slavo-Germanics, these latter then turning north once east of the Caspian Sea -- all while the Armenians remained in-situ. Before 2000 BC, the Celto-Italics had split from the Tocharians (who began travelling east) and circled west with the Balto-Slavo-Germanics, settling in a loosely confederated community north of the Black Sea. From 2000-1000 BC they then began migrating in waves to their present locations, eradicating or assimilating the native peoples and languages of Europe (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).

NB: Nash concludes (p. ii):

After a thorough evaluation, I find that the Armenian Hypothesis lacks any evidence that positively differentiates it from the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and fails to provide for several linguistic and archeological facts.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Move

@Любослов Езыкин: Please not that we follow the sources when naming articles. You might be right that "Armenian hypothesis" is a misnomer, but it seems to be the most common name in English and we can't go around making up our own names for things. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:RDL#Hittite_claimed_to_be_"Ancient_Armenian"_at_article_Aryan. There, Lyuboslov has competently demonstrated that this is not called "Armenian hypothesis" in the original paper (and its authors were very careful to avoid connections with modern Armenia), and none of the sources in the article seem to use this nomenclature (they're mostly paper so I can't personally vouch for them); since this article has been around since 2006, we might have some WP:CITOGENESIS at work.
Further, linking this hypothesis with modern Armenian language (which seems to be at best a distant offshoot of PIE) is a hallmark of modern Armenian nationalism, thus I'm inclined to fully support his series of edits reverted here. I agree that the his chosen title is "clunky" English, but this requires a WP:RM and an attention of an expert on the subject, and Lyuboslov seems to be the one. No such user (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually in that discussion he said himself, "I do not clearly understand what has made English-speaking scientists name the theory 'Armenian' when the authors of the theory themselves rarely mention Armenia". It's not just a question of what terminology Gamkrelidze & Ivanov used, especially since they didn't primarily write in English. Reliable secondary sources in English use "Armenian hypothesis", e.g. [1] and [2].

Another problem with putting Gamkrelidze—Ivanov in the title is that the article doesn't just discuss their work, but others that have built on their original idea (especially with recent advances in palaeogenetics).

As for Lyuboslav's other edits, I agree they seem fine. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: No, you simply do not understand. Pereltsvaig wrote her book after 2006, clearly using Wikipedia as a source, at least as a source for the name. She is clearly not a specialist on the subject of IE studies. Moreover, her books can be characterized as "popular linguistics" for an average Joe (sorry for a pun), not serious on the subject of PIE. At best she understand a thing or two about linguistics that allows her write such books. So here there is a circular citation, where around 10 years ago a Wikipedia editor created a misnomer which has widespread outwards to other places, and miraculously those 4th-5th hand sources become "proofs" for the article on which those sources were originally based! Whether "my" name is clumsy English does not matter, unless the name is true and correct. Clumsiness is not an argument for naming, but validity is. I hope you will revert yourself, I do not have much desire to waste my time proving the obvious. I have spent quite enough time today on the thing which, frankly, I do not very interested in.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And what "I said myself" was clearly before I found out that the name had never existed before Wikipedia. This name was born in 2006, period.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid it seems you haven't understood, Любослов. We base article titles on what our sources say, not what we as editors judge to be "correct". It may be that Wikipedia has influenced the way the people talk about this theory, but we have no real way of knowing that. Personally I doubt it: Mallory and Adams alluded to theories of a PIE homeland in "Armenia" in their seminal encyclopaedia a decade before this article was created. In any case it's irrelevant: WP:CIRCULAR applies to references, not article titles. If Wikipedia has caused something to become the common name in reliable secondary sources, it is still the common name in reliable secondary sources.

