User talk:Austronesier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Austronesier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Makassaric languages

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Makassaric languages and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 02:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Austronesier, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 02:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kiteinthewind was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Makassaric languages and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 02:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Makassaric languages concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Makassaric languages, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Makassaric languages

Hello, Austronesier. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Makassaric languages".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Makassaric languages has been accepted

Makassaric languages, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Enggano

Hi Austronesier,

Thanks for letting me know about Smith (2017). I don't have access to that article though.

However, since the classification of Enggano is such a highly contested issue, we should basically leave it as "unclassified" (either Austronesian or an isolate) in Wikipedia and state all the points of views and arguments that have been put out for Enggano. No one viewpoint should be supported over the other. We can definitely put in Smith's (2017) classification as another possibility, but we shouldn't prioritize Smith or Blench or Edwards over the other, in order to adhere to Wikipedia:POV.

As for OR, perhaps you can upload a paper onto Academia.edu, and then cite that on Wiki.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

User Hmoob-Yao edits in Austro-Tai

Hi. User Hmoob-Yao who tried to add Kosaka source and irrelevant material in Austro-Tai languages and Austronesian languages is a sock of WorldCreatorFighter [1]. This person's recent active accounts on Wikimedia Commons are Satoshi Kondo [2], [3] (blocked in German Wikipedia [4]) and LenguaMapa [5] who created this chart

Language tree of the proposed Miao-Dai family based on works of Kosaka and Vovin

. This person is a Vietnamese but somehow pretends to be Japanese. This person uses various Austrian IP addresses like 212.95.8.22, 212.95.8.231, 212.95.8.128/25, 212.95.8.244, etc. to edit Japanese-related, Austronesian, Kra-Dai-related articles. This one also created a fake Japanese nationalist party called JapaneseSentry [genjinippon.wixsite.com/japanesesentry], and spreads anti-Turkish, anti-Korean, anti-Mongol propaganda on the internet [6], [7], [8]. I think this person has some mental issue. Please watch this Hmoob-Yao's edits closely. These follwing admin and checkuser accounts on English Wikipedia are associated with this person Bbb23 (checkuser), zzuuzz (checkuser), GeneralizationsAreBad, killiondude. I don't think you could report this person as after getting blocked, this one will create many other accounts again. 183.80.103.226 (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hi Austronesier, with all respect, can you show me the Constitution that said "East Java province flag have green background...."? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen Istalaksana (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Allen Istalaksana:: As I have mentioned before, the flag is used in official celebrations, pls check e.g. here or here. Were the people in charge of these celebrations subsequently reprimanded for the display of a non-official flag? Not to my knowledge. Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's for personal government use. Can you find civilian holding the flag? (prove that the flag is publicly use as the province de facto and the de jure flag) and some detail explanation of the flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsan44 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Austronesians as an example of a valid macro-ethnographic grouping

Austronesians indeed are an ethnolinguistic macro-grouping with observed linguistic and cultural traits common to almost all groups, along with shared genetics and ancestry found to varying degrees in nearly all Austronesian groups. They all possess a varying assortment of ethnic traits which originate from a migration of the proto-Austronesians of Taiwan. I'm curious as to what reasons you have that they are not, since in the article itself, the follow is stated:

"the general consensus is that the archeological, cultural, genetic, and especially linguistic evidence all separately indicate varying degrees of shared ancestry among Austronesian-speaking peoples that justifies their treatment as a "phylogenetic unit." This has led to the use of the term "Austronesian" in academic literature to refer not only to the Austronesian languages, but also the Austronesian-speaking peoples, their societies, and the geographic area of Austronesia."

Clearly they are not as unified and cohesive a macro-grouping as say Han Chinese, even though the Chinese also speak unintelligible dialects or languages of the same language family and have genetic differences due to admixture with other groups (mainly in southern Han and eastern Han), while still retaining a shared, common Han Chinese genetic lineage/ancestry. Cantonese identify as both Cantonese and Han Chinese, not simply Chinese. Macro-groupings like Austronesians, Berbers, Nilotic peoples, Germans, etc. may not have as cohesive an identity as the Han Chinese, and have some groups who do not identify as part of the larger grouping, but does that mean these macro-groupings do not exist from an objective, scientific standpoint which shows them to have shared genetic, cultural, linguistic, ancestral and physical traits? Epf2018 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Barnstar!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on East Lombok Regency! GrammarDamner (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Austronesian Languages

Regarding your message on my page about Austronesian languages,

Hi, I'm not too sure about the etiquette regarding this kind of thing, but how it was before seemed messy and almost misleading to me, as if the majority of Austronesian languages is composed of Taiwanese languages. all the previous sub-denominations are on the formosian page, so it seemed like an easier way of organising it. I put a question regarding this kind of thing here (I wasn't sure where to put it) thinking that maybe a drop-down menu or bullet point list under category "formosan" could be implemented, though I have no idea how to create such a function. Thanks for contacting me and sorry If I had done something wrong, I just thought this seemed easier to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaasa (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ihaasa: You certainly have a point that one should add structured info about the "uneven" geographical distribution of the primary branches. But I disagree with replacing the Formosan branches with a mere geopraphical grouping. After all, there is overall agreement among most Austronesianists that Taiwan is home to several primary branches of Austronesian which are coordinate to Malayo-Polynesian, even though there are different opinions about the details. Although there is no explicit policy on this, I think the infobox should list these primary branches as they are, regardless of any "imbalanced" geographical distribution. Nothing misleading here (IMHO), and having 10 primary branches in the infobox is far from being messy (Sino-Tibetanists have a bigger problem here!), but just giving due weight to the facts (read: the facts about the current state of research). So for these reasons, I will revert to the previous version. Probably you can come up with a solution using the "|children=" parameter to give some extra information. –Austronesier (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Glottolog

Hi, I just want to ask whether or not you know how to refer to a specific edition of Glottolog (like, the 3.4 one instead of 3.0). Because in the newest edition, Glottolog follows Smith (2017) for the classification of Land Dayak languages. Or should I just remove the earlier Glottolog classification from the article? Wait, my bad, Glottolog only merged Banyadu to Bekati but changed nothing else. Masjawad99^💬 22:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Lampung language

Hi Austronesier, do you know if there is any way to denote intonation contour in sentence glosses? The one source I use for the Lampung language article has something like this but I am not sure if that can be done in Wikipedia. Should I just ignore those marks? Or is there any other way to denote that? I am not that familiar with symbols used to mark intonation etc. Masjawad99^💬 23:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Masjawad99: I haven't come across intonation contour lines yet in Wikipedia. The article Intonation (linguistics) only has the rising and falling arrows. So you would have to covert the information in the paper for the WP article. To do so faithfully, there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the two transcription systems. Or maybe Uanfala has an idea about the contour lines? –Austronesier (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of a nice way to do that. I can think of the following, rather inelegant solution:

 ________┌──   ──┐__
 Lamban hudi → balak ↓
 house  that   large
 'That house is large.

This takes advantage of the fact that in wikicode a line beginning with a space will be displayed in a fixed-width font, so you can align words by adding the necessary number of spaces between them, and you can build the intonation contour using symbol characters like _┌ ─ ┐ ⸜ ⸝ (most of them taken from here or here). It might be worth asking at the village pump though, in case someone there could come up with a better way to do that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Kinaray-a ethnonym

Hi Austronesier,

Would a citation of historical texts where karay-a was derived from the Kinaray-a word iraya suffice to keep my edit? They used to be predominantly upland Visayans, and have long been distinguished from their lowland counterparts (cf. Hiligaynon) whose ethnonym is from ilig meaning downstream. Spanish texts have called the lowlanders speaking Hiligaynon as yliguenes/hiligueina, while the Kinaray-a as haraya.

References

Pansitkanton (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Pansitkanton: Sure, anything from a reliable external source would be welcome, even if it is based on non-specialist folk etymology. Personally, I would stil contest the etyomolgy "karay‑a" < *daya because of the additional glottal stop. [-Cʔ-]-clusters are very stable in all Visayan lects and therefore the glottal stop should also show up in "irayá/ilayá". But again, if you have a good source, I won't meddle with the edit, because I don't do OR on WP. As for de Mentrida, on which page does he relate "Haraya" to "Iraya"? –Austronesier (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Papuan language sources

Hello Austronesier, I have a question regarding some sources that I have used for a few Papuan languages. The web page https://pnglanguages.sil.org/resources offers a large index, with a wide selection of publications of the numerous languages of Papua New Guinea. The source can be viewed here: https://pnglanguages.sil.org/resources/browse/language. Many of these publications provide the phonological data, they are entitled as “Organised Phonology Data“ by SIL. Now are these sources from the site reliable sources that give a good explanation of the phonology of these languages? I would like to know your feedback and information. Thank you. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Fdom5997: I am not fully familiar with the internal review process of SIL for these data sources, but I would consider them reliable sources.

Btw, /j/ appears in the Kol table in the velar column. A certain economy is fine, but in this case I would simply follow the source, even if it results in a single entry column. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Malayo-Polynesian

Hi Austronesier,

Recently I am thinking of updating this map:

• 

The current map obviously has many issues and should be replaced. However, I am not sure as to how. I think we should at least distinguish the boundaries of South Sulawesi, Celebic, and Northwest Sumatra-Barrier Islands subgroups. As for the rest of the lower level subgroups (including those in "Bornean" grouping), we can either display them individually (which will make it very messy) or perhaps create two versions to accommodate both Malayo-Sumbawan (version 1) and Greater North Borneo/Western Indonesian (version 2a & 2b) proposals.

Version 1

• Philippine
• Chamorro*
• Palauan
• Malayo-Sumbawan
• Javanese
• Moken-Moklen
• North Bornean
• Kayanic*
• Land Dayak
• Barito
• Lampung
• Rejang*
• Northwest Sumatra-Barrier Islands
• Celebic
• South Sulawesi
• Central-Eastern MP:
  • Central MP
  • Eastern MP
    • SHWNG
    • Oceanic

Version 2a

• Philippine
• Chamorro*
• Palauan
• Moklenic
• Western Indonesian:
  • Greater North Borneo
  • Greater Barito
  • Javanese
  • Lampung
  • Madurese
• Sumatran
• Celebic
• South Sulawesi
• Central-Eastern MP:
  • Central MP
  • Eastern MP
    • SHWNG
    • Oceanic

Version 2b

• Philippine
• Chamorro*
• Palauan
• Moklenic
• Western Indonesian
• Sumatran
• Celebic
• South Sulawesi
• Central-Eastern MP:
  • Central MP
  • Eastern MP
    • SHWNG
    • Oceanic

* may not appear as they are either too small or out of map boundaries

What do you think?

Another thing: regarding "Bornean" languages, I am not sure whether it merits its own article, even as a "geographic" group, since I am not aware of any scholar who groups them together (Alfred Hudson (1978) does refer to something that he calls "Endo-Bornean", but it is in no way a cohesive group). Perhaps "Languages of Borneo" fits more, but then it would be pointless since we already have Languages of Indonesia (plus Languages of Kalimantan) and Languages of Malaysia covering the topic. I am thinking of repurposing the article for the Greater North Borneo proposal. Or should I just create a new one from scratch?

Masjawad99^💬 07:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masjawad99!

• Yes, the map is definitely outdated. The two-maps approach is a good solution, since Malayo-Sumbawan and GNB/WI are irreconcilable at the current stage of research. Maybe Malayic should be shaded in both maps (respectively with the same colour as GNB and Malayo-Sumbawan), since it is geographically and numerically the most important "microgroup". Btw, Hammarström has found a "solution" in the shape of a lame compromise in the Glottolog, where he creates a "North Borneo Malayo-Polynesian" subgroup claiming Smith's thesis as source, but achieves this essentially by doing cherry picking so as not to withdraw from the acceptance of Adelaar's Malayo-Sumbawan.

I agree that a conservative map won't do either, since it will pretty much look like a map of Germany in 1700. The only other alternative would be a Blust-ian map with a single WMP slice and an appropriate legend, but this would be potentially misleading.

• The concept of Bornean languages is clearly obsolete, and only existed in Merrit Ruhlen's Guide to the World's Languages (1987). It survived in WP because it was part of a problematic subgrouping scheme that overemphasized NMP – which btw made me rather annoyed than flattered ;-) – and included some clear OR (I am not sure if you are aware of this discussion). I think, the best way to rescue this article is to re-purpose it as you suggest and move it to "Greater North Borneo languages".

As for Languages of Kalimantan, this is actually a blatant piece of plagiarism from the Ethnologue that goes way beyond fair use. IMO, it should be moved to "Languages of Borneo", which should give a short overwiew of the languages of the whole island, with or without map, and with pointers to the relevant main articles. The section "Austroasiatic substratum" in "Bornean languages" can be moved here, but we should give credit to Adelaar as the real author of the idea, rather than to Roger "Jack of all trades" Blench, who is clearly overcited in so many articles about SEA languages (probably because his stuff is mostly open-access).

We should go to the talk pages of Bornean languages and Languages of Kalimantan first, since this involves major restructuring and potentially a massive cleanup of links because of the redirects. –Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: So, I have tried to draw the basic version here. Surprisingly it is still pretty visible, although it'll need a lot of colors. The Malayo-Sumbawan one will combine the Malayic+Chamic, Sundanese, Madurese, and BSS in the map, while the GNB one will combine Malayic+Chamic, North Bornean, Land Dayak, Rejang, and Sundanese. Btw, I just realized this, but should I draw Melanau-Kajang boundaries in the Malayo-Sumbawan map as well (ofc it would be combined into GNB in the other version)?

As for Languages of Kalimantan, it seems like the creator wanted to make it more of a list article, although the texts are indeed copy pasted wholly from Ethnologue. If we want to repurpose it as Languages of Borneo, though, I think some of the content (at least the language names and number of speakers) should be moved to something like List of languages of Indonesia. But maybe we can think of it later. My plan is to expand the Languages of Indonesia article first, and then develop the list article from the redirect page. Masjawad99^💬 01:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: With the larger number of subgroups, the broken borders look somewhat strange. I don't know of an alternative yet; maybe black borders with full colored shading of the areas (on land only)?

Agree with the second part. Btw, I will initiate a discussion about nomenclature of Indonesian ethnic names, because we need a consensus about things like "Toba Batak" vs. "Batak Toba", "Ngaju Dayak" vs. "Dayak Ngaju". There is a tendency to replace the established and syntactically correct English forms with the Indonesian ones. Another point is the inflational use of "-nese" (Bataknese etc.), which makes me cringe, but I don't want to guided by my personal aversions. More on that later, I will ping you for the discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Btw, I just realized that the discussion on AA substratum covers languages that are part of GNB anyway. I think we can retain it. Also, I am not sure which Blust (2010) is referred to in the Melanau-Kajang article. My suspicion is that this scheme was taken from somewhere else (not even Ethnologue uses this classification). And one more: Blust (2010) GNB article only mentions Melanau and Kajang casually when discussing about North Sarawak. Should I just list them as separate branches within GNB (in the earlier Blust's version)? My understanding is that Blust assumed that all languages of Borneo other than Greater Barito languages are part of GNB, but he doesn't make a clear-cut internal division other than outlining North Borneo and including well-established subgroups like Malayic and Land Dayak. Masjawad99^💬 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: Melanau-Kajang is from an older version of the Ethnologue. It's quite interesting to see how much progress has been made in the last 15 yrs, if you look at the whole classification scheme (don't wonder about the messed tabs when you click on individual subgroups). For the synopsis of Blust (2010), I'd suggest you add an "unclassified" branch, which lists Melanau and Kajang separately. It's actually quite hard to extract a comprehensive classification scheme from that article. –Austronesier (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Hm, the internal classification of Melanau-Kajang in that older version of Ethnologue doesn't differ much from the current one. In contrast, the article includes a separate "Outer Central Sarawak" branch which doesn't appear in Ethnologue. That's why I asked whence the scheme came. Masjawad99^💬 22:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: I have seen you have already done a lot with GNB since our last discussion. I will also have a look at the whole complex of related articles. At the moment I have little time for productive work on WP, except for short discussions and patrolling my watchlist. Btw, I have seen the Ponosakan article. Good job! –Austronesier (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Sorry for another ping, but I just want to say that I will start a discussion on the restructurization of MP languages articles in the Indonesian Wikipedia. Take a look at the draft here; I will perhaps put it in the talk page of id:Rumpun bahasa Melayu-Polinesia Inti and ping everyone who might be interested. Masjawad99^💬 01:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: That's fine, I haven't been aware to which extent NMP is present in the Indonesian WP. Not as much as in the English WP (before my cleanup), it seems? I just checked at random id:Bahasa Tolaki which was created in 2010 with a "flawless" classification.

Btw, can you have a look at this discussion (so far it'a monologue): Talk:Austronesian languages#Inflated "Comparison charts"? I want to add a concise and representative table, and need a consensus in case it will be flooded by additions from users who feel hurt because their language was neglected. –Austronesier (talk)

Problem with the gene flow between the Ainu and “lowland East Asian farmer populations” (represented in the study by the Ami and Atayal in Taiwan.

Look at this genetic chart which is from the same study that you used as a reference. It is a autosomal DNA study

https://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/202/1/261/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

You can clearly see Ainu are 100% colored in gray showing they have their own independent genetic. The Japanese would seem to have around 15% (or 10-19% ) of it but you can clearly see the Ami, Atayal, Lahu, Dai have none of that admixture.

My problem is the misinterpretation saying there is gene flow on those populations like they have intermixed with Ainu when you can clearly see there is none at all. –DerekHistorian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: What about the passages which I recommended to read first in my last edit summary? I simply rephrase what the authors say in their article. The verbatims are:

"Surprisingly, we also find extra genetic affinity between the Ainu and lowland farmer populations in comparison to the Sherpa (Figure S14 and Table S5), indicating gene flow between these two groups of populations" (p.269, left column)

"Even though we find strong evidence of gene flow between the Ainu and lowland East Asian farmers, it is hard to establish whether migrations were mainly unidirectional and, if so, which direction was predominant. One possibility is that Ainurelated populations, probably hunter–gatherers, once occupied mainland East Asia preceding the expansion of farmers and that they contributed to the gene pool of the latter" (p.269, right column)

"The Ainu are more closely related to lowland East Asian farmer populations (Ami, Atayal, Dai and Lahu) than to the Sherpa or to Tibetans, suggesting gene flow between the two groups after lowland East Asians split from the high-altitude East Asians." (legend to Table S5)

You shouldn't be fixated on the ADMIXTURE K=8 diagram alone, especially since the authors also rely on other other methods to find gene flow events that occurred after the primary splits. They explain it on pp.266-267 in the section headed "The Ainu share more ancestry with low-altitude than with high-altitude East Asians".

Btw I would advise to take this discussion to the Talk page of the article itself, so other interested editors can contribute as well. Is it ok if I copy our main arguments to Talk:Ainu people, before proceeding? –Austronesier (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Palaeo-Sardinian

Hi @Austronesier:, it appears there's an edit war going on on the Paleo-Sardinian language page involving an unregistered user who appears hell bent on adding hypothetical language family affiliations to info-boxes, I've reverted their edit for now and your justifications sound fair to me (fringe theories about possible language family placement do not belong in the info box), however thought you should be made aware of the edit note left by 5.144.214.159

Reverted edits by "Austronesier". "Austronesier guy do not come to Europe, stay in Oceania with the other Austronesians".

Hedge89 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Hedge89: Thanks for handling the revert and for your sensible edit summary. This is still below the report level I guess. In fact, I have reverted two more edits by the same IP editor, for similar reasons. Generally, WP is a microcosm that is overall way more civil that the rest of the web. For the small fraction of exceptions, I stick to WP:DFTT, and keep calm and bone dry. Again, thanks, much apreciated!– Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Fair enough, I presumed you'd see the edit anyway but I thought it polite to make sure you're aware. As it stands, I agree you're right, should just ignore it for now. Meant to add, looking through the edit history for that IP and for other IPs that were making the same edits on that page before, I rather think it's one person who's IP keeps changing. I'll have a read through WP:DFTT now actually as it looks useful, thanks. - Hedge89 (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hedge89: Judging from earlier edits from the same IP range, that editor's interest has a considerable overlap with my watchlist. In spite of this agreement, we apparently disagree on such fundamentals such as WP:reliable sources and WP:Due and undue weight, which almost inevitably ends in a revert, due to consistently low quality standards from their side. A wise editor once said: "The joy in editing wikipedia is inversely correlated with the size of your watchlist." So, what I make myself see is what I get. ;-) –Austronesier (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

spelling ?

there have been incessant discussions about spelling conventions at the WikiProject Indonesia noticeboard - and in many cases it appears to be exactly that - personal preferences, and done with no knowledge of attempts at standardising... sigh JarrahTree 12:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree! Thanks for dropping by. I have noticed that the article Indonesian language still contains some spelling inconsistencies, so it actually needs to be cleaned up. Is there any consensus about BE and AE spelling for Indonesia-related articles? Or just a consensus about having no consensus, as so often in WP? I personally write using AE spelling, but happily adjust if required, or already set out by the existing spelling in an article.

And by the way, I would to have your opinion about this matter: Talk:Ethnic groups in Indonesia#Terminology. – Austronesier (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There are some systematic issues regarding the application of BE, and although a recent addition of a large number of AE added to the oz project, remained unchallenged by the main implementers of BE into the oz domain, the 'in' field has not had established standards, since I have been involved (circa 2007). Your request for my opinion, I am, for my whatever, a very large edit idiot when it comes to slowing down and comprehending the issues of such a discussion, my fieldwork in Java and my earlier hons degree was very yk and sk focused if you get my acronyms, and I frequently before fieldwork and after would have dabbled into the material available at that time in regards to the new order 'framing' of the world, and have really not made the effort to look at the 'frameworks' of understanding ethnicity in the current environment despite a short visit in country within the last 2 years. I could bore you silly with my opinionated understandings of the issues - for the 10 years of so of being involved in academic ways of looking at, and the subsequent 10 years + of this damned infernal goldfish bowl. Give me some time, real life jumps in at times making a considered response haphazard at worst. JarrahTree 13:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Also specifically locating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Indonesia#Terminology - may be one thing, but then also the noticeboard needs something as well... JarrahTree 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Actually, it is just about names for ethnic groups in English, not about controversies about sub-categorizations and stuff, so nothing really deep in spite of my lengthy introduction. And note you're talking to a real dummy...please show me the way to the next noticeboard ♫. You mean the project's Talk page, right? – Austronesier (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

nah, I self identified in Yogya as a 'londo', and most of my Javanese friends were horrified that I dare self identify in such a manner, I am sure the dummy is my claim ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia - is the noticeboard...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Indonesia - my reply is somewhat close to the original points, the problem with english wikipedia, is that many south east asian editors find english wikipedia a place to either assert their national or ethnic pride (sigh) and this manifests in scripts, and terms that the average english speaker has no idea what is going on... Then there is the huge array of editors who find practising their english in wikipedia is that they bring rather astonishing notions of what wikipedia is about by creating articles like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_national_football_team - which used to leave me nothing short of flabbergasted until I checked that other countries do such a thing as well, so clearly out of the range of what WP:ABOUT is trying to grapple with in WP:NOT. I think it is all linked myself... JarrahTree 14:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

mohon maaf, and kalau saya kurang sopan - about this, my apologies - I could be taken for an outsider with a skewed view, I hope not JarrahTree 14:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: No, no, all is cool, and being an outsider (= non-Indonesian Eurasian, to give a bit away about myself) with a skewed view is my claim ;)

And thanks for bringing the discussion to the project Talk page! Basically, it is all about WP:ENG when not knowing for sure what the ENG-part is. When 42k Dayak girls add #dayaknese hashtags to their Instagram posts (just checked for it), will that turn it into common and accepted English usage? I have a young oz colleague in linguistics who has blended in so well with the "-nese" fad that he has adopted the term "Torajanese" which still makes me cringe. As for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_national_football_team, having grown up in Europe, it doesn't really come as a surprise to me, notability-wise (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu%C3%9Fball-Bundesliga). – Austronesier (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic group

Hello Austronesier. I think the article needs expansion. Adding a list of contemporary ethnolinguistic groups would be an improvement. I have been searching sources on the topic but there isn't enough info on the net - the definitions are quite vague. Could you link me if you have or find a good one? Cheers. Puduḫepa 13:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Greetings to the Hittite royal highness! I am a bit unsure about your question, since ethnolinguistic groups are more or less the default case of ethnic groups. Before proceeding, do you mean ethnic groups which are distinct from other groups solely (or mainly) because of having a distinct language, similar to the case of ethnoreligious groups? –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Austronesier:) See the old discussion here. A clear definition of ethnolinguistic group would help to resolve similar content disputes re: ethnolinguistic group vs. ethnic group. Puduḫepa 16:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I get it, I forgot how far the definition of ethnolinguistic group gets stretched. Look at the pains kwami and I had in Talk:Indigenous people of New Guinea with an editor who couldn't understand the difference between genetic/linguistic relations and the basic definition of ethnicity. I only accept the proper definition of "ethnolinguistic group", so any attempts to define macro-ethnicities solely based on linguistic relationship are pseudoscience, and unfortunately quite rampant, even in WP. Ethnolinguistic groups in the scientific meaning of the term are ethnic groups, albeit just a subset of the latter. Albanians, Croats, and East Frisians all are ethnic groups; Albanians are an ethnolinguistic group, Croats (roughly speaking) an ethnoreligious group, whereas East Frisians historically were an ethnolinguistic group, but with the decline of the East Frisian language have become an ethnic group that is solely culturally distinct (a fate shared e.g. by the Manchus). I can try to add some clarifying examples and counter-examples to the article "Ethnolinguistic group" to unroot some common misconceptions. For the former, the sources in the article are already perfect, but for the latter, I will try to find a good source which specifically deals with the topic of "abusing" linguistic findings. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, "ethnolinguistic group" is broader (e.g. Slavic, Turkic, Iranic,...) while "ethnic group" is more specific (e.g. Russian, Turkish, Persian, etc.) Puduḫepa 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

An ethnolinguistic group is defined by common ethnicity and language, so Russians, Turks (in the narrow sense), Persians are ethnolinguistic groups, whereas the Slavic-speaking peoples, Turkic-speaking peoples, and Iranic-speaking peoples are not. Slavic peoples and Turkic peoples will be acceptable for some scholars as ethnolinguistic macro-groups, since the ethnolinguistic diversification happened quite recently in historical times. But the article Turkic peoples has the correct definition (emphasis added): The Turkic peoples are a collection of ethno-linguistic groups.... So again, the broader usage of "ethnolinguistic group" in the singular to comprise people from several distinct ethnic groups which happen to speak mutually related languages is simply incorrect. – Austronesier (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the word comes from ethnology + linguistics (see ethnolinguistics). "Macro-ethnolinguistic group" makes sense. Pointing out the difference between "ethnolinguistic group" and "macro-ethnolinguistic group" in the article would reduce the confusion. Because we need a proper term defining the groups like Slavic people. X-speaking would be an insufficient definition in my opinion, as there are also other stuffs relating these people besides the common language group. Puduḫepa 19:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, have a look at articles like Germanic peoples, Iranian peoples, etc. "Ethnolinguistic group" is widely used in WP. Puduḫepa 19:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's all that clear cut, but the problem is the blurring borders get stretched to the point of abuse. There are Pan-Slavic, Pan-German, Pan-Arab etc. conceptions which are ethnic, and the sense of common ethnic identity depends on language (also history in the case of the Arab). What of the Chinese, who are an ethnic group that claims to speak a "language", even though they speak hundreds of different languages? Are there set terms for such cases?

Also, I wouldn't call the Croats an ethnolinguistic group. They don't have a distinct language, but are defined by history and religion. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Maximal reduction of confusion will be achieved if people would stick to the proper definition of "ethnolinguistic group", without trying to strech it to macro-groupings like Slavic peoples (plural!). "X-speaking..." is fine, and there is no need to invent terminology (like "macro-ethnolinguistic group"), or use an existing term improperly, which I have found does happen in several articles here. The definition in the article Ethnolinguistic group should not be altered just because of rampant improper usage of the term, maximally we could point out by examples and counter-examples what an ethnolinguistic group is, and what it is not.

The whole concept floating around in WP of lumping together people based on linguistic families does not really reflect modern scholarship. This kind of thing was popular in the 19th and to a lesser degree in the 20th century. But it needs more than linguistic affiition to turn these collections of ethnic groups into proper ethnological entities. – Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Due to the language barrier/my poor English, I have difficulty in expressing my arguments well. Anyway, thanks for the friendly conversation. Happy editing. Puduḫepa 20:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: You have presented your arguments well enough, don't worry. It is just that I can be very uncompromising when it comes to terminological rigidity. I apologize if this may appear stubborn. Anyway, thanks for dropping by and happy editing too! –Austronesier (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @kwami: Good you wouldn't call the Croats an ethnolinguistic group, because I haven't either (I said ethnoreligious group). And while most "ethnic groups" are "ethnolinguistic groups" at the same time, there are counterexamples of ethnic groups that are not ethnolinguistic groups: Chinese are a single ethnic group that speaks many related languages, because historically they have diversified linguistically, but not culturally (at least not in the same degree). On the other hand, there are ethnic groups which have given up their language, but maintained the cultural identity. But my main point is which I am sure you'll agree with: by definition, there cannot be an ethnolinguistic group which comprises several ethnic groups. "ethnolinguistic" is a Boolean AND of "ethnicity" and "language".

I know it is not a simple as this when it comes to sub-ethnicities of an ethnolinguistic group, but certainly applies when you go higher up in the linguistic "taxonomic" tree. Pan-Slavic, Pan-German are ideological constructs, while Pan-Arab is real because of historical continuity of using the fuṣḥa next to the increasingly diversified vernaculars which resulted in diglossia. –Austronesier (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I didn't notice you wrote 'religious' rather than 'linguistic'.

If you accept the Arabs because of diglossia, wouldn't you have to accept the Chinese? In many Sinitic languages, there is parallel vocabulary derived from standard readings of characters. Even for those who aren't literate or bilingual (as many Arabs aren't, or at least weren't until recently), that strongly affects the languages. Certainly Finno-Ugric ethnic identity is a modern invention, but what about German or Italian? They aren't all that much closer to speaking a single language than the Slavs or Turks. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@kwami: These are the fuzzy borders where emic and etic distinctions don't overlap. German and Italian are quite special cases in Europe, because in these areas linguistic diversification could thrive due to political circumstances, while people maintained an awareness of common ethnicity and cultural heritage similar as in the case of Arabs and Chinese. In Germany, Luther's Bible translation played an important role (at least in the Protestant parts), while in Italy, Tuscan Renaissance poetry had an impact on literary forms of vernaculars. But in Swadesh counts of the spoken lects, figures can drop way below 80%, and lack of mutual intelligibility has given rise to tons of "dialect" jokes. But I would still say that diversity of High German lects does not match Slavic diversity. High German lects form an unbroken L-complex, whereas within Slavic, there are many clear-cut borders.

But then, these are all about the bottom end of taxonomy, where borders between dialects and languages, and between languages and closely-knit language families can indeed be fuzzy and sometimes even arbitrary and simply a matter of convention. All of these can comprise ethnolinguistic identities. But for Germanic languages, Semitic languages etc. the ethnic concept simply fails. The Germanic-speaking tribes may have been close to an ethnolinguistic group at the time of Tacitus, but the fallacy that many fall for is to project historical unity to the present. Just as you said on a different occasion about "Austronesian people"; the term makes sense when you talk about the prehistoric speakers of post-PAN lects migrating from Taiwan to SE Asia. But today, you can maximally talk about "Austronesian-speaking peoples". –Austronesier (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Still reading your TP...Based on this point of view, one can dispute the term "ethnic group" as well, i.e. "Germans" vs. "German-speaking people". That point of view undermines many terms that are still in use. Puduḫepa 22:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Why, don't confuse German and Germanic. Germans are an ethnolinguistic group, just like Cherokee, Hausa and Khmer. German lects form an L-complex with a common literary standard, and German people precieve themselves and are percieved by their neighbors as an ethnic group, and not just based on language. On the other hand, Germanic languages are distinct, and their speakers belong to different ethnic groups. This by definition precludes talking about Germanic-apeaking peoples as an ethnolinguistic group. – Austronesier (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not confusing German with Germanic. What I am trying to point out that the arguments above could be applied to Germanic people as well (e.g. Swedes are perceived as a "Germanic" subgroup by their neighbors and by themselves). Also, if we dig up "Germans", we can conclude that they are also conglomeration of different ethnic groups. I think Slavic people, Germanic people, Iranic people, Finnic people,...are not incorrect terms. It is not only about the language, but also common culture (see Slavic mythology, Germanic mythology, etc.), common history, and to some degree, common ancestry. Puduḫepa 23:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You are pointing out that that some of the arguments above could be applied to Germanic people as well, but you are missing two crucial points: Germanic peoples speak several distinct languages and each have distinct ethnic identities, whereas an ethnolinguistic group is defined by speaking one language and having a single ethnic identity. You are correct to note that e.g. Germanic peoples beyond their common linguistic ancestry also share cultural traits etc., but even then the term "ethnololinguistic group" does not apply here. It is a group/collection of ethnololinguistic groups at best. As for the Germans, Germanic Franks, Saxons, but also Slavic Wends converged into a single ethnic identity in the course of the first half of the second millenium. – Austronesier (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, they don't have to speak one language (see ethnic group). As for having distinct ethnic identities, yes, but many, if not all, have upper identities, like Slav, Finnic, etc. Russians and Serbs have two distinct ethnic identities but they also perceive themselves as Slavs. Puduḫepa 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Pan-Slavic identity. That's part of what I was getting to above. But there are relatively few such cases. Most of these supposed pan-identities are based on linguistic theories. But what happens when the linguists discover that they got it wrong? Do people's ethnicities magically change? What if here were a resurrection of a Pan-Romance identity? What would it take for us to decide that 'French' and 'Spaniard' were just part of a larger nation? And would Mexicans and Cubans be included because they speak Spanish? Ethnicity is primarily about identity. Language can play a big part in that, but you need to be able to show that the ethnic identity exists without having to rely on linguistic classification.

If you can show that there's a Slavic nation, and don't need to rely on linguistics to do so, that's one thing. But just taking a branch out of someone's language classification and saying "we'll call these people the X" is not ethnology. It's not any kind of science, just authors being sloppy because they're lazy or because they're dumbing things down for their audience. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: I'm confused. Are we still talking about ethnolinguistic groups or rather about ethnic groups? Yes, ethnic groups don't have to speak one language, but ethnolinguistic groups definitely do so by defintion. –Austronesier (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

But Puduḫepa, it's not a common culture. I was playing devil's advocate above. There are plenty of borderline cases. But the Germanic peoples aren't a people or a culture. Certainly not in any way that would exclude non-Germanic peoples. I'm not sure how much you can even lump together the Germans and Dutch, but the English and Swedes don't feel a unity with the Germans that would exclude the French or Poles. People reify linguistic groups by projecting them onto ethnicity. That's because there's a relatively objective way to classify languages, but no objective way to classify ethnicity or culture. So for simplicity's sake you substitute language for culture. That works for books, but isn't real. I suppose that if people became conscious enough of language classification, they might invent an ethnic identity out of it, but that would be an exceptional case. In China, being "Chinese" doesn't even correspond to which language family your language belongs to, or at least it didn't before the govt started reclassifying people by language. The Zhuang, for example, spoke Chinese dialects even though they were Tai languages. Or take the She. 90% of She speak a Sinitic language, and 10% speak a Miao language. But there's no connection between the Chinese She and the Miao She except that the govt calls them both "She". During the end decades of the Ottoman Empire, there was all sorts of head-scratching as to what a 'Turk' was. There were Albanian-speaking Turks, Greek-speaking Turks, Bulgarian-speaking Turks, and of course Turkish-speaking Turks. (There are still Greek-speaking Turks, BTW. They call their language 'Roman'.)

To me, reified linguistic, faux-ethnic groups like "Germanic" or "Cushitic" are a bit like Social Darwinism. You take a scientific theory or model and apply it to a different situation where there isn't a good theory or model. But it doesn't work, and the result isn't science. Faux macro-ethnolinguistic groups are pseudoscience. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but what about micro-ethnolinguistic groups? They don't have the same culture either (e.g. culture of Balkan Turks is quite different from the culture of Turks from Gaziantep). They are also conglomeration of different/distinct groups/tribes. By the way, I am very sleepy right now. It is better to discuss this stuff on an another day. Cheers. Puduḫepa 00:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

From the Ethnolinguistic group: "An ethnolinguistic group (or ethno-linguistic group) is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language. Most ethnic groups have their own language.[1][2] Despite this, the term is often used to emphasise when language is a major basis for the ethnic group, especially with regards to its neighbours.[1] " Macro groups like Slavic people, Finnic people,...are defined by the language rather than the ethnicity (as you pointed out above, there are multiple distinct ethnicities under the umbrella terms like "Germanic", "Iranic", etc.). The language does not refer to a "single language" here, but probably a language family. This is not the case for more specific groups, e.g. Armenians, as they can't be defined merely by the common language - there are other stuffs relating them to each other (and this is the case for many contemporary ethnic groups). That's why I think the categorizations like Russian (ethnicity) and Slav (ethnolinguistic group) make sense. Puduḫepa 10:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"The language does not refer to a "single language" here, but probably a language family." No. Don't twist a crystal-clear definition just because it suits your wishes and preconceptions. A "common language" is a language, not a language family. Please take a look at the sources in the article, further at this link or here on page 15. In each of these sources language means language, not language family (otherwise it would say so). If you still insist on redefining "ethnolinguistic group", I'd suggest we agree to disagree. –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

wawasan

Interesting, I would leave it. I had been through Indonesian history and anthropology studies in the 80s and 90s, and 'Pembangunan' was the national ideology of the new order, and this is simply a re-hash, in current circumstances... It is in itself an important snapshot of attempts at a national ideology/plan. Bit like Brexit, and life by twitter, in other places, the attempts of nations to define themselves was a major struggle for Ben Anderson and others to understand where and how Sukarno and Suharto eras had ideas to try to hold everything together against the odds... Nah, dont let me start, noting that Afd is not the place for such a thing. JarrahTree 09:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Thanks for your input. It gives indeed a very new order-ish impression. Ok, keep, but then probably it would need better sources, and to be rewritten in a more descriptive tone. As it stands now, it rather sounds like a proclamation of an ideology. –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

studying about and living in Suharto era Java, most public text was either lists or proclamations, it all fits... JarrahTree 10:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Paleo-Sardinian2

Although the theory described by Areddu is certainly interesting, I don't know how Wikipedia handles self-promotion of one's particular opinion, especially if they state them as indisputable facts that would make them fall within a violation of the neutral point of view. Moreover, I am afraid that such theory suffers from quite a few problematic assertions. I am certainly not an expert on population genetics, but research on the matter as well as the work of the dearly departed Blasco Ferrer seem to point to a Pre-Indo-European origin of the Sardinians, especially those from the interior areas that A. Areddu consider instead to have originated in ancient Illyria and, thus, to originally be of Indo-European stock. Unfortunately, we know very little about the linguistic affiliation of Paleo-Sardinian, and most of what we do know is effectively based on archaeolinguistic speculation. For example, some scholars also posited a Berber-related influence on the Sardinians, even, from which they further proceeded to analyze a common North-African and Sardinian substratum of Vulgar Latin. Saludos!--Dk1919 (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dk1919 Franking: Thank you for your response. Akerbeltz has come in to handle the case in the meantime, summing it all up perfectly in his reply to Sig. Areddu. Adding one's own research results actually is not an issue as long as the editor sticks to WP:NPOV with all its facets (notability, weight). Unfortunately, most researchers (both amateurs and academics) lack the required modesty ;)

Paleo-Sardinian is indeed a complex topic, and I think we should add a short second paragraph as in the Italian and French articles. Also the work of the late Blasco Ferrer needs a Reception/Criticism section, since his findings were met with mixed result among academics. But yes, a Pre-Indo-European affiliation of Paleo-Sardinian is much more likely than an Illyrian and thus IE origin. As for Sardinian, if I remember it correctly, Lausberg proposed that it had lost the Latin vowel length contrast at a very early stage together with North African Vulgar Latin, predating and independent of the collapse of vowel length in the remaining Romance languages (we call it Quantitätenkollaps in German). –Austronesier (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Good work on your contributions to articles on Austronesian languages, and beyond! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Uralic and ...

I did leave Finno-Ugric peoples because of the recently formed sense of connection, but I wonder how much the 'Ugric' part of it belongs, and if it shouldn't be renamed 'greater Finnic peoples' or something. Also, there's Cushitic peoples, which at least is not trying to define people by language. That article's so well developed that I didn't just delete it. Anyway, I'm trying to think of more of these linguistic ideas masquerading as ethnography. If you run across any, please let me know. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi kwami! Occasionally these articles build on other tertiary sources, so the underlying concept (unfortunately) at times meets the WP:NOTABILITY criterion to some extent. Often linguists themselves are to blame for introducing such concepts, driven by the belief to hold the "key" to ethnographic classifications. Uralic peoples hardly is supported by any source, and I can't see any non-linguistic criterion by which e.g. Samoyedic peoples and Finnic peoples should be grouped together. And once the genetics cavallery comes in trolling ethnologic and linguistic articles, OR and synthesis are having a feast. I'll ping you once I come across unsupported material of the "X peoples"-type.–Austronesier (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic Groups

After reviewing our discussion about the use of the expression "ethnolinguistic group" and its debatable use at the front end of this article, I think I have to reverse my position based on your follow-up dialogue with Andrew. When you mentioned the designation between an "ethnolinguistic group" being dependent on emic and etic perception, and then the tendency for historians to conflate them as opposed to linguists, I am now seeing your point. For that reason, I support your initial argument to change the opening to read as you originally mentioned. My apologies for my outbursts, as I all too frequently encounter pseudo-intellectuals around here, who—as I am sure you've likewise experienced—pass themselves off as experts for having read one or two books on a subject. You won this argument brother and have earned my respect for standing your ground and for being right, while remaining civil.--Obenritter (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your knowledge, civility, and competency in argumentation and logic—you are hereby recognized.--Obenritter (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter: Thank you! Concerning the civility: frankly, I had to bite my tongue way to the flesh at times. But then I understood that your zest is driven by a conviction we both share: to make information on WP as reliable and verifiable as in a scholarly-edited encyclopaedia and to fence off any attempt that could result in a lowering of this standard. I have to admit that I myself did the mistake of (additionally) playing the "expert card", instead of keeping to true wiki-expertise: select and cite sources in a balanced and non-cherry-picking manner in order to prove one's point. In other words, I might have fallen and still may fall in the future into the same trap as you unfortunately did in our exchange.

Going back to the actual topic, I am quite aware that some scholars—including historians—do employ "ethnolinguistic group" in a k.o. sensu lato manner (which an editor pointed out to me in a fairly similar discussion); it is nevertheless non-standard and potentially misleading: I want to see WP a place where only Ipomoea batatas is called "sweet potato", even when there may be other potatoes that are sweet... I'll handle the opening of Germanic peoples accordingly, and will proceed with other articles as well. –Austronesier (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are quite welcome and I am glad to see people of your caliber around here. Many scholars refrain from editing Wikipedia due to the fact that any dolt can edit the content. In many ways the project represents what's best about the human hive in the aggregate, while concomitantly demonstrating the worst part of humanity at times. My actual wish is that they would require only registered users with the ability to edit pages. BTW--Your expertise in linguistics and ethnic studies with regard to the use of the term "ethnolinguistic" should trump the contrary position, but like you mentioned, it will have to be accomplished in Wiki-fashion with sources. In the case of the Germanic peoples page, you may want to add an explanatory—academically substantiated—footnote where you deem best to explain the change. Keep fighting the good fight.--Obenritter (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter: The dimension of your remark here now truly unfolds in the utterly pathetic charade we can witness now. I can imagine how sick you feel to see when a simultaneously determined and incompetent editor is warded off by someone who does often the right thing in wrongest of all ways. What is most painful to me is that a coherent and in-depth article is transformed into a shallow panorama-style page (similar to Slavs), while its meaningful content is chopped into pieces as if it were some secondary and peripheral matter (a fate that Early Slavs – the worthy counterpart to Germanic peoples – at least does not share). Do you think it will make sense to bring it to ANI and ask for full-protection (after restoring a stable version) until there is some consensus about the content of the article? I hate wiki-drama, but it's just a pity for all the good work that went into the article. –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier--this is the aspect of Wikipedia that runs real scholars away. Much of what was originally on the Germanic peoples was a result of my efforts--so yes, it pains me to watch this page being utterly torn to shreds by both parties. Each of them asked me to get involved in their drama, which at this point is even difficult to follow. Like you, I have more or less refrained from participating at this point, as I feel like so much of my earlier work has become unrecognizable or bastardized into something other than what was intended. What I think should actually happen is that the page should be restored to its original status from about 6 months ago, locked down, and then any and all changes going forward be discussed on the talk page and approved only per consensus. How to make THAT happen is another matter altogether.--Obenritter (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: FYI- User talk:Doug Weller#Germanic peoples. Frozen in the current pathetic condition, but at least that's a starting point. But I'm afraid the logorrhea in the talk page won't be affected by it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Herr Austronesier--thanks for the update and especially for the potential neologism "logorrhea" (which elicited raucous laughter) to describe the convoluted dialectic battle between the participant editors on that page.--Obenritter (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Obenritter: I always thought it is a jocular formation, but apparently it is a valid medical term. Wonder if the former came first, or vice versa... –Austronesier (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Austro-Tai languages

I saw your reversion of my edits on this page. Thanks for pointing this out to me. If the convention for expressing these is to use an asterisk and no italics, I think I can stick to it pretty easily. I will attempt again shortly, and please take another look, but the appearance should be the same. I'll be changing only those words that could be detected by spellcheckers, and won't bother with single letters. If there are any errors, just let me know.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I just finished the edit - can you please also check another word on the page - ablasion (toward the bottom, in the section on non-linguistic evidence). I cannot find this as an English word. I'm 99% certain ablation was meant because it's a dental procedure, although it abrasion might have been meant.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ira! Looks fine now, I have just fixed two double asterisks. I will check with other editors from the Linguistics project if there is a standard way of tagging reconstructed etyma so they won't show up as spurious errors. And yes, "ablation" is correct and also spelled as such in the source. –Austronesier (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A haplogroup and a proto-language do not a people make

In the article I read: "A haplogroup and a proto-language do not a people make". Is this sentence intended as it is, or was: "A haplogroup and a proto-language do not make a people" intended?Redav (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Redav: This should answer it ;) –Austronesier (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gutian Language

I don't know why you reverted my edit, I have talked about it in the talk page but no one explains why a published scientific work shouldn't be mentioned but a wild guess about Tocharian origin is mentioned! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: Thank you for bringing the topic to the talk page of the article concerned. Please do not be in a haste, and leave the discussion in one place. If your research meets the criteria for inclusion in WP, you can be sure it will be inserted—ideally, by a non-involved editor to ensure a neutral point of view—in due time. In the meantime, your questions will be answered in due time, too. –Austronesier (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: It sounds good that a non-involved editor writes about it but I don't think that this person can be found here, if my theory is just mentioned in the main page then more people read my articles and then edit this section. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: Note that Wikipedia is not a tool for creating a wider audience (WP:SPA, WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:NOTHERE). If you in fact believe that not a single one out of the many, many active WP editors—which include people from all over the world with a vast scope of interests—will take notice of your research in due time, you have—to put it bluntly—actually answered the question of whether this research is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, or not. –Austronesier (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: How can I contact those WP editors who are interested in this topic and ask them to read my articles? Even in Iran where ancient Gutians lived, you can hardly find anyone who knows anything about them, if I want to wait for finding a non-involved editor, this important theory will never be seen in Wikipedia, the same thing can be said about all other scientific theories in narrow fields of studies, there should be a way for solving it. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: At the risk of being repetitive: 1) Again, please do not haste. 2) Do not underestimate the community of WP editors. 3) If any piece of research will escape the attention of the community of WP editors even after the elapse of due time, this piece of research simply might be not important. Leave it to others to decide what is important or not. If you want to be heard by an English-speaking audience, then go ahead and publish your research in an English-language peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for the promotion of one's own research. So please make yourself familiar first with the goals and policies of this encyclopedia, cf. the links I have given in my last reply. Final note: I could have been one of "those WP editors who are interested in this topic", and might be in the future, but sorry, as for now, I'm out. (@Kanguole: This is sort of a continuation of the discussion on your talk page...) –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Just in case you're curious who's behind that Iranian IP. They have tried to promote really wacky stuff here[9] :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We should just let everyone publish their 'scientific' articles on their personal talk pages. Did you hear the one about the Mesolithic Cornish hunter-gatherers who sailed to the Eastern Mediterranean carrying pasties and tin and a couple of big Knockers...?  Tewdar  21:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Yeah, I've heard that Natufians really went nuts over pasties with Late Pleistocene megafauna fillings. And descendants of knockers are said to show up in the Gilgamesh and later also in the Hebrew Bible. It all makes sense now. –Austronesier (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austronesian languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drift (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Malay Indonesians

Hi, could you please take a look at the aforementioned article? It has been affected by some really bad editing recently. I have no time or patience to deal with these people and Wikipedia's inner mechanisms (and its disappointing lack of revision control). It would be great if you could provide your take on the issue and perhaps patrol the article a bit. As a speaker of Indonesian, I'm disgusted with the ongoing POV-addled disrupt.

(As you probably know, Indonesian (referring to the standard variety, not the local dialects) is a standardized form of High Malay. It's not the Riau dialect, in spite of what the term "Riau Malay" suggests.) Nama.Asal (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nama.Asal: Thanks for dropping by! I have added this page to my watchlist, and have requsted page protection [10]. Hope it will go through. I have studied SEA studies and linguistics with Bernd Nothofer, so I am quite familiar with the history of standard Malay (including the misunderstands about "Riau" Malay) and the diversity of modern Malay[an/ic] lects. As for the "lack of revision control", well you and I, and all the remaining sensible editors will eventually tackle such problems collectively. I always say to myself "keep calm and hit the button". The id.WP is better protected, but look at the backlog of some pages: [11], which is just as annoying. –Austronesier (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah, idwiki is far from perfect, and I guess the revision control thing can't be of much help without active reviewers, let alone considering the overall quality of Indonesian articles (sloppy translations, poor/decent OR). Honestly, I've kinda given up on idwiki. But anyways, I've just accepted your edits.

But on the other hand, it's very easy for anyone to tamper with information on enwiki, and even obvious vandalisms can stay unnoticed for a longer period. I find this fact very exasperating. Polish Wikipedia might be lacking in certain aspects (the quality is respectable, but it's not as comprehensive as enwiki), but vandalisms and other undesirable changes are virtually never presented to the average reader. While enwiki just lets anyone go around changing Malacca to Riau and "variety of Malay" to "different from Malay"... Very disappointing, honestly. Nama.Asal (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you! (+ Santali language)

You are welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Believe me, it was heartfelt! I was near to ping you about it, and truly appreciate you already have taken action. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks bud. Appreciate your work too. Feel free to ping me anytime. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome again. Perhaps you can restore that article to the stable version since the disruptive editor got blocked. Totally a face palm situation making them understand the use of a simple template. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I can see that our friend WilliamThweatt and you already have taken care of it. I will still take care of the tags, and address the sane part (it seems there is such albeit little) of the issues raised by the blocked user in the talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree there are issues with the article, but the way that user behaved was simply Facepalm. I wonder why some people think that they can get their opinions across that way. Oh.. if one of the issues is demographics related and ethnologue is not providing enough, then Indian census data would be the most reliable thing to consider IMO, however it would be from 2011. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I haven't seen that template before LOL. You know, my gut feeling says that the editor will return after the block. Antics like the one we have witnessed, as well as other dubious behavior (check this: [12]), indicate that they may not be here to build an encyclopedia, but will not retreat until kicked out by an indefinite block. But then, gut feeling is one thing, AGF another. I'll keep my calm and enjoy contributing to this project in spite of the silly drama some people enforce on us.

And yes, the discrepancy between the total number based on the 2011 census and the breakdown based on the 2001 census should be fixed, if the 2011 census data allows a breakdown into provinces. Do you happen to know on which Indian government website the census data is hosted? –Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh that facepalm template . And LOL at that user pretending to be an admin. Either he's a troll or there's something to do with "delusions of grandeur", and he'll be back most likely. Anyway, I remember an IP from Bihar at Santal people article. Similar removal of content which the IP claims to be not up-to-date [13]. However that was religion related which I fixed using 2011 census source. For the population sources for specific Indian states you can check this link. However for the total, we need to find other sources. I'll try do find some now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Not fully unrelated to this topic: if you want to make your WP-life unhappier, add National language to your watchlist. Look at the hist and you'll see what I mean. –Austronesier (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh man! No thanks lol. I already have things like these in my WL, though now I only revert obvious vandalism in that specific article. I made an edit however in that article, arranging those Indian languages as per number of speakers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That problem user is not coming back. They got indeffed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

About IKAN BAKAR

Moved discussion to Talk:Ikan bakar#Country of origin

why missing ??? okay, you want to end this debate. so I didn't fix it for as long as Wikipedia said the grilled fish/ IKAN BAKAR came from Indonesia Alam Bashari (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

oh apparently you switched the conversation to the ikan bakar talk page Alam Bashari (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alam Bashari: Read first, then act. –Austronesier (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Pertanyaan mengenai pembuatan halaman baru

Saya tidak mengerti langkah apa yang harus saya lakukan setelah saya membuat halaman baru, kapan halaman yang saya buat bisa dikonfirmasi oleh wikipedia? Alam Bashari (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oleh sebab itu saya bertanya kepada anda karena anda memiliki jam yang tinggi di wikipedia Alam Bashari (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alam Bashari: I am willing to guide with some basics here on WP, but only if you start contributing in a constructive way. This includes correcting the citations in Bakmi and Ikan bakar (tampered source titles!), as I already have addressed on your talk page. And please use English, for the sake of other WP users who happen to read this talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my mass editing/Mengenai pengeditan masal saya

Jika anda perhatikan tidak semua makanan “pencipta” yang saya edit menggunakan Indonesians, saya memperbaikinya juga dengan dengan Betawi cuisine, Javanese cuisine, Sundanesw cuisine, Batak cuisine, Minangkabau cuisine, kecuali bagi makanan nasional dan makanan daerah tertentu yang tidak mempunyai link ke halaman wikipedia seperti makanan khas aceh atau bugis saya lebih memilih mengarahkan ke makanan nasional

If you notice that not all "creator" foods that I edited using Indonesians, I fixed them with Betawi cuisine, Javanese cuisine, Sundanesw cuisine, Batak cuisine, Minangkabau cuisine, except for national food and certain regional foods that do not have a link to the wikipedia page like aceh or bugis specialties I prefer to point to national food Alam Bashari (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems you have a problem with me? Alam Bashari (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No need to get personal, as you did before (WP:ADHOM). No, I am just worried about the nature of some of your edits. Pinging @Jeblat who is an editor committed to keeping high-quality standards to Indonesia-related articles, for a third opinion in this matter. –Austronesier (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alam Bashari & Austronesier, please refer to Template:Infobox food. "Creator" in my general understanding refers to a specific individual or chef, for example, Gordon Ramsay. In the case of traditional cuisine with no solid evidence (if you can cite a reliable scholarly source) who first created the dish, just leave out the creator= parameter blank. -Jeblat (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jeblat: Thanks a lot for your input! –Austronesier (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Iya sama sama👍🏻 Alam Bashari (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Austronesier: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Bahasa melayu berbeda dari bahasa indonesia

(copy)= Anda sebagai editor harus memahami perbedaan mendasar antara bahasa indonesia dengan bahasa melayu, sejak sumpah pemuda 1928 seluruh pemuda dari berbagai latar belakang suku bangsa di indonesia sepakat menggunakan “BAHASA INDONESIA” sebagai bahasa mereka, bahasa melayu dan indonesia sendiri berbeda satu samalain apalagi jika kita bicara masalah hukum dan pengakuan di indonesia, bahasa melayu hanya sebatas bahasa daerah yang digunakan di pesisir timur pulau sumatra. Sangat aneh jika editor malaysia termasuk anda terus memaksa bahasa melayu seolah sebagai bahasa yang lebih tinggi dari bahasa native “sumpah pemuda” kita bahasa indonesia. Anda mengklaim terdapat org jawa di malaysia? Pertanyaan saya apakah org jawa disana masih mengakui dirinya “orang jawa” secara keseluruhan? Faktanya mereka telah merubah identitas mereka menjadi “orang suku melayu” sangat aneh dan kurang masuk diakal jika kita harus mengerdilkan bahasa indonesia hanya karena adanya “diaspora” jawa diluar negeri Nelson Salomo Jr (talk) Nelson Salomo Jr (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nelson Salomo Jr: Take this to the talk page of Javanese people, and please use English here on en:Wikipedia. And btw, I am mot Malaysian. I am simply concerned about bad-quality and POV-pushing edits. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Austronesier!

Happy New Year!

Hello Austronesier:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, Austronesier!

Happy New Year!

Austronesier,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Nasi goreng

@Austronesier: how you can change facts easily, about the problem of "Nasi goreng”. what you need to also change Rendang, Satay, Nasi lemak and Sambal as a shared meal GA1015 (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have seen many sources from sites in Indonesia, abroad, said Nasi goreng is a typical Indonesian food because of its "authenticity" GA1015 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You speak neutral, but the source listed is "how to cook" :::@Austronesier: GA1015 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@GA1015: Take this to Talk:Nasi goreng. –Austronesier (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this by accident. Certainly here in the BENELUX Nasi Goreng is seen as a special recipe distinct from other types of Fried Rice. By chance I recently noticed this article which shows that this is also widespread in English: https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/nov/06/how-to-cook-the-perfect-nasi-goreng-recipe . (As an article which compares many recipes by cooks, I suppose it is more useful as a source than most recipe articles.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Yes, the iconic nature of the Indonesian/Malaysian variant certainly deserves a standalone article. Geef mij maar Nasi Goreng LOL. But the sock editor wanted to turn Nasi Goreng into an exclusively Indonesian creation, whereas it is common heritage of all Malays, Javanese etc. from times before the division into a Dutch and British domain. –Austronesier (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I read a lot of cook books and I know off by heart that Sergio Herman, a famous Dutch speaking cook, calls Nasi Goreng an important part of the Dutch (Nederlands) food culture (not Flemish unfortunately, where it is tougher to find). But possibly we will also need to have a linguistic and a genetic definition. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Here in Germany, Nasi Goreng has in fact become so iconic as the fried rice dish, that Vietnamese/Thai/Chinese restaurants sell their own version of fried rice as "Nasi Goreng". But among all the fakes, it is actually hard to get authentic Indonesian or Malaysian nasi goreng here.

The most bizarre of all is this though [14]. I have seen the same thing a long time ago at Manila airport, but I'm quite sure that the Philippine owner did it on purpose for fun (a proto-troll in the pre-digital age?). –Austronesier (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In Dutch, and I think by extension in German, indeed there is an ambiguity in that Nasi Goreng is sometimes simply used as the word for any fried rice. But as people get more used to "foreign food" I have seen "gebakken rijst" becoming more common. I would see this as one of those cases where the common usage is not necessarily most correct.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Linear A

Hello, unfortunately, I cannot promise that I will do it immediately. As you may notice on the history of editing, I do add sources from time to time, but it usually happens after I go to the library and do some research. I am currently busy, so I cannot predict when I will be able to add new sources.
I can only mention that you can find some articles of the adherents of the Anatolian theory online on academia.edu (e.g. Margalit Finkelberg), and what they say does not really sound convincing (at their best, they could identify some words that "sound Anatolian"), but that's it.
The fact that the Hittite Empire was not a maritime empire is a well-known fact, I do not think I need an extra citation about this. There is an interesting theory though that the word "Ahhiyawa" mentioned in Hittite texts actually refers to Crete (in the Mycenaean period) and only later began to apply to the entire Mycenaean confederation. There was a discussion on this matter (see e.g. [15]) --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmitri Lytov: Thank you for your quick reply. I personally agree that the Anatolian theory (Luwian per Palmer and Brown; Lycian per Finkelberg) is not a likely candidate for delivering a breakthrough in the Linear A-question. But it's not ours here to refute these proposals, even if we can back up the arguments for a rebuttal with reliable sources (that would be OR and/or SYNTH). We need a reliable source that does the job from A to Z. I'll also try to search for more info about it, and also a source for a rebuttal of Finkelberg's Lycian hypothesis, which now has a mention in the article without critique. –Austronesier (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: FYI (the original question is here[16]). –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

trolls and stuff

I know what you mean. It is always difficult on WP to know whether to spend time on someone. I've put a lot of special effort into Germanic Peoples - related discussions, and this may or may not turn out to be a good investment in each case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert of velar fricative on Sallaans, Gronings, West Frisian pages

Greetings Austronesier, Sorry to bother you, but I'm having quite a bit of frustration on the following pages of Sallaans, Gronings, and West Frisian. User:Kbb2 keeps reverting my (sourced) information on the phonology of the languages. He constantly keeps claiming that the velar fricative /x/ is displayed as a uvular fricative /χ/ and I keep having to revert his errors, and he is accusing me of edit warring. I gave him sources that prove him mistaken, and he is constantly refusing to acknowledge them. What is your say on all of this? Please let me know. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: There is a long tradition in Dutch and German phonology to notate dorsal voiceless fricatives with velar contact generally as [x], even if they are actually post-velar. All information in WP must of course be based on our RS, but context also matters. E.g. Sipma's grammar is from 1913, and emplyos Greek ‹chi› for the "velar" fricative. The IPA portraits of Dutch (Gussenhoven 1992, Mees & Collins 1982) are good complementary sources, even though they only cover regional Standard Dutch and not the regional dialects (or languages). –Austronesier (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Andi Language

I have organized a table based on the http://www.philology.ru/linguistics4/alekseev-99b.htm article, would that be a correct source for a consonental table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacySinrich (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: Well, I have seen that your edit is based on TITUS, so let's discuss this one. Yes, TITUS is a good source, but try to be faithful as possible. On first inspection I would say you largely succeeded to do so, except for two points: 1) you have missed the aspiration of plain voiceless stops 2) you have lumped the voiced obstruents in the lenis columns, while the source (TITUS) tabulates voiced obstruents as neutral for the lenis-fortis contrast. Fixing 1) is easy, for 2) it will be tedious, but advisable even though it's just a minor issue. –Austronesier (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry for this, but can you dumb it down for me, because according to the Fortis and Lenis page, it lists that fortis and lenis can be transcribed differentiation between voiceless and voiced, or plain and geminated consonants. Which means that since Andi has plain, geminated, and ejective consonants, wouldn't the voiced obstruents be fortis as well? eg: d͡ʒ t͡ʃ. Or should I add another row for Plosives and Affricates to include a voiced one?, apologies for the misunderstanding on my part. MacySinrich (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: Sorry there was a blunder on my part: it's not lenis-fortis, but lax-tense in the source. If you want to be on the safe side, just follow the source, so yes, the best thing is you add a voiced row, with colspan=2 for all but the labial entry. –Austronesier (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Baree etnic

Hi. Yes, the dab is fine by me. Thanks. Davidelit (Talk) 09:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

where does Hindustani discussion belong?

Hrm... i'm getting a bit muddled now, you suggested talk on the Hindustani language page might be more useful, but there's a message there directing me back to the Hindustani page?

== Move discussion in progress ==  There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hindustani which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 

Irtapil (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: Ah, now I got it. Yes, you're right, it starts getting confusing. Basically, there are two discussions. The older, and much more lengthy and tiring one is about scope and title of the article Hindustani language. Basically, @Fowler&fowler contests that "Hindustani" is not a valid term for any of the contemporary variants/styles/registers of the Hindi–Urdu(–Hindustani) complex. We are still discussing, and have not reached the stage of a page move request yet (which is essentially a courteous restraint on F&f's part).

The hatnote refers to a new, and essentially technical discussion initiated by @Kwamikagami, who wants to move "Hindustani language" to plain "Hindustani" with the reason that the language is the primary topic for "Hindustani". So anything about "Hindustani" vs. "Hindi–Urdu" should still better be discussed in Talk:Hindustani language, even though the main participants in the dispute tend to bash their heads about that topic in any discussion that comes along the way :) –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Austroasiatic languages

Hi, can you verify the content added here by the new user? Regards - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: My first impression is that this looks a weak source (a Vietnamese reader for learners?) for such a bold claim. Maybe Kanguole can help us out here? Btw, I agree with Wario-Man's observation about the novice editor[17]. –Austronesier (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'll revert and ask the user to discuss it in the talk. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: You're welcome, and thanks in return for having a close watch on Austroasiatic_languages! –Austronesier (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't mention it . Had good friends in college who were Santali speakers and lived in Meghalaya, Odisha for a good amount of time. Recently got interested in linguistics too! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The claim is false, as can be seen from the Language Atlas of China and other Chinese reference works. (They routinely include Tai and Hmong–Mien in ST, but not AA.) There's also a linguistic claim sourced to a paper on molecular genetics. There's a bit of a pattern of such papers citing linguistic proposals that fit with their genetic conclusions (in this case Starosta's Yangtzean), but that doesn't make them useful authorities on linguistic matters. Kanguole 12:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Thank you for the clarification and confirmation! And yes, genetic studies are all too often carelessly included in comparative linguistic pages as "suppporting evidence", and unfortunately just as often in violation of WP:SYNTH. –Austronesier (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That user is a confirmed sockmaster & sockpuppeteer. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musical mosaic. Feel free to revert their edits. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Thanks for the info and for initiating the SPI! Their editing looks versatile, so LTA indeed seems very probable. WorldCreaterFighter has a different fingerprint though, and I have no idea about other potential sockmasters. Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

When someone creates a WP:SOCKFARM, they are usually a returning "blocked" sockmaster. Take a look at their edits on Yuezhi and Talk:Yuezhi; obviously not a newbie. They may be WorldCreaterFighter or another blocked user. Thanks for pinging/notifying me. I may add some of those targeted articles to my watchlist. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Makassar language

Hi Austronesier! As you have seen, I'm rewriting the Bahasa Makassar page on id.wp. I just want to ask your opinion regarding the glosses used for the 'ergative' and 'absolutive' clitic pronouns. As of now, I don't standardize Jukes glosses for these (hence the different glosses for examples taken from Jukes 2020, where they are only minimally labeled for person, e.g. 1= for ku= and =3 for =i). What do you think? Should I regularize the glosses (perhaps following the usage in Jukes 2020 as it is his most recent publication on the language)? I have regularized the mark for "affixal clitics" boundary to ≡, anyway. Masjawad99^💬 00:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Masjawad99! Yes, I think the minimal labels from his thesis/book are better than ERG and ABS in Jukes (2005 etc.). Makassarese is close to split-ergative (were it not for optional clitic-stacking like nu_O=ku_A= in certain transitive constructions), and the case labels (especially ERG) are actually not fully correct. So standardizing the glosses in examples taken from Jukes (2005 etc.), is a good solution, but you should then explicitly mention (e.g. with an efn) that you have done so. –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: By the way, where in the article, do you think, should I put the discussion about Makassarese aspectual/modal clitics etc.? Also, you're welcome to comment about the article structure in general and what should/should not be included in the article. Tangentially related: I'm planning to expand Malayic languages article as well, but I'm not sure how to structure it, because there isn't a particular "model article" that I could think of for language subgroup/family articles. Masjawad99^💬 01:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: I think you can follow Jukes's order, so you may add that point after the pronoun section. The article looks great so far; if I have ideas for additions etc., I'll go to the talk page or try to dare some edits with my id-4 (or just id-3?) proficiency.

As for language family articles, I think synchronic info (typology etc.) should come first, then subgrouping, then reconstruction. Adelaar's overview "Structural diversity in the Malayic soubgroup" in Adelaar & Himmelmann (2005) has good material for inclusion in the article. –Austronesier (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: So far I have stayed in a passive role, and just enjoyed looking at your solid work in w:id:Bahasa Makassar.

Your small edits to w:id:Bahasa Muna have inspired me to slowly expand Muna language. René's grammar is an excellent overview of this pretty complex language. You might take a shot at it as well in id.WP. Muna is fun, although I have never mastered to speak it, except for producing gramatically correct mini-sentences after at least ten seconds of mind grinding (interacting with Muna speakers/informants during my time in Mksr). –Austronesier (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: (I just realized that {{yo}} is another shortcut for {{reply to}}) Thank you, though there hasn't been any significant update to that page since last week (I'll try to get it done in this following week, but I can't promise ahaha). I did the edits on w:id:bahasa Muna just to remove the noref tag, although I haven't actually read even a quarter of René's grammar. But I will get into it later. The reason why I choose to expand w:id:bahasa Makassar first is because it is one of the most viewed pages in the Languages of Indonesia cat on id.wp (see here for the list).

Regarding language proficiency, I myself have never actually mastered any bahasa daerah whatsoever, except perhaps my own Palembang dialect. Even my Javanese is a bit rusty LOL. Masjawad99^💬 14:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Austronesier

Thank you for creating Sumba languages.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Malayo-Sumbawan languages

Hello, Can I create category "Malayo-Sumbawan languages" ? It is accepted by Glottolog. Please let me know. (Jkrn111 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)).

Hi @Jkrn111: No, I wouldn't recommend that. Malayo-Sumbawan is rejected by Bob Blust and Alex Smith, and also Sander Adelaar himself, who initially proposed the subgroup, has silently abandoned the proposal by accepting Blust's and Smith's alternative proposal, viz Greater North Borneo, in his latest paper. So I'd suggest to turn "Greater North Borneo" into a category. This would affect the current categroy Category:Bornean languages, which is based on a spurious grouping. Category:Basap–Barito languages would then be directly under Category:Malayo-Polynesian languages, and the rest must ve moved to the new GNB cat. Pinging Masjawad99 for a second opinion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. Shouldn't Category:Bornean languages be redirected to GNB cat, though? Masjawad99^💬 23:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Masjawad99: Catergories cannot be moved that easily (usually via WP:CfD). It's easier to abandon them until somebody finds them unused and proposes them for deletion. In any case, the category business for mapping complete tree classifications is a flawed idea, anyway. A lot of things going on here violate NPOV by giving preference of one model over another. IMO, complexity can only be dealt with in prose, as we have done e.g. with the Malayic languages. –Austronesier (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Problem editor

Now the tables have turned. What I did today was far from exemplary (quite the opposite), and I've tried to make amends on the user's talk, but if you find it insufficient feel free to call me out. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: I think you made our common point clear, let's just see how they respond in words and action. We need to keep an eye on that. –Austronesier (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Proto-/Common Norse and Romanian

Hi Austronesier. I don't remember where your comment on Proto-Norse was, but I have a similar issue with Proto-Romanian that's now gone to discussion. I moved that to 'Common Romanian' per the definition in Bussmann's dictionary (Routledge) that a 'protolanguage' is reconstructed by the comparative method, and Agard's distinction between Common Romance (the attested ancestral language) and Proto-Romance (the reconstructed ancestral language). Is this a distinction to make on WP? Very often, of course, the terms are synonymous, but should 'proto' articles be about things that we'd put a protolanguage infobox in, with others moved to 'common', 'primitive' or some other name? — kwami (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@kwami: I would reserve the proto-language box for genuine reconstructed proto-languages. Apart from Agard's awkward distinction, there are some cases where common usage has "proto-X" for other things, e.g. internally reconstructed "pre-X". Proto-Basque language is an interesting case. Here, scholars reversely apply sound changes observed in Romance loanwords to native Basque vocabulary, which is a valid method, but different from the comparative method. "Pre-Basque" would be more correct (Florian Blaschke once pointed this out to me) but "Proto-Basque" is generally used. Use of "proto-" in page title and using the infobox should remain two different things. –Austronesier (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in other language families it would be "pre-" rather than "proto-". You also see e.g. "pre-proto-IE". — kwami (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Proto-X strictly speaking only refers to the last common stage (analogous to the MRCA in biology) before the start of the divergence, because only this stage is directly reachable through the comparative method (external reconstruction). Earlier stages are labelled "Pre-Proto-X".

Plain "Pre-X", however, is problematic because it can also refer to other things like substrates.

The language of 7th-century (and even 6th-century) North Germanic inscriptions is close enough to the stage that can be reconstructed on the basis of the attested Old Norse dialects that "Proto-Norse" is an unproblematic label, if maybe slightly imprecise, but "Primitive Norse" or more accurately "Primitive North Germanic" (or also "Archaic Norse" etc.) – analogous to "Primitive Irish" – would be a better catch-all label for the whole period c. 200–700. One might also consider using "Primitive X" instead of the rather clumsy "Pre-Proto-X", even though "Primitive X" is generally only used for languages that are at least slightly attested, although to be fair, I don't really know any common examples except Primitive Irish. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a snag, though, in that "Proto-X" reconstructions reached through the comparative method tend to be at least slightly, or even significantly, less archaic than the corresponding real-world varieties wherever there is direct evidence of them, with Proto-Romance being the best-known example.

According to Ringe, Sardinian began to diverge from the rest of Romance in the first century BC, and I'd even find a split in the late second century BC conceivable, or in any way still in the Old Latin period, when the written language was still relatively close to the spoken one (if not as much as the language in Plautus' comedies), before the more artificial Ciceronian norm known as "Classical Latin" emerged and established itself between c. 80 and 60 BC – although some authors and inscriptions at the time probably still use a language that reflects the contemporary spoken idiom closely, so we have a rough idea what it was like; and what we can reconstruct for Proto-Romance – even including the Sardinian evidence – is very different and significantly more innovative, especially in the lexical realm, because many common words in Latin texts (especially particles and other short words) have not even left traces anywhere in Romance.

So, on the face of it, you could suspect that the real-world counterpart of Proto-North-Germanic might have been the clearly more archaic Early Proto-Norse c. 200–500 – with umlaut phenomena, syncope, and other changes taking place in a regionally already slightly diversified North Germanic dialect continuum; although in theory, this is very much possible, I don't know of any concrete, hard evidence for this possibility.

Although there have been attempts to discern regional differences within the Proto-Norse inscriptional corpus, these attempts are controversial, and as far as I know, regionally specific features that appear in Old Norse cannot be traced further back than the 8th century. So even if there were regional differences within Proto-Norse, of which there may or may not be traces in the inscriptions we have, it does not seem like they continued into the Old Norse period as diagnostic regional traits. Rather, I suspect that the best explanation is that a specific regional dialect of Primitive Norse achieved supra-regional importance around 700 and gradually replaced all the other Primitive Norse dialects, and it is this specific dialect that effectively corresponds to the Proto-North-Germanic we can reconstruct, all the previous regional variation being overwritten by its spread (and eventual regional diversification again) and lost – except perhaps for faint traces in the extant inscriptions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I suspect (following a suggestion by Schrijver) that the extensive Sabellic–Latin bilingualism that has to be assumed for Italy in the first century BC played a significant role in the development of Romance, and that while the Latin spoken in Rome, especially among the upper class, was still fairly conservative, there were innovative rural dialects influenced by Sabellic (especially in phonology) spoken outside Rome at the same time, and that Romance originated in this Sabellic-influenced Latin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: It is interesting to see from all these examples to see how much "information" may be irretrievably lost in the descendants of a parent language, unless recoverable from ancient documents or—which is much more complex—via distantly related languages. We could e.g. somehow reconstruct Proto-Romance case endings based on the fragments left in Old French and Romanian, plus evidence from other IE languages, but if hadn't Latin, we could not even tell whether Proto-Romance had two cases, or more.