And for, the record, Pereltsvaig is a professional linguist and a specialist in Indo-European studies, amongst other things; see http://asya.pereltsvaig.com/linguistics/. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally you create your own interpretations. One single mention of "Armenia" does not miraculously transform into "Armenian hypothesis". You have claimed the name is well-accepted and well-known, but you cannot prove it, so your last resort is vague mentions of Armenia here and there. I know perfectly well who is Pereltsvaig, I do not need her credentials and I'm not impressed by her regalia. If she has been using Wikipedia while writing her books, well, this better characterizes her than any regalia.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said it did, it merely shows that English-speaking scholars have understood this hypothesis to refer to "Armenia" before Wikipedia existed, incorrect or not. I have provided two high quality sources to back up that this theory is commonly referred to as the Armenian hypothesis, and I believe you could easily find many more if you cared to look. Unless you are going to start substantiating your own assertions, we really have nothing to do discuss. – Joe (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Mallory & Adams does not mention G. & I. So you have decided for them what they actually meant and why they used the word "Armenia". Probably they meant G. & I., probably not. I'm glad you know how to use Google search and have managed to find a couple of sources to substantiate your shaky point. I'm afraid I did it before you, so your search results do not impress me very much.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Joe Roe, most common name in English? Really? Could you please point out what sources name it "Armenian hypothesis" before 2006? The sources you've shown so far do not qualify. The WP article was named w/o recourse to any source whatsoever by User:Dbachmann who I pinged from the RD so that he could explain what source he used for his terminology, but unfortunately he seemed to have ignored that request. No source that I've seen calls it that except sources after 2006. So whether we can prove those sources after 2006 used or were influenced by WP one way or another (maybe sometimes w/o even realizing it) is entirely irrelevant. The burden of proof is not on those who reject that terminology but on those who maintain that it was the common terminology in 2006. The point is that when the article was named in 2006 there had to be pre-existing reliable sources using that terminology. WP is not supposed to invent terminology. Do please show us some. Let the creator of the article show us some. So the question is not that "Armenian hypothesis" is a misnomer. The problem is that WP apparently either manufactured terminology or adopted biased terminology, that was absolutely not current at the time, from unreliable sources. If WP lets this stand and continues to impose terminology it has essentially invented and spread, it would be doing something that would be entirely antithetical to its purported mission. This whole story would make for an interesting case study in any event. I'm curious how it will develop because this is serious stuff that can have repercussions way beyond WP. Basemetal 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it the common name was before 2006. The title should reflect the common name now. But I very much doubt that dab plucked it out of thin air, and nobody has produced any actual evidence that Wikipedia created the terminology.

And the burden of proof is very much on those who want to move this article from the stable title it has had for twelve years. – Joe (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Nobody has produced any actual evidence that WP has created the terminology"?. You've got it entirely backwards. It is WP that needs to prove that it used terminology used in reliable sources by citing those sources (which it never did) and that's by its own supposed standards. Anyway, I've done my bit. Life is too short to waste with stupidities like that. I'm sorry I even got involved and even more sorry that Lüboslóv Yęzýkin wasted his time trying to fix WP. Take care y'all. Basemetal 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a disincentive experience. At least it will be a lesson for me to think twice before editing and investing my time. But my time is not entirely wasted, though, other my edits are still intact. What is also interesting, even amusing, that despite the article is 12 years old, nobody has ever provided the title to the original work and its English translation. This means that really all of the previous editors never even read the book. It seems I'm the first editor who read/knew about the hypothesis before reading/editing this article. And for 12 years nobody cared. So a question arises: why should I care?..--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes us doubt that the original creator didn't pluck it out of thin air? He has not yet reacted to this discussion. Judging by the very first version of the article the author had clearly a vague idea on the subject, because he even did not mention the English translation of the book and most likely never read the work itself. Most likely he had read some vague mentions of the hypothesis in some book about Armenia(ns), so he could not come up with a better idea than to name it accordingly. But this does not necessary mean this name has been a common name as you claim.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Quick final remark that's not properly part of the conversation but is just a commentary on it. This may be of interest to anyone who's read or will read this conversation in the future. Pay attention to this: this manufacturing of terminology by WP without reliable sources (in fact no source reliable or unreliable were cited) shows what bullshit WP's claims to reliability and neutrality can be. But this very conversation and its result also show something interesting, namely what bullshit WP's slogans about "consensus" and "community" can be: four people took part in this conversation, three were in favor of renaming the "Armenian Hypothesis" article, and one was against. Yet it is the minority side that won. Ask yourself why. This should be an eye opener for anyone who'd be tempted to be taken in by mere slogans. Basemetal 07:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note in Russian WP it was originally (re)named "Armenian" in 2009, clearly parroting English WP, but two years later in 2011 renamed again, despite the fact that in the discussion there were given quite enough Russian sources that mention the Armenian Highlands (among other places). But even this did not stop the editors, because the former name never existed in Russian and is clearly non-neutral from any point.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Armenian hypothesis → Hypothesis of Gamkrelidze–Ivanov – To follow the formalities. The new name may be not ideal from the point of view of English, but it is the best I could think of. The authors are well-known, hence the new name. Contra the old name: it is clearly non-neutral, alleges some links to modern Armenia and Armenians, foster Armenian nationalists, but more important it limits itself to the Armenian Highlands, when the authors never intended that, even avoided. The fact that a few (really few) authors mentioned Armenia must not be a decisive factor. Probably they used it as a lazy shorthand for the proper "eastern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia". In any case the chronology is very clear: 1984 - the publication in Russian, 1990 - the first mention in English, 1995 - the English translation, 2006 - this article. 11 years is hardly enough time for this unpopular theory to achieve notoriety in the English-speaking scientific world and get an established common name. Clearly there wasn't. The current name is obviously made up by an WP editor for whatever reasons known only to him. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It was suggested a better name would be "(The) Gamkrelidze–Ivanov hypothesis" (note the en-dash). I'm OK with it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per the discussion above. "Armenian hypothesis" is the most common name for this theory in English secondary sources, see e.g. [3][4][5][6]. The use of Armenia for the region it refers to may be imprecise, but it's not an Armenian nationalist plot and it's not our place to second guess the sources. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I never said, even alleged "an Armenian nationalist plot". Please, do not attribute to me some strange ideas and picture your opponent in a bad way.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. For what it is worth, those books have all been published since 2012, and so could not have been a source for the title of the article. On the other hand, I think it would stretch credibility to hold that all of them picked up the term from this article. So, are there any reliable sources that call this hypothesis by any other name? - Donald Albury 17:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This snippet is 1999, Drews is from the 1980s, and this is 2012, which for the introduction from a general work on Languages of the World seems unlikely to be taken from WP. "the first mention in English, 1995" is clearly as wrong as "The current name is obviously made up by an WP editor for whatever reasons known only to him." Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) The fourth was published in 1988. Above, I also linked to several pre-2006 sources the describe Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's proposed homeland as "Armenia", albeit not using the exact term "Armenian hypothesis". The idea that Wikipedia popularised this name is just speculation. In any case, we're not here to debate whether dab picked the right name back in 2006, we're here to the decide the common name now. I haven't come across any consistently used alternatives. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support the move. Basemetal 15:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe & discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose' per WP:COMMONNAME. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Gamkrelidze–Ivanov hypothesis as the most reasonable approximation of what majority of sources (and the original paper) use. Let us take a broader overview of the literature:
  • "Armenian hypothesis" is in certain circulation indeed, but three out of four Joe Roe's sources come from the same author, Asya Pereltsvaig. The fourth, Drews, is not available in full, and the other that has been mentioned is a Ph. D. thesis by Nash [7], which is probably not the best source to use.