I remember (and have already re-checked in my Göschen booklet) that Lausberg also proposed that Sabellic influence was responsible for the changes in the majority-type vocalism of Vulgar Latin. –Austronesier (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, next to the several waves of monophthongisation and syncope, the Quantitätenkollaps in particular looks very Sabellic-like, and it also seems to have happened quite early, around the turning of the eras probably, when Sabellic was still widely spoken in Italy (especially in the south, I suspect). I think that, due to their relatively great similarity to Latin, especially Sabellic, but also Celtic, and to a lesser extent Greek, were able to exert a significant influence on Romance, and might be largely responsible for the stark difference between Classical Latin and early Romance, much of which is due to lexical replacement.

(But then, perhaps Proto-Germanic was also a good deal more archaic than our reconstructions. For example, there might be faint indications pointing to a cognate of the Latin verb īre still in Proto-Germanic, although I'm far from convinced; see here.)

Especially the Romanian evidence, but also traces throughout Western Romance strongly suggest the reconstruction of a third case besides obliquus (accusative) and rectus (nominative), which mainly continues the genitive, but also partially the dative; I'm not sure, but traces of further cases have been claimed, though our hypothetical linguists who have nothing but the medieval and modern Romance evidence would probably be hard-pressed to interpret this evidence correctly – unless, perhaps, they knew the non-Italic rest of Indo-European well. It would also be possible to reconstruct a third gender, continuing the neuter, which, like the feminine gender, only displays a two-case system, though: a well-preserved case whose forms are essentially based on the accusative (in the feminine) or never had separate nominative and accusative forms at all (in the neuter), and the less well preserved case which is based on the genitive and partially dative.

That said, at least the verbal system of Latin is preserved fairly well in Romance, and in reconstructed Proto-Romance, even more so. This reconstruction should be significantly more archaic than any medieval language, including Italian and Sardinian, yet still very different from Old and Classical Latin in many ways. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and it's true that ancient forms of Basque and Albanian shouldn't be called "Proto-Basque" or "Proto-Albanian" either; Primitive/Archaic/Ancient Basque and Albanian sound fine, don't they? Also, Aquitanian seems indistinguishable from Archaic Basque at the time of the early Latin loanwords, so it's essentially just an alternative label that skirts the issue completely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ronald I. Kim source

Hi Austronesier. Thank you for this[18] edit. It seems that the same cherry-picked content was added to multiple WP pages[19][20][21], most probably by the same editor. Puduḫepa 10:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Thanks in return for your vetting and scrutiny! And you're right, the biased citation seems to come from a single editor[22], it looks like a (willful?) misreading of the source to me. Anyhow, what do you think, should we just fix it everywhere? I'm not really a fan of duplicated content, and rather like to keep detailed information in one place, but for a first aid measure, that should suffice. –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

it looks like a (willful?) misreading of the source to me. This is either a tendentious misrepresentation of the source or, if we assume good faith, is a WP:CIR case. In my opinion, it is both. I have been seeing their naive ethno-centric POV edits for a long time on my watchlist (since the last sumer) and did warn them before. Since they edit obscure WP pages which are not checked by other editors or admins frequently, they managed to escape scrutiny for a long time. I had to report them yesterday due to their edit-warrings to keep their SYNTH content. I am also not a fan of duplicated contents, i recently tagged an article for this reason. But unfortunately, I am not fluent in English to completely rewrite the pages that have duplicated materials. Puduḫepa 11:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: I have read this[23] now. Unfortunately that corresponds with my own experiences with them: Talk:Mushki#Avoiding WP:synthesis concerning Phrygians. I already had come across other misreadings before. I will have a look how to fix the small issue of the Kim cites in the individual pages, but I will also have a closer eye on the wider edit range of said editor. Without taking sides, but I certainly will tag or remove SYNTH and misrepresations of sourced content. We owe this to our readers. –Austronesier (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

About Neutrality

Hello, Austronesier, I'm Shrestha Shome. You wrote to me about the recent change of the article Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb. You're right about the fact that Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions and articles should have a neutral point of view. But here's the thing, being neutral does not mean discouraging every point of view; it also means to support every POV irrespective of their stand. My recent edit to Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb was done to enrich the article and making wikipedia fair place for every fact/opinion. My edit was done to balance The article in every fact. Anyway it should not have been removed. If you think I made a mistake, or if you had any questions, you could have messaged me on my talk page before removing the edit. Every edit in wikipedia takes valuable amount of time and reasearch to find the source of information and removing mistakes. And we all do that. If you can undo the deletion, please do it because it is my values which restricts me to force my work over someone else.

Also, some of the news and opinion websites are banned in wikipedia while some others (mainly opposite oppinions) are not. This makes it hard to balance every article on the basis of POV. This has negetive effect on the reputation of Wikipedia's neutrality. It should been dealt wisely.

Thank you. Shrestha Shome (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir u should have replied her already if u can reply others and her statements really make sense . you may have been on wiki for long time still we r humans we make errors . sometimes i wonder wikipedia shouldnt be allowed to give the authority to post or edit or even delete article related to different countries to every nationality (plz dont take this seriously) Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Puipuianunuibuangpuia1: It was about this very tendentious edit[24]. Most Indian Wikipedia editors in good standing would agree that this kind of language is not neutral. –Austronesier (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Etruscan language

Hi again, Austronesier. Have you checked this section before? I think it is filled with fringe stuff (e.g. Daghestani–Etruscan relationship, Finnic–Etruscan relationship, etc.), but you are the expert here. What do you think? Puduḫepa 08:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: The wording is OK, as it makes it clear that most of the proposals under the section are fringe. But it's still a bit weird to have such a long section filled with fringe and/or outdated theories. Puduḫepa 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: User:Calthinus and I had done some reading for Alarodian languages, and the Etruscan-NE Caucasian connection deemed us at least worthy of mention. S. Starostin proposed many highly controversial hypotheses, but he definitely based them on a very broad knowledge of the available data, unlike fringe "reseachers", who usually pick two languages or language families because of non-linguistic motives, and eventually detect the inevitable random correspondences. My favorite is Hellenic-Cherokee, which is regularly promoted by a crank IP on various pages[25] and talk pages.

In some cases, it is advisable to keep information which under regular circumstances would not appear notable, for the sake of putting things into the right perspective. With topics like Etruscan, many readers will be confronted with loads of theories on amateur-run blogs and history pages, and sometimes even non-linguist scholars will be tricked into putting too much weight into fringe theories. At least for the more common stuff our readers deserve to hear the mainstream opinion about it (which is done nicely e.g. in the third paragraph). That's what we also do e.g. on Basque language, although I have kicked out the most outlandish BS like Basque-Dogon, because some fringe proposals are just too asinine that no serious researcher will even spill a drop of ink for discussing them. –Austronesier (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: PS. Unlike with other languages that have been early recognized to belong to an established language family, the history of classification proposals is a notable topic by itself for languages like Etruscan, Basque, Ainu, Burushaski or Enggano. So what may appear as unnecessarily detailed, may actually be the most interesting topic for some readers. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Imo, agreeing with Austronesier here, this is the least bad option. It is useful for people to know the history of past proposals, as that is a topic of interest for the specific case of Etruscan, as with Basque, Georgian etc. As long as it is clear we are not "proselytizing" them, it may be a bit awkward, but there is more to be gained from coverage than noncoverage, while on the other hand, I"m not sure it has the notability for a standalone page (though if someone wanted to put in the work I wouldn't complain). --Calthinus (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa and Calthinus: FWIW, I just comes to mind that there even is a standalone article for Hungarian, which—I admit—looks a bit like a freak show, but it is an important piece for understanding the cultural discourse in Hungary. Such fringe discourses, weird as they may appear to outsiders, are notable and valid research topics of their own (Tamil is another notorious candidate). –Austronesier (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A standalone article for the Etruscan can be created. Puduḫepa 06:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bisakah anda bantu saya untuk “merevifikasi akun saya”

@Austronesier: Ksatria Khazanah (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

my account is often blocked suddenly and sometimes it's hard to log in can you help ?? Ksatria Khazanah (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a new one

Instead of Urartian-Indo-European vs. Alarodian, we now have a paper arguing for Indo-Alarodian [26]. The guy has a career [27] that does involve his particular (not exactly widespread) view on Basque, which got these 16 citations [28], make of it what you will. Not planning to add to wiki any time soon, but thought you might take interest in light of other ongoing discussions.--Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: When I looked at Basque, I was about to remove his proposal as a low-impact hypothesis, but then I decided to leave him there per notability by rejection[29] :). The IE-HU-NEC article is cherry-picking of random similarities, and a far cry from controversial but IMO more thorough long-range proposals by e.g. Bomhard or Nikolaev. –Austronesier (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think, sometime in the future, it could be useful to have a page listing non-mainstream phylogenetic proposals, so as to handle the Indo-Basque proposal and its kind on pages that are not actually about Basque, so as not to publicize it. --Calthinus (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I have mixed feelings about it, but one advantage would certainly be that we could mention proposals that pass the notability treshold (for mention, not GNG for standalone), but cannot be easily integrated into other articles without raising undue weight issues. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of long-range proposals, see p. 53f.. I remember Aikio used to be very sceptical of EU in the past, but he seems to have warmed to it, and now that he even accepts the possibility that the objective conjugation is already PU (p. 34), maybe that's favourable too because it's been one morphological aspect that people have tried to link to the EA verbal system ...

Also, if, as hinted on p. 46, PU wasn't spoken in the Volga Basin (contra Kallio, Häkkinen and others), but at the foot or possibly even east of the Urals (Aikio doesn't accept Ugro-Samoyedic or other intermediate branches proposed by Häkkinen and others and essentially retreats back to Salminen 2002, p. 3), in Western Siberia or perhaps even further to the east (roughly contemporary with PIE, p. 52), where areal contact with Archaic Turkic/Mongolic/Tungusic would be more likely (p. 50), and accepting Vovin's argument that PE (and PAE presumably too) must have been spoken in North Asia, perhaps (because of the early contact with Northern Tungusic proposed by him) as far southwest as Transbaikalia north of Mongolia (or wherever PNT might have been spoken, presumably in the first millennium AD) means that the geographical distance to be bridged is not large, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think some of the proposals floating around will eventually become "respectable" even in the eyes hardcore splitters if long-rangers would restrict their evidence to the best correspondences. Austro-Tai from Benedict to Ostapirat is a good example we talked about before. There is no a priori reason to dismiss long-range proposal because we have somehow reached the absolute limit of observability. Not even Lyle Campbell would go that far, in fact he believes that intuitively, many proposals look prominsing, but he simply and rightfully expects to see better evidence. And EU looks quite promising, I agree with Aikio about that. –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I expect links between established families everywhere to become apparent as our knowledge grows, as documentation, systematisation and reconstruction improve in quantity as well as quality (rigour) – a process happening across the board; while it is also expected that links going deep in time will not be based on a wealth of morphology and hundreds of reconstructed lexemes as in Uralic but only on a few dozen equations at best, if they're sufficiently solid, that should be enough.

So EU doesn't even necessarily go back much farther than PIE, PS or PAN, with a homeland I'd look for in Southern Siberia (funny enough, there have been suggestions of an EA-like substratum in Western Siberia, underlying Ket–Yugh – perhaps Nenets has a similar substratum –, and I think Vajda has mentioned this, but I haven't been able to find it again; that said, I recall an attempt to etymologise the ethnonym Yugh with reference to yuk 'person' in Yupik languages, and that sounds fishy because the underlying PE lexeme is *ińuɣ or so), and although I'm unable to judge the actual linguistic evidence for DY, the idea of a DY homeland in the Russian Far East, specifically Kamchatka, a few millennia ago has started to appeal to me, especially because Itelmen seems to have a substratum not unlike Na-Dene, and in fact Aleut has been suspected of having such a substratum too, so I've softened my intuitive resistance to the whole concept. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Standard German back fricatives

An OR observation: I wonder if the popularity of the velar/uvular fricative (sometimes approximant) realisation of /r/ is motivated by the way it acts as the voiced/lenis counterpart of the allophone – and marginal phoneme – [x ~ χ], rendering the consonant system more symmetrical. One might expect that [x ~ χ] will eventually become a full phoneme. Indeed, the [ʝ] realisation of /j/ could also become more widespread – in fact, oddly, I thought I remembered that Standard German phonology described [ʝ] as the regular realisation of /j/, or even notated the phoneme as /ʝ/! I remember this clearly because I wanted to ask about exactly this on the talk page (I don't think [ʝ] is really common, especially in the south, but my intuition could be wrong, and /j/ could be more strongly fricated that I've realised), when I found out that my memory had apparently played a trick on me. Mysterious. Anyway, I think there are SG varieties where you could, in principle, move /r/ next to /j/ and notate it as /ɣ ~ ʁ/ instead – but phonotactic reasons probably advise against that, as /r/ still behaves as a rhotic/liquid rather than a fricative – or approximant, like /j/ and /v ~ ʋ/. Hm. Now that I think if it, I'm not so sure anymore that it doesn't work, though. The fricative system starts to oddly remind me of Proto-Eskimo–Aleut and the like. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for fun:

			Labial	Dental/ Alveolar	Palatal	Velar/ Uvular	Glottal
Nasal			m	n		ŋ
Plosive		fortis	p	t		k	(ʔ)
		lenis	b	d		ɡ
Fricative	sibilant	fortis		s	ʃ
		lenis		z	(ʒ)
	non-sibilant	fortis	f	(θ)	ç	(x ~ χ)	h
		lenis	v ~ ʋ	l	ʝ ~ j	ɣ ~ ʁ

Something like this ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I'm not sure about cause and effect here, but yes, the outcome pretty much looks like this. We still need [ɬ], though!

As for the motivation, my main objection is that [r] → [ʀ~ʁ] occurs in many areas which already have [ɣ] as voiced counterpart of [x], inlcuding areas where [x] is marginal (Low German, Dutch) or nonexistent (very conservative Danish). And urban legend has it that [r] → [ʀ~ʁ] started in Paris, which has no [x] either. So we have actually a novel back fricative in French, and fricative overcrowding in the guttural area in German/Dutch/Danish. Danish /ɣ/ eventually fell victim to this overcrowding.

Full pairs of voiced/voiceless fricatives are not all too common on a global scale. But such a system is inherently stable. Fang-Kuei Li reconstructed Proto-Tai with /f~v/, /s~z/, /x~ɣ/, and many Athabascan languages have full pairs, including /ɬ~ɮ/ (but no /l/!). Interestingly, the Athabascan languages of the US NW Coast have lost all voiced fricatives. Sibilants merged with their voiceless counterparts, /ɮ/ and /ɣ/ became approximants /l/ and /ɣ˕/. But this happened clearly not because of inherent instability, but convergence with local Penutian and Salishan languages. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

PS Here's[30] somthing about [ʝ] in Plattdeutsch, and it is not uncommon the northern colloquial language. –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Urdu alphabet

Someone deleted 80% of the Urdu alphabet page without consultation, by reverting 6 months of edits from 20 different users. I had left it a bit messy for a few days because i got interrupted, so the version immediately preceding the destructive edit is not the best to discuss. I want to try to improve what was there, but they did it again while i was in the process of working on it. I know edit wars are very much frowned upon but i'm not sure what the right way to deal with this is. Irtapil (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Japonic and Austronesian

Just wondering – what's up with that perennial attempt to link Japonic to Austronesian (or Kra–Dai) in any way? Apart from an impressionistic typological resemblance of Japonic languages to Austronesian (or Kra–Dai) languages that I can sort of see but no more and that AFAICS is too vague to mean anything anyway, I can't remember encountering any material evidence in the form of plausible loanwords (at least with respect to Austronesian) – let alone cognates, for those who suggest that the link is more than purely areal. Or have I just missed them? Vovin has argued for an origin of Japonic in southern China, based on a supposed early contact with Kra–Dai – what do you think about that? It all sounds very sketchy to me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: The typological resemblance between Japonic and Austronesian is mostly about syllable structure, and even here, the resemblances are only found with languages which have undergone some degree of erosion of syllable-final consonants, most common in the eastern part of the Austronesian area. Blust has deconstructed the proposal here[31] (p.704) and here[32] (p.306). The very few "obvious" corrrespondences like Jap. nomi ~ PAn *inum (POc *inum-i with transitive suffix *-i) are most likely due to chance. Vovin specualations about a Kra-Dai substrate/adstrate in Japonic[33] are also very vague, and actually just a vehicle to cement his denial of a Japonic link to Altaic. IMO, Bomhard's shaky evidence for Nostratic is more compelling than anything I have ever seen from proponents for the inclusion of Japonic within Austro-Tai. –Austronesier (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that confirms the suspicions I've had myself. Proto-Japonic phonology and phonotactics are pretty extreme in their simplicity – the only roughly comparable phonologies I've seen within Austro-Tai are in Oceania, but not in East Asia (nor even Southeast Asia). That said, Proto-Austronesian itself is far too old to have had direct contact with a not-absurdly-remote ancestor of Proto-Japonic, so it's rather irrelevant; sensible comparisons would involve Proto-Japonic and more recent intermediate reconstructions within Austronesian.

I also agree with your unfavourable comparison to Nostratic: I've seen morphological similarities pointed out that did look interesting, but unfortunately they rarely amount to more than a single phoneme in a suffix. It's just that they make intuitive sense to me, like it feels that there is something going on there in Eurasia, at least in and around the IE–U–EA core, but the relationship might be too remote to ever demonstrate it conclusively. It would be nice if methodically rigorous linguists attacked the problem with top-quality data and reconstructions; at the very least, it does look more promising than most other macro-family proposals and the like. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: There some similar inventories in AN languages of Insular SEA (Sulawesi, and CMP), but these can be shown to be the result of relatively late changes, too. Btw, I forgot to mention another theory (by Ann Kumar) about Javanese cultural diffusion into Japan in the first millenium (a favorite topic of the uncrushable sockmaster WorldCreaterFigher). It suffers from the same flaws as the proposals refuted by Bob Blust.

As for Nostratic and narrower connections like IU or UE, a quote from Lyle Campbell says it all (read it yesterday cited in a volume about Australian subgrouping): "A proposal may present evidence that is sufficient to attain a certain level of plausibility but not sufficient to eliminate all doubt." Lack of methodical rigorism can be very disappointing at times, especially if the presentation of the language families to be compared gives you the impression that the researcher has a good understanding of what the comparative method entails. I enjoy reading introductions by Starostin, Nikolaev; they write really good state-of-the-art descriptions about established language families. But once the macro-comparative part starts...

Btw, do you have access to Tom Güldemann's The Languages and Linguistics of Africa? It's highly recommendable, especially if you want to learn more about the validity of subgrouping proposals for African languages. –Austronesier (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the Javanese hypothesis doesn't make a lot of sense, either, looking at the actual evidence; such a relatively recent cultural diffusion should have left more obvious traces. What would, in principle, make sense is that there was a (typologically) Polynesian-like substratum spoken on Kyushu in the first millennium BC, overlaid by an immigration from the mainland whose result was the presumably Primitive-Japonic-speaking Yayoi culture, resulting in Proto-Japonic c. 300 AD with its characteristic phonology. Although it's possible that this substratum was Austronesian, maybe even specifically Oceanic, positive evidence for this is absent. A key problem is that there is no certainty about stages preceding Proto-Japonic, making it hard to identify a substratum, lexical or typological. If we could trust attempts to reconstruct "Proto-Macro-Altaic" or at least "Proto-Koreanic-Japonic" at least broadly, the situation would be a lot better, but unfortunately we can't. So all we have is a general typological resemblance of Proto-Japonic to, say, Proto-Polynesian; that they seem to be roughly contemporary is remarkable, but their putative homelands are too far apart for a direct connection to be plausible. Nor is there independent evidence for Polynesians traveling this far northwest.

Yes, that's a good way to put it, and yes, a quite unfortunate situation; despite what "lumpers" sometimes allege, we would love to have things like PIU, PEU or Proto-Nostratic to work with.

Unfortunately no, especially not at home – I'd love to learn more about the macro-families of Africa from a rigorous, sceptical historical linguist; so far, I have little reason to take them seriously. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Check your mail... :) –Austronesier (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: PS:  Done –Austronesier (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your opinions and contribution here would be appreciated

I feel as if the said person deleted too much of the history section of the Philippines especially the Islamic era, even though I agree with him that the article is excessively detailed, I also feel that the said deleted portions were crucial and necessary, can you chime in on this? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#PH_0447's_deletions_of_many_Islamic_era_history_paragraphs

Pronounciation of your name

This might seem irrelevant but how exactly do you pronounce ʁ̥, is it just a χ? Also, isn't the diphthong iæ written as iæ̯ rather than i̯æ as well? Macy 01:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: No, that's fine, noticing minor details is a good thing for getting a full grasp of phonetics. As for [ʁ̥], yes, it is a voiceless uvular fricative [χ], and out of context they are indistinguishable. But in many languages, there is a phonemic contrast between fortis and lenis voiceless fricatives. This contrast can be notated in various ways; one common method is to write the lenis fricative as a voiced fricative with a devoicing symbol (which looks like a paradox, but is common notational convention). Here's a source about Zurich German, which has loads of such fortis/lenis contrasts, not only with fricatives but also with plosives. As for the diphtong, you always have two possibilities (especially opening diphthongs), rising or falling. E.g. Italian has rising /u̯o/, while Lithuanian has /uo̯/ (I have modified the exact values of the second segment for simplicity). In my transcription, [i̯æ] is a rising diphthong, pretty much like in Spanier (scroll down to "Lautschrift"), just with a different final segment which is a trademark of my local dialect. –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@MacySinrich: PS, please sign properly by typing at the end ~~~~ or using the button in the edit window; the result will be a link to your user page plus a link to your talk page, which is WP standard. Thank you! –Austronesier (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The duck

@Chaipau: I have found some stylistic diffs in the talk page that are very compelling. Can you provide two or three content-related diffs, so I can file an SPI? The page history is a nightmare, and I get dizzy looking for myself... –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am working on it. Give me a little time. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Sure, no rush; the more solid, the better. –Austronesier (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Austronesier

Thank you for creating Northern South Sulawesi languages.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Trolls

@Austronesier: Trolls have hit again overnight on Baybayin and Suyat lol. The only thing they ever "contribute" to the Wiki is changing all the names of the Baybayin varieties (THEY ARE DIFFERENT SCRIPTS!!1) for political reasons. I wish we could lock certain sections from edits, it's getting tiring. Glennznl (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Yeah, it's frustrating, but we can maximally protect it against novice editors, since incompetence of long-time editors isn't flagged here LOL. We just have to establish quality consensus on the talk pages, then we can also involve admin help if disruptive editing is getting out of hand. I think Zzz... is cooperative for consensus apart from their lack of understanding what WP:reliable sources mean. Btw, there is another page to watch: Abugida. –Austronesier (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Luckily it seems that most other editors have stopped with the name wars, unfortunately it hasn't really reflected yet in contributing to the actual content of the article. I just scrolled through Abugida and first thing I notice is: Baybayin – Tagalog, and possibly other Philippine languages, Baldit – Visayan languages, and possibly other Philippine languages, Basahan – Bikol languages. Does it ever end? Lol. I'll keep an eye on it. Glennznl (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl:I just have added another comment[34], and really had to bite my tongue (or better, my fingers) not to write "silly" or "asinine" – so I chose "off the mark". –Austronesier (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Lmao, you destroyed him. I am sure we will get a high quality contribution on the terminology using good sources any second now... really soon... can't be much later... Hopefully they'll stop for now. Curiously, it seemed like they were working as a duo on multiple pages, probably organized outside of Wikipedia. I guess we'll have to explain the terminology to prevent this sort of stuff in the future. Glennznl (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

overly detail on languages of Indonesia

Hi... first of all, mohon maaf lahir batin :)
could you please take a look on Languages of Indonesia, new editor seems to put load of things on lead section. it may be correct and sourced information, but i think it's a little bit too much. maybe you can help to trim it down. thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Hi, and mohon maaf lahir batin to you too! The information is good, but very heavy on the lead and definitely needs trimming. Some of the stuff is already mentioned in other sections, so it should be merged there. It's like they wanted to write their own thing, without really caring about the overall structure of the article. Btw, most of it they had added to Indonesia before expanding Languages of Indonesia. –Austronesier (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Austronesier, I believe my insertion of information re Indonesia being the second most linguistically diverse country in the world is accurate, as much as the information of the country being the fourth most populous in the world, which is placed earlier in the article. I would be grateful if my editing is reinserted. Thank you for your kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free2victory (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Free2victory: For the benefit of all interested editors, please discuss this at Talk:Indonesia. And don't edit-war. You will achieve little except for risking to get blocked. Thank you! –Austronesier (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Another example of when nobody ever questions Wikipedia

I just noticed the term Apurahuano being used as an alternative name for the Tagbanwa script. I checked the sources we used on the relevant Wikipedia articles, and it never showed up anywhere. Neither did it in any modern academic articles or any old materials. It seems to have been created in 2008 with this unsourced edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tagbanwa_script&type=revision&diff=234953764&oldid=234953627 Interestingly enough, the editor got banned a few months later, about which he said: Got banned from Wikipedia a year ago, but I bounced back, and by the power, justice and wisdom of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, I was permitted to return successfully to Wikipedia with all my pride and dignity intact. I JUST feel victorious! - 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Apurahuano has however been picked up by news articles, who probably used Wikipedia as their source: https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/02/17/weekly/the-sunday-times/cover-story/suyat-calligraphy/ and https://cnnphilippines.com/life/culture/2018/8/22/ancient-Filipino-scripts-surat-Baybayin.html

Really irritates me when I see people abusing their responsibility... most people don't question Wikipedia. Glennznl (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Always be prepared for new skeletons in every closet into which you take a closer look. You eventually will find your own mix of building content, decrapifying long untouched pages, reverting blatant BS, and occasionally bringing major disruptions to admin attention. Fortunately enough, collective effort has produced much content of high quality here. But yes, it is frustrating when you see that baseless content is amplified by WP and search engines, and is taken for granted and cited by media which otherwise are known to contain reliable information. –Austronesier (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I do find a pleasure in solving these "mysteries" and discovering crap that everybody just took for granted. I've tidied up, merged, reorganized and expanded quite a few pages by now, it's good fun to find "odd" stuff. Like sometimes you find a page with a certain section and a link to the section's mainpage, but the section on the first page has 3 times as much information as the main page and sometimes there is even a 3rd page which describes the same content and which belongs together. Good fun sorting it all out, putting underneath the right categories and templates, it's like building infrastructure for future editors to pick up where you left off.

There is a lot of good stuff on WK, but it does seem like a page needs one or multiple "strong men" to keep it going in the right direction, or otherwise random IP addresses will turn it into a Facebook quality article in a year :P. Glennznl (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Sometimes it is mix of everything: good faith edits from "those wild years", when standards of WP:V and WP:RS were stil nascent: incompetent editing from cranks; but also—and always keep this mind—our own limits of comprehension of a topic and its sources. Occasionally, we will meet editors who indeed know better (like Stricnina), and that's a good thing.

Ill balance between general and specialized pages is indeed a problem here, plus the overall redundancy in some pages. By laws of entropy, redundant information will eventually diverge, often leading to contradictory information (sometimes deliberately, which is called WP:content forking). That's what the guy in the section above didn't want to accept, although the other editor explained pretty will why they removed most of the edits from one page (but not the other). –Austronesier (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yea I definitely noticed this. Some editors seem to be adamant on multiple small articles for each and every subtopic, which are then highly vulnerable to vandalism and low quality edits. I have encountered tons of 10 year old stubs with 2 blogspot sources. Imho a long and broad article can be more easily maintained by a small number of editors and ends up having more quality edits by the amount of traffic it receives. Perhaps I should go filter on stubs some time soon. Glennznl (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. Nardog (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thank you for the link. I have long been aware of the phenomenon, but not of that page. I think might add one example there about the fabrications on Philippine history by an editor notorious for their creative interpretation of primary sources, which were eventually cited in reputable news sites.

For another bizzare case, cf. here. "Sunda–Sulawesi" found its way into at least one RS[35]. Fun fact: I have cited the latter (Pagel 2018) in a chapter to appear in a peer-reviewed tertiary volume, because—apart from the small blunder—it is a very valuable source :) –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

PIE edits

Thank you for your recent helpful edits on Glottalic theory and Laryngeal theory. It is not my intent, of course, to go around making more work for other people, but in these cases and in one other subject I've written about recently it seemed like talk page messages didn't catch people's attention, so I decided to just go ahead and edit the articles. And in all of these cases the result was an article that was better than it had been before, thanks to the efforts of people who have greater access to the required academic resources. Best regards, —Soap— 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soap: You're welcome! And agree, blowing boldly the dust off indeed helps to trigger more scrutiny into articles like these. Bathwater gone, baby rescued, but the mission is far from accomplished. The paragraph in laryngeal theory we have edited is actually an oasis in a citationless desert. And I share your experience about talk page messages, response to cries in the wilderness (like this one) is often lame. –Austronesier (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Reproachable...

I did finally decide to report [36] and they are now banned. Thanks for nudging me in the right direction. I see I have to yet improve on my pitch at the ANI.

I am eagerly waiting for A haplogroup and a proto-language do not a people make—it is urgently needed for articles such as People of Assam!

Chaipau (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: It is actually a positive trait that you still try to take the stony way and to engange in discussions with these problem editors. However, most of the pages affected are underwatched, and you will soon fall into the edit war trap. And many uninitiated editors might think you try to WP:OWN these pages—I have to admit that was my very first impression, too, until I had closer look at the shallow rants of all the socks of Sairg, and got a picture of the dimension of their disruptive and biased POV-pushing. So after all, it serves all of us better if you embolden yourself to take the step to ANI/SPI as soon as you're sure about the issue of socking or disruption.

That page you mention was meant as a satire and never intended (lazy me!) to go beyond the title, but actually it adresses a serious problem. Many amateur websites, blogs and forums propagate a simplistic "conflationist" picture of genetics, ethnicity, archeology and paleo-linguistics, and quite a number of editors (with or without account) are influenced by this worldview and try to push it into WP. In the worst case, these people also believe in obsolete racial concepts. Complexity sucks, so they talk about "Austroasiatic race", "Indo-European, Afroasiatic, Uralic etc. Y-haplogroups" (as if fathers were the ones who talk most with their children!) and if they're male white westerners, they flock around Race and Intelligence to defend the "superiority" of their kin.

Don't get me wrong, nothing is more exciting than interdisciplinary anthropology; it is the very mismatches between genetics, archeology and paleo-linguistics that tell us the real story of our multidimensional history. But in the "wrong hands", dumbed-down genetics etc. create a very divisive and potentially toxic worldview. –Austronesier (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is awesome that you are intervening in some of the articles I am interested in. Could you also keep a watch on Kamakhya Temple. It is a rather complex phenomenon and I have a hunch you will love it. Chaipau (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: This is somewhat off my usual editing range, and I don't see major disruptions in the page history. But I can see what you mean. When there is historical layering in a region, it is visible in all realms of human expression. Btw, what strikes me in Urban's description is the nonchalance by which he mentions Khasis and Garos in one breath. I can imagine that for POV-pushers with a ST background, this might be a red rag (among other things). –Austronesier (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Look at Kamakhya and Mahavidya histories. But I get it this isn't in your interest. Chaipau (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Zorc collection

Hi Austronesier, here is a big treasure trove to go through: [37] — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 12:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sagotreespirit: Yeah, it'a great, this one[38] too. –Austronesier (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dorset Dialect

Thanks for your contributions to the Dorset Dialect article but can you add a full reference, please? Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps: My dumb, the source is right there[39], but for some inexplicable reason, I have cited Burton as "Turner" in the following edits. Thanks for pointing it out! –Austronesier (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I'm quite the expert on silly mistakes myself. :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Funny" racialist maps being pushed

For some weeks, three maps claiming to show the distribution of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid populations according to recent genetic studies are being pushed into various Wikipedias. Unfortunately, it is not a problem of any Wiki where I feel at home (German or English), so I'm a bit at a loss what to do. Since you recently made me aware of that "Race and intelligence" deletion discussion, maybe you have an idea. I already deleted those maps from some Wikis where I know at least some scraps of the language (like French) and got an administrator of the simple English Wiki to start a deletion request at Commons. A fourth map (obviously based on the Mongoloid file of the three) recently showed up, for which I started the deletion request. I have a bad feeling about both deletion discussions, which are here: The three original files, the more recent file. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Looks like it will be hard to enforce WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to Commons (especially if two studies talk about the same regional clusters using the same terminology), so we can only apply that when the files are used in WP. However, translating the terminology of regional clusters into obsolete racial concepts is not acceptable. Also the conflation of two different regional clusters in one map based on the identification of these with a single historical racial concept. But I simply don't know enough about the Commons policies how to push through with this.

@Grayfell: You might be interested in this too. Ideas how to proceed in Commons? Commons looks like a handy backdoor for Coon-ist and other racialist POVs. –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I am indeed interested in this. I'm not sure what to do either, but it really looks fishy. Since I've seen similar problems before, I have asked for some advice at meta: Meta:Help Forum#How to handle cross-wiki disruption. Some of these images were added to articles by User:213.162.72.186 (a mobile IP from Vienna) who is in a range that was blocked from En-Wiki by User:Berean Hunter in March. I will keep an eye on it, and please let me know if this lands somewhere else. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. @Grayfell: Your comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VivekAdivasi is a great analysis of the problems. BTW: Just yesterday, there was a new move to remove the word "Rasse" (race, but with a stronger biological connotation) from the German constitution which seems to have good chances to succeed - so maybe it's easier to remove racialism from a constitution than from WP. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Chapeau, your deletion request has triggered that one of the worst and unstoppable long-time abusers with a sick world view has got smoked out on Commons (check the latest events there, if you haven't seen them already). And thanks to Grayfell from me too. –Austronesier (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement and for passing on the information to the right person. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu

A user has made some controversial edits to the Indo-Iranian languages ‎and Indo-Aryan languages articles removing any reference to Hindustani language citing WP:COMMONNAME (which is clearly an incorrect guideline to cite) and the term as historical, while presenting the languages as completely separate languages in the articles. I believe that this has been discussed to death already with a consensus that Hindustani is a language with separate registers. I believe you are familiar/participated in the debate, so please see if you can deal with the problematic edits in the above articles. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Thank you, these edits indeed have escaped my attention. The discussion about the best name for the language (Hindustani vs. Hindu–Urdu) is dormant, but not over. For the time being both terms are fine here. In the current case, I will assure that the target remains the single article Hindustani language. –Austronesier (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The user has again repeated his contentious edits, removing any mention that the languages are considered one on the Indo-Aryan languages article. Please look into it, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

West Eurasians

Wikipedia life was so easy before I became involved with those race-related articles ! On June 22, someone created West Eurasians, which seems to me a Wiedergänger of the Caucasoid race. Since you have a sharper eye in those matters, I'd like to hear your opinion. I already gave mine on the talk page and also asked Doug Weller (talk · contribs) at his talk page. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: The page is well-made in the sense as to lull editors who just have a passing superficial look at it into believing it's well-sourced and sound. There are good sources, and the Reich team indeed does use the term West Eurasians, but not quite in the sense the page West Eurasians suggests. To me it looks like a cherry-picked synthesis of respectable research to prove a point, viz. that the Caucasoid race really exists. Simple as that. Unfortunately, I am not as well-read in archeogenetics as I am in linguistics, so it will take me some time to read all the sources in order to deconstruct the page. But one thing is immediately clear: the Reich team does not use the term "Caucasoid", and I doubt that any other of the sources in the page does, so the second sentence in the lead is deletable as unsourced OR. –Austronesier (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That was really helpful. I just removed a lot of unsourced content from the article - let's see what happens. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: There's a lot going on in the page, especially from IP editors. Be careful about 195.123.239.24, that might be an editor trying to evade their block for disruptive editing and edit warring. –Austronesier (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The article was really lousy - its creator didn't even care to give the long forms of sfn-references he copied from other articles. May it rest in peace, together with the Mississippi flag. BTW: Hope you don't mind if I keep your talk page on my watchlist. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

These correlations are so meaningful they touch my soul

Thought you might find this amusing/interesting [40]. --Calthinus (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Yeah, Everett's paper is epic, I've read it before, but I haven't seen Roberts & Winters (2013) yet. I love "Acacia trees ←→ Linguistic tone". It's rare to find good sources which debunk bunk, because most scholars don't even bother. That's one of the problem with fringe: sometimes, respectable scholars publish a bold hypothesis about an esoteric topic in a peer-reviewed journal. But then, the proposal is largely ignored for its outlandishness, and the author may even silently abandon it. So we have a RS for the fringe proposal, but no RS for its refutation...

Btw, less funny, but just as interesting: what do you think about the page mentioned in the section above (West Eurasian). Rsk6400 already has done much of what is necessary, but we all should have an eye on it. –Austronesier (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, boy. I'll take a look. --Calthinus (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A mention of Everett's claim was added on Ejective consonant only a little over a year ago, with little contextualization. I just slapped together a sentence based on the three sources quoted by Wood. I tried to find non–self-published sources but to no avail (except Pereltsvaig & Lewis 2015:5, who direct to the web article; Roberts & Winters don't directly mention Everett), most likely for the reason you point out. Augment the sentence/sourcing there if you could and are so inclined.

Meanwhile, the claim from last year that labiodentals developed after evolutionary changes in human anatomy, in turn caused by changes in diet,[41] is only mentioned in the further reading on Labiodental consonant. It seemed much better founded despite being the kind of argument linguists typically rush to dismiss (with some recognizable co-authors). I'd appreciate it if any of you could summarize this one, too, in the article. Nardog (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Another way to tackle one-time fringe proposals would be to the delete the info per WP:UNDUE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I did so e.g. with the claim of human island dwarfism on Palau, which luckily was dismissed in a RS with the beautiful title Small Scattered Fragments Do Not a Dwarf Make; or a cringeworthy proposal linking Basque to Dogon. So I am actually more inclined to do the same thing in Ejective consonant. I still have that page on my to-do-list because I want to add some information from Fallon's The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives about the diachronic perspective on ejectives.

The labiodental paper has trustworthy names on it, but I'd rather wait for the result of the ongoing discussion[42][43] and more reactions from other scholars. –Austronesier (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I feel like each claim has received enough publicity to the point that people are going to look it up on Wikipedia (and write about it if they don't find it), so I think it's beneficial to contextualize it using decent sources. It might be better relegated to the bottom of the article or what have you though. Nardog (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: "and write about it if they don't find it": I have to admit, that's an even better point, especially if these proposals have some lasting public impact. So one of the rationales would be pre-emptive inclusion in the right spot and perspective. I'll think about what to insert in labiodental consonant and what to add in ejective consonant. –Austronesier (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ooh Saad

Doug Weller talk 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks! And it doesn't really come as a surprise to me. Trolls multiply by budding... –Austronesier (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Blendman toes

I've started work on blends, to be dumped into the article that's now oddly titled "blend word" -- a term that I've found is used by linguists, but only rarely. I think it should instead be "blend (word)", or "blend (linguistics)", or "blend (language)" -- but not "blend (morphology)", as discussing this possibility could easily head into a discussion of whether it's really morphology at all, or indeed into one about what morphology is. (It's all so a-morphous. Arguably.) I'm surprised to discover that philologists have been fascinated by the subject for well over a century; perhaps this merely shows my ignorance of philology. Anyway, as usual when I attempt anything ambitious in WP, I'm first working on this on my hard drive. I'm going to be pretty busy over the next few days but hope to start improving the published article within one week. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Yes, it seems that Hockett coined his technical term on an older tradition of common usage in popular and non-popular philology. Btw, I want to retract from the idea to move Portmanteau to Portmanteau morph(eme) or something, just looking at how many pages link to Portmanteau, since 99% of these are about the meaning "blend". Maybe, the better solution is to create a new page Portmanteau morph (if there is really much to say about it—still browsing the lit), and turn Portmanteau into a redirect to Blend word (or whatever will be a better page title for it), and add a hatnote to Blend word "Portmanteau redirects here, for other uses see Portmanteau (disambiguation)". Btw, here's a nice source about portblendtoes[44]. –Austronesier (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection from me about the matter of article naming. Even if we only look at material written by linguists (and not mere "language experts") in the last half century, we see quite some disagreement over what's referred to by blend (as well of course as over the processes of blend-coining, etc). Still, there does seem to be agreement that what we might call prototypical examples are examples. Now, portmanteau is used by some linguists for all of these, and by others for only certain kind(s) -- and by most not at all. This business of definitions is going to need some care. ¶ That PhD thesis is an unpublished PhD thesis, and therefore better not cited; however, its author has published at least one (of course cite-worthy) paper, and as is usual for PhD theses hers has a bibliography that alerts the skimreader (me) to the existence of somewhat obscure sources. ¶ I've now amassed all the sources I need, and more, or anyway for blends in English. I'm too busy/lazy/incompetent to read sources other than in English, and so far I've found little in English that's about languages other than English, or even that's purportedly about language in general and doesn't turn out to be blinkeredly concerned with English. However, I'm not looking -- I have enough on my plate as it is. -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A strange little discussion about the genitive currently taking place reminds me that I have more important work to do. Actually I am doing it, sporadically. Don't hold your breath, but also don't give up. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

First stage. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Meh, don't tell me that's your company page on Youtube... I've been busy with extra-WP writing these days, and took up again expanding Erzya language, so I kinda forgot about blortmendoughs (it's a myth that we [1pl.excl] Austronesians are good in keeping things in focus). The first stage looks good! I'm pleased to see that the unexplained syllable counts are gone. Btw, I want to add a bit about Kofferwörter in German from this source. The non-English examples are now distributed in "Bleding of two roots" and "Use". What do you think about sections like "Blends in English" and "Blends in other languages"?

And about your Help desk discussion: IMHO "our company page" does sound appropriating, even when other readings are technically possible. But then, I'm a not a native speaker, and there are subtle differences among languages with regards to the usage subjective genitives and objective genitives. And wouldn't your arguments better apply to [[our company]'s page] than to [our [company page]]? Just a thought. –Austronesier (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes -- I'd assumed that "our company page" was an L2 English slip or L1 English typo/brainfart for "our company's page", but I could have been wrong. If I was, then [our [company page]] would be the right interpretation; and yes, this does sound proprietary. Feel free to add material about German or indeed Erzya. Feel free to reorganize the article as you wish. I'm just wary of the material about Hebrew (just as I'd be if it were about Arabic or Amharic): I mean, the notion of templatic roots blending seems to require my my mind should contemplate an additional dimension. "Template smoke. Don't breathe this!", as the Blendtec man might say. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sino-Tibetan morphology

Hi Austronesier -- firstly, my apologies for my absence from archaeo-genetics topics -- I have not found the time to become well-read on the matter enough to be helpful yet, I think. I was interested in your thoughts about WP:DUE with regard to this section. Most of it seems to discuss what was believed about Sino-Tibetan historical morphology over a hundred years ago, rather than the current understanding within the field, but as it is still an(other) area I have yet to get totally up to speed on, I hesitated with fixing it and thought your take could be useful. Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I looks like somebody started with a nice historical introductory note, but never proceeded to write the main part of the section. The typological range between isolating branches (e.g. Sintic languages), and the morphologically "richer" branches of Sino-Tibetan deserves due mention, but there is much more to ST morphology (like the s-prefix and initial voicing). So we could leave the current text, but should expand the section (one more for the to-do list lol). The LaPolla reference is a perfect source for that purpose (his POV about subgrouping dosn't matter here). The original text of the first edition (2003) is available on LaPolla's Academia page[45], I also have a copy of the full volume (1st ed). –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I'll look throuugh LaPolla. --Calthinus (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: PS, I just remember there is this paper which can help to have some balance so we don't lean to much on LaPolla. –Austronesier (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I am somewhat busy focusing on real life projects (as my low edit volume might suggest) at the moment, but I will try to get to this before October. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Hey, that initial "before the new year" made me laugh. I wish you always stay on focus with RL-projects, but it's always cool to see you around. Maybe I'll start with ST morphology when I am not too busy IRL (including some writing for RS's). Have a good one! –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Added some stuff on syntax.--Calthinus (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Great! This should give me an incentive to add something about person agreement, a topic hotly debated between LaPolla and DeLancey, and which happens to be my pet topic (+alignment) in general typology. –Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Urdu

Hi, not sure why you cannot see that, if Joshua Project is unreliable per community consensus, then the entire table is a waste and needs to be started from scratch. Nor why you didn't trust my statement that JP is indeed unreliable. It is blindingly obvious even without an RSN discussion - just read their website or look at our article about them. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: You assume a lot. I am equally not sure why. I know that JP is not a reliable source. I regularly remove content solely sourced on JP with the explicit and unambiguous edit summary "Joshua Project is not reliable source"[46]. If contested, it's easy for me to explain why, without relying on blue-sky arguments ("obvious...", "just look at..." etc.). The assumption that I "didn't trust [your] statement that JP is indeed unreliable" is wrong. I just wanted to know (and actually expect this from a constructive edit summary), which other sources might likewise be considered unreliable. Not for myself, but for any other good faith editor who wants to restore the table based on valid sources, without having to grope in the dark whether the CIA Factbook or Ethnologue might also have been contested (in RSN or elsewhere) as RS. See, an uninformed good faith editor might even believe you're talking about the CIA Factbook, and restore the table based on Joshua Project data... You should consider this, too, especially when editing a page that falls under WP:AC/DS. –Austronesier (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to check my edit history. I am well aware of the sanctions regime and I am renowned for giving edit summaries that mean something. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: "You need to check my edit history." I have done so before I undid your edit to Urdu. @Jeppiz: FYI :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Ixil phonology section

Hello Austronesier, And thank you for your correction on the K'iche' language page regarding the phonology section. I have also been taking a look at the phonology section of the Ixil language. I am currently looking at the vowel section, and as I can see, it is a bit different but not sourced, and I also am not 100% sure for the most part if the consonant section is correct either. Do you have any available sources for the phonology of the Ixil language? I have looked at Thompson (1991), which explains the phonology, but does not give a clear and simple explanation of it. Where are better sources that explain the phonology of Ixil? Fdom5997 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: Thank you for bringing the page to my attention! The vowels (inserted by an IP in 2012) look utterly nonsensical. I have just listened to Ixil NT recordings from three dialects, the vowels sound pretty much like cardinal vowels. Ayres (1991), La Gramática Ixil in the external links is a perfect source (cf. page 7). It uses IPA, except for the hissing/hushing sounds, which are however well described for the Nebaj and Chajul dialects, so it's easy to find the apt IPA symbols. –Austronesier (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Pashto

Dear User:Austronesier, I hope this message finds you doing well. I noticed that you removed a column from the table that I worked on today. If you take a look at the source used in the "Vocabulary" section, it states that "Pashto has borrowed largely from Persian and Hindustani, and through those languages from Arabic." I trust that you can now see why it was relevant. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupam: If you can supply Pashto vocabulary that specifically derives from Hindi–Urdu, you may well add it to the table, ideally spelled in the way it is spelled in Pashto (i.e. using Perso-Arabic script).

I'll look into it, although I should inform you that Hindi-Urdu and Pashto use different scripts; Hindi-Urdu uses Devanagari and Nastaleeq while Pashto uses Naskh. If I add a Hindi-Urdu column, those scripts will be included. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupam: Nasta'līq and Naskh are styles, the script is the same. My text editor converts them one-to-one (although typeset Nasta'līq is more nas(kh) than ta'līq), the same way it converts Garamond into Mistral. When I read my grandparents' books in Fraktur, it's still the same Latin script as I use now. –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are different styles that are based on the same script though Urdu and Pashto possess some different characters as well as different sounds too. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Urdudaan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urdudaan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18#Urdudaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I have cited WP:CHEAP in the discussion, but when invited, I gladly assist with my thumbs-down :) –Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

sigh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamengkubuwono_II sigh... JarrahTree 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I took care of all recent addtions, not just the silsilah. –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - there is also a problem where quite valid material is added in some articles where the refs are all in Indonesian, and the lack of links to existing items leave me totally distracted, my lack of having good english sources to hand is bothering, my academic library was playing silly the other week and restricting access... JarrahTree 10:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I know it's utterly silly and childish, but can you assist me once in a while in Ayam goreng and Ikan goreng? I feel like a lone traffic officer on a Bobby Car playground. –Austronesier (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have developed an aversion to the incessant to and fro and the circular lose lose manner of it all... nothing childish - it's all a case of where protection and proscribed sanctions have to be gained in time. I think of some possible not very nice words in arabic, and russian, which might reflect what I feel about the disaster areas of wikipedia, but I am not fluent in either language beyond a very few words. Maybe, kalau mencari kata kata that are adequate to express the frustration, maybe I will remind myself of the crossing Malioboro during rush hour.

I would be much more autobiographical in ruminating about the issues, but decided seeing the old fish owl this place is, too much is known anyways... JarrahTree 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: If not childish then asinine. I have no other word for the fallacy of Indonesian and Malaysian editors that just because nasi goreng has made it into an identifiable and notable dish distinct from generic fried rice, ikan goreng, ikan bakar, ayam goreng also must be "dishes" in their own right. I don't have to put much effort to remember all the apt words that I have picked up in UPG... –Austronesier (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

sigh - your thoughts ? Hamengkubuwono IV trying but not yet? so much WP:OR and obvious copy from dubious website sources... do you think ? JarrahTree 08:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: The sources range from nice, but unverifiable, to acceptable. I think the weakest part is the genealogy, which we should delete based on WP:V and WP:DUE. –Austronesier (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the scope of Latin Americans in Asia from just the Philippines to also Indonesia especially the Moluccas.

As developments in the talk page point to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#Latin_American_settlers It turns out that the Moluccas in Indonesia has received thousands of Mexican and Filipino recruits who were stationed there and some deserted and mixed with the native population. https://i.imgur.com/rSBr4Xb.png Source: https://academic.oup.com/past/article/232/1/87/1752419. There were even Indonesian-Moluccans who ended up accused before the Mexican Inquisition due to having Mexican fathers. https://www.academia.edu/20365981/Transpacific_Mestizo_Religion_and_Caste_in_the_Worlds_of_a_Moluccan_Prisoner_of_the_Mexican_Inquisition How do we incorporate these texts into the Indonesia Wiki project? I think the Moluccas is a very racially diverse place, with Papuans, Melanesians, Austronesians and even Latin Americans having intersected histories there. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Rotuman

Hey Austronesier,

Cleaning up articles with curly quotes in them, and wondering whether Rotuman uses apostrophes for contractions, or if they're all glottal stop. E.g. in the island Hạf'liua. I expect CC sequences in Rotuman, and so assumed that in Itu'ti'u, Itu'muta, Noa'tau they're glottal stops, but three C's w glottal stop in the middle? That seems a bit odd. Since Rotuman uses the 'okina for glottal stop, I'm wondering which of these to fix.

— kwami (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@kwami: Hạf'liua is a spurious spelling, Churchward spells it Hạfliua, check p. 115 here. Rotuman has no CCC clusters, maximally CC from metathesis of -CV+C- to -(V)C+C-, like Ituʻtiʻu, Ituʻmuta from ituʻu + tiʻu/muta. AFAICS, apostrophes are not used in Rotuman, contracted vowels are spelled as one vowel, without any indicator that something has been "shortened". And all texts in Rotuman use 'okina for the glottal. –Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My Jstor account doesn't give me access to that, unfortunately, so I can't check for other names. Besides the three you mentioned, I changed Noaʻtau. — kwami (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Bugisnese, alternative spelling of Buginese

Why you reverted my edit about Bugisnese, pal? You can see alternative spelling of Bugisnese in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (OHCHR), and several websites in Google Search Engine (Bugisnese). Ivan Humphrey (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ivan Humphrey: I've answered in Talk:Buginese language. –Austronesier (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping

The discussion on Krakkos's talk page has been archived but I have read it all. A good part of the targeted articles are already on my watchlist. Thank you for letting me know. Puduḫepa 09:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Even though we agreed to disagree on certain concepts and had tiresome discussions in the past, I have always appreciated your honesty and effort to make WP a better place. Puduḫepa 10:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: Thank you! –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Altaic / Transeurasian

Why did you revert my edit ? My goal is not to create a war edition, I just added a sentence which is better to illustrate the current situation in the scientific community. Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onche de Bougnadée: One researcher does not represent the "scientific community". Martine Robbeets is a notable linguist, and it is great that she continues to defend her hypothesis in new publications. But adding cherry-picked reviews (why do you omit Georg's review?) does not alter the fact that the final verdict is still out. I suggest to engage in a visible discussion in the talk page of Altaic languages. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: You are right about Martine Robbeets and Georg's review, but the acceptation of the theory is not limited to Martine Robbeets. And →"Although this theory has long been rejected by most comparative linguists, it is better accepted nowadays." is different from →"Although this theory has long been rejected by most comparative linguists, it is very accepted nowadays." or → "Although this theory has long been rejected by most comparative linguists, it is totally accepted nowadays.". I am not claiming that there is a scientific consensus and I agree with that. Onche de Bougnadée (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onche de Bougnadée: I'll copy this to Talk:Altaic languages for the benefit of all editors interested in this topic. –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

india people and mizoram august 2020

Sir plz read my reply and reply me on my talk page. So first of all that mizoram thing .i was just practising and looking at the outcome of my semi edits (didnt thought this will happen) with no bad intension . i know theres many people already out there whos mischievious works makes u tired so am not one of em I dont wanna write that long so and its already night at our part of planet earth zzzz plz read my reply and answer me on my talk page . Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

One last thing sir i really wanna follow rules but am such a dumb and slow mi Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

U can see i didnt sign above cause i dont know how to .thats it

Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I remembered and saw one thing . On the indian people talk i mentioned if i am wrong (AM NOT SAYING i was totally wrong , will see about that) i will put it down and remove it . U could have say something on the talk pages first . (anyway no problem , cause every person is different) Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Puipuianunuibuangpuia1: Just don't add content without sources. If you want to sign, just type ~~~~. –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Then what about the india article mizo is mentioned there but not in the indian people article .plz look for yourself and read my reply on my talk page. i just put a word which was missing in an article while present and mentioned as the eight scheduled languages in the india article .see it for yourself and can u tell me, how to get and put and where to put sources for our edits.

Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that(sigh) Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)".

Sir plz if not busy plz Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Read this .Sir i have decided() Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir i have decided(not a promise😎)that i for a while now , will not do editing stuff before knowing enough wiki policy and... and before becoming a good editor etc but will look for errors on articles. sir theres an article named chothe naga which has only three references , out of which only one works and even the only working one doesnt mention it as chothe naga but only chothe . Sir i think u must see and take some action. Thankyou✋ Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Puipuianunuibuangpuia1: I am indeed quite busy, sorry that I haven't responded to all your questions before. As for the status as a scheduled languages, well, there is a proposal to include Mizo in the eighth schedule, but from all I have read, it looks like an half-hearted BJP election promise that hasn't taken shape yet.

Looking for errors or unverified claims in articles is very important, so it is good that you point out these things whenever you see them. Take it slow, and don't feel discouraged by our rather strict reaction to your passionate, but not quite rule-conform editing at the beginning. And sure, I will have look at Chothe Naga. –Austronesier (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank youuuu very much😄 Puipuianunuibuangpuia1 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kurds and Medes

Ain't misbehavin' the that proffessor

Under the sub-title you people put some scholars' views about Medes. For example the passage "Gernot Windfuhr, professor of Iranian Studies, identified the Kurdish languages as Parthian, albeit with a Median substratum." You accepted it as an encyclopedic information, right? And, I wonder why you guys omitting the very same professor's claim "The majority of those who now speak Kurdish most likely were formerly speakers of Median dialects.” [Gernot Windfuhr (1938- ). Source: “Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes”, Monumentum H.S. Nyberg II (Acta Iranica-5), Leiden: 457–471.] as an encyclopedic information? So, who is considering a content's encyclopedic value? Isn't it misbehave the that proffessor? If you give me a reasonable reason I will respect you else, I have a few words to you. Key Mîrza (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC) @Key Mîrza: For the benefit of other editors, please take this to the talk page of Origin of the Kurds. Note that I have said the list is unencyclopedic (it looks like an unfinished draft, but not like something to be added in a coherently written text), not necessarily its content. Btw, what is the meaning of "Isn't it misbehave the that proffessor"? –Austronesier (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC) You know this is another topic. Why you bend it with my previous texts? Before your question, let me remember you that there was one earlier question asked? Can you answer my very first question Boss? Are you taking scholars' opinions electrically as per your desire? What are your criteria? Key Mîrza (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC) It is very easy to put this sentence next to his above said sentence that will not lead misbehave to the Professor Gernot Windfuhr's views. Key Mîrza (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Sorry, please take the word "electrically" as "eclectically" Key Mîrza (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Are you taking scholars' opinions eclectically as per your desire, or as some other people's desire? What are your criteria? Boss the whole "Sub-title" is problematic. Just look the last sentence: "Garnik Asatrian stated that ... the relationship between Kurdish and Median is not closer than the affinities between the latter and other North Western dialects – Baluchi, Talishi, South Caspian, Zaza, Gurani, etc." Actually as you mentioned in Wikipedia under the same titles "Zaza" and "Gurani" that they are of Kurdish origin. And even Baloch people have a strong historical connection with Kurds. Today and historically. Just google it. Also, Akhund Salih 17th Baloch historian state that Kurds and Baloch are from same roots in his book "Kurd gal namak". The question is how you can put such a useless sentence in Wikipedia encyclopedia? How these two Kurdish tribes can be listed in against Kurds in general? Garnik Asatrian is a political guy working for benefit of Persians' and Armenians. He know nothing. Key Mîrza (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks my man. When are you going to write this? Eagerly waiting.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yeah, that's a top one on my non-existent to-do list. Initially I meant it as a tongue-in-cheek joke, but actually I am quite serious about the statement, and already have a few good sources. Maybe I'll turn it into a collection of quotes ... –Austronesier (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a serious topic. While in-depth knowledge of languages and genetics makes one embrace all, but a lot of times supremacists, nativists, separatist use these to further their own agenda. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Absolutely. There is a lot of valuable research that tries to find and measure the correlations between languages, genetics and archaeology, but in the wrong hands and without proper understanding of the scientific context, results from this research can be abused for all kinds of bogus claims, sometimes just on silly amateur blogs without an agenda, but very often also by such toxic groups that you have mentioned. –Austronesier (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I used trawl a lot of genetics related forums and blogs. In major forums like Anthrogenica, people are level headed, but in some blogs and anthro sites, you'll find all these kind of people. I've seen some north and south euros hurling comments based on their respective east Asian and African admixtures. Some south Asians with higher "steppe levels" get too happy about it and display inappropriately in the internets, likewise those with high "SAHG" levels have that "nativist, we are first, get out of here outsiders" attitude. I mean what the hell. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I try to avoid places densely populated by dumb people, IRL and online. Some sites are good as long as you skip the comment sections, but we can't the blame the good-faith makers for the trash section of their consumers (just like with TV shows, sigh). –Austronesier (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Eh, completely unrelated to this, but what's your take on this one? –Austronesier (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As you know, this infobox should only mention "official" and "recognized" minority languages. I believe there is no room for "honorary languages". Some body added this to support the Sierra Leone entry. Is it still "official" tehre? If not, we should remove it. The Chicago thing that the user added looks like POV, IMO. According to it "The Bengali language has been included in the offices and courts of a large area in the vicinity". I'm removing that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you need to have a look at this. Recent additions looks unreliably sourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: It's on my watchlist...*sigh* Yes, much of that uses weak/non-RS sourced. But it is certainly useful information about things going on in that community and not arbitrary POV-stuff, so I won't resort to deletionism. Maybe just pick out the better sources to be kept. Btw my request for sources about the script has been ignored so far. Arimaboss understands quite well that Caribbean Hindustani is Bhojpuri/Awadhi-derived, so the thing about scripts is not WP:BLUESKY. –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that most of their edits are good, but I came across many that reeks of POV and are unsourced in the past two years. That's why I thought of asking you . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes I also have seen much of it. POV, and often also CIR...I remember the Nepal-related edits based on a misreading of Article 6 in the Constitution. –Austronesier (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah CIR, I remember that person failing to understand the common name issue in the Allahabad, Faizabad and other similar articles since like more than a year. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this this newly added section needed in the language article. It seems it talks about the region and people more than the etymology of the term. Also looks like some of the lines are unsourced. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Actually it is in princple nice to have that information there. It gives background of how the name Bhojpur emerged, first as name of a city, then a region, then serving as base for the adjective Bhojpuri to refer to the local language. Then it switches to how the language is alternatively called in other parts of the world. The idea itself is not bad. But the whole thing is just terribly written and undersourced. And maybe, it would be better if we could move the etymology of Bhojpur (but of course only with full sources) somewhere else, but where? Neither Bhojpur district nor Bhojpuri region have a etymology section of their own. –Austronesier (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Some POV right? That guy wants to remove one language that is geographically closer, but keeps the those that have a native region further away. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Maybe they feel "threatened" by the fact that Bengali can claim with equal validity to be a descendant of Magadhi as all other Magadhan languages. What do you think about the huge chunk of unsourced and even untransliterated "examples" in that article? Small wordlists with transliterations usually don't hurt, but Magahi language#Spoken trends contains so much additional unsourced explanations, that I am inclined to TNT the whole thing. –Austronesier (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Old LTA Burbak had that tendency, had problems with edits that had anything to do with surrounding populations. As for the section, you can TNT the section. It is unsourced after all. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll add another tag first to the sub-subsection, and wait for a few weeks. Let's be nice. Another thing: does this[47] remind you of WP:ROPE? That editor is unstoppable. –Austronesier (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Who would have guessed this[48]? :) –Austronesier (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be on a mission now :) - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Can't understand what is written here (square blocks for me). Likely in Meitei Mayek. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen this, continuation of this slow burn edit war/POV push. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ironic considering they added the line a year ago. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: How bizarre, how bizarre! LOL. Next time I'll handle it if I'm quick enough. –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, please. Thanks for this gem of a song . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you crossed paths with this user in the past, I'm not restoring the year, since the other additions by them might be POV. Please check it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Chaipau has already handled it in the only possible way: with a complete rv of unsourced changes. Not sure if it's POV, but it's for sure a lazy one. –Austronesier (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Does this[49] make any sense? It looks like a slightly modified clone of Old Hindi. –Austronesier (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, also wondering whether this is our Sami guy! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Now that you say it: obsession with Urdu, first edit was a new category (!), edit warring. Smells like sock spirit... –Austronesier (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Opened an SPI. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: And blocked. This time it went at speed of light. –Austronesier (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Within an hour. Nice - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: That's tough POV in Urdu and Hindi–Urdu controversy. What do you think about it? –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This one is totally undue. Some of the edits of this user seems problematic, in pages that I patrol. When they added this one, I wasn't sure what to do. You did the right thing IMO. This needs to be discussed in the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Saw this? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: ANI or ask Bish for help? –Austronesier (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Shall I restore this? Sumanuil removed that without any explanation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: It is unsourced and quite promotional in style, but some of the content can be salvaged by using the only working source[50] in the main article. –Austronesier (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was on the verge of restoring that much only when you thanked my edit, so I thought it would be better to consult with you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

TPS-alert: That page is becoming quite promotional. Chaipau (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: We have had worse. Promotion for local festivals are arguably less damaging than political agitation[51]. –Austronesier (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you or Chaipau can revert that vandal's edit at BTR. Got them blocked for 1.5 days. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Political propaganda/agitation is rampant in Wikipedia. It is free publicity, of course. Nevertheless, I tried to smoothout the introduction to the history section. Chaipau (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Who is this guy? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: It's Kung Hibbe. I know that guy from Turkic languages and other articles. Check out the weird unblock discussion, especially the bizarre "fixes" to links in admin replies. Borders on a medical condition. Btw, in the Swedish WP, they can still freely do their antics[52], while Dutch admins slowly are waking up[53]. –Austronesier (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes... looks like OCD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: How dumb must I be to engange in a discussion in Talk:Hindustani language#Developed vs. reinforced with an editor whose first edit was to create a new category?[54] This time, it is him. And Happy New Year to you too! –Austronesier (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like it is him. Did you report? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is regarding these changes [55], [56], [57], [58]. Pinging Chaipau. I thought it is better to notify you guys about this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I have seen them earlier and am actually fine with them. Don't wanna try mind-reading, but I guess Chaipau dito. The flat tree idea and the rejection to include the mid-level clades KRNB came from other editors. –Austronesier (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Add: I just noticed from these edits[59][60] that the editor is uninformed about the distinction between sociolinguistic and genealogical classification. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier and Fylindfotberserk: yes, I saw the edits on KRNB and would like to keep an open mind for now—uninformed, but probably not entirely new [61] (why me?) I wonder whether this is the time to finally implement what you had suggested here: here. (Also, I got just one letter wrong this time while trying to spell Fylindfotberserk from memory!) Chaipau (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Chaipau . As for the user, it is possible they had an older ID here. I saw that comment on your t/p. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the KRNB lects from the classification tree, because it goes by the name of "Kamta" in Glottolog. I wonder whether we need to move it to Kamta languages (kamt1242). I have not been able to locate any proper article/book on "Kamta language" (kamt1243) to create an independent article (currently it redirects to Rangpuri language). This is interesting because the standardization efforts are around kamt1243. Chaipau (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether we are dealing with a sock [62] [63]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: It's still half a duck. The major point of contention of previous editors was "Indo-Aryan", in the current case, they never mention it in the discussion. Dunno. –Austronesier (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Actually I stopped myself from filing an SPI, after I saw the 'Scythian' POV push in other diffs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have found a nice way to add their POV. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Is this even a POV, or maybe just CIR...? Like: "Don't call Swiss a landlocked country! It's a country!" Their edit is pointless but not wrong. –Austronesier (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's see if somebody else wishes to challenge it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

August 2020

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback the additions I made were for the reason as it's ambiguous. There are many communities who have learnt Pashto and now even claim to be Pashtuns. Therefore, I consider it important that such clarification is made that one who has adopted that culture but belongs to Sarbanris, Karlanris, Bettanis or Ghorghustis Confederates of Pashtuns.

Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Azmarai76: Thank you, if the information is significant, we all the more need sources that it back up. Your edit modified sourced content, which made it look as if the content you had added is also found in the reference by Beebe Bahrami. This is something you should by all means avoid. –Austronesier (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Judgement

Austronesier: Do you think that Wikipedia can trust an editor who openly expresses his racism for a people group to write articles on them, their country, and their dialects?[64][65] [66][67][68][69] You be the judge, but this guy's behavior drove me off the Wikipedia. 2A00:23C5:E104:DA00:29FA:C784:C5A5:774F (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Look at this smear. If people ever had the balls to talk openly instead of backbiting... Anyway, I will answer in your presence:

Dear IP, no I can't see racism here: it's caustic sarcasm, not always in best taste. If I were him, I would probably try more to bite my tongue than he does, but that's hypothetical anyway and easy to say, because I don't expose myself to an edit range where one is so much exposed to bullshit that if Fowler did bite his tongue on every occasion, he quite surely wouldn't have a tongue left in a short time. It would be interersting of course if he can swallow the same kind of causticity when directed at him or at "his" group. If he can, he is a fair player, if not, he's a hypocrite. In good faith and not in a judgemental disposition (per policy Mt 7:1), I assume the former per default and from my own experience. Prove me wrong and the latter (i.e. being a hypocrite) true, and I wouldn't care less. I'm here to create and maintain quality content in a collegial atmosphere, aka build an encyclopedia. If I were out for chit-chat and drama, I'd sink to some other pit on the internet, instead of wasting time here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thank you very much. Excellent reply. This has been going on for a long time with the nationalists. That "Hindu garbage" is old hat, it was employed in reply to a now banned editor, Highpeaks35, who had appeared on the Talk:India page to bait me with images of clothing in which the word "Hindu" was gratuitously inserted.

At that time, we had a total of 71 images in the FA India, with many in the later sections in rotating templates, allowing the images to change day-to-day. You can view all images of the cultural/people section then in place on my user page: User:Fowler&fowler/Images_in_FA_India#Demographics_(rotating) onward. As you will see Hinduism is adequately represented (for a secular, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy). There is a picture there already of File:Hindu marriage ceremony offering.jpg showing the actual ritual of a Rajput Hindu wedding.

• Well, what was being proposed instead, and under, "clothing?" It is This set.

• It had one "Hindu wedding" with a bunch of fake Rajput "princes" (princely privileges were abolished in India in 1971 in the eloquent 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India) who are standing in front of a table. How do we know it is a wedding? We don't.
• There is a second "Hindu wedding" in which a bride and groom are playing at the Western custom of "exchanging rings." How many Indian couples exchange rings in Hindu wedding ceremonies? 0.000000000001% if that.
• And how many times is Bindi (decoration) mentioned there? Twice. If you click on that link you see "Hindu." All the other pictures are of Bollywood bimbos in sexy attire which less than 0.0000000001% of women in India wear.

• So, at some point I lost it. By "Hindu garbage," I meant " 'Hindu' garbage," the gratuitous use of "Hindu" everywhere, and immediately the would-be banned user took me to ANI where he miraculously escaped a boomerang.
• Since then the nationalists have been brandishing this link here there and everywhere. What they don't tell you is how the discussion devolved.

• Here it is: Talk:India/Archive_44#New_Images_-_Clothing. You see how Highpeaks35 received all Opposes and how quickly the bimbos disappeared and the fake princes too? What can I say, this is par for the course for me. It happened on Talk:India again a week or two ago. I'm sure the nationalists have a long list of my violations. Unfortunately, they don't know enough about India, don't know the sources. There is a reason that the India#Clothing section currently in place, prepared for the page's WP:TFA for Gandhi's 150th last October, is written by me. Not bragging, but just saying that there is a reality out there. We can't change it because nationalists in India want India to shine in their particular way. I could go on, but you have done a good job already. Best regards and thanks. You can collapse my reply if you'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for the background information. I will leave it uncollapsed. That's a "priviledge" I'd rather bestow to the #Kurds and Medes bully three sections further up. –Austronesier (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier: I'm not suggesting that "third-party" will mean exactly the same as it does in a history or archeology or politics page, but it is still possible to define a hierarchy of neutrality. As for what I think linguists do, you tell me. Look at all the Urdu-related pages. They've all had an infusion of linguists from the get-go. But look at the mess they are in. So, obviously, linguistics is not the issue, it has to be an ideology, and the ability, or the lack thereof, on part of editors to keep it out as much as it is possible. Third-party is just one such method. There are many ways to skin the neutrality cat, btw. For example, there is no reason to mention India or Pakistan in the lead paragraph, maybe not even until the last paragraph. The same with the origins, the registers, Hindustani, all can go in the last paragraph, preferably a short one. A reader is not really interested in that, only the disputants are. The first sentence could say, "... An Indo-Aryan language of South Asia, closely related to the Hindi language but written in a modified form of the Arabic script and having many loanwords from Persian and Arabic languages." (This is OED without northern, and Pakistan). I'm suggesting that a bold approach is needed. Counting usage in sources is not going to cut it as there will be inevitably different ways of counting in the instance of editors with opposing ideologies. A better way is to remove the belligerants (that word being used in a figurative or transferred sense), even if they occasionally support a POV that we like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Sorry, I'm on my way home, so just a short answer. Again, there is no truth in the matter. In contested topics, readers will be interested to be informed about controversy, because they will get the simple and simplistic (and above all, contradictory) answers everywhere else. A dictionary is not best guide for shaping encyclopedic content, it is a good starting point at best. The simplistic approach in most of Hindi-Urdu-related pages is gruesome. So as I said, the best sources are those which present an overview of hard facts and hard contrversies, and Masica was a master in that. But when it comes to usage, we must include a much wider range of sources, because common usage can only be found in broad survey. This is the only context where I personally tolerate poor and/or biased sources. –Austronesier (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

is a master. He's not gone yet, though not doing too well.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Stop being a "belligerant" yourself and we eventually might get somewhere. Cheers! –Austronesier (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: True. My default seems to have become sarcasm, though there was no sarcasm in my note about Masica above. I wish he were more active. The numbers of RfC's, Dispute resolutions, and whatnot I have conducted in the last 13 years is shocking. When I lose patience with the same people—which I should not—it is not as if I was always that way with them: See Talk:Sare_Jahan_se_Accha#Text,_Transliterations_and_Translation and several threads thereafter. In any case, I will make another effort, but please don't self-quarantine from Talk:Urdu. You're my only hope there and on the related pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Be patient, I still have to look for a facemask that protects me from contracting contagious toxicity and spreading it myself, and from the stench of chauvinism. Haven't found it yet. So I better keep following the advice of my inner doctor for a while. –Austronesier (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: With every brick of your ideology-laden stonewalling, you will drive off every competent linguist with a genuine interest in improving pages related to the two major languages of South Asia. I have lost every grain of interest and ambition there as long as I have to expose myself to that kind of rhetoric which I witness in these very minutes. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Please don't be patronizing. I'm an academic. I have taught graduate students at a few of the top 10 American schools during my working life. I know a number of linguists of South Asia, including some who have been dear friends for nearly three decades, among which is Nick Masica. Allow me to be blunt: the linguists of Wikipedia (and I don't mean you) that have thus far worked on the article, which is from the get-go, don't have a working knowledge of either Hindi or Urdu much beyond the first- or second-grade level. If you want I can send you the second jamaat primer used in Urdu-medium schools and you can test them in real-time. How will they be helping? We are talking about 13 years. This is not rocket science. As I've said before, I'm the major author of the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country FA. I know POV when I see it, and I know how to engage people reasonably. Witness my over 3,000 edits on Talk:India alone. I also know POV when it gets out of hand, or cultish, attempting to sustain longstanding cultural bias. I thought you were a breath of fresh air there. But it's your call. I have clearly lost my patience with no progress. It doesn't help that I know both Hindi and Urdu at a more advanced level than the major authors of the Urdu article, and I don't know either language that well. I have to suffer nonsense being thrown at me, not to mention random quotes from Masica of all people. How bizarre is that, especially when it comes from India-POV editors who cannot read nor write Urdu. How do you expect me to react? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler I can only repeat what I have said on several occasions, at the risk of sounding condescending. The objective low quality of many Hindu-Urdu related pages and the fact that they continuously attract POV-dumping is undeniable. What I strongly object to is your approach to tackle this problem. You say I bring fresh air to the topic, but of what use can it be when at the same time you resort to fogging? We do have competent editors who absolutely shun toxic working environments (e.g. Uanfala). Urdu is a page that is regularly attacked by a completely asinine LTA who believes that Awadhi is a dialect of Urdu. This is already a turn off for many. High-falutin' drama and antagonizing editors with unfounded accusations (e.g. against kwami pushing an "Indian" POV) won't make contributing to Urdu more rewarding.