Undergraduate thesis that has Kavoukjian's book in its bibligraphy and mentioned in the introduction as if it was a legitimate bibligraphic item. It even cites it as one of the two sources of the terminology. (The other being G & I who never use that terminology, as Lyboslov as sufficiently demonstrated). 'Nuff said. Nash's undergraduate thesis of 2015 is certainly not worthy to be taken into account as support of that terminology. Basemetal 11:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

However, many other sources simply refer to it as "Gamkrelidze [and/-//] Ivanov [glotalic] hypothesis":

• Kuz'mina (22 June 2007). The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. BRILL. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-90-474-2071-2.: ...another proponent of the Gamkrelidze–Ivanov hypothesis
• Katarzyna Ślusarska (2006). Funeral Rites of the Catacomb Community: 2800-1900 BC : Ritual, Thanatology and Geographical Origins. Katarzyna Slusarska. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-83-86094-12-7.: It must be noted that in Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's hypothesis a significant role was also played by the steppes north of the Black Sea
• Roger Blench; Matthew Spriggs (1998). Archaeology and Language: Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypotheses. Psychology Press. pp. 234–. ISBN 978-0-415-11761-6.: the ranges of the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov homeland and the one posited here overlap
• Robert Woodhouse (1995). "Some criticisms of the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov glottalic hypothesis for Proto Indo-European". Historical Linguistics (108): 173–189.
• Frederik Kortlandt. "Proto-Indo-European Obstruents" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help): immediate comparative evidence for Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's theory...
• Jared Klein; Brian Joseph; Matthias Fritz (25 September 2017). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-3-11-039324-8.: The Caucasus itself is the central point of the second noteworthy theory, whose main supporters are Tamas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov. Since the 1980s, they have been basing their hypothesis on...

Etc. All of those works discuss the theory rather extensively, and as far as I can tell neither of them calls it "Armenian hypothesis". That may sound like a cool pandan to the Kurgan hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis, but it's simply not the prevailing terminology, and certainly not a WP:COMMONNAME as asserted here. No such user (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the first person to mention Nash in this discussion, so that's a complete strawman. Also note that Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's glottalic hypothesis is a distinct idea, about the phonology of PIE rather than its origin. We cover it at Glottalic theory.