As for the utterly bizarre definition of "third-party sources" to the exclusion of "authors from South Asia, even those in the west with recent a recent history of immigration", I will drop a short comment in Talk:Urdu about that, as well as about Anupam's downward citation cline that tries to appropriate the "linguistic perspective". –Austronesier (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I mentioned that you want to divide us Pakistanis and Indians to cause more hatred on the internet. Even when I saw you on Muhammad Iqbal article, you accused me, a Pakistani citizen, of being Indian and you did that with Afghan user Xerxes too.[70] I have been following your edits and everywhere you go you start fighting with people and make problems. And you keep typing and typing and typing so that no one can follow you and everyone else gives up until you get your way. I informed you earlier[71] not to make blanket prejudicial statement, but right after, you still made an uncivil attack, which sysop Valereee noted[72]. Your uncivil and prejudicial statements which you keep promoting from article after article is not acceptable. Sysop Graham Beards also informed you about your constant WP:OWN attitude.[73] and your above statement claiming to be the main author is an example of this poor behaviour. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As a South Asian, I do find these diffs the IP posted to be prejudicial:

1. If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths. Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion.[74]
2. We don't need papers in palaeogenomics to see that. We have only to look around to see the vast and brutal inequalities Hinduism has created in Indian society.[75]
3. During our visits to India, my family and I have very likely buried more stray dogs and cats, all either run over, or otherwise killed, by Ahimsa-loving Hindus, than the number of times editors here have uttered aloud the word Ahimsa. (Especially, cats (domesticated cats): have you wondered why their yowling is never heard in Hindu neighborhoods in India, except in the hills? That is because they are all shooed-away, or have rocks or sticks thrown at them, by superstition-loving Ahimsa-loving Hindus. You have to go to a Muslim neighborhood to see a cat.)[76]
4. Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to help them spiritually and British administrators to grant them economic and educational favors. But most Hindus chose to reassert their caste status or assert even higher caste status.[77]
5. What is all this Hindu garbage. The Hindus wore only draped clothes before the Muslim conquest of India.[78]

Sysop Graham Beards and Sysop Valereee, kindly inform this user to stop their poor behaviour of being uncivil, WP:OWN and promoting prejudice all over Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, sorry, I'm not even going to try to follow this. Much of it appears to be a series of (related? not sure) sidebars from other talkpage discussions. F&F is often caustic, I'll give you that, but other than 'hindu garbage', which F&F explained they meant as pseudo-Hindu garbage, these look like general critiques of religion, to me. Most of the same kinds of things could be said (and often are) by many critics of many religions. I think it would be a very good idea if F&F didn't try quite so hard to offend the people they want to work with, because that is counterproductive to working collaboratively, and I'm surprised this highly-educated person doesn't understand that, but maybe they just need more time to mature. At any rate, I don't see anything actionable here.

I will say, if you accused F&F of wanting to divide Pakistanis and Indians to cause more hatred on the Internet, as you say you have, that's actually a personal attack, and if you've said it twice now, as you indicate you have, I'd caution you to stop immediately. That is actionable. —valereee (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee:, I respect your sysop authority, but want to point out a few things that I will have to respectfully disagree. There is a difference between criticism of religion and stereotyping a group of people. This statement of Fowler&fowler targets and stereotypes a group of people more so than their faith: During our visits to India, my family and I have very likely buried more stray dogs and cats, all either run over, or otherwise killed, by Ahimsa-loving Hindus, than the number of times editors here have uttered aloud the word Ahimsa. (Especially, cats (domesticated cats): have you wondered why their yowling is never heard in Hindu neighborhoods in India, except in the hills? That is because they are all shooed-away, or have rocks or sticks thrown at them, by superstition-loving Ahimsa-loving Hindus. You have to go to a Muslim neighborhood to see a cat.)[79] Anyone can treat animals poorly, and once other factors like poverty and education are accounted for, it becomes clearer. Even Austronesier stated the following when Fowler&fowler was rejecting scholarship of South Asian academics: I am bewildered about the proposed embargo against scholarship based on descent.[80], while Anupam stated Disqualifying books written by academics and linguists of Indian origin about a language that originates in India is a foolish and inflammatory idea.[81] As you know, Wikipedia does not discriminate people based on their descent: "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour", example, Indians again. I rest my case.[82] Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, no need to respect a sysop any more than any other editor. I'm no more expert than anyone else; literally all I am is someone the community has decided they trust with a few extra tools.

I am not going to even try to claim that I understand the disagreement here. All I'm going to do is recommend that all of you 1. assume good faith and 2. try not to offend one another.

Assuming good faith and trying not to offend one another are key to how we work collaboratively. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thank you for dropping by here to comment on Zakaria1978's post, which spares them from posting it over and over again of different talk pages (→Talk:Urdu). Zakaria1978, even if I have said that this is not a noticeboard, you certainly may reply here, since Valereee already has taken the shortcut. But yes, my bad, I also should have urged you not to resort to personal attacks against anyone here; accusing people of sowing hatred does not fall under erratic communication habits (which we tolerate to a certain extent), but goes against fundamental WP principles. (Tea, cookies, anyone?) –Austronesier (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zakaria1978: I have already voiced my opinion about the specimens presented by the non-registered IP at the beginning of this thread. Feel free to voice yours, but please: 1. don't unnecessarily bloat my talk page by repeating them, and 2. consider to express your thoughts in a place that is more apt to bring about the attention that you intend. A user talk page is not a noticeboard. However, I think Fowler&fowler's discourse behavior is sufficiently visible and well-known to the editor community including admins (how can it not be with 3,731 edits in Talk:India), and apparently is not deemed actionable (just meant as an observation, but again feel free to voice your concerns again in a more apt place). –Austronesier (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, I want to apologise if I caused any inconvenience for you. All the best. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zakaria1978: I ask you (since I can not prohibit you from doing it) not to quote me anywhere out of context. Especially when my comment was followed by an additional clarifiying statement by Fowler&fowler which was clearly visible to you when you called out to the admin again (→timestamp). This is the second time that you have presented clipped quotes from a discussion without mentioning the full context/response/clarification, which in both cases resulted in putting Fowler&fowler in the worst possible light. Don't turn this into a habit, it might eventually become an inconvience for you. –Austronesier (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Sorry, I didn't see this. The Hindi/Urdu-related articles have been around for a long time. I did not make any edits until earlier this year. The previous 15 years was ample time for the linguists to stretch their wings and soar.

When a linguist writes an article to the best of their ability as Tuncrypt did Hindi-Urdu grammar before he retired more than 10 years ago, I applaud such efforts. But when the page steadily deteriorates thereafter turning into the nightmare it is today, why are the linguists absolved of responsibility? I still have not made a single edit there and not for lack of all knowledge. Why, for example, was this doozy allowed? Most likely because there was not the knowledge that the verb there is not really "pull," but more akin to draw with the same range of meanings (traction (the shark drew him underwater), extraction (he drew his sword), delineation (she drew a picture) and so forth). Anyway, I will keep puttering at Talk:Urdu, finding the uninvolved views. No one can say that the list is not looking pretty comprehensive already. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: These are all valid points. In the end I can only speak for myself, and not for a non-existing monolithic block of "linguist editors". All this is a collective effort, where A's strengths and weaknesses are matched by B's weaknesses and strengths. This requires mutual respect and understanding. I mean the real thing, not the insipid kind of fake civility, which you surely know who I allude to. Although fake civility usually is less straining than authentic temper, when you're exposed to it. As for temper, let me be caustic once: I sometimes read Fowler&fowler as Dr Fowler&Mr fowler I enjoy very much the communication with Dr Fowler, but when the transformation sets in, I go into hiding. –Austronesier (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm usually not aware that I've said anything hurtful or in anger But as you're the second person now to have used that (J&H) analogy, and you both are people I respect, I have to pay more attention to my actions (and not just my intentions). I'll make an effort. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Just for the record, it's a literary, not a literal analogy. Will it be soothing or adding to the sore if I withdraw it and replace it with that famous bovine in the premise that sells goods made of ceramics...? –Austronesier (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

No need. The other analogy has been used as well, a few times.  :) But I think there is also an awareness out there that there is an undertone of humor in my posts, that the fingers run away faster than the brain. As for J&H, my favorites of RLS are his juvenile works, but only their first halves: Kidnapped (before David Balfour left his sea or seaside wanderings on his Highlands ramble) and Treasure Island before Jim Hawkins left coastal life in Devon/Cornwall to go on his ocean voyage and island adventure. RLS was a great beginner but not a great finisher. That worries me more about him than J&H. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE on Proto-Semitic language?

While an African origin for Semitic is afaik (?) not out of the question, I was a bit concerned at the amount of space given to the Biblical scholar and orientalist Edward Lipinsky here. Thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Yes, I agree. While Lipinsky is a great source for Proto-Semitic, there is too much detail about this aspect of his book, which is clearly more speculative than his reconstruction of phonology and morphology. It would be interesting to see what more recent handbooks of Semitic have to say about it (uncontaminated by genetics). –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Constant altering of phonological table/sections on various language pages

Hello, Is there a way that we can block User:Wizardito-OL? He constantly keeps on altering the various language pages with phonological sections and keeps laying out false information. I have reverted numerous edits from him. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: The problem is, not all edits are actually bad or obvious signs of CIR. E.g. this edit[83] is beyond reproach, since the prose under the table actually confirms /ʊ/ (the real problem of Uyghur phonology is the conflation of phones, phonemes and morphophonemes, as in many pages). The worst thing with that editor is, they don't communicate. You should template them again with uw-summary. @Nardog: Have you already come across the activities of Wizardito-OL? –Austronesier (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have, but only because I had Fdom5997 on my radar as they also could use a {{uw-editsummary}} warning and have a history of edit warring. I've seriously debated seeking your expertise on their edits as we've discussed some others'. Given AGF and that you don't seem to have a problem with them I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I hope they start writing more summaries so that other editors can spend less time scrutinizing their edits. Nardog (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog I understand I have a bit of a history of edit warring. And I sincerely apologize for that, in that I was wrong on many of my reverts of various edits in the past, like me with the Lithuanian phonology page, and with that one you made a fair point that I should not be reverting charts if one adds info regarding orthography. However, this user that I have encountered has been altering so much phonological information and charts in which both you and I agree that it is misinformation. I know for sure that User:Wizardito-OL has numerously edit-warred information that I know for a fact was correct, not according to me, but to the cited information on each page that he altered. Also I have been writing numerous summaries on different language pages with cited information sources regarding the phonological sketches. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: My problem with with your editing lies in your lack of summaries much more than in your edit warring in the past. You've made 34 edits in the main namespace today after you replied to me above and you used the summary field only once. Please work on this, so as to reduce the burden of vetting your edits on other editors' part. As {{uw-editsummary}} says, even the briefest of summaries would be fine. Nardog (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: I have little to add to Nardog's comments. Maybe one more point to emphasize: you are not exempt from an edit summary if you revert unexplained and/or unsourced changes, unless it is blatant vandalism (in this case you may even mark the revert as minor). If it is a good faith edit, but dubious, then please explicitly say "rv unsourced/unexplained changes". E.g. this edit[84] was certainly not vandalism, and actually makes perfect sense if you are familiar with the phonological structure of Athabaskan languages, or Northwestern Native American languages in general. I eventually restored and amended it. But even then, there would have been less harm done if you had explained the rationale of your revert. –Austronesier (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: And please, either use your sandbox, or tell in your edit summaries when you are not done yet. I was about to "jump at you" for this. –Austronesier (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

LTA page

Hi. I added this entry to that LTA page. Would you or @Krakkos: please expand it and add more details? Plus I think this user is related to him. Compare their edits on Alans and Turkmens with that desperate troll's activity. That Pan-Turkist troll just added those edits to his wiki.[85] --Wario-Man (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI @Ermenrich and Erminwin: --Wario-Man (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wario-Man I think mentioning it is enough. No use to feed the troll. Such creatures feed on attention. –Austronesier (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you but a summary of his activity/stuff on that wiki would be helpful and useful for both Wikipedia readers and editors; e.g. preventing and avoiding addition of his stuff to our WP articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Sorry, I haven't seen it that way, but the rationale makes perfect sense. Usually you would think that people who can't push their POVs in WP will just leave and look for other playgrounds, but such LTAs keep on returning, and their output on other sites might be the blueprint for their further disruption here. –Austronesier (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't take him seriously and I don't feed him because he has been already exposed since SPI report 2014-06-25[86] and other Wiki projects are aware of him and his agenda. My only concern is adding more details to his LTA page. I think someone better analyzes his Fandom/Wikia stuff and adding some details to LTA page. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kamta language

Hi, are you planning to move this draft to the main space? Looks alright to me based on the consensus we reached at the talk page of Rangpuri. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: Hi, there! Not that I have forgotten about it, but I still feel a bit unsure. We will have separate pages for two virtually identical language varieties, which are only distinct for sociolinguistic reasons (and also because of a national border). But, yes, consensus looks good and I will implement it in the next days (still need some good sources about the "language movement" in West Bengal), which then leaves us all options for fine-tuning, or even to switch to another solution if deemed better by consensus. Btw, on a personal note: good see you here after a short break. One advice though, please learn to take it slow, listen to others, and don't take the bait when others fan the flames. The ANI discussion was archived into oblivion without sanctions, but I hope you still draw something positive (for you and all of us) from it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand what you are saying. I'll try to keep it cool from now on. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Apparently, there has been a fix in Glottolog.[87] I think it looks closer to Toulmin now, and maps the ISO-codes quite well, what do you think? –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: this definitely makes more sense! So how do you plan to split "Kamta language" and "Rangpuri language"? There is "Kamta" (kamt1242) and there is "Kamta (India)" (kamt1243). If "Kamta language" were to be (kamt1242), then we could merge KRNB lects into it. What do you suggest? Chaipau (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I'm still thinking about it (I'm quite busy because I have to finish two papers that hopefully will appear in this series). The idea of making KRNB lects (or what ever my call it then) the master page for all descendants of Proto-Kamta is quite appealing. We can leave Rajbanshi language (Nepal) and Surjapuri language unchanged, but Rangpuri and my "Kamta" sketch could by integrated into a prominent section "Kamta / Rangpuri" in the master page with a comparative, historical and sociolinguistic overview. Currently I believe this makes more sense than having two pages. –Austronesier (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: your work on the papers is very exciting, indeed! Let me know when they come out. Yes I agree with what you are thinking. It might be OK to make Rangpuri (rang1272) specific to Rangpur and develop your current Kamta sketch as kamt1243 (BH in Toulmin)—maybe. But I think there is very little difference between the two (from Toulmin's isoglosses). Chaipau (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I will certainly inform you, in a way that will "out" me to you but no-one else :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am honored. I wish you a very successful and widely impactful contribution. Chaipau (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

About comment

I would like to report the persons excessive behaviour on the platform. The reason I had called him so is that he was literally twisting statements but not allowing pie chart on the wikipedia page which was based on Indian Census. The pie chart pretty well highlighted the languages diversity of the state of Himachal Pradesh. A sheer civil & government neglect has been observed towards the native languages of the state. This leads to lots of confusion. I have been trying to correct information regarding this subject. I had to literally bang my head against the wall in order to explain simple things to him. I had even suggested some alteration to the chart (to make it more accomodating) & also asked same from him. I have cited enough for things to be clear. Yet he seems to be adamant on remaining unchanged. Such an egoistic behaviour is terrible. I couldn't control myself but call him out. I have observed a similar behaviour by this & another user. They even blocked one user even though he was out putting correct information. I am new to here, & would apologise for my statement. I don't know how to go about this situation, so kindly help me. Nik9hil (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nik9hil: My help goes like this: Listen, you have systematically voiced the same thing on multiple talk pages, using the same lingo. That's unacceptable. I might have a look at the issues you have raised, but what will you tell me if I happen to disagree with you, too? Don't apologize here, do it on your own talk page, which will be visited by other editors who are curious to see if this is a pattern or a momentary faux-pas. Strike out or delete your uncivil and entitled remarks, and apologize visibly there, too. What may appear "adamant", "egoistic" (etc.) to you, may be well reasoned, but just happens to be unsatisfying for you. –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am shocked to know this. I have always called out double standards on this platform & will continue to do so. I have shared my experience with you. Rest I don't even know how this thing will work out. And for the apology, I won't issue one on that page until this matter will be clear. When it will be clear, irrespective of me being right or wrong, I will immediately issue an apology on that page for the term used. Nik9hil (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Nostratic

I would like to get your opinion on this[88]. Except for a few proponents and some agnostics, it is a widely rejected proposal. Or am I missing something? Pinging also @Florian Blaschke and TaivoLinguist:. Puduḫepa 18:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Nostratic is generally rejected as an objectively proven language family among historical linguists except for a small cadre of dedicated proponents. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: I agree with TaivoLinguist's perception. Mainstream historical linguists reject Nostratic for different reasons: Some consider the connection principally unprovable (because naturally occurring linguistic changes would eventually erase all correspondences within the time-depth associated with Proto-Nostratic, or at least render all remaining correspondences indistinguishable from chance resemblances); whereas some think the connection is non unlikely, but the evidence presented so far is unconvincing or spurious. A small minority does not even care whether there is a connection, but agrees with the former that the "evidence" produced by Notraticists is invalid. –Austronesier (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Meitei people

Hi,I hope the article Meitei is about an ethnic group..I am not writing things base on race but check online even Britannica have wrong information about meitei people.First of all I am a human being then I am a mongoloid last but not least I am ameitei.I am just trying to help other know the true origin and fact about meitei.Any ethnic article mention the major group in which they fall..this is not about pseudo science but about protecting ones identity. Luwanglinux (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: It is your choice whether you want to self-identify in terms of "race". Personally, I think nothing is more de-humanizing than into assign individuals and groups into racial categories, which are based on obsolete pseudo-science, and essentially were put forward to serve as a pretext for colonialism and suprematism. And it is consensus on Wikipedia not to perpetuate pseudo-scientific concepts. Meitei people live in India, which is part of South Asia, and they speak a Tibeto-Burman language, like many other ethnic groups in northeastern India, and many more in the southwstern part of East Asia. None of our articles mention a race-based classification of an ethnic group, so this shouldn't be the case for Meitei either. –Austronesier (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lol I really know now from what you guys deleted. you guys are really hard to believe this is an article about meitei yet you guys can't accepts facts written by a meitei.. amazing keep it up Luwanglinux (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: As for the deleted text with the outlandish claim of a history dating back to 10000 BC, please read WP:reliable sources. And please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ (four tildes). –Austronesier (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying the puya which I mentioned is unreliable..oh it was not written in English it was written in Meiteimayek hope you learn the script too. Luwanglinux (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: Yes, it is not a WP:reliable source; just like every other primary historical source from any part of the world and written in any language thinkable. For historical topics, we only cite scholarly sources, which critically study primary historical sources, and weigh them against other sources, and other pieces of evidence. This applies to Meitei puyas just as well as to the writings of Ancient Greek historians. We don't cite Herodotus's works as facts about Greek history, but use modern academic sources. And don't make such prejudiced assumptions. I will add a user-warning about this to your talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I was busy writing the dispute up at WP:ANI when you posted that, good timing. Take a look, I think a couple of topic bans may be in order. The two of them clearly are going to be chatting on Twitter, see Key Mirza's talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You're welcome! An absolute horrorshow. FWIW, Armanqur did a good job by not taking the bait (except for once, when they called Key Mirza a "bigot" because of their statement about Persians and Tukrs), in fact, they have succeeded to bring Key Mirza to a civil and non-bullyish level of communication. Another meat account (Dirokakurdi) has also shown up in the discussion, which looks pretty much like the product of off-wiki canvassing (by one of the problem editors, I guess). –Austronesier (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ethnologue vs Glottolog

What are your thoughts on using Glottolog family trees instead of Ethnologue's for the Bengali-Assamese/Gauda-Kamarupa languages at aleast. Please look at this finding [89]. Chaipau (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Kwami has recently updated this info: Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Interpreting Ethnologue and Glottolog data. Check also the discussion on the talk page that triggered kwami's updates. No one in WP Languages has contested this evaluation, so there is tacit agreement about it. –Austronesier (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links—reading up with interest. But you probably know why I am biased against Ethnologue. As with KRNB, for Sylheti too Glottolog seems to have a solution [90]. Chaipau (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Allah as Lunar Deity

@user:Austronesier the source refers crescent moon, can we replace the word "Moon" with Crescent Moon. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Saifullah.vguj: Please take this to the talk page of the article. –Austronesier (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier okay thanks Saifullah.vguj (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry ...

... I didn't realize I had created so many problems with origyear! Didn't know that Sfn is thrown off by it. Thanks for fixing it. 1973 is a new edition; it doesn't need origyear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Well, thank you for pointing out it's a reprint, I had totally overlooked that fact. Btw, the book is correctly listed in the article about Thomas Burrow#Publications. There is even a link to a copy in the Internet Archive (personal upload by Allan R. Bomhard; I won't remove the link there, but will certainly not use it in Sanskrit). –Austronesier (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

No probs. I have long experience in spotting facsimile reprints. :) MB is among the better publishers, and probably only do this with the author's and the original publisher's permission, making an older edition of a book available more cheaply for Indian readers. There are other less reputable publishers in Delhi that bring out new "editions" under their name, so an 1880s book will show 2005! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

elpublishing.org

This seems to be a great source. Thanks for pointing it out. There is a lot on Sylheti, for instance. Chaipau (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"maelstrom of the Brahmaputra"

Nice! Chaipau (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Oh, that was then. Now it's a category four monsoon storm. That's the highest, because for all the experts it is still inconclusive whether there is a such thing as category five :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: You are aware that we can't report them for 3RR now, as we both already have violated 3RR ourselves. :( And only obvious vandalism exempts us from 3RR. But that editor clearly is not a vandal, just a blunt, disruptive and agressive POV-pusher. –Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I am hoping someone can yet rescue us. But the editor is a vandal. Look at this edit: [91]. Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau and Fylindfotberserk:FYI - User talk:Diannaa#Copyvio in Bodoland Territorial Region -Austronesier (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Dayak groups

I'll create a new article, List of Dayak groups of West Kalimantan. Language identification will be a bit challenging of course. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 11:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sagotreespirit: Oh I was about to post to your talk page about it, good you've come here even before (your speed is unbeatable LOL). Yeah, I think that will be a better place to collect the information. If cut into pieces, there will be just too much undue weight on Kalbar in the various articles, especially in Malayic languages and Kayanic languages. I can help with ID-ing the languages –Austronesier (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Austronesier! Many of these are "mystery" names that most Austronesianists will probably not be able to identify, so we might want to get in touch with SIL personnel for ID-ing help. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 11:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Toulmin - "Rajbanshi/Kamta as spoken in India and Bangladesh"

I haven't been able to locate this by Toulmin—Toulmin (in press) Rajbanshi/Kamta, as spoken in India and Bangladesh. In Tatiana Oranskaia, ed. New Indo-Aryan languages. Languages of the World. Moscow: Nauka. The title might have changed in the actual publication, and I have not been able to locate this from Tatiana Oranskaia. I wonder why, would greatly appreciate if you could point me in some directions. Chaipau (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: You find the full citation here:[92]. Toulmin's chapter is on pp. 429–439 (see table of contents in English on p. 7). Looks like there is no online version available. –Austronesier (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am trying to locate a hard copy but coming up short even in the institutional library I use. But the link is great, and I shall use it to ask a librarian. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Banaba

Dear User (will a nice pseudonym). We already exchanged about Banaba and I think that we both agree that the beginning of the article gives too much floor to a book Te Rii ni Banaba, that is far from Academic standard. The text has stayed there, more of less as the main view about the (somehow) wrong point of view of the author. Could we try to get a better version of it? Thanks for replying on this page,--Arorae (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arorae: Yes, it needs to be adjusted as a contentious claim. Maybe we can reword it into something like: "It has been claimed that.... [mentioning Sigrah & King only in the ref, but not in the text], although this has been contested because of the weakness of the evidence presented [ref to Teaiwa]." Just one sentence for claim+rebuttal, more would be undue. –Austronesier (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Perfect ! Sigrah & King are definitively not the chore centre about Banaba history (above all, on language and ethnicity aspects).--Arorae (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Subdivision of Japonic

If model 2 here is correct, this would have interesting ramifications. The top-level branches would then be "Kyushu Japonic" or "Southern Japonic" and "Honshu Japonic" or "Northern Japonic". "Kyushu Japonic" would then consist of the dialects known as "Kagoshima dialect" or "Satsugu/Satsuma dialect" as its eastern branch as well as the Ryukyu languages as its western branch, and "Honshu Japonic" of an eastern branch consisting of eastern Old Japanese as well as its presumed descendant Hachijo, and a western branch that encompasses western Old Japanese as well as the entire remainder of the family.

I'm not an expert, of course, but it would make sense that the modern dialects of northern Kyushu descend from western Old Japanese with an "eastern Kyushu Japonic"-type substratum, and the eastern dialects of modern Japanese descend from western Old Japanese with an "eastern Honshu Japonic"-type substratum (namely, descendants from eastern Old Japanese).

However, if Kagoshima Japanese is more closely related to the Ryukyu languages than to the remainder of Japonic, then "Japonic" and "Japanese" are essentially synonymous, and one could equally describe Japanese as a language family that includes mainstream Japanese, Hachijo, Kagoshima Japanese and the Ryukyu languages; and Japanese scholars could continue to call the Ryukyu languages "Japanese" while also acknowledging them as distinct languages mutually unintelligible with Standard Japanese and radically divergent. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Frankly, I am not familiar with the evidence for these subgrouping proposals. But the classic bipartite split is in itself doubtful if Ryukyuan split off from the rest of Japonic let's say 500 yrs after the Yayoi settlement of Japan. In such a case, Ryukyuan most likely would have branched off from a diversified dialect cluster. Consequently, I would naturally expect something like model 2, with Ryukyuan being nested in "Japanese = Japonic minus Ryuykuan"—unless subsequent waves of innovations have affected Japanese to the exclusion of Ryukyuan, thus levelling out earlier diversity.

But not being really familiar with the evidence, I opt to follow Hammarström (who follows Pellard (2015)) to be on the safe side. –Austronesier (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

See Japonic languages § Classification. I agree that it just seems intuitively more appealing. As late as the Kofun period, most of Honshu was not Japonic in language anyway, but Ainu, and Old Japanese was limited to western Honshu (and Shikoku, plus perhaps northern Kyushu), presumably (see this map); one expects that Proto-Japonic was spoken on Kyushu, opposite the mainland from whence its speakers had come. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I also concede the possibility that Kagoshima Japanese may be directly descended from (western) Old Japanese with a mere substratum (responsible for the accentual commonalities with the Ryukyu languages) of the "Southern Japonic" branch, which may then be effectively identical with the Ryukyu languages, and that northern Kyushu may have been part of "Northern Japonic" all along; this would still fit a Kyushu homeland for Proto-Japonic. Of course, per the linked article, this is what scholars generally assume anyway. I'm just saying that the alternative classification would reinforce this assumption, especially if Proto-Ryukyuan might actually have been spoken on Kyushu (as also suggested in Japonic languages § Ryukyuan), contemporary with Early Middle Japanese. This would imply that Proto-Ryukyuan was the Japonic that "stayed at home", so to speak, and that at least the substratum of Kagoshima Japanese is descended from it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Maybe this is the kind of setting where the linkage-concept can be applied? Proto-Ryukyuan then would have been at the extreme end of a dialect chain which could still be visible in the interlocking distribution of innovations (← if this is actually the case; but I guess so, judging from the competing tree model classifications). –Austronesier (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that Proto-Ryukyuan was definitely spoken where at least the Kagoshima dialects are spoken now – not sure about northern Kyushu. It's possible that the dialects in northern Kyushu (presumably directly descended from western Old Japanese, or even Early Middle Japanese) picked up certain traits or isoglosses from Proto-Ryukyuan (or closely related dialects), but it seems only the Kagoshima dialects are accentually like (Proto-?)Ryukyuan. It's possible that Japonic used to be a linkage sometime in the Old Japanese period but isn't anymore, with only the extreme dialects surviving and dialects intermediate between Ryukyuan and Old Japanese having disappeared. But of course I might be getting this all wrong and have to defer to the experts on Japonic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ɲ vs n

There is Devanāgarī script page where readers can know the grapheme's historical pronunciation in Sanskrit. This is writing system; we are complicating things for readers by keeping non existent sound. Since when did we start writing phonetic value instead of phonemes even while it is not. Only phonemes are ought to be mentioned there? Not allophone. I am saying this cause it wouldn't be a big deal to omit a non phonemic sound. Otherwise, keep pharyngilized ħ, ʕ or some sounds corresponding to original nasta'liq script in Urdu section eventually turning the section ugly. Let's be practical here, nobody pronounces the grapheme the palatal way not even when adjacent to /tʃ/ /dʒ/; I speak and have been hearing Hindustani which means I am almost a native speaker of the language. Mercwmouth (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mercwmouth! Thank for your comments. I suggest to bring them up in Talk:Hindustani language, where they will be more visible and helpful for a constructive discussion. And ideally, please support your claims with WP:reliable sources. And consider whether /-n/ + /j-/ across morpheme/word boundaries is indeed pronounced the same as morpheme-internal /-ɲj-/? –Austronesier (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, [ts] does exist in malayalam like in words like "തത്സമയം" (tatsamayaṁ) [93] (there is an audio sample of that word too) tho its rare AleksiB 1945 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @AleksiB 1945! Apart from the fact that Google translate is not a reliable source, wouldn't that just be /t/ + /s/? Or is there any reason to treat this cluster as a single segment? FWIW, English has [ts] in cats, but nobody would posit an affricate segment /ts/ in the phonology of English because of that. –Austronesier (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier I mean i've seen sites which have labeled [ɻ] as [ʐ] or even [ʒ] and /t͡ʃ/ as [c] and ggt is better than that and ofc it is an affricate (there is even a separate character for that ത്സ instead of ത് സ) and if [ts] isnt allowed then why is /t͡ʃ/ allowed? and there are many language which have a [ts] in their page (Nahuatl, Russian, Japanese etc) so why not Malayalam? and there are a lot more consonants than what that table shows like prenasalized stops ((in most of the sub saharan language) but dont show them) and /d̺/ (allophone of [t̺] and only occurs when prenasalized for example in the word എന്റെ /ende/ 'my' or നിന്റെ /n̪inde/ 'your') and the [s] is in dentals column, the alveolar series except [ts] and [s] are apical and റ is a [r] and not a [ɽ] ([ɽ] isnt phonemic) [94] and maybe divide it into 2 different tables 1 for the phonology and another one for the writing system? In this page its said that the alveolar stops except the geminated ones and prenasalized ones turned into a [r]

@AleksiB 1945: Simple answer. I can tell you loads of sources which treat [ts] in Nahuatl, Russian, Japanese as a single segnment; just check for youself in the citations of these articles. Where is the reliable source that does so for Malayalam? –Austronesier (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier [95] ok but what about the other ones i said?

@AleksiB 1945: This is Google Translate. Please read WP:reliable sources. And Google Translate doesn't give you a clue whether is a single segment or a cluster of two consonants. As for the rest: WP is not a discussion forum. –Austronesier –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Hi, firstly what do you mean by a single segment? if you mean the affricate being considered as a single sound and not a consonant cluster there is the german /pf/ it is seen as a consonant cluster and its represented with (pf) and what about the other consonants i mentioned? they are mentioned in other pages related to Mal, secondly Dari, i combined pos-alv and palatals because those columns are largely empty and most pages group the pos-alv and palatals into a single column or just as "palatals" AleksiB 1945 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@AleksiB 1945 You want to edit sections which are called "Phonology", not "Phonetics", so you should get familiar with the basics of phonology. I mean, the Indic grammatical tradition has had a concept similar to modern phonemes for more than 2,000 years. The consideration whether a sequence of sounds phonologically represents a single phoneme is not just based on the fact that it is an allowed cluster and happens to be treated as a single phoneme in other languages (like the sequence [ts], which is a phoneme in German, Russian, Navajo etc., but not in English), but is based on language-internal facts (phonotactic constraints, morphophonological rules, etc.) and sometimes also just theoretical preferences.

And "almost empty" columns are ok. Combined columns for post-alveolar (eh, that's only 13 chars, sure we need to abbreviate them?) and palatal consonants are also ok if applicable, but I wouldn't do mass edits either way only for that purpose. –Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

(NouVa (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

Ghits

I saw your East/Leste page and I thought it important to note: When there are more results than shown on the first page of a search, Google only shows you a guesstimate number of results. On my end the first page for "Timor Leste" on ABC (your link) says "About 213 results", but when I go to the last page it becomes 182. BYU's corpora are probably better suited for this kind of survey. Nardog (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nardog! Thanks for dropping by. I am aware of the guesstimate phenomenon, that's why I call it "first displayed number", but I thought with the filter it isn't as bad as dropping from 74,900,000 to 403. Not looking into other corpora was the usual lazy me :) @PyroFloe: You might want to make use of the (ex-)BYU resource too. I recommend to use "News on the Web (NOW)". And don't forget to search for both "Timor-Leste" and "Timor Leste", the engine is sensitive to hyphens/dahses. –Austronesier (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier, Ok I'll take that in mind. PyroFloe (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu

Hi. I saw your edit note. Obviously, I'll try and find a reference for my edit, but if I'm being honest, the entire page is more lenient towards Hindi and doesn't take Urdu into consideration. ہ (h) in the final form is pronounced as an 'a' or even 'ah' but I've never seen it being pronounced as 'ā'.

Hi Taimoorahmed11! I have simultaeously posted something in the talk page there :) –Austronesier (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Timor Leste

Thank you for your sandbox research efforts.

I think it was closed way too early. Lawyers would point to the 7 day allowance but this kind of discussion should be over a longer period of time. I only came across the article recently so if there was a discussion last month, I would have completely missed it.

Save your sandbox. It should have been presented early on (but it wasn't prepared at that time).

I think the topic should be reconsidered at a future date. Vowvo (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vowvo: There is little I can add to the closing statement by No such user: "I suggest that proponents (as well as opponents) of the rename build a better body of evidence next time". The discussion was dominated by wishy-washiness, conjectures and cherrypicking. I think a move discussion Ceylon → Sri Lanka (if we already had WP in the 1980s) would have looked the same. Data shows the time is not ripe yet, even corpus-based evidence is still inconclusive, AND: WP:recognizability plays an important part. Even if 60%-70% of all sources and web searches had "Timor Leste" over "East Timor" (which is not the case), as of now we cannot be sure whether the remaining 30%-40% of web users are even familiar with the name "Timor Leste"; OTOH, everyone who knows "Timor Leste" is familiar with "East Timor". This might change in the next 5–10 yrs—just as people born after 1980 who know that Sri Lanka exists not necessarily are aware that "Ceylon" tea comes from there :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also possible that among the maybe 30-40% of people, 1% are familiar only with East Timor and 29-39% are completely unfamiliar with either name and might think that maybe Timor is another word for wood or timber. In another topic, I commend you for moving my comment to a post-discussion section. Too often, in Wikipedia, I have seen people try to censor comments by collapsing them into a box within minutes or even just deleting them. You deserve a barnstar for not acting in those kind of tricky ways. It seems that the Timor Leste discussion was fairly calm, which is nice. Vowvo (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The fun continues

Safe to say this constitutes fringecruft, no? [96] --Calthinus (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: LOL, how on earth have you come across this gem? It's quite embarassing to see that it passed peer-review in a journal of the reputable Harrassowitz Verlag. Have you see the author's other works on p.141? I'd love to see "Magyar and Proto-Saharan relationship" which would we be perfect for Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I know, right? Half the stuff I read nowadays is from Harassowitz I swear. And indeed, that, and the incoming furor in the Fidesz party resulting in its censorship would certainly be quite entertaining :). --Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: You can find equally worthy stuff mentioned in Talk:Indo-Aryan_languages#Name in lead section. Eh, have you seen these talks? They're mostly on an introductory level, but nevertheless worth watching. There's a series about Old Albanian too. –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've seen some of these yes, thanks for reminding me though, there's some windows to (actually) good work here.--Calthinus (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Austronesier, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Austronesier!

Happy New Year!

Austronesier,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi

@Austronesier, a few days ago i made an edit on the Labiodental ejective affricate page ([97]) and i added 2 sources to it, can you check it out? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Malay people

Thank you so much for your kind assistance. Wikipedia is an educational platform and we have the responsibility to maintain its credibility. --د بڠساون (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bangsawan: You're welcome! I know how it feels when you are exposed to POV on steroids and must bite your fingers in order not to fall into the 3RR-trap. Good thing the admin seems to have taken into account under what kind of circumstances you did your reverts. That other editor is really unstoppable, also in other articles. But next time: less panic is better, (I know sometimes it's hard), also carefully count your reverts, and seek community help in noticeboards. –Austronesier (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Szekely language

Do you deny the fact that Szekely people don't have their own language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

• According to a widely accepted modern hypothesis, the Székelys were originally a Turkic people who joined the Magyars in the Pontic steppes. Magysze (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze: Please discuss this in Talk:Szekely language. And take a look at WP:TRUTH. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hindi belt

Hi, could you check this please? I saw this user making changes without discussing and/or without sources in support of their changes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: The whole Overseas section is a bit off-topic, but could stay with better sourcing (e.g. Language Transplanted: The Development of Overseas Hindi, which has it all), except for the shitty first para (Most Pakistani speakers, and some Muslim Indian speakers, call their version of Hindustani "Urdu" rather than "Hindi" or "Hindustani". Religious proponents both of Hindi and of Urdu often contend that they are two separate languages despite their mutual intelligibility. Language Transplanted: The Development of Overseas Hindi. I mean, wtf is this?) The main problem with that user's edits is that they think that all variants of "Hindi" in the broadest sense are variants of Hindustani. And obviously, the language Infobox is misused here. It could stay, but only with selected parameters. Hindi Belt is not a language, nor a subgroup, but a sociolinguistic artefact defined by the lack of literary status of marginalized non-Hindustani IA languages. –Austronesier (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if "Infobox settlement" can be used. It is a linguistic-region. IMO this should go, Carribean, Fiji Hindi are dialects but these regions definitely are not part of the sub-continent. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Well, it describes languages that were supplanted from the Hindi Belt, so there is at least a historcal connection. But certainly, it is unrelated to present-day Indian language politics and the question of which speakers of which languages self-identify with Standard Hindi as literary language. Actually, it would be nice to have one place for these "recruitee" languages from Bihar/UP, but argree, not in Hindi Belt. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the "recruitee" languages have their presence in quite a few articles, Hindi being one. I believe the Hindi belt article requires your expertise, would be awesome if you do that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Ok, I will think of how to brush it up bit-by-bit. Hope no-one's POV will be hurt –– like, when you make an edit to Urdu and immediately a concert goes off as if you had stepped on the tails of three cats at one time ;) –Austronesier (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the welcome message! Excuse my pedantry, but I will venture to point out that if the IPA transcription of your user name on your user page is supposed to be of a German pronunciation of the word, then the final vowel should be [ɐ] (the so-called a-schwa), not [æ]. Greetings, --95.42.25.28 (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If it were Hochdeutsch, yes; but it isn't. :) –Austronesier (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Deine IPA-Transkriptionen sehen sehr nach Südhessisch aus, Pfälzisch kann es aufgrund des i̯æ für er eigentlich nicht sein. (Pennsylvania-Deutsch kann es wegen æɐ nicht sein, weil dieses ja dort zu a vereinfacht wird). Was mich irritiert, ist vor allem das aspirierte t in Türmchen, das man so im Südhessisch eigentlich nicht erwarten würde, außer vielleicht in Stadtdialekten, wobei das sehr stark dialektale 'ha:χ dagegen sprechen würde. Ich würde trotzdem auf Frankfurterisch tippen, es könnte natürlich auch von einem Sprecher aus Mainz oder Wiesbaden kommen. Ich würde mich über eine Auflösung freuen, gerne auch auf meiner persönlichen Diskussionsseite, um anderen, die hier rätseln wollen, den Spaß nicht zu verderben. Dan Holsinger (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion

Hi Austronesier! You may have seen the recent WP:RSN discussion about the Brazilian dissertations. I find it both funny and weird that a few people actually think I'm Nikulin or Jolkesky on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#A doctoral thesis from 2020 cited in around 40 pages. In the future, I might have to prepare myself to explain why I'm not Lyle Campbell, William A. Foley, Mark Donohue (linguist), Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross (linguist), Harald Hammarström, Claire Bowern, Ante Aikio, or Robert Blust because I've cited them a lot. Thanks for pitching in. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sagotreespirit: I think I can tell the difference between unstoppable zest and COI-editing quite well :) I will continue to nag when I see too much bloat or endless tables, but I consider you a great content-builder. In the case of the UnB dissertations or similar publications, I am with you, with the caveat that in excution, we have to find the right mix between presenting the latest research about understudied language families and due weight. Especially when it comes to long-range relations, we should take care not to fall for recentism, which in extreme cases can lead to totally unnecessary articles about off-track and low-impact proposals, such as Austronesian–Ongan. But short paragraphs about novel proposals from the mainstream are absolutely ok. But please don't go as far as citing a self-published working paper of a writer with a CV of three peer-reviewed publications; the author might end up more embarrassed than flattered – I know what I'm talking about ;)–Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Austronesier! I also just realized that I share Kwamikagami's zest for enthusiastically citing all kinds of random papers that may not be of the highest quality, as part of our endless, single-minded quest to classify every single obscure language variety in the world. Nevertheless, I'll try to make sure that WP:RS policies are in the back of my mind while citing sources. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buginese people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bumiputera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Music of Sunda

Kenapa halaman yang saya edit selalu dikembalikan, saya sudah lelah mebuat halamn tersebut, tolonglah hargai saya, saya yang buat pertama halaman tersebut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princelg22 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Princelg22: Anda yang harus menghargai hak cipta, tahu istilah plagiat gak? You have massively violated the copyright of various authors and websites. I will scrutinize all of the pages which you have recently created, and if the pattern is the same as in Music of Sunda, they will have to be deleted. Or reduced to the parts which do not violate copyright (if that's possible at all—I doubt it). –Austronesier (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Malay

This popular hypothesis has always confused me. Does it even make sense? I thought Malayic arrived on the mainland only very late, not before the first centuries AD even, from Borneo. The Deutero-Malays are less outlandish, but their dating still sounds dubious. Of course there could be pre-Malayic Austronesian substrates in mainland Southeast Asia. But is there any linguistic evidence for a Bronze Age migration from southern China to mainland Southeast Asia? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Short answer: WP:TNT. The whole page rests on outdated theories and a conflation of "Malay" as a historical racial term with the proper use of Malay as an ethnicity. Specialiists in Malayic languages such as Sander Adalaar or Karl Anderbeck reject these obsolete concepts. The distinction of Proto- and Deutero-Malays is just as untenable as Otley Beyer's "Malays" and "Indonesians" as categories for the ethnic groups of the Philippines. The Proto-Malays ("Indonesians" in the Philppines) are simply inland groups which have been less affected by the diffusion of the coastal cultural networks of Srivijaya and Mahapahit. Linguistic and archaeological evidence clearly points to a late migiration of Malayic speakers to the mainland. Even more odd in this resepct is the equation of Orang Asli with Proto-Malay. There are certainly culturally indigenous inland groups on the Malay Peninsula which speak Malayic languages, but this is most likely the result of language shift of Austroasiatic(?)-speaking pre-Malay groups to Malay. –Austronesier (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the straight dope; that's exactly what I suspected: a long-obsolete concept based on racist 19th-century ideas. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

One problem is that this outdated thing is all over Wikipedia ... You'd have to search all instances of "Proto-Malay(s)" and "Deutero-Malay(s)" and go over the crap with a flamethrower. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I think this stuff survived well into the 21th century in some popular sources and textbooks (e.g. in Indonesia), and also in second-rate science[98]. I don't think European dentists still talk about Coon races/sub-races... What needs to be rewritten/TNT'd after Proto-Malay is Malays_(ethnic_group)#Deutero-Malays. It has many sources, but only the first of these actually supports the notion of Deutero-Malay(s), so it is basically a SYNTH concoction. –Austronesier (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

padding-left/bottom

I added this to make the table (with no borders) a bit more legible by increasing space between rows - I definitely meant bottom, not left. I based it on its appearance on mobile. If it looks odd to you - well, I'm not attached to it, it was a bit of a hack anyway. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I discovered a genetic paper explictly showing the amount of racial percentages among Filipino ethnic groups

We talked last time that unless there is an official genetic paper we shouldn't go into conclusions. Now, I have discovered that paper! (https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2021/03/17/2026132118.DCSupplemental/pnas.2026132118.sapp.pdf) And apparantly, the Philippine ethnic groups with the highest amount of Spanish/European descent are the Chavacanos, with 4 out of 10 Chavacanos being of Spanish descent (40% of the population), this is followed by Bicolanos, with 2 out of 10 Bicolanos being Spanish in descent (20% of the population) while most of the lowland urbanized Christian ethnic groups have Spanish descent only occupying 2-3% of their populations. Do you thik this is enough to justify our proposed edits to the ethnic groups portion of the Philippines which I say should be constructed along the Madagascar model which is a Featured Article. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Thanks a lot for directing me to this paper, it's indeed very interesting (and definitely more helpful than the forensic stuff). It's a research paper, so some editors might slam us for using a primary source, but as long as we explicitly present it as research results of an individual study (as you have done in Chavacano), that's ok. I know that you're very interested in the melting pot events that occurred after 1521, but since this is not focus of the paper, we shouldnt only focus on that either. The paper gives deep insights about precolonial migration layers; most interesting is the proposal of two migration events between the arrival of the Negrito population and the Austronesian expansion (@Obsidian Soul: have you seen this already?). My idea is to integrate this paper in detail into Models of migration to the Philippines, then work our way up via Ethnic groups in the Philippines to the main article Philippines. I'm sure that's how CMD and Bill would approach it too.

Some minor things: please fix the link to the main URL of the paper[99] and add within the note (after the cite template) the link to the supplement. Personally, I think we should not use quantitative data that is not also in the main paper. In this case the main paper only contains this information: However, we only observe significant population-level signals of European admixture in some urbanized lowlanders, Bicolanos, and Spanish Creole-speaking Chavacanos (SI Appendix, Table S7Y). Some individuals from Bolinao, Cebuano,Ibaloi, Itabayaten, Ilocano, Ivatan, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, and Yogad groups also presented low levels of European admixture (SI Appendix,TableS7Y). Their study is a broad one with a wide sampling range but apparently shallow sampling depth, and that's why I assume the authors have refrained from making quantified statements in the main paper. Where do you get the "2-3%" from? –Austronesier (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OT: Interesting. Neither Out-of-Taiwan nor Out-of-Sundaland, and Cordillerans as the least admixed source of Austronesian genetic markers. Still very new though. Should probably wait for wider acceptance.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Yes, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY you're right. In order to include the novel proposals we should better wait for responses to the paper. From the time depth, it is clear that the Out-of-Sundaland migrations are pre-Austronesian, so I don't see the basic model for the Austronesian expansion challenged. The real challenge is the pre-Neolithic date for the arrival of the Cordillerans. That's in conflict with archaeological and linguistic data.

But I think for what Rene is after (measurable European descent in lowland groups, which is nothing in contradiction to mainstream knowledge), we can cite it. –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the older Austroasiatic and the Australo-Melanesian populations are covered already by earlier studies. The Cordilleran migration could potentially place the starting point of the Austronesian migration further back in time and unlink it from the later rice introduction. Hopefully there's more studies on it soon. I'll stay out of the European descent discussion for now, heh. That's always been a tricky subject.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Agree about the last one. The AA component in the Sama population is not surprisng when you assume a Bornean origin for the Sama, as suggested by the Barito affiliation. And for Borneo, there's good evidence of AA traces. But the "Manobo" ancestry is fascinating; I wonder whether this also spilled to Sulawesi and might be connected to the Toaleans? Btw. do you know studies that include more Sulawesi data than Lipson et al. (2014)? And probably more recent ones? –Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OT: Only mtDNA ones, IIRC, and very general. I don't think there have been any genetic studies on the Toalean culture, or if the descendants of the Toalean culture have even been identified satisfactorily. The paper is the first one I've seen that frames Manobo/Mindanao groups as originally "basal Austric". But then again, aside from Lipson et al. 2014, I can't even recall if they were ever included in any other studies as a discrete group. Most papers I've come across just lump Philippine populations into one group.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I took the 2-3% value from page 35 of the Supplamentary information texts from the formulas "Z > 3" and "Z > 2" I was interpreting it as percentage upon first read, but then I reread it and then I think I had in wrong and maybe it refers to magnitude, not percentage, I will correct my works. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I can only cite the European descent percentage among Chavacanos and Bicolanos since those are the only ones with CONCRETE percentages and ratios (2 out of 10 for Bicolanos and 4 out of 10 for Chavacanos), the lowland urban Christianized groups are vauguely worded as having an admixture event, as the case with Tagalogs and Illongos on Page 35 of the Supplamentary materials but there are no ratios or percentages. Also, I don't think the study really contradicts current consensus too since it doesn't invalidate the Out of Taiwan and Out of Sundaland, but only adds upon it by adding two more migration waves.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: In this case, you'd better only give the absolute figures (2 out of 10 Bicolano individuals and 4 out of 10 for Chavacano individuals; ideally in a footnote), because that is the actual sampling depth (10 indivduals per ethnic group). If you want to go into percentages, you would also have to give the margin of error, and that is pretty high with these small samples. We shouldn't be bolder than the authors :)

As for the main statements of the paper, the two additional migration waves are a new proposal, and actually a secondary interpretation based on the primary data, so we should consider WP:DUE. The data allows other interpretations, and we really should wait for the reception by the peer communitiy. The primary findings are in Figures S2.ABCD and S10.A, and these are sufficiently interesting by themselves. –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Listing/counting Romance languages

I'm refraining for the moment from reverting your reversion of my attempt to clarify that the number of Romance languages can't be established, in hopes that an edit war can be avoided. You object:

This sounds as if we had some white spots in Romance linguistics, and that's certainly not the case. It's a matter of the cut-off line between language and dialect, and this is clearly stated here.

I don't know what 'white spots' means in this context, so I can't address that. It is the case that there is no definitive count of Romance languages, and any attempt to establish one runs into -- prime among other difficulties -- the intractable language/dialect of dilemma. I don't see where that is clearly stated for the general reader, who can't be expected to grasp it without exemplification from Because it is difficult to assign rigid categories to phenomena such as languages, which exist on a continuum. No small % of general readers are operating with no awareness of the underlying Romance continuum, i.e. conceptually at the level of "In France they speak French, in Italy they speak Italian". No way for them to intuit that e.g. Bolognese and Ferrarese even exist, much less that there could be any principled debate as to whether they're different languages or "dialects of" Emilian-Romagnol, nor to understand what's at work if, for example, an ingenuous native of Llanes is surprised, even puzzled, to learn that the indigenous Romance of the town is Asturleonese.

Rather than the more extensive re-write that's actually called for, including -- if mention of Dalby's count is useful at all -- noting that closely cognate different languages can be highly mutually comprehensible, thus the criterion is of dubious value at best, I tweaked the text just slightly with the goal of offering a glimpse of reality: the list offered is (necessarily) incomplete and can be expanded. I'm quite open to different wording or to a complete re-write of the paragraph beginning Because... What shouldn't be left to stand is even a hint of implication that the list below the text is in any sense complete. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barefoot through the chollas: I have copied this to Talk:Romance languages for better visibility to all who are interested in the topic. Will reply later. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. As you see on the RL talk page, I approached this very briefly almost a year ago (Number of Romance languages needs factual cleanup) and got no relevant response, but it presumably can't do any harm to address it again. I'll continue for a while to hold off on reverting/rewording. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sang sapurba

sorry I read some articles and I think it's true K mm aoak (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sang sapurba

It seems that some Wikipedia editors want to cover the history of Malay in Indonesia so that the history of Malay leads to Malaysia https://ipll.manoa.hawaii.edu/indonesian/about/bahasa-indonesia-the-indonesian-language/ K mm aoak (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia didn't exist before 1963, likewise Indonesia before 1945 (or arguably 1928). –Austronesier (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Malay kingdom

do you want to cover up the history of Malay in Indonesia K mm aoak (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Srivijaya

About the IPA transliteration of the name "Srivijaya" in Malay, just wanted to tell you that the inclusion of the long vowel [iː] was just something that I copied from the guy who put it in the Indonesian IPA transliteration of the same word many months ago. I too was confused about why the long [iː] was being used but I thought I was wrong so I just went along with it. talk:GinormousBuildings (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@GinormousBuildings: Oh yes, now I have seen it, you just added the templates. The notation with long [iː] is indeed strange. Maybe it's because Sriwijaya is often pronounced with secondary stress on the [i] (at least in Indonesian, dunno about Malaysian Malay), like [s(ə)ˌriwiˈdʒaja]; some might perceive this as long i. –Austronesier (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the map in Bengali dialects

Hello Austronesier. I hope that you are in good health. The map shown in the article Bengali dialects seems to be a POV. It includes the Rangpuri language as a dialect of the Bengali language. But as we know, the KRNB lects are an offshoot of Kamrupi Prakrit. Please check the map and suggest me if any necessary step has to be taken. Thank you! Mahakaal2003 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Please look into it as soon as possible. Mahakaal2003 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case?

Is Vamlos (User:Vamlos) identical to DerekHistorian (or WorldCreaterFighter) (User:DerekHistorian)? His edit style and topics are nearly identical. You have some knowledge about this user/users. What do you think?178.165.131.85 (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear IP from the Blue Danube, you may have noticed that I have become tired of it, unless there is blatant misrepresentation of linguistic research. Sometimes I also look into genetic-related edits, especially when they grow out of proportion to the actual topic of an article. Or sometimes I just do this[100], when I'm totally sick of it how the presentation of the diversity of human culture, spirituality and expression is seemingly considered an appendix to genetic anthropology. Btw, I won't speculate about how much you are involved in this edit[101], but I support it. –Austronesier (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"When you lump various ethnic groups together which speak languages belonging to the same linguistic family, that's not an ethnolinguistic group."

Shouldn't it be, though? I understand there might be a few exceptional circumstances where people who speak certain languages think they belong to completely unrelated groups due to (often very erroneous) perceptions of having 'distinct ancestry/blood' (such as certain Germanic-speaking peoples of the British Isles who believe they are 'Celtic'), but by and large the vast majority of people throughout all of history have identified with those who speak the same mothertongue as them. Now that doesn't mean they get along with those other people they identify with, tribal divisions and ethnic infighting exist and are often the most bitter and severe forms of hatred and warfare, historically, as generally when you can understand another person the odds of them saying something that makes you want to kill them increases a thousandfold. Germanic tribes historically warred with each other frequently, they vied for dominance over each other and enslaved each other as well as allied with non-Germanic tribes against Germanic tribes. However they still had a clear concept of some sort of shared identity due to their language (and later languages). This is evident alone in terms like 'Walhiskaz' and who they applied it to (first Celtic peoples, then later Italic peoples when they came into contact with them). It's very clear that to the Germanic tribes, foreigner meant people who did not speak Germanic languages. And on a final note, is it fair to embrace their erroneous perceptions and allow them to impress their 'distinct identity' on people living in those regions who perhaps DO identify as Germanic, such as myself? If I and others identify as Germanic on the basis of a shared ethnolinguistic descent from the Proto-Germanic birth and expansion, who are you to tell us we don't exist? Is it fair to allow them to raise Germanic-speaking children to believe they are 'different' and 'not Germanic', when in reality they are as Germanic as any of the Germanic-speaking peoples throughout history? I can tell you right now it caused me immense misery and trauma, as well as severe crises of identity to be raised believing I was 'Scottish' and 'Celtic' despite only ever being able to speak English, having a Germanic compound patronymic name from a Germanic language, and later going on to find out (through DNA testing) that I even shared a very recent common biological descent with fellow Germanic-speaking peoples of Europe, and clustered even more closely to them than I did people in my own 'Celtic country' (as most so-called "Celts" of the British Isles in fact do). Why is it fair I was subjected to that my entire youth and upbringing? Alienated from my ethnolinguistic heritage and the community I was born into and belong to? I feel like shared language is probably the healthiest and most sane thing to go by, and while shared language family is perhaps looser, it's merely celebrating your shared descent from a singular proto language and/or culture, which again is far healthier than strange notions of blood-based cryptogenetics (which most of the people doing so seem to know little, if anything, about).

Thank you for sharing your personal expercience. But still, an "ethnolinguistic group" is defined differently; it's a social group of people who self-identify as part of that group primarily because they speak the same language (NB language, not related languages). Feel free to self-identify with anyone you consider close to you for self-chosen reasons, but don't hijack well-defined terminology for that purpose. Or rather, feel free to hijack well-defined terminology in private and among like-minded people, but don't expect WP to do so. An analogy: putting things on top of other things may be a gratifying activity, people might even gather to form a "Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things". They may even call it a form of engineering for personal convencience, but by all common standards, it's certainly not engineering. –Austronesier (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess my problem is more with the definition of 'ethnic group' now being reduced to simply 'people who identify with others, and vice versa'. It really, really muddies the waters and opens up all sorts of problems with imperialism and various other nasty things. The traditional definition of an 'ethnos' in Greek (from whom we take the word/concept of ethnic group) was shared language, shared customs, shared religions, shared mannerisms etc. etc. They had a separate term for ancestral descent/race and that was 'genos' (from where of course we get genetics. Historically Greeks would make reference to peoples who were Greek in terms of 'ethnos' (through Hellenization) but were of a distinct 'genos' (ancestral descent). If we reduce 'ethnic group' to simply 'people who identify with one another', then how are Star Trek fans not an ethnic group for example? Simply because they don't call themselves one? What if they start calling themselves one? Couldn't you more seriously argue that the American political camps of 'liberal' and 'conservative' are actual distinct ethnic groups? I think ethnic groups are valid concepts if you stick to a more traditionalist view of what they were, and then people are still free to identify ancestrally with whatever people they like (as Americans do, much to the bemusement and amusement of the various European and other peoples they claim to 'be'). But I'm looking through a LOT of these 'modern Celt' articles on Wikipedia and... I think they could use some serious, serious cleanup because they're claiming a LOT of people in the British Isles are Celtic simply because they reside in areas where Celtic languages used to be spoken for a small period of time, which is ludicrous. How is that not imperialism and the imposition of an identity on the people who merely live in a region?

All ethnic groups are social groups, but not vice versa; that's another fallacy and a straw argument here. The "traditional" and still valid defintion of an ethnic group entails language as an important, but not necessary criterion for the group identity. Sometimes, ethnic groups shift to another language without shedding their ethnic identity; there's ethnic groups divided by religion, not by language (e.g. Croats and Serbs); and obviously, the collective of all native English speakers does not define an ethnicity (same holds for Spanish). That's why linguistic anthropologists and sociolinguists came up the concept of an "ethnolinguistic group" to describe ethnicites where language is the primary feature that defines inclusion. And you're right, ancestry rarely plays a role unless in clan-based ethnic groups. And of course there is a big difference between ancestry as living memory (that's how you get 44 million German Americans LOL) and ancestry as a testtube result (such as very efficiently marketed by the charlatans of A***.com).

The article Celts (modern) itself is not that bad. It explicitly refers to the topic as a revivalist artefact. I am less familiar with the articles about individual ethnic groups. If you could point out in which of these articles their presence is artificially sexed-up, I can have a look at it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Sometimes, ethnic groups shift to another language without shedding their ethnic identity" Can you give me an example of this? Language shift is a fundamental change in identity, whether a tribe or ethnic group wants to admit that or not. Whether you perceive yourself to have changed or not, OTHERS will now perceive you as related to this group you now speak the language of. That's why everyone uses England as pars pro toto for the UK/British Isles and these regional English-speaking identities of the British Isles are frequently just referred to as 'English' in other languages and parts of the world. Now in the modern age, it might be a little more possible for people to try and retain some shred of their past identity while language shifting, but how long that's going to last is anyone's guess.

Groups like Jews at least were bound by a common religion which distinguished them from other people's, people in places like Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not. While YOU may not think there's a common ethnic identity to the English-speaking world, that is not the case for other peoples. Terms like 'the Anglo-Saxon world' are very common in German, Spanish, French and other types of media.

Whether you retain a tribal name from a past identity or not is irrelevant. There were Germanic tribes in the past with Celtic names and Slavic names and vice versa, especially all along the borders of these worlds. But whatever they happened to be generations ago wouldn't matter in their present, when due to their Germanic tongue they would simply be viewed as and grouped with other Germanic tribes by Slavs or Celts or Italics etc. etc.

Basically absorption/assimilation is a fact of life, it's a thing. And for some reason Wikipedia seems to present English absorption/assimilation as something that doesn't exist or hasn't happened. It has, regardless of how long it takes the various English-speaking peoples of the present to realize that and forget why they clung to these old names in the first place.

Well here's a line from the 'Celtic nations' article: " Territories in north-western Iberia—particularly northern Portugal, Galicia, Asturias, León and Cantabria (together historically referred to as Gallaecia and Astures), covering north-central Portugal and northern Spain—are considered Celtic nations due to their culture and history.[5] Unlike the others, however, no Celtic language has been spoken there in modern times." I don't think anyone would have a problem with the term 'Celtic' being applied to people who today are still fluent in and/or speak Celtic languages as their main language. In addition to people with names from Celtic languages, that's the typical markers you can look at and say "Yep, okay that person stands out as distinctively this". But almost nobody speaks Celtic languages in these countries anymore outside of Wales, and perhaps Brittany. And even in those 2 regions Celtic languages are a minority. Regardless of what they choose to plaster all over roadsigns here at taxpayer's expense, the languages are effectively dead outside of the extreme western fringes of Ireland and Scotland (and judging from people I've spoken to from the Hebrides themselves they're basically dead there too as actual spoken tongues). Why then is all of Ireland and all of Scotland and all of Wales included as a 'Celtic nation'? Why is it not just specific regions of these countries where Celtic languages still have SOME KIND of presence (however slim), like Cornwall for England? The typical defense is 'That's the definition of Celtic nations by the Celtic League', so what? Who are the Celtic League? What makes them a reliable source on definning who is and isn't Celtic, especially when they seem so unaware (or uncaring) of the actual language situation in these modern regions and can't actually stick to their own original parameters of Celticness without shifting the goalposts (notice how it USED to be only regions where a Celtic language was still spoke, now suddenly it's regions where Celtic languages remained spoken until 'modern times'). The articles also phrase all criticism of the concept of neo-Celticism as something purely enertained by 'English nationalists' while in reality academics in general have been casting a critical eye over the idea of a 'Celtic peoples' in the modern sense for a long time. Given the recent advances in archaeogenetics, the idea of a distinct Celtic people EVER really existing in any sense other than languages and vaguely similar cultural practices (almost all of which have died out in the modern age) looks extremely dubious. Now sure, you can dismantle just about any ethnic identity. You can pick away at it and find lies they've collectively bought into and so on and so forth. However I don't think you can quite dismantle any ethnic identity or ethnolinguistic identity or whatever you want to call it quite so emphatically as you can modern 'Celtic' peoples. In fact it would be significantly easier to argue they don't exist than to argue they DO exist. And all the defenders can do is flipflop between language and culture mattering and then genetics mattering when you routinely debunk their 'Celticness' in EITHER sense.

Cebuano and Visayan

Hi Austronesier, I was wondering if you have any insight into what the current linguistic consensus on the classification of Visayan and its variations might be along that language dialect such and such, and thus how it might be best approached in articles. I will say that currently we reflect the confusion well in a way, our Cebuano language article's classification section calls it a language while citing the source The Bisayan Dialects of the Philippines. Best, CMD (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: David Zorc's main intention when writing The Bisayan Dialects of the Philippines was not a sociolinguistic, but comprative-historical study, so I wouldn't read too much into the wording of its title. His findings about the internal classification of the Bisayan linguistic subgroup are for the most part still valid and the best we have. He called the whole area a L-complex (the two-dimensional variant of a dialect chain), and that's maybe why he chose "dialects" in his title.

There's a lot mutual intelligibility between neighboring lects which can make the language/dialect borders blurred, but this naturally decreases with distance. It is obvious the Butuanon and Aklanon are not dialects of the same langage by any standards. Variants like Cebuano, Waray, Hiligaynon have strong centers of gravity which makes it also easy to define them as separate languages. There's overall consensus among linguists to call at least the most distinct variants (like the aforementioned) "languages". But not all researchers accept all splits (e.g. David Zorc calls Capiznon a dialect of Hiligaynon in the latter's entry in the Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World, while Ethnologue has it as separate ISO-coded language.

In some cases, as with Surigaonon and Tandaganon, it is less obvious. Taken together, they are quite distinct from the remaining Bisayan lect to justify to call them a distinct language. But two languages? I guess the main objective for the ISO-code split was that Tandaganon speakers do not feel like speaking a "dialect" of Surigaonon, although by non-sociolinguistic standards (mutual intelligibility) one would usually describe them as two variants of the same language. –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think perhaps I've had my head in a few too many Philippine politics-related sources lately, and in some of those Visayan is presented as a single language with many dialects. I suspect this may perhaps originate as a political point relating to 'Imperial Manila' and regional historical grievances, but it appears in sensible works too. I suspect failure to distinguish in much real-life casual speech between Cebuano and Visayan may also be a complicating factor, so the linguistic perspective is helpful. CMD (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Anglo Manipur War

I am not adding personal POV or anything all my edit were based on reliable journal.So why is the reason you reverted those edit again ..aren't those crucial information to be in the article.In a collegial spirit explain so I can understand🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 14:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Luwanglinux: This is a personal note, so I will answer here. I have reverted to the last stable version after seeing an edit war, that's all. Try to discsuss, listen and reach consensus. You have added exactly the same text two times after the first revert, disregarding all comment's by Kautilya3. I don't say that all what they say is right. But if you restore your text multiple times, you implicitly say that all their objections are wrong, which won't bring progress for either of you, nor for the quality of the page. Try to take it slower and you will see that Kautilya3 is a patient and cooperative editor. We have very few editors with an interest in Meitei topics. It's good to have you here to get another perspective—after all, "neutral point of view" does not mean "no point of view", but it means to shed light on a topic from all angles in a balanced way. So your angle definitely is an enrichment. But remember: it's not the only angle. I don't edit much right now in WP, so I don't know if I will have the time to go into the details of your discussion. I hope you and Kautilya3 can sort it out. –Austronesier (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Me too, not related but: I wonder why they keep reverting my edits without discussing it first, even reverting articles without Austronesier account logged in? Rantemario (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

religions of the betawi and sundanese

itu kau bisa mengekstrak kalau islam berapa persen kristen berapa persen hindu berapa persen dari buku yg kau referensi, halaman berapa ? kok saya tidak bisa cari tabel-tabel nya ? oh ya, kalau mau edit wiki pakai akun utama lah jangan logout pakai sockpuppet Rantemario (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Rantemario, if you think Austronesier is socking, please bring that up at WP:SPI with evidence, rather than mentioning it without support across multiple talkpage sections and edit summaries. CMD (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rantemario: I have given the reference complete with page number (Aris Ananta, Evi Nurvidya Arifin, M Sairi Hasbullah, Nur Budi Handayani, Agus Pramono (2015). Demography of Indonesia's Ethnicity. Singapore: ISEAS: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, p. 270). I cannot answer the question why you are not able to find the table; only you know that. It's Table 7.5 on the page mentioned in the reference. If you don't know how to access the source (the page is not visible on Google Books, at least from my geolocation, i.e. Germany), you can find it in the Cambridge Core collection which is accessible via the WP Library. For quick reference, here is the raw data from the book:

	Muslims	Protestants	Catholics	Hindus	Buddhists	Confucians	Others	Total
Sundanese	36,450,022	129,085	52,317	1,851	24,528	4,854	3,235	36,665,892
Betawi	6,607,019	109,966	41,463	1,161	39,278	1,805	252	6,800,944

And FWIW, don't refer to the Sundanese and Betawi people as "tribes", as you did here[102]. That's pejorative usage. And no, I never log out for editing. You should learn how to handle disagreement. I recommend WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BRD and Mishlei 14:29. Happy editing! –Austronesier (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK, if you didn't attack me and discuss with me before like this before making any edits instead I wouldn't be at "war" with you. I don't really care it's my "suku" anyway References are important Rantemario (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rantemario: Try not to equate disagreement with "attacking". That's a very unfruitful approach for WP and life in general. Again, it's WP:BRD. –Austronesier (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a betawi i can't help it, fighting is in my spirit Rantemario (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation Request

I would say something like "omdowla gans hogh"

Tewdar (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On the arrival of Semitic to the Horn of Africa

Hey there @Austronesier! Thank you for your edit and I agree with you perhaps that's what the author proposed? Although I thought of it as a general scepticism to the whole arrival from South Arabia theory.. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@A Contemporary Nomad: Hi there! Based on the preceding sentence on p.11 ("The most widely accepted interpretation of these observations has been that South-Semitic-speakers established themselves in territory that had previously been occupied by a Cushitic-speaking population..."), I think he is really only talking about the traditionally assumed late date as not being tenable anymore, without putting the package of an external origin in doubt. I will look for source that might give a timeframe that is more concrete than "much earlier". Maybe I can get hold of "Hayward (2003)" which is cited by Phillipson. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I will look for source that might give a timeframe that is more concrete than "much earlier". That would be amazing, thanks! — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@A Contemporary Nomad: Currently, the paragraph about the dispersal of the Semitic rests too much on a single Bayesian phylogenetic study. Results (especially dates) produced by this method should be used with care, and ideally only not from the primary source. So it's great that you initiated a closer look at this. –Austronesier (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Classification of the Malay (macrolanguage) Malayic languages

Hello there, @Austronesier! First of all, I wanna thank you for the compliment that you gave me. That really made my day.

Okay, now to the actual message.

Ethnologue classifies some Malayic languages (E.g. Negeri Sembilan Malay) as languages of the Malay macrolanguage, as can be seen here. Seeing as how you have, in the past, undone some edits that tried to categorise some Malayic languages as a part of the Malay macrolanguage, may I ask you why you did so? (Just asking out of curosity, no offense intended) –GinormousBuildings (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@GinormousBuildings: I'm glad you felt encouraged by it, and good job with that table! As for your question: in many areas, the classification of the Malayic languages is still an open book. We have some obvious micro-branches like Ibanic and the Kendayan-related lects, but the subgrouping of the rest is controversial. The Ethnologue classification is outdated and just reflects the old ISO macro-code. The "Malay" group is a bit of a "catch-all" group that contains some highly divergent languages (like Duano which might not even be Malayic, and Bacan Malay and Makassar Indonesian, which are mixed languages) and at the same time comprises Malayic variants which are very close to standard Malay (like Jambi Malay or Negeri Sembilan Malay). You can check Malayic languages for the diverse proposals. We (actually max. 2 or 3 editors) had a discussion about it somewhere (I think Talk:Malayic languages) and agreed that the safest way to present the Malayic languages is by a flat tree (or rake). –Austronesier (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: I have added some sources for further reading in Kedah Malay, including one about sound correspondence between SM and KM. –Austronesier (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:Thank you very much for answering my question. Your answer was very clear and easy to understand. Never knew the topic of language family categorisation could be as contentious as you say it is. Also, thank you again for linking the site about Kedah Malay. Now, I can finally continue my editing of the Kedah Malay page and make up for my shameful undoing of most of my edits on that page XD. –GinormousBuildings (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021

(UTC)

Request

Hi. How are you? Would you please review this section Iranian_peoples#Cultural_assimilation? It looks very WP:OR and WP:POV. There are some citations there but it seems they don't match with the content. Wario-Man ^talk 06:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on Draft:Gordang sambilan

Hi, I would like to request your assistance in verifying the sources on this article. They are all primarily in Indonesian. Whilst most of text checks out using Google Translate, there are some claims which I can't find support in the machine translated text, i.e. on one of the most distinctive musical ensembles in the world and popular in Indonesia and even in Malaysia, Europe and the United States. Also I noticed that the mainspace article of this draft was deleted as it was a creation of a sock editor which you were involved in reporting one of their socks before. By chance, do you know if this draft is a recreation of the deleted article? – robertsky (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: No, I haven't seen that article when it was still in existence. I am more familiar with the antics of this sockmaster and his puppets in culinary topics. As for the sourcing of that draft, you are on the right track. These two statements which you cite are not supported by the sources. The source for the first statement does not contain the puffery we see in the draft, but the original text is no less boastful: Alat perkusi ini merupakan alat perkusi tradisional terbesar dan terbanyak jumlahnya di dunia untuk saat ini. – "This percussion instrument represents the biggest and most numerous (whatever this is supposed to mean here) traditional percussion instrument in the world". This is an official website of the local Bureau of Cultural Affairs of the provice of Aceh, so I wouldn't dismiss it entirely as non-RS, but probably request a better source. The second source is just short a sensationalist media piece trying to stir the asinine perennial beef between Malaysia and Inodnesia about the cultural heritage of historical migrant ethnicities from present-day Indonesia into present-day Malaysia. The Mandailing people (whence the Gordang sembilan) have a long history of migration from Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula, and naturally have brought their traditions with them. So Malaysia claims Mandailing culture as Malaysian, and Indonesians vehemently protest this as appropriation. The bottomline is, nothing in the pretty crappy source (Viva.co.id) is about Europe and the United States. So this is pretty desceptive pseudo-sourcing. I suggest to completely throw the source out (the first half of the last sentence "Today, the gordang sambilan is still used by the Mandailing people as a sacred traditional musical instrument" could be attributed to the "Kemdikbud" sources. –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, Thank you! This is helpful. – robertsky (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for reporting me to 3RR, your claim was able to get a notorious Wiki sock troll banned and future pages protected from his editing. Absolutely no hard feelings about it. We can work out a solution on the Yamnaya thing later. Hunan201p (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: You know as well as I do that that IP is unstoppable and can only be countered with well argued reverts and revisions of their edits. As for the Yamnaya article: I have explained in numerous previous talk page comments what I consider problematic about the information there. It is less about the factuality of the text, but due weight. Much of it is or was "the tail wags the dog". Peripheral information outweighs core scholarship. And this mostly happens because editors insert their knowledge about their pet topic into various articles in a random fashion – the aforementioned IP is a prime example of it: admittedly good sources, but paired with occasionally poor understanding, cherry-picking, synthesis and overblown additions based on these sources in barely related articles.