Based on these sources Gamkrelidze–Ivanov hypothesis does seem like a plausible alternative (and thank you for finally providing some sources). However, I don't think it's more common than "Armenian hypothesis", which is used by more recent secondary sources. Moreover, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov were neither the first nor the last to propose an Armenian homeland for PIE. This article should, and in part does, also cover the work of Parsons, who first proposed it in the 18th century, and the renewed interest in the theory by palaeogeneticists in the last few years. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Parsons? First of all I can't even find his name in the article. Then, how can Parsons, who died in 1770 have anything to do with a theory about the location of PIE when the very concept of PIE was only proposed by William Jones in 1786? Basemetal 12:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See Pereltsvaig 2017, pp. 26-27 and 37. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe – I was the first who mentioned Nash in this discussion, but it was brought forward by Joshua Jonathan in a prior discussion, two sections above, so I thought it might be worth addressing. Let's agree it was a red herring.
Sorry, but I just don't see the evidence for "Armenian hypothesis" to be a common name across the board. GBook search [8] for "Armenian hypothesis" brings Pereltsvaig, already mentioned; unrelated references to the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis; and a lot of 19-th century chaff unrelated to Gamkrelidze–Ivanov. GScholar search for 'Gamkrelidze "Armenian hypothesis"' is similarly scant; a dozen hits of not-so-impressive-looking papers, about the best being Kristinsson in Journal of Indo-European Studies (2012), but he uses the phrase only once, in an apparently descriptive manner.
While the theory might have predecesors in the 19th century ideas, those are not mentioned in our article in any way. No such user (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said they were... – Joe (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• For all those who're big on WP:COMMONNAME, why don't you also read WP:POVNAMING. "Armenian Hypothesis" not POV? Look on the net how many Armenian nationalist sites take advantage of that terminology, some even arguing that it is a hypothesis that Armenian is the development in situ of PIE. Even here on WP (English and others) "Armenian Hypothesis" is (completely spuriously) categorized as a page related to historical Armenia and the Armenian language. (When in fact it has nothing to do with it). The creation of that terminology may not have been an "Armenian nationalist plot" but Armenian nationalists do take advantage of it to the fullest. Finally the argument that it doesn't matter if the terminology was current or accurate when the article was created, all that matters is if it is common now. But if WP has been instrumental in the spread of that terminology (as is likely, if not completely proven in this case) it makes sense that it should stop the damage and not suddenly turn around and stick to WP:COMMONNAME dogmatically (when it didn't before). In fact I think it would be a good idea to amend WP:COMMONNAME for those cases. To do otherwise would mean WP picks and chooses when to stick to WP:COMMONNAME which would be at best inconsistent at worst hypocritical. It is not hard to see how this would encourage attempts at POV naming: after all, no matter how ill-chosen and non-neutral a name was at first, if its proponents get lucky and it ends up catching on, WP will just turn around and say: "hey, it's too late, we're just using now the most common name". Basemetal 12:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joe, ie the intention behind common name. St. Caurgula (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lake Urmia region

The original hypothesis explicitly includes the NW Iranian region of Lake Urmia as part of a nexus where PIE developed. It's an extremely important detail, so please dont delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:5CD6:2176:AD79:7BA8 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The text you're changing is a direct quote of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995, pg. 791), as indicated by the quotation marks and footnote. If you're going to add details to it will no longer be a quotation and needs to be reworded. You will also need to provide a citation supporting the assertion that the inclusion of Lake Urmia is an "important detail" that needs to be explicitly remarked upon at the start of the article. – Joe (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the first sentence of the lead and elsewhere

I have changed the first sentence of the lead back to what it was in December 2020. I don’t have access to the source. If this is incorrect, please amend. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, is this edit [9] correct? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now reverted this edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

New aDNA study apparently confirming the Near Eastern model

David Reich's holding a lecture about an upcoming study here: [I have tried to post this three times in a row but it doesn't show up in talk page. Maybe it's because of the link, so I'm excluding it this time. The title is ' Lecture by Prof. David Reich - "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe" ' and can be found on webarchive and eupedia.]

We read: "The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal."

Keep an eye on it 46.177.94.68 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Although it's not related to the work of Reich mentioned above, a brand new study was just published in Science by Heggarty et al. (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg0818) that also supports the hypothesis that the primary homeland for the Indo-European languages was south of the Caucasus around upper Mesopotamia, and that a later migration northward onto the Pontic–Caspian steppe (a secondary homeland) produced "Kurgan" populations (e.g. the Yamnaya) that spoke a language ancestral to those now dominant in Europe, but not to other IE languages such as Anatolian. The study appears to be rather robust, drawing on linguistic, genetic, and archeological evidence, and should probably be reviewed for rigor and mentioned in the article if it stands up to scrutiny. Jpd50616 (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion 'Hybrid hypothesis' at Talk:Indo-European migrations. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

New Article!

The Genetic Origin of The Indo-Europeans 5.215.244.159 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)