My report was based on formal criteria. I look at the admin's decision impassionately, my role was to bring what I saw as a violation to the appropriate noticeboard, the rest lies in the hands of others. The disc spins again, faites vos jeux. –Austronesier (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Austronesier,

I was just looking at Sylara and wanted to remind you that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/CFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notice on the talk page of the page creator informing them of the tagging. Most editors use Twinkle, a very easy program that will post these talk pages notices for you any time you tag a page once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator". It's a very helpful tool. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you for the reminder, Liz, I have indeed forgotten about notifying the page creator. I use Twinkle a lot, but rarely propose deletions. Btw, is PROD also in the menu? I can only find speedy and AfD. –Austronesier (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You know, I left this message before seeing the extensive discussion on ANI where the page creator probably saw that the articles were PROD'd. But the advice is still the same for future tagging. The PROD option should appear on the Twinkle tab at the top of the page but I believe it will only appear when you are on an article and file page, not, for example, in User space or Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'll just add that I probably post this notice at least a half dozen times a day on editors' talk pages. It's a common oversight, especially for people that just post the code themselves on the page rather than use Twinkle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deori language

It seems to me that the Deori language article is based mostly on colonial-age writings. And unfortunately the only modern work is in French (Jacquesson, François. (2005). Le Deuri: Langue Tibéto-Birmane d’Assam. Leuven: Peeters Publishers), which I don't understand. How could we somehow update the article with some recent findings? Could you help? Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Jacquesson (2005) is partly displayed on Google Books, and physically available at our campus library. I don't speak French, but I can read texts quite well. What aspects are you most interested in? While I'm much to busy to do "edit by request" in general, I'll gladly help in this case—in due time, and you know from experience how long this can take :). Apart from me, I guess User:Fdom5997 might be interested to add something about the phonology? –Austronesier (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hunan201p

What is wrong with this person? Are they some sort of racist or something? Tewdar (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's moot to speculate what's behind the things that we have in plain sight. Let their actions speak for themselves, especially once they're ripe to be considered actionable at WP:AN/I. And don't take the bait. I think Joe Roe will agree this is the best way to handle such a situation. –Austronesier (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: (forgot the ping, in case you're not talk page-watching.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes it doesn't work (like, if you call me "Tedwar" by mistake...) Tewdar (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Oh, that slipped through my fingers, maybe because that rhymes with pedwar (wrong peninsula, I know, but still some kind of chain of subconscious association). –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I expect that would be assibilated to "Tezwar" in middle Cornish...Tewdar (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Btw what's the source of medial d in Tewdar then? Lenition of earlier medial *-t-? –Austronesier (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tewdwr_Mawr

Or *tegu-tero- if you feel like making puns... Tewdar (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Rusyn and "Ruthenian languages"

Hi Austronesier, I was wondering if you could have a look at some of the edits affecting the status of Rusyn language both there and at Slavic Languages. I suspect there's some politics in play, but I'm not an expert on Slavic linguistics.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I am not really an expert here, either, but here's my zwo Pfennig. It's all solidly fact-based and well formulated. But basically it's a question of weight: why we should give so much space to a matter that is only drawn from primary sources and hasn't changed anything (yet)? After all, the first proposal was rejected, and the second still is under deliberation. Clearly something is going on with these proposals, and there's always much politics and advocacy surrounding such splits. But IMO, we should have a secondary source that has observed these proposals, and considers them worth a mention. Otherwise, it's several k of text about a storm in the teacup. Maybe you can also ask at the Languages project talk page what people think about it.

And btw, I support your change from "lect" to "language or dialect". There is a tendency to use the words "lect" and "variety" just to dodge the language/dialect-question. But often, the terms get misapplied here (as in Scots and Low German), because these are actually made up of several quite distinct varieties. But that's another story. –Austronesier (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hancock

Hi, you stated in your edit "Hancock does not use the phrase "entrenched in dogmatic thinking".

I did not claim this to be a quote of him, but he writes "historians bitterly resent any such suggestion" and "They insist that [...] they are undoubtedly correct in the overall picture that they paint for us of history and prehistory." and "unquestioned acceptance to the orthodox side of the argument.", further "vast array of academic “experts”, on comfortable and secure salaries, with the resources of full university departments behind them, whose life’s work is to churn out endless refinements and confirmations of the orthodox theory of prehistory".

Which in sum would constitute "entrenched in dogmatic thinking" to be an accurate summation of his views. Hypnôs (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hypnôs: Of course we should give room to what Hancock thinks about his critics. After all, the "doberman"-metaphor is telling enough (although I am aware that the mainstream is often defended in web discussions by amateurs who show all signs of troll behavior, so there certainly are some "dobermans" out there; but that's not the fault of mainstream scholars). Paraphrasing an opinion always bring a dilemma: we cannot use quotes (as in the case of "fans and chums"), but if we let the sentence run without qualification, it becomes Wikivoice. The sentence which you have added opens with "Hancock describes himself...", so the description of his critics at the end of the sentence is not attributed to Hancock. Maybe you can re-insert it with "according to Hancock" or something like that (and less clumsy), and add a verbatim quote in a note. –Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Census

Itu bagaimana bisa jumlah dan presentase orang melayu meningkat sedang suku lainnya tetap? where is your mathematical logic? and please don't manipulate the 2010 census results, you can create a new table for the 2015 research results. Northheavensky (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Northheavensky: Talk:Ethnic groups in Indonesia is the place. –Austronesier (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Coba baca lagi pertanyaannya, that's my personal question to you. Northheavensky (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Northheavensky: Answered in Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Indonesia#Census_data_vs._academic_secondary_sources. –Austronesier (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Germanic archaeology

I've spent some time asking similar questions to the one you just posted. Maybe useful to mention that several archaeologists posts papers on academia.edu. For example https://uio.academia.edu/JesMartens is one who does show concern with the methodological debates. He seems to avoid using the term, and also speculations about languages, except when really appropriate, and in contrast in one of his articles he mentions that the archaeologists of the Polish region still use Kossinna's methodology. This is clearly true. They literally start with Jordanes and then search for what he describes. Even his claim that the Amazons were Gothic women appears in one brochure. When archaeologists, or historians, write about such things they tend to distinguish the different archaeological traditions in different countries. However one methodological issue which seems almost universally accepted now is that archaeologists (for example in Poland) are happy to accept the Vienna school's ethnogenesis model which does not requite mass migration and therefore avoids making everything necessarily biological. Maybe some of the quotes I collected on this working page are helpful, although I did not go far with archaeologists yet. Note that Florin Curta and Guy Halsall have archaeological credentials as well as being known as historians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Thank you for these insights. I am sure that a systematic survey will reveal a lot of horizontal variation, probably similar to the extent found among historians from different countries. It will be very difficult to establish a "mainstream" when you include local academic traditions that are still influenced by the culture-historical framework paired with essentialism. Things might become clearer in ten years from now, at least in those countries where you dig out remains of people from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages that traditionally have been identified as "Germanic". And luckily, the aDNA craze has not too much affected the discourse for that age. Don't get me wrong, aDNA-research is amazing and offers insights into things that are not accessible through other methods. But it is very disturbing what is done with the result from this research, by both scholars and amateurs. Just have glimpse at Talk:Yamnaya_culture or Talk:Proto-Indo-Europeans (don't add them to your watchlist, engaging with identitarians etc. in the talk page of Talk:Germanic peoples to the bitter end must be tiring enough).

Maybe you have noticed that I have given much emphasis to what archaeologists say. I have a very strong opinion about this, because information from historical and linguistic primary sources is finite (with a few exceptional cases of new manuscripts popping up). Consequently, historians and linguists have little left but endless theoretical debates. This can of course still be very fruitful if this is triggered by new ideas from sociology and anthropology, but in the worst case turns into masticating the same material over and over again for the sake of keeping the academic machinery alive. No, the worst case of course is when these things are politicized by the (far-)right. OTOH, archaeologists continue to literally unearth new material about the past and thus play a pivotal role in determining which theoretical model offers the best explanations for our understanding of the past. –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree all these fields are amazing and will give more insights. Note that scholars in these fields all tend to present solid facts, primary research, and other scholars can interpret those in varying ways. It might seem it is unfair that I often argue that on Germanic peoples we should use historical perspectives as a starting point but that is connected to the fact that the name of the topic, and what people think of when they read it, does come from classical records - not only for our readers, but also for our sources. The claims being made in these fields are sometimes written up as claims to be about specific people or peoples from the written records. However, the evidence these scholars collect does not come with labels to tell us who used to "own" it, and primary researchers are not typically careful about this. When scholars of these topics write with circumspection, like Jes Martens, Guy Halsall, and Florin Curta, then those are important for us trying to put together a summary of a bigger inter-disciplinary topic.

Normally with proto-languages we have urheimat and protolanguage articles with some comments on where people think it was and which archaeological cultures or genetic signatures might correspond, but Germanic is always under pressure to do things in the opposite way and assume (in our choices or titles and presentations) that everything can simply be equated to historically known people or peoples.

A comment on DNA: it is very unlikely to resolve anything about most of the specific migration debates any time soon. Post bronze age Central Europeans are to some extent an amorphous mass most closely related to whoever their neighbours are. From the standpoint of how this technology works, the Roman era is just yesterday, and we would be looking at rather small areas. (In contrast, with modern Europeans we literally have a massive sampling of a large population available, so people can literally find cousins. Such genealogy experiences seem to be framing the discussion on WP and a lot of websites.) It seems unlikely we will ever have this for the Roman era. Unfortunately geneticists especially in smaller labs will not let that stop them making claims using simplifying assumptions. Proxies are often used for missing evidence, but interpreting whether these will pre-determine the conclusions is beyond what we are supposed to be doing as WP editors. In those cases we have to remember that in the hard sciences WP is not supposed to be relying on raw research, but rather waiting until there is a secondary literature. This has been a constant challenge in human population genetics articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed 3 more interesting articles that made me think of your posts, using the De Gruyter access on the Wikipedia library.

• One is the article by Sebastian Brather, called Kulturelle Kontinuitäten und ethnische Kontinuitäten, in the RLA.
• Another is an article I have been looking for in past years, Der Rhein und die Ethnogenese der Germanen, by Hermann Ament (not RLA).
• Jörg Jarnut, "Germanisch. Plädoyer für die Abschaffung eines obsoleten Zentralbegriffes der Frühmittelalterforschung" in: Brather, Sebastian, Heizmann, Wilhelm and Patzold, Steffen. "‚Germanische Altertumskunde‘ im Rückblick. Einführung". Teil 1 Germanische Altertumskunde im Wandel, edited by Sebastian Brather, Wilhelm Heizmann and Steffen Patzold, https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1515/9783110563061-001

One thing I am thinking about is the difference between the archaeology section I made (or started making) and the one from July 2019 which says the Germanic language started in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Thank you for this material! I'll have a look. –Austronesier (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have mentioned none are really new. I am not trying to make a specific case, but trying to get as much insight as possible into how ideas have changed, or are changing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: My take on these: 1) Brather's exposition should represent the mainstream by now, but I know that unfortunately the monolithic culture-historical framework still prevails in many corners. 2) Ament is interesting, especially his attempt to extend the notion of ethnogenesis to a wider scale to "rescue" the idea of a Germanic identity as a secondary convergence phenomenon. This notion of Germanic would clearly exclude the Goths. But he confuses/conflates etic identifiabilty with emic identity, and thus falls back to a thinking prior to Wenskus. 3) Jarnut's article is what we call in German "programmatisch". It is striking to see the similarity between Jarnut's plea and Harland & Friedrich's frustration with what they perceive as a sort of paradigmatic inertia in humanities. –Austronesier (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds about right. It shows the discussions have been going quite a while and are not just driven by Goffart (to say the least). BTW concerning archaeology as far as I can follow it much of Germania is still seen as being dominated by the La Tène material culture at the time of Caesar, which is associated with Celts. The Jastorf and Przeworsk material cultures (both far away from anything Caesar was doing, but possibly connected to some of the folks in the mixed forces of Ariovistus) are seen as La Tène influenced cultures in their early phases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just found a 2021 Reallexikon-related work specifically looking at this from an archaeological perspective: „Germanen“ aus Sicht der Archäologie edited by Heiko Steuer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Do you think this is good enough to use it as a base to improve the archaeology section in Germanic peoples? I think the main potential controversy about that section is how to make sure we don't confuse the linguistic definition with the broader definition that includes the Rhine-Meuse Germani.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Minor but signification correction: this volume is not edited by Heiko Steuer, but he is the sole author. It is his personal magnum opus (1625 pages), and appears to me to have a high potential to become a seminal work like Wolfram's Das Reich und seine Germanen. Again, thanks for this reading suggestion. The subtitle "Neue Thesen zu einem alten Thema" is promising. From skimming through the summarizing pages 1272–1290, I can sense a basically conservative approach that even includes the notion of a conscious Germanic supraregional identity. Steuer's "new" propositions are less about Germanic identity, but about the nature of Germanic material culture, infrastructure and social organization. I'm eager to see what reviewers will have to say about the book.

In spite of its challenging theoretical position, the book contains a very valuable synopsis of archaeological primary "facts", so yes, in theory it's a good base to improve the archaeology section. A big task, which I will probably not undertake for simple reason that my time resources are limited (more than 30 mins of WP per day has a perceivably negative impact on my own research output). –Austronesier (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I read it in a very similar way. I described him as editor too quickly. I think it is good. We also need conservative positions that are engaged, and also we have very few who are coming from an archaeological perspective. I think it is an example of one of those "humanities" who are doing their work and using the term in a debatable way, but this is one of the first I have seen who really engages with the debate. In chapter 3:

Einige Historiker, wie Jörg Jarnut oder auch Walter Pohl, möchten also aus den genannten Gründen den Germanenbegriff überhaupt aus dem Sprachgebrauch der Wissenschaft getilgt bzw. mit entsprechendem Kommentar versehen wissen. Wie soll man aber weiter über Land und Leute sprechen, für die von der Seite der archäologischen Forschung eine ständig wachsende Fülle von neuen Ergebnissen vorgelegt wird? Ich versuche deshalb meist von „Germanien“ als geographischem Gebiet und von „Bewohnern“ bzw. von „Bevölkerung“ dieser Gebiete zu sprechen, halte es aber auch nicht konsequent durch, weil das in der Folge der Darstellung zu hölzern und abstrakt würde, so dass ich doch deshalb von „Germanen“ spreche.

This seems important because in the end we need to find a short and sourceable way to explain the differences between fields, that does not offend people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the practical aspect I think the problem is obvious. But what we could perhaps aim to do is just a rework of the archaeology sub-section? If you and I slowly read through this we can then start to actually make the dream come true and get this article moving again, even if it is just a small sub-section? Have a look at the current sub-section and you'll see that it is a starting point needing sourcing, so this is not super-complex work and it can be done slowly? I could work alone I guess. Anyway, for now I also need time to digest it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: It's a huge read, but the book is ideally structured for skim-reading (which must be related to Steuer's experience as editor of an encyclopedia), so the part "II Fakten" actually can be weaved in piece by piece. But personally, I prefer to go through the complete volume at least once first to get a state-of-the-art picture. –Austronesier (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If we consider the long run and what a "best practice" solution would eventually look like, the Germanic peoples archaeology section should really be a summary of an article or articles which do not exist yet? By the way, I've already mentioned Jes Martens as a Jastorf expert. Concerning the Rhine area, which is the original Germanic area, but NOT a Jastorf region at all, Nico Roymans is often cited. Both are cited by Steuer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I have made an ugly thing in the past days: talking about you on ANI, but not with you. I want to correct this now with a short personal note. One more than one occasion, you engage with yet another whining drive-by pan-Germanist identitarian, you do so well-argued and with all necessary acuteness, hats off for that. And then, some other editor (including me) comes up with a critical observation about a completely different and unrelated thing, and you answer more or less to the point, but then go on to repeat your ceterum censeo (which ends up to be longer than Cato's) as if you were still talking to yet another Nazi troll. I know that's not your intention, but that how it can come across. Don't ask me for diffs, because I don't want take them to the marketplace anyway. Maybe you remember when I complained about Krakkos and you to Doug Weller, and characterized you in that dispute as being "right in the most wrong way".

My advice: don't worry too much, and don't let this worry carry you away—ex abuntantia enim cordis os loquitur. With people like Srnec, Alcaios, Ermenrich and others around, the article Germanic peoples won't drift where you fear it will drift without your intervention. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! I believe Alcaios must have intended a similar thing in a post somewhere recently mentioning how I repeat arguments. This "rings true". It is good advice. I've been making a mistake on this, and not adapted to the new situation quickly enough (partly because of reacting to attacks etc). I can give explanations (fairly weak) about how it has become my habit specific to this article. Often I have been "alone" and talking to new people each week about the same thing. Now we are back to a situation where we have a real dialogue for a while, and not a revolving door. Another thing was that I have constantly had situations (which continue) where visitors are distorting my words in order to attack me. Careful comprehensive wordings, which constantly remind everyone of the real problems and aims, are safer "legally" in those situations. There are multiple ways to handle such things depending on the context. You and Alcaios have noticed a real problem, and I have to switch my habits on this page. To put it in a simple way, I have been in a "chatty" AGF mode, where I've kept restating what the situation is and why we can not ignore various things. This is fine in some situations, but not all. I am very sad that it has annoyed Ermenrich, and understand that feeling of frustration, although I do not agree with the actions taken against me, guided by various passionate advisors. I think collegial comments like those of yourself and Alcaios are much simpler and quicker, and much more effective. Furthermore I was already making efforts to adapt to the change, and one of the biggest issues is the continuing ad hominem which it is difficult to ignore. (Rhetorical question: Why is no one taking action against that?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If I am welcome to jump in here, Andrew Lancaster I agree with what Austronesier has said. I certainly hope you didn't take the ANI personally - the idea of a topic ban was going too far on my part. I was frustrated and probably some other venue than ANI (where no one wins) would have been better. I think (hope) that the ad hominem will stop soon, because honestly we should all be able to work together on the article - Bloodofox has his strengths in some areas, you have it in others, etc. And I do think we actually agree on most things - namely that modern historiography has grown very skeptical of the concept of Germanen. The thing is this hasn't necessarily come into other disciplines (yet?), and we need to keep a more "open" concept of ancient Germanic peoples for that reason, I think. One area where I think you must know nearly everything by now, Andrew, is the "reception history" of the concept. Maybe you could start improving that section of the article?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: the message is appreciated. I am intending to work where I can, here and there, especially if the edits will be of the type which don't rely on using the talk page. But what section are you referring to? One that does not exist yet? Let me know a bit more what you're thinking of? Would it be a general history of the idea starting in classical times or only a history of post classical use of the concept?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean this section here: Germanic peoples#Later Germanic studies and their influence. Its an important aspect of the topic, so much so it might deserve an article all of its own.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: and do it without mentioning Goffart or Pohl or Gillett or any of the sources who even the most conservative scholars quote and without using the talk page? There was more material in the stable article versions approximately April 2020 to June 2021, but is that not part of what you were attacking in your ANI case, and something which was not deleted by accident in the recent rewrite? I'd love to help, but I think I need to walk close to you or else there is a risk of new disruption? Perhaps you can post specific questions, proposals etc on my talk page, after looking at the old work I did? There are of course newer sources, such as in the Interrogating volume we were discussing, but currently it all depends upon what you consider to be acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Due to urgent off-WP writing, I have little time to chime in detail, so I will just show up with occasional comments and wisecracking, my apologies for that. Please mention Goffart/Pohl/Gillett, and also Halsall the academic scholar (but not Halsall the public-life troll). Just make sure to paint all as an ongoing discussion, without evolutionary telicity as if the deprecation of the term Germanic is the final wisdom and truth, and as if scholars who disagree are just reactionary or lagging behind. This was the problem with "your" version, and also the fact that you have internalized Goffart's position to such a degree that you have turned it into the theoretical template for the whole article (e.g. the reduction of Germanic culture to the culture of the Germani in the historical record, disregarding archaeological research that works with a non-ethnic concept of "Germanic"). –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I dare cite such authors or get so deeply involved. The situation now established is clearly intimidating, and unfortunately not everyone is as reasonable as you. OTOH, concerning what you describe as the effect of "theoretical templates" on the article, I don't think that is such a big concern when we talk about one section, so perhaps I can help in some way. However on that topic, when you get time, here is some more reflection on the slow motion discussion we've been having about that:

IMHO I've always been open to using different approaches, and trying to understand me through Goffart is constantly leading to misunderstandings. (I really did use Walter Pohl's Die Germanen as my template by the way, and that really is a widely cited mainstream work. I get the impression no one believes me, but no one else seems to be reading Pohl.) Here is another attempt:

I think we've agreed in principle that several definitions of Germanic can all be "internally valid" but we still have to write in ways which at least leave open the possibilities of other approaches. We were discussing how that challenge looks different when we look at different periods of history. So of course I agree that if we choose the wrong "template" we can distort a topic. In fact, I think you should try to understand my previous approach exactly that way. In the Caesar/Tacitus period which I previously understood to be the unifying topic of this article, the linguistic definition gives problems to anyone who wants to write seriously about the Germanic peoples of about 60 BCE - 200 BCE. Using the language "template" the Jastorf culture is the only archaeology, the language is presumed to be Germanic, and the tribal differences are sometimes even translated into language branches. But these are speculative technical topics which are relatively remote from anything to with Roman history during the first centuries of the Roman empire (which is precisely the period of much/most public interest: Arminius etc). So I've asked a few times, where is the article for the Germani in the first chapter of the history of the Germanic peoples? I don't think that question is coming from Goffart at all. It is not his period of interest. There is a whole scholarly topic here which I just can't see how we are fitting. (And honestly, after every debate in the past it always seemed to me that everyone was telling me that this was the main topic, but ok, it seems we are going to try giving up on that.) I think Srnec sees something similar, although they would probably disagree on details.

Steuer's new Geary-influenced approach gives an interesting perspective! In effect, for him the topic of Germanic peoples is a group of peoples who developed their group consciousness and shared language and material culture under Roman influence DURING that period. So during that period the TWO topics merge into one and after that we have the topics relevant to Goffart etc. I think that is pretty much where many scholars are heading in one way or another and it is not necessarily a new idea. Before this new culture developed there are two topics with very little connection, which both claim the name of "Germanic peoples". So we have to choose a "theoretical template" and IMHO the language definition ends up being the worst Procrustean bed for this period. Two typical bad solutions which seem almost impossible to avoid: (1) We write as if Jastorf Germanic speakers were the only true Germanic peoples and ignore the rest, which is "logically valid" for one topic, but ignores the other, creating a hole in WP. (I do not consider moving a topic into the footnotes or sections about debates etc to be a real way of covering a solid uncontroversial topic.) (2) A traditional/conservative approach used to be to argue that the classical evidence is just tricking us and the Sicambri etc were all secretly Germanic speakers who were "influenced" by Gauls. There is some evidence worth debating, such as toponymic studies (often the older ones were a bit optimistic though I fear). However IMHO this type of argumentation can't be seen as the "theoretical template". So how do we avoid (1) or (2)? For now, I am just hoping Ermenrich will find a magic path through it, but I guess it is healthy to keep thinking it through. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I was actually thinking more of the “rediscovery” of the Germanic peoples by the humanists and then the romantics, which is summarized in great detail by every scholar who wants us to stop using Germanic. Also obviously you would need to cite and mention scholars like Goffart, keeping in mind Austronesier’s wise caveats.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: this was the deleted version: [103]. How does that fit (or probably not fit) the bill? Smaller point: I presume the medieval handling of related topics also often gets discussed but might be seen as too much of a diversion for this article now? Nevertheless the section above Later debates might be important to read for anyone seeking to rework it: [104]. The articles in the Interrogating book also strike me as important updates for our article, with a "review" function (and usefully, many are in English). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, I would focus more on the earlier period: humanists, romantics, nationalists, Nazis, and only then discuss the postwar discussion. That version has sort of got criticisms of previous scholarship strewn in rather than just a recounting of ideas.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That gives no clear direction. I can help in a supporting way but I don't want to be an expendable stunt man on this topic again. Most complaints have been about the simple fact that "criticisms" are mentioned at all, as you know very well. The idea of recounting 19th century ideas without criticisms sounds like a bad idea, as tempting as it might be given the ganging up we have seen going on. I am sure you must mean something else? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean a straightforward "Rezeptionsgeschichte": "The humanist so-and-so (Conrad Celtis?) discovered the Germania in 15?? and used it to support the notion of the Germans as a people of great antiquity, blah blah blah. In the 19th century, romantic nationalism encouraged people to view the ancient Germans as yada-yada. The Nazis used the notion of a Germanic race for blah blah blah. After the war, an increasing distancing from the idea ensued, with scholars such as so-and-so saying this and that".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 PIE

hey. the third revision was done elsewhere and in its specific subsection for the theory rather than the original section of dispute - I figured my mistake and I am not intending on an edit war. I appreciate it if you can go back and confirm this, and revert your discards. thank you mjrx (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oromo language

Hi Austronesier, You deleted the source and content at once. what if this is commercial as you said [105] what about this from university of cambridge [106] is it unreliable? from academic journal also claimed the fallowing "It is also the most widely spoken Cushitic language and the fourth-most widely spoken language of Africa, after Arabic, Hausa and Swahili".

the above content is there for more than 15 Years. but the one you said unreliable, commercial and academic journal claim the same thing! [107]. university of cambridge claimed 4th langauge in Africa but some one mistakenly changed to 5th even source claimed 4th. Please go through Academic journal, you will find right content. Thanks MfactDr (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again sorry to bother you in the infobox it says 37 million speakers and in the lead section said 36 million speakers. both contents sourced from ethnologue. Could you able look into the differences if you have time thanks. MfactDr (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@MfactDr: The question of 4th vs. 5th is discussed at length in Talk:Oromo language, and I have little to add to what has been said there. The claim based on a reliable source is easily falsified so I guess it was correct at some point in the past. Most editors in the talk page agree not to echo the claim here in WP, even if there is no external source which explicitly says "claim X is incorrect".

Bad sources are bad sources, I consider the use of such sources disrespectful to our readers. If they contain the same claim as made in a reliable source, they are all the more redundant/useless.

You should also distinguish between sources which primarily cover the topic/statement, and those which only mention it in passing as background information. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. –Austronesier (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr, there is no discrepancy between the infobox, which gives the total speaker number in all countries (including the half million in Kenya) and the claim in the lede, which only includes the speakers in Ethiopia. Both figures are correctly quoted from the Ethnologue. LandLing 08:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yamnaya pronunciation

I'd prefer something like /'jamnəjə/ (Russian) and /jæm'najə/ (English speakers) myself, but why does Wikipedia tell me /a/ is "invalid"? Tewdar (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I have been starting to post a section "Say /aaa/" on your talk page about it LOL. Here's what I intended to write:

• It's because of the fuck*** key (oops, I almost said -in' with an alveolar, but I managed to censor it).

Maybe with a posh /ɑː/, then? –Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

{{IPAc-en}} is exclusively for pronunciations English speakers use. Are they? If not, they shouldn't be in that template. Nardog (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, worked out why /a/ is "invalid"... Tewdar (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is this grey area of common approximations which English speakers do that go beyond the range of English phonemes. But yes, probably that is also outside of the scope of the template. –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind /ɑ/ in the Russian-ish transcription. WP IPA eng also allows /aɪ/ as a diphthong in English... Tewdar (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It won't let me use /ɑ/ either WTF???! Tewdar (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait, let me guess... the "fuck*** key" allows /ɑː/ but not /ɑ/, correct? Tewdar (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, because it's a diaphonemic system that accommodates all major standards with fully native/nativized sounds coded by means of an RP-ish looking convention (except for the rhotic vowels). –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't write /'jɑːmnəjə/ though, that's stupid! Fuck*** key!!! Tewdar (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We could just transcribe it without the fuck*** key, perhaps? Tewdar (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the key is actually really a great tool—where it applies. Just use the plain {{IPA}} instead for this special purpose. –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, Nardog has solved it for us! :-) Tewdar (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, without sources, the whole thing is quite moot. –Austronesier (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we delete the Russian IPA transcription too, then? Tewdar (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian is far more predictable from spelling than English, and it's even got accents. I wouldn't call it "challenged or likely to be challenged". Nardog (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Tewdar (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: The point of restricting symbols to what on the key is to prevent ambiguous transcriptions that people will misunderstand. This was a real problem before we standardized WP transcription. For example, is /a/ the vowel of 'cat' or of 'spa'? Is /e/ the vowel of 'get' or of 'gate'? Impossible to tell. Plus some authors prefer length distinctions and others quality distinctions, so we use both. Redundant, but more legible that way.

But there is regional difference in how English-speakers approximate [a], with RP using the 'cat' vowel and GA the 'spa' vowel. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I say "cat" and "spa" with the same vowel. You get put in a wicker man round here for using "posh aaahs"...😁 Tewdar (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Gavin Evans

Hands up anyone who thinks that a political studies PhD (and marathon runner!) is a suitable reference for an archaeogenetics article... anyone? Hunan201p, perhaps..? Tewdar (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Welcome to Blondipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit who thinks that archaeogenetic research is WP:biomedical information! Just look at this talk page discussion, which took place shortly before your transatlantic encounter with the tormented spirit from St. Louis. For all the merits of Evans's book in communicating the modern scientific consensus that races are bunk and only exist in people's heads, it can hardly be taken as the authoritative source for the state of the art in archaeogenetics. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is the policy we can cite if said editor insists to reinstate it. –Austronesier (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: Good to see that you have started to clean up Western Steppe Herders. What do you think we can do with the section "Studies"? On the one hand it's good have a list of all relevant studies, but on the other hand it's not WP's task to produce a review article about primary research articles. Ideally, we should have secondary source that does the job. Do you know a 2020 or 2021 publication that gives an overview of all these trailbrazing papers? There are of course the articles by Anthony and Furholt, but they focus on the archaeological point of view. It would be better to a have review article from the same field. –Austronesier (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing so recent as far as I'm aware apart from the ones you mentioned.There is also "The Impact of Genetics Research on Archaeology and Linguistics in Eurasia" (Mallory, Dybo,Balanovsky) and "The evolutionary history of human populations in Europe" (Lazaridis), which you may already know of. I found https://1library.net/document/ydjwvw6y-gimbutas-smile-an-archaeology-led-archaeogenetic-model.html the other day, which is extremely entertaining, but we probably can't use it unless "Bob Kenyon, Citizen Scientist" gets his manuscript accepted by Nature some day (!). I think as long as the "Studies" section summarizes, rather than reviews, it's not too bad. Apart from the cheerleading. And the insinuations that Yamnaya > Corded Ware is established fact, when nobody is really saying this (the recent IBD stuff from Reich seems to suggest that they're not directly descended from Yamnaya, despite Anthony's (unlikely, IMO) suggestion that a Yamnaya R1a underclass awaits discovery). I may take a look later and get rid of the OR and puffery.

I'm also trying to find that elusive blonde Yamnaya. I'm sure there's at least one... Tewdar (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I think the "Studies" section needs quite a lot of pruning. It just goes on and on... Tewdar (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Lazaridis's very terse review article plus the more recent and more eloquent articles by Anthony and Furholt could be used as template for "Studies". In its current shape, there is little that an uninitiated reader get from it. It's dry and neutral, but there no picture to get from it. And of course the problem of "steppe origin, but..." in relation to R1a is important here. Furholt is a safer source than Anthony for this particular point. But it's too bad that Furholt has a blunder in his original version of the 2021 paper when he says that R1a was found in Majkop individuals; even though he has corrected it, it weakens the narrative if we want to cite his paper. –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Kenyon's manuscript is really refreshing, but yes, not citeable here. The idea that the archaelogical narrative can explain aDNA evidence, and not vice versa, is exactly what Heyd suggests in "Kossinna's Smile". –Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the "summary" section is terrible (why is Yamnaya being tall worth mentioning here?) and the "analysis" section appears to be just Anthony.

I think we need to brutally prune the "studies" section to a bare minimum. In fact, we could probably combine "summary", "analysis", and "studies" into one section. If readers want to read the studies, we can just put them all in further reading. What do you think? Tewdar (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: The Europe-related stuff can be completely sourced to secondary sources; keeping the studies in "Further reading" (subsection "Primary sources"?) is a good idea. Narasimhan et al. (2019) is important as a building block for the diffusion of western steppe ancestry into South Asia. Maybe the latter should be kept under a separate header (this is Joshua Jonathan's field of interest, so we should put him into the loop here).

Another gem from the summary is: "The plague (Yersinia pestis) killed prehistoric humans in Europe during the third millennium BCE". Yeah, the plague can be deadly, so I have heard. The point is: how severe was the depopulation? AFAIK, opinions widely differ about this. As of now, the article just says that the plague is a lethal disease. –Austronesier (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I just read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=862831707#RfC:Genetics_references

and:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Respect_primary_sources

Which basically states that we can't use primary sources for human genetics articles, which is unfortunate as most of the archaeogenetics articles here contain rather a lot of them, especially the WSH article.

Can we get that policy changed, perhaps? The primary sources, sans WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, are often a lot less controversial than some of the secondary sources, IMO. Tewdar (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: This comment[108] puts it in a nutshell. Formally, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) is not a policy, and the RfC was about the addition of text to that essay. Of course, the RfC also implies consensus about the content, but that's consensus among editors active on that noticeboard. Consensus about individual cases can differ without violating any policy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the relevant policy and has not been overridden with that RfC. So the original collection of primary sources in "Studies" does not violate policies (as it refrained from interpretation of these sources), but easily is challenged per WP:WEIGHT (Who says which primary source is relevant? Only secondary sources can tell this.)

Note also that per the essay, the oft-cited WP:MEDRS only applies to "genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes" (viz. Blondipedia), and cannot be applied to genetic studies which only discuss the distribution of genomes without going into phenotypical manifestations. I think Anthony writes somewhere that physical appearance is of little value to discuss, since many deep and relevant differences in the DNA will not even be phenotypically visible. –Austronesier (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful response. I have started making a section (not on WP yet) that will hopefully summarize and discuss the primary research, based on secondary sources but including the primary studies and their findings where necessary. I doubt it will be finished today though. Thanks again for your always valuable discourses. Tewdar (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

'trigger' or 'voice'?

Hi. What is the preferred term these days for 'focus' in Philippine alignment, 'trigger' or 'voice'? Is there a good theoretical argument for one over the other? And in your opinion, which interlinear-glossing abbreviation would be best for use on WP: AF, AT or AV (for actor focus/trigger/voice)? There's a module for standardized glossing abbreviations for use on WP, which automatically creates an explanatory popup if the preferred abbreviation is used, and a red 'unrecognized gloss' notice if it is not. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi kwami! Schachter's 'trigger' has quite fallen out of use. And his 'trigger' was not synonym for voice, but for the 'subject' (or 'pivot'/'topic') in other models. So he meant by 'actor-trigger'-marking for the verb that the trigger argument in the clause is the actor. But he didn't use 'trigger' for the morphological alternation on the verbs.

In the last 20 years, nice'n'simple 'voice' has become the most common term; around 2000, 'focus' was standard terminology, but has been mostly deprecated because 'focus' means something else cross-linguistically. Himmelmann, Kroeger, Wayan Arka, Ross, Chen, Hemmings and many more use 'voice', because it codes the grammatical relation of the verb to the "privileged" argument (= subject) by means of a fixed set of morphological categories marked on the verb. But Blust and a few others still stick to 'focus'. There is a small school (centered around Reid) that analyses the non-AV forms as the basic transitive with ergative alignment, while AV is analysed as an antipassive derivation. So in this minority model, there is no voice/trigger/focus at all, nor any distinct Austronesian alignment.

I've looked up a couple of descriptive dissertations written after 2015, and most of them use 'voice'. 'Actor voice' (AV) is almost universal, but for the non-Actor categories, there is lots of variation. I'd recommend to follow Chen & McDonnell (2019) who use 'Patient voice' (PV), 'Locative voice' (LV), 'Circumstantial voice' (CV) (personally, I follow Ross, who considers them as three subcategories of one 'Undergoer voice' (UV)—but this is nothing I would recommend for WP, as it is too insular).

The preferred term for the phenomenon of "Austronesian alignment" is 'symmetrical voice'. Used (coined(?)—not sure) by Himmelmann in 2002, it has become standard terminology, except among the "ergative AN" crowd.

Less clear is how to call the "privileged" NP that is syntactically tied to the voice-marked verb. Many use 'subject' (Himmelmann, Kroeger, Wayan Arka, Ross, Hemmings; also some among the proponents of 'focus'). 'Topic' was common before 2000, but has been dropped to avoid confusion with topicalization, which operates separately from voice in AN languages. Chen & McDonnell use 'pivot' which has its charm insofar as it is neutral in the question of whether the privileged NP actually has all prototypical properties of a subject (Chen clearly says 'no' in her dissertation). But most common is 'subject', Chen & McDonnell also mention this fact on p. 175. So my ultimate preference (personally and for WP-purposes) is 'voice'–'subject'. 'Voice'–'pivot' is also within the range of common usage, but all other permutations (like 'trigger'–'subject' or 'focus'–'pivot') won't do.

So after a 100-year cycle of terminological experiments, it's back to Bloomfield (and the 17–19th Spanish grammarians) who used 'voice'–'subject' for Tagalog and other Ph languages. The only major difference is that the Eurocentric 'active' vs. 3x 'passive' interpretation has given way to 'symmetrical voice'. –Austronesier (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll adjust the glossing list accordingly.

If 'subject' is nominative role × topic, then wouldn't that term be confusing here too? I'm not familiar enough with symmetrical voice to have an opinion. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: As long as you restrict using 'subject' at the clause-level, but not for complex constructions (like matrix + embedded clause, where control is on S/A, not on the surface subject), it's fully consistent. The thing with 'topic' is, you can topicalize both subject and non-subject NPs in PH-type languages. Btw, the use of 'nominative' is weird in the Austronesianist (or better: Philippinist) tradition. It is commonly used for the nominal case form of the subject, so it can even be used for the undergoer with a non-AV verb. This is utterly confusing for typologists. The article uses 'Direct case', which is better, even though not really common in the lit.

Maybe I can do a table later which summarizes the major terminological systems. –Austronesier (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The definition of 'subject' that made sense to me at the time was when a language has a topicalized nominative role in its grammar, as in Standard Average European. For languages that don't do that, the word 'subject' tends to be poorly defined, or with a definition at odds with how the word is used in other languages. Obviously ergative languages don't have subjects, and even for a language like Japanese, which has a nominative role that is not conflated with topic, it's sloppy to speak of subjects, but I was never clear on Philippine-type. I don't know if anyone still maintains that all languages have subjects because Chomsky said so.

But yeah, a table with the conflicting terminology so readers have a resource to keep them straight would be a great idea. — kwami (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

PS. Do you have any idea if 'theme focus' is part of this, or if it's actually grammatical focus? — kwami (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: 'Theme focus' is just another term for 'circumstantial voice', because one of the main roles generally associated with circumstantial voice is the 'theme', i.e. the utterance with verbs of communication (Tagalog i-tanong 'to ask about') and undergoers that are moved [away from / along with] the actor (Tagalog i-tapon 'to throw away', i-takbo 'to run away with').

RE 'subject': If there is a universal notion of 'subject' at all, its functions are evenly distributed over the 'pivot' (or "subject" in Himmelmann's sense) and the 'actor' macro-role in symmetrical voice languages. There is a strong cross-linguistic tendency for S and A to behave in the same way in control contexts, even in languages with a strongly ergative syntax or in symmetrical voice languages, but why is control such a big thing at all in the first place? (Have you seen the userbox in my sandbox?) –Austronesier (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha! I like it. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoabinhian and Austroasiatic

What are your thoughts on the claim made here—Hoabinhian#Genetics—that the Hoabinhian culture was Austroasiatic? Chaipau (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I have seen this stuff before (it was added to Austroasiatic languages too), but have been too lazy to deconstruct it until now. It's all there: 1) a primary source with a bold hypothesis – which is of course wonderful and refreshing, but premature for inclusion in WP. 2) Like many geneticists, the authors are not content to present data for discussion, but draw speculations outside of their field: "We also report a unique phenomenon where, despite notable changes in genetic identity of individuals, the linguistic identity remains intact." Much talk about admixture, but what about language shift? There is enough reason to assume that early SEA populations shifted to AA (and absorbed some incoming geneflow), just like the Philippine Negritos shifted to the Austronesian languages of the newcomers from Taiwan. 3) The last sentence of the paragraph is OR/SYNTH (like everything that begins with "however"). I don't say Tagore et al. are wrong, but just that this is totally premature for inclusion as long it has not gone through discussion in secondary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is like everything is all lined up now, and gleaming spic and span. Reality is hardly every like that. I had come to it from my primary "region" of interest, of course, and here I found something that explained everything the linguists and the ethnographers and the archaeologists have been claiming. Thanks for confirming what I suspected. But I would be very interested in finding out whether Paul Sidwell is finally accepted (SEAsian urheimat for AA) and whether the AA/Hoabinhian went up the Mekong and landed in northeast India! Chaipau (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Let's see if Sidwell takes notice of this paper and finds an alternative answer to interpret the raw data. –Austronesier (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope he does and soon! Chaipau (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at People_of_Assam#Austroasiatic and some recent discussions in Talk:People_of_Assam#Gray_zones? (Involves Sidwell!) There were two choices in this article—either use the latest linguistics and genetics results or go back to colonial racial types. Using the latest linguistics and genetics data has its own problems. I know you are interested in this area so I am sure you will have much to say. Please do advise/comment/edit! Chaipau (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: I've seen this discussion already. Apart from being annoyed about the heading, I haven't given it much thought yet. Personally, I'm biased towards Sidwell as the "linguist's voice" in that discussion, compared to people like van Driem who tend to create speculative narratives. I'll need some time to go through what the latest edits are actually about *sigh*. Btw, if you see CIR, try gentle guidance (unless it really won't work, as with this socially dysfunctional bloke a few days ago); I see some "biting" in the talk ;) –Austronesier (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your take on Sidwell and van Driem as well. Regarding CIR and biting - I am unsure whether I have seen this CIR in the past. I could be wrong... But I am happy you are taking this on! Chaipau (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Owh, if there's a deja-vu-factor, that's of course another thing. But not S...? –Austronesier (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Join the fun over at Kurgans R Us Talkpage

It's Blond-tastic... Tewdar (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: No thanks *sigh*. I'd rather extract from Saag et al. (2021) that Fatyanovo specimens are overwhelmingly dark-haired, which would be more consistent with the preceding paragraph. –Austronesier (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, is https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature14507/MediaObjects/41586_2015_BFnature14507_MOESM145_ESM.xlsx suitable as a source? It's Allentoft, "Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia", supplementary table 13. Looks like there might have been a few blondes... Tewdar (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't extract raw data from a supplement file to a paper, unless it is mentioned in the main paper or at least in prose in an appendix. If another source uses that raw data to produce a new statement, it's fine, and we can cite the second source. Tapping directly onto raw data opens the door for all kinds of WP:OR. –Austronesier (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh well. I suppose I'd better delete it, then. It is not mentioned in the article or the supplement, or by any secondary source that I'm aware of. And yet, it is definitely there in the table... Tewdar (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: The problem is not just a formal or policy-generated one, but also we don't know why the information didn't make it to the main article + appendices. It could be due to an insufficient level of confidence and/or statistical significance (because anything tenuous weakens the whole paper), or maybe just because of space. If it's relevant, it will find its way into the literature; if not, it is just another ephemeral data point we shouldn't worry about. –Austronesier (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought it might stop the periodic debates on this "important" subject. Oh well, BTTDB... Tewdar (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I5117 Hungary LCA 3400–3000 BC NA D-blond/ Brown NA I5118 Hungary LCA 3400–3000 BC NA D-blond/ Brown Blue I5119 Hungary LCA 3400–3000 BC Light Blond/ D-blond Blue Kurgans r us (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I6561 Ukraine CA 4045–3974 BC Light D-blond/ light Brown Brown I4110 Ukraine CA 3634–3377 BC NA Blond/ D-blond Blue Kurgans r us (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop this. My talk page is not your memo pad. –Austronesier (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2021/05/18/all-the-yamnaya-horizon-zone-people-looked-the-same/

You added my name it's now my talk too, coward, you wanna tell me to cite a source I sent you three and you just earse it, I know you rather "extract data from a table unless it has a blond sample then it can't be used unless stated by the authors lmao 😅, you do realize that fatyanovo study has 3 pigment tables see table 20 and 22, they don't have the numbers to match table 2 at all, the author even stated about a third blonde hair and blue eyed then gave a table that doesn't even equal a quarter, when you have the nut to read this link check how different the numbers are using same hirisplex prediction, in fact you can even download hirisplex prediction and do it yourself Kurgans r us (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact you still haven't changed eastern hunter gatherer, when "genomic history of south eastern Europe" "skin color and vitamin d and update" and David Reich "who we are and how we got here" just shows that you obviously have a agenda cuz literally everyone knows this, even tewder mentioned it, in fact I find FALSE information all the time on Wikipedia, ALL THE TIME and you just cry and tell me not to change it as I'm literally reading the sources on Wikipedia Kurgans r us (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Chaipau (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a cuppa (premium Assam, of course)! –Austronesier (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Aha, but tea is colonial, no?

That took me to User:Aditya Kabir. I was shocked [109]. And there is one other user who stopped editing in the midst of the pandemic surge in India. Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Aditya was very keen-minded and passionate editor. A great and tragic loss. And yes, there is one who I really hope is safe and healthy, and just has stopped editing for other reasons. Last year they had a timeout too, but it didn't last as long as this year. –Austronesier (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Uralic and Finno-Ugric peoples II

Went over the "ethnic" articles again. When I removed the uncited, off-topic, too narrow (Sami), too broad (central Eurasia) or obsolete material (e.g. genetic studies from last century), there wasn't much left, and what was left did not support the idea of a genetic let alone ethnic distinction that followed the language family. Most that was worth saving (including the FU flag) is now at Finno-Ugric languages#Speakers.

Anyway, I figure there will be edit-warring over this, but given that there was little of substance on the putative topics of the articles, I think this is the right decision. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm somewhat torn here. Of course it's a reification of a scholarly construct, but it has developed a life of its own as an "-ism" that has some notability and serves – at least among the Finno-Ugric speaking peoples in Russia – as a tool of empowerment and self-assertion. (Like when an indie band from Izhevsk gets a chance in a Finno-Ugric music festival in Finland to show the world that there is more to Udmurtia than the Buranovskiye Babushki.) A bit like modern Celts. So a notable subject could be carved out from what now is in "International Finno-Ugric societies". But that's it. The prehistory of Finno-Ugric speakers is best covered in Finno-Ugric languages, or actually in Uralic languages, since the bipartite split is not really compelling.

But just let's see what will happen next. Hopefully LTA @Sprayitchyo won't show up again (remember that crackpot in the Ugric and Papuan peoples discussions?). –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see that section developed into a full article, under any name that suggests a modern sense of international cultural identity without the pseudo-ethnographic connotations. Do you have any suggestions? I could move the old article to that name, in order to retain its history. I don't know how much Ugric there is in cultural Finno-Ugric, but perhaps that's a matter for the article to cover. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Well, Hungary and Khanty-Mansiysk each have been hosts at least to one of these congresses, so they're in game, I guess (although there is of course the infamous old "anti-Finno-Ugric" movement in Hungary).

I don't know how the phenomenon is usually called in relevant sources, so we'll have to do some surveying of the lit. "Pan-Finno-Ugrism" and "Finno-Ugrism" are potential options. I'll try to get a digital copy of this great source, or else I have to get the print version from our local campus library. –Austronesier (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Either the current section title or one of those would be fine by me.

Two copies of that book are available at Library Genesis. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Section move discussion for Caucasian race

An article that you have been involved with (Caucasian race) has some content that is proposed to be moved to another article (Caucasoid). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Caucasian race. Thank you. Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emperor of Oz's New Clothes: please fix above transclusion. (Try clicking the [edit] link on this section and see what happens.) It could be that the template itself has a bug which should be resolved; it looks to me like this template should be forbidden unsubsted, and should generate an error if it is attempted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

See also Template talk:SMnotice. Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I joined wikipedia less than a week ago. I'm doing my best not to wreck stuff as I go. I am not sure what is wrong with the Section Move template. It seems like it wants to have a signature built into it, but it doesn't work. It just puts the four tildes into every page where it's included. (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lereman). I've generally added my signature after the template and it seems to be working, but I'm wondering if something went wrong when you edited the this talk page. I also noticed that when someone clicks the section edit button it edits the template directly, which is definitely undesirable. I checked the edit history of the template, and it hasn't been edited since 2019, so it's definitely not something I goofed up. My apologies I can't be more helpful here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emperor of Oz's New Clothes:, oh my gosh, in that case, my apologies, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Don't worry, we can fix it up. Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Glad to accidentally point out stuff that needs improvement. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Emperor of Oz's New Clothes: You should initiate a "proper" move discussion following the steps described here: WP:RM#CM. In this way, the discussion will be visible to all editors interested in the related topic-range. This will ensure wider community input which is necessary in order to establish whether there is consensus for a page title move. –Austronesier (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: My comments on the talk page explain why I've not done that yet. The "move" is going to be complicated to execute, and could be done by merging content and histories. I am beginning to think having a broader audience for the change is a good idea, based on the curt responses so far, which don't appear to consider the points I have made in favor of the change. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Conciseness can appear as curt when it appears next to verbosity... –Austronesier (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Point taken :) I'd appreciate any critiques to reduce any of my verbosity while still getting my points across. This page has been disputed for years, and I believe it deserves a few words to be written and read. I'm not sure I know a concise way to express how the page title and content are effectively disenfranchising Americans who identify as "Caucasian" because they have no better ethnic/racial identify afforded them by America's government and society. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference chaos

Over at Corded Ware culture I seem to have made a terrible mess of the references. What am I doing wrong exactly? Tewdar (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: It's hard for me to check on mobile (currently on an utterly boring train ride), but it must be the caps in the templates. The templates are strictly no caps. —Austronesier (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, *all* (?) the templates on that page appear to be broken. But... I didn't think I touched the templates?I'll take a look ☹️ Tewdar (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It... fixed itself??? Tewdar (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Absolutely no idea what's going on. Maybe a benevolent talk-page stalker knows more about this mystery? —Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Symbology for extinct languages

Hi Austronesier, is it a convention to use a dagger († = U+2020; similar to a Christian cross) to tag an extinct language in a list or table of languages? See for example, Hokan languages. Seems a bit presumptuous, if so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot! I've gone through some handbooks and overview articles, and my impression is that it used to be a standard convention, but is abandoned in more recent sources. It is still used e.g. in American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America (Campbell, Oxford University Press, 1997) and The Amazonian languages (Dixon & Aikhenvald, Cambridge University Press, 1999). However, in The Languages of Native North America (Mithun, Cambridge University Press, 1999) and The Indigenous Languages of South America (Campbell & Grondona, De Gruyter Mouton, 2012), an asterisk is used to mark extinct languages in overview tables. Notably, Lyle Campbell used the dagger in 1997, but abandoned the practice in 2012. This is unsurprising the American context, where the dagger emulates the very symbol that accompanied the cause of mass language extinction, but lately, even the term "extinct" itself has become controversial (cf. Talk:Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas#'Extinct'_and_'Dormant'_in_the_opening_paragraphs) so the dagger can be felt as inapt in many ways. The only plus side to it is that it's self-explanatory. Any other symbol requires a legend. –Austronesier (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice bit of research. I wonder if we should bump this up to WT:LING and try to get some kind of project-based style consensus about it? Seems too narrow to be of interest MOS:. Mathglot (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I don't feel strongly about it (or rather not strongly against it). Maybe we should follow the principle of inertia unless strong opposition against its usage comes to surface (I'm pretty sure BCE/CE-crusaders would jump on it if they were aware of it); this is what I would probably argue for when we take it to WT:LING (or WT:LANG), plus its highly practical value as a self-explanatory symbol. –Austronesier (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point; thanks for weighing in. Mathglot (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Germanic peoples: answer to you

I wanted to keep this from getting in the way of the current thread. Indeed those ideas you mention of Clay don't seem very convincing to me. I did not bring that article to the discussion. But she is right that there is debate about how and when Germanic languages arrived at the Rhine, which I fear our article is avoiding. Roymans and Toorians, who she cites (and both have academia.edu sites), are interesting IMHO. A key difference is that they don't propose simple migrations from the Jastorf culture but both rather propose Vienna style elite movements. Re-checking, you are right that Clay does not clearly say that Germani spoke Gaulish, though it seems the most obvious interpretation. Relevant for this discussion is that her "migrants", "some" of whom brought Germanic to the Rhineland Germani, are not compatible with Liebeschutz. But then again I don't know of any other good source which is compatible with Liebeschuetz, because his position pretty much makes the Roman Germani the same as the modern technical linguistic definition. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: We know very little from direct textual evidence, a bit more from sound deduction, and a lot more from wild speculation, especially if we have an axe to grind (cf. Liebescheutz). For the first categories of knowledge, we can follow mainstream consensus and present it in Wikivoice. This can often result in honest statements about what we do not know, rather than what we wish to know (such as the linguistic affiliation of the various Germanic gentes, including your pet cisrhenane tribes). Anything beyond this can be mentioned considering due weight, but only with an "according to"-flag (and without reading too much into secondary sources that simply isn't there). –Austronesier (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I think we are trying to write a very short neutral summary. FWIW, more difficult to handle on WP than the cisrhenane tribes are their cousins on the other bank, it seems. There is a sort of fudge around whereby the G cisrhenani are designated not really Germanic, but then no-one wants to explain what this means for their famous neighbours who defeated Varus. It is a sort of emergency amputation? In more focused publications though, it seems that scholars who write about it see Germanic languages somehow moving west from the Jastorf area to an area which was apparently La Tène until about 100 AD (e.g. Roymans). Toorians gives an argument for the Batavian elite being early pathbreakers already around the time of Caesar, which is basically a tidying up of an old idea. I'd suggest there is very little consensus on exact details, but the closest we have is still approximately that Wenskus model, with a lumpy flow of military elites from about Caesar to Tacitus. I think this "pre Frankish" area was actually the one Wenskus first used his ethnogenesis model on? Even Liebeschuetz pays lip service to that model. Anyway, in a short summary I still don't think we should be saying there was one Germanic language which all Germani spoke, IMHO.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: You have reached that point again. You know, that point. You should know that I have deliberately used the term exegesis because I feel exposed to Zealotism. –Austronesier (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No honestly I can't follow what you are saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, it seems inevitable that you get called lots of things if you dare to work on this topic on WP, but normally I think I am accused of being too sceptical, because always wanting our wordings to leave room for uncertainty, and diversity of opinion, when the field has no strong consensus? (If you want to know what I think, that would be a completely different discussion. I think that not only is there no reason to assume two neat language blocks, but we know virtually nothing about the languages in this period. We can only have a sort of playful speculation, but that is not relevant to what we should put in WP.) Anyway, I think in this case I was right to call for a weaker wording, and I am not pushing for any alternative strong wording. It is not ideal that we are now trying to make a "Liebeschuetz light" sentence based on the quotes which were brought to try to support Liebeschuetz. And you know, I think when people get annoyed at me it is often because I want a weaker wording? In that light, it seems odd to select the word "zealotry"?

If your concern is about my Clay reading then maybe you are reading too much into that case. If it has become a big concern for you, I would be happy to try to find time later to write a short careful explanation of my reading of her, but I did not want to spend too much space on that side issue on the article talk. In any case, I don't believe I was looking for anything esoteric at all. I just read a whole page instead of a single sentence, which no one else seems to have done. A BIG problem on this topic is the use of out-of-context snippets. I try not to work that way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-European_languages&type=revision&diff=1042371441&oldid=1042359015

Thanks for your feedback (some just reset wo even commenting). I like to reply here, if you don't mind.

Where from? All linked? 'Germanic langs' article, 'German lang' article on en-wp. Is where 105 mio comes from.

• German std lang ca. 95 mio, *dialects of German* (sourced in articles, SIL Ethnologue 2006, 2014) ca. 20 mio, all mother tongue/first lang.
• Not counting 'Germanic dialects, developed into separate langs', which include English, Dutch a.o..
• Also not counting 2nd lang speakers o.c. (they prob only learn std 'German German' anyway, at least they often sound like).

Also see de-wp 'Deutsche Sprache' article. I'm able to read this article, hope you are too.

• first paragraph (stated 90-105 mio, std lang plus German dialects, as 'mother tongue')
• side box, with sources. Again, 105 mio standing in this article. I only changed bec de-wp mentioned that number, too.

As for 'Yiddish', I did not count it bec Jewish ppl also do speak other langs in diff countries, as did e.g. Moors (in Spain) etc., so many groups adapted by using actual foreign langs, and a hebraic lang I would consider fits more, as *factual* mother tongue. Does not need to be the modern Ivrit (think is the name), but one of the semitic langs in the family. So Yiddish is probably sort of a germanic dialect, but semitisised (semitic vocabulary added), plus other vocs of other langs added. To me it feels kinda between two stools, not this one and not that one...
Is why I added the 'plus' in the comment. Could be counted too I guess, or maybe not.

I was thinking, when e.g. Persian is listed as '100+ mio' language, with about 70 mio mostly in Iran and neighbouring countries, and the rest is counted for all around the world, then German could be added too, correct? Is that enough of an explanation? Usually I do not screw with en-wp, am mostly active on de-wp, so I was wondering if it shouldn't be equal on other wps, too. But German sources (see mentioned in de-wp article) are prob not the right ones for en-wp. Greets - 88.151.79.158 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@88.151.79.158: There are obviously a lot of discrepancies between various articles in en-WP and de-WP (I speak German; you can geolocate my lect by means of the section "IPA" in my user page). I will have a closer look and start a discussion in Talk:German language when I have found out more (and also try to dig up more/better sources).

Your inclusion criteria are uncontroversial, although there is wide consensus not to include Yiddish as part of the German macro-language. Diachronically, the core of Yiddish stems from MHG and is in many ways closer to Standard German than Plautdietsch is, but synchronically, it is distinct based on sociolinguistic and mutual intelligibility criteria.

The figure of 105M in de:Deutsche Sprache ultimately is from a DYK-trivia post in the web edition of Wirtschaftswoche. You must admit this is not an ideal source for this kind of information. Note 3 in Germanic languages looks like an overcount due to double counts of basilectal and acrolectal speakers in earlier versions of Ethnologue. The latest edition of Ethnologue has 76,540,740 L1-speakers of Standard German worldwide, in sharp contrast to the 95M mentioned in note 3. It might take some time, but as said I'll bring this up in Talk:German language. –Austronesier (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

PS: :es:Idioma alemán mentions this source, which looks perfect to me to cleanup and harmonize the speaker figures in de-WP and en-WP. On a first glance, this source supports a figure of ~95M L1-speakers of German (in the widest sense including all "dialects" like Bavarian in D/A/I/CH or Hunsrik in Brazil) worldwide. –Austronesier (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also nochmals Danke für Dein genaues Eingehen hier. Entschuldige die Länge, ich versuche möglichst vollständig zu antworten. Versetzen kann man die Disk. immer noch.

Ich hätte ahnen können, dass Du vllt. deutschsprachig bist, aber nicht erkennen (Benutzername erregt Verdacht, aber wer weiß?). Manche Angemeldete zeichnen sich mit Babel-Kästen aus. Oder haben auch Interwiki-Links zu anderssprachiger Benutzerseite, aber dies mag nichts heissen. Ich dachte, auf Nummer sicher - en-wp = Englisch.

Richtig. Zahlen laut Links schwanken sehr, von ca. 90 Mio. (alte Ethnologue-Quelle, 15+ Jahre) bis 105 Mio. (relativ neue Quellen, ca. 2015+). Und ich meine nur Muttersprachliche. Der Wiwo-Link ist zumindest deutschsprachig. Für gewöhnlich übernehmen die dort Angaben aus ordentlichen Quellen. Sind aber wohl nicht fachlich qualifiziert.

Die Seite des de-Gruyter-Links zeigt mir übrigens keine Zahlenangaben, ich kann das Buch nicht komplett anzeigen. Bräuchte genaue Seitenangaben/-links zur Kontrolle (Screenshots?). Bin etwas *skeptisch* bei diesem Werk, weil sie auf Deiner verlinkten Seite Wikipedia als Quelle nennen (für Esperanto). Ich erwarte mir eher, dass dies bei einem reputablen Werk *nicht* passiert, da wp zu leicht verändert werden kann. Du erwähnst ja selbst, ohne absichtliche Manipulation gibt es in versch. Artikeln ziemliche Unterschiede, wie beim Thema 'wieviele sprechen Deutsch'. Dies ist eher ein rotes Tuch für mich. Artikel mit strenger Qualitätskontrolle, in archivierter Fassung, halte ich für zulässig. Ansonsten kann ich nur sagen, dass ich auf zumindest 95+ Mio. käme, eventuell aber mehr (s.u.).

Vergiss bei 'Standard-Deutsch' lt. Ethnologue bitte nicht, dass dies womöglich nur DE-Deutsch meint. Aber nicht alle EU-Länder, und andere Europa zugehörige, also Varianten. Die 76,5 Mio. klingen mir nämlich *arg wenig*, vllt. DE-only? Oder wäre gemeint, wieviele Zweitsprachler Deutsch auf L1-Niveau beherrschen? Glaube eher nicht.

Ich möchte zusammenfassen, was ich herausgefiltert habe. Zwei Quellen ziehe ich heran. Gehe davon aus, diese sind vertrauenswürdig:

Qu. spricht von ca. 105 Mio. Deutschsprachigen weltweit (ohne Zweitsprecher).

laut Qu. Muttersprache von mehr als 20 % EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürgern, macht ca. 90 Mio. Die EU-Zahlen werden wohl stimmen. Knapp 450 Mio., davon 20+ % = ca. 90 Mio. gesamt. Dabei sind vllt. BE-NE-LUX, DE, AT, plus weitere Minderheiten in EU-Ländern, also Großteil Europas.

Länder ausserhalb der EU:

In LI sind es gut 25.000 (minus 'Gäste'); de:Deutschschweiz ca. 5,9 Mio., die darf man als deutschsprachig annehmen, ca. 2,7 Mio. sind nicht Schwyzerduetsche ('Gäste' zähle ich auch hier nicht. Wären vllt. zuzurechnen, soweit ehemals aus deutschspr. Gebieten und eingebürgert).

de:Russlanddeutsche (2011 ca. 394.000, de-wp), de:Ukrainedeutsche (2001 ca. 33.000, de-wp), de:Siebenbürger Sachsen, de:Donauschwaben u.a. (ev. tw. in EU-Zahlen enthalten, aber bspw. in Serbien 2011 ca. 4000, en-wp) - ich sage ca. 400.000 in etwa.

Ich käme auf gut 96+ Mio. Muttersprachliche (Europa + tw. Asien/ex-SU), als unterer Wert, sehe ich als realistisch.

Weltweite Gruppen:

Da können noch ein paar Mio. zusammenkommen. Laut de:Auslandsdeutsche sollen aktuell alleine ca. 1,1 Mio. 'Deutsche' in den USA leben (keine Nationalitäten wie AT, CH o.a.?), weiter unten (Qu. 7) heisst es ca. 10-15 Mio. 'Deutschsprechende' waren es um 1990, weltweit. Aber leider keine Angaben, ob die üblicherweise nur für Jahre (Auslandsjob) oder für immer bleiben (voraussichtlich).

Erwähnen möchte ich solche, welche ausgewandert sind, bestenfalls erst bis zwei Generationen im Ausland leben. Die werden seltener bedacht, glaube ich. Meist denkt man an typisch historische Gruppen und die Nachkommen.

Insofern dürften Zahlen der *Deutschsprachigen* im Ausland ab 1990 nicht sehr geschwunden sein, weil Neuauswanderer (in andere Weltgegenden) dies abschwächen, die nicht zurückkehren wegen Familie anderwo u.s.w. (meine Vermutung). Weisst Du bspw., wieviele auf Dauer in SO-Asien leben? Auf YT etc. sind Etliche aktiv, sicherlich Auswanderer. Geben Tips für Niederlassung u.a., wieviele werden aber in der Heimat noch mitgezählt, weil dort gemeldet? Könnte es nicht sagen.

Konservativ geschätzt - 5+ Mio. weltweit, die definitiv *deutschsprachig* sind und anderswo Existenzen aufbauten. Was meinst Du? Ich inkludiere hier nicht nur solche aus DE, auch AT, CH etc.. Wiederum ein unteres Limit.

Summa summarum, bei einer Bandbreite von 96-105 Mio. sähe ich die goldene Mitte bei 100+ Mio. doch sicher erreicht. Solange nicht jmd. mit exakteren Zahlen käme. Die Angeführten werden wohl auch alle muttersprachlich sein. Was hast Du aufzutreiben bzw. beizusteuern? Ich bin offen für Feedback.

Ich hatte erst de-wp als Referenz genommen (weil sollte man dort eig. wissen), Standard-Deutsch, Varianten und typische Erstsprecherzahlen versucht zu addieren. Aber nicht Yiddisch. Ich glaube eher, es ist ein Soziolekt? Es wurde aber in einem Artikel erwähnt bzw. hinzugezählt, daher mein Kommentar 'bis 105+ Mio. Sprecher' bei der Änderung. Falls jmd. es mitzählte, dann wären es doch über 105 Mio., daher das Plus.

Grüße - 185.16.52.35 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ebenfalls vielen Dank für die anregende Diskussion! (Nicht alle letzeren verlaufen so, vgl. z.B. den Schwachmat im nächtsten Abschnitt.) Ich werde weiterhin auf Englisch antworten, um meine Diskussionsbeiträge ggf. hier in der en-WP (wo ich nunmal überwiegend aktiv bin) wiederverwerten zu können, und auch, weil durchaus einige Benutzer, die des Deutschen nicht mächtig sind, hier "heimlich" mitlesen (= talk page-stalkers). Ich hoffe, das ist für Dich in Ordnung. Gemeinsames Ziel ist ja, dass wir eine einheitliche und wohlfundierte Darstellung auf den Seiten der en-WP erreichen können, und da kommt jede Mitarbeit recht.

Just in short: the page on the site sprachkreis-deutsch.ch is sourced on the page in Wirtschaftswoche, thus we face the same problem: what is the source of the WW data?

As for Ammon's book: yes, unfortunately, some of his crucial data is based on figures from de-WP, such as the linguistic composition of South Tyrol. So we should cross-check the data, as he did himself in many instances. Ammon was an eminent scholar, so I basically trust he knew what he did. And FWIW, I have only seen positive reviews of the book.

The relevant information is in chapter C, pp. 159–197, with bird's-eye view tables on p. 170 and p. 173. The chapter is fully visible (at least from my IP range) on Google Books (https://books.google.de/books?id=MZXoBQAAQBAJ).

Mehr dazu in Kürze, VG –Austronesier (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Philppine infobox annomaly

can we talk about it in the talk page of Philippines? as i feel sorry to the Philippine article bombarded by Moderator's cut information (Snopik (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)).

@Snopik: Yes, that's the right place to discuss. And btw, there are no "moderators". We're all editors of equal rank when it comes to content. Although it wouldn't hurt to listen to experienced editors before hurling around claims of POV and bias. Admins are around to intervene when editors create severe disruption like edit warring. –Austronesier (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

i see that's a good thing for the accuracy of the article. what was that a threat? you think that...if someone trying to correct the anomalies in Philippine articles (or in any articles) will be charged of edit warring? and even backed with Legit sourcing but without the preferred version of influential "elite" editors will be charged of disruptive or problematic editor? i guess what i have done wasn't fell on that category. all what readers want was WP:NPOV. but without the backing of editor's "college" you will become disruptive. but the consequence of that anomaly was: People distrust of wikipedia as a reliable site. i hope this thing will clear the argument. thank you.

PS : im not accusing you of those charges im just concerned by that "circles of editors dominating wiki and cherry picking the information people outside wikipedia told me about that thing." (Snopik (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC))

@Snopik: No, I wasn't a threat. You do the same mistake again: you attribute motives to others based on your own assumptions. Just like when you talk about some "circles of editors dominating wiki and cherry picking" just because you disagree. If you don't want to accuse anyone, just don't it. Please continue to discuss the matter in the page talk of the article, not here. –Austronesier (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

no one was there: and it was isn't an "Assumption" (or personal opinion if you meant that), but that type of reasoning same as your'es causes the wiki to fail from the accurate information site. (Snopik (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC))

Finnic

FYI, I recreated Finnic peoples, in an attempt at an ethnic rather than reified linguistic article, even if it's ethnic in an exonymic sense. There are some Finns who don't like this, as this is not how the word 'Finnic' is used in Finland, but AFAICT it's still used this way in Russia, as well as in some of our sources, e.g. an EB article that speaks of a historical area inhabited by 'a Finnic people, specifically of the branch that includes the Udmurts'. It's very handy to have an article to link to for the very many articles on Russian topics that mention Finns / Finnic tribes without clarifying which languages they speak, and a dab page isn't really appropriate. I've used it to retarget links to Finno-Ugric in an anachronistic sense, with Finno-Ugric countries as the link target for FU in the modern ethnic-solidarity sense. Thought I'd bring it to your attention in case it becomes contested again. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I agree, a simple dab is not enough to capture the teminological complexity. It's a bit like Hindi Belt. Here[110][111][112] are some more attestations of the wider usage. Maybe you can get rid of Minahan then, cf. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Encyclopedias_of_James_B._Minahan. –Austronesier (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Old tagalog Annomaly

Hi! i noticed that you reverted my edits in Old Tagalog, but a s language is the topic of the section, it's obviously "odd" to remove the added information what do you mean by "reliable sources" you don't have to lecture me about it. by this ". 10th-century Tagalog is not attested (the LCI is written in Old Malay" Tagalog has a lot of loanwords and in Sanskrit and Old Malay as well stated in LCI you mentioned that "there's no tagalog on it" how many sentence in old tagalog has already mentioned on the plate?" anak is one of it for example.) im sorry, but this matter and the way you explain the reversion seems "Odd". now i will going to add the references if you mean by it.(Snopik (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC))

Resolving editing conflict with MfactDr

Hi, MfactDr is making edit warring after I cleanup the poor grammar and text at Jawar Mohammed § Activism. However, he overwhelming resisted to clear even if I told them in its talk page. I don't want intentionally to get editing warring but the Activism section reads like point of view and editorial bias. I don't know about POV policy regarding sourceful statement but there are undue weight such as repetitive quantity such as "the largest ethnic group" and "Respected opposition leader Bekele Gerba" and more... The Supermind (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a moment after addressing, TrangaBellam assisted by removing the section as promotional. The Supermind (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, I'm seriously assuming good faith and detected several unexplained moves in Oromia related articles by MfactDr. Look this one, they claimed "Aanaa" as official Ethiopian federal government name for "woreda". And this unexplained removal seems hostile to my edit even if I fix typo. Austronesier, I'm sorry for saying this, but they are acting like "usurper". If we allowed them to continue, the consequences will be worsen and potentially allows authoritarian editors for each topics, making Wikipedia bureaucrat by any users. This user is promoting soap. The Supermind (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Supermind: The mass changes and POV-pushing of MfactDr already have been brought to WP:ANI by User:Landroving Linguist before, but unfortunately there was no response from the community. It is worth considering to look into this again, but it takes energy and a strong case. Frankly, I don't think it is advisable if you take the initiative, because your approach to this topic range is often no less problematic.

As for the puffery in Jawar Mohammed, this already has been handled well by User:TrangaBellam. –Austronesier (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Typo quality

I'll have you know that this trends towards least dumb on the scale of typo dumbness. A great word. CMD (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: A great word – The originally spelled word, or the intended one? What makes it even dumber is that every Filipino will think I made a deliberate pun, when it was really just a malapropism (probably a mental phonetic blend with eulogy?)... –Austronesier (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The original one, and potential taglish punnery only adds. CMD (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of opinions (outside wiki)

Hello , nice to meet you again, i admire you as my fellow editor for contributing the articles, we're doing our best to keep wikipedia reliable and factual as an encyclopedia.

But Did you that outside wikipedia, people mostly (in the Philippines) were having a suspicion; know what they say : "since when Indonesians become "experts" in our (Philippine) history" based in conflict of interest. they degrade the City states and respectfully kingdoms into a "tribal settlement" despite of all evidences (existence of Raja as title etc.) and most Indonesian polities were regarded as kingdoms and empire its quite obviously in my opinion. but the fact is most of people have a trust issues due to the conflict of interest. and some of editors turn out of the issue but people nowadays were not satisfied in wiki's system of today. as it was 40 % facts 60% conflict of interest. PS: no need to reply Terima kasih! don't bother to reply. (Snopik (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snopik: You are aware that previous discussions surrounding the ancient polities of Tondo and also Butuan were almost exclusively held by Filipinos, including me? I agree that WP often suffers from lack of accuracy and balanced presentation of knowledge; countering this lack is the very reason why I have seen the need to revert quite a number of your edits. Talking about percentages, I'm just 100% against fluff, which eventually brings me into a "COI" when encountering the later. This, however, is a COI that no one has declare :) –Austronesier (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that previous discussions surrounding the ancient polities of Tondo and also Butuan were almost exclusively held by Filipinos, including me? who knows if they or you were from "Jakarta or not? because the IP hounds (wp:hounding and other editors on this matter were members of wiki Indonesia on their user page same as yours; (i don't know if they just want to have an Indonesian accounts on purpose or they were from that particular nation the fact was they were also member of wiki indonesia) and they still active here in they were in Scott free. and but many netizens were so aware of what i called anomalies did by members with conflict of interest including Fil-am user, they transformed the kingdoms to become "exotic tribal" settlement. (in which is far from the "imposed theory" by some wikipedians since wiki mixing their POVs on the admit it or not specially the "circle".) and other stuff of Philippine history (with proper sourcing) but gets rejected by the "editors circle" due to numerous reasons and i agree on them on some points. they saying it happened here, in short what my point is everyone were on the watch on the next transformation here of Philippine articles since the reliability of wiki articles were an issue. (Snopik (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Snopik: I can't follow you. Try to read what you've written after a few hours again and make your point intelligible and less conspiracy-laden. Food for thought: why on earth is a polity an "exotic tribal settlement"; and is it really so desirable to assume that pre-colonial social organization in the Philippine Islands was built on feudalism and slave labor of a Srivijaya-style level? –Austronesier (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

intelligible eh? then try to read the LCI Jayadewa represented the "unnamed King" of Tondo, and compare it to the statements of the "editors guild" ,a polity (mislabled as a kingdom) because of peacockry/anachronism (as if Srivijaya Kederi brunei , Melayu uses the kingdom-empire term) and also as if the Kasumuran, Bhisruta , even Jayadewa himself cannot understand what type of government they have that time ok so stop acting like you didn't know what was trying to say.  :)(talk))

only the circle of editors decide who they were from Indonesia (Snopik (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC))

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should find more reliable sources regarding orthography

If it's true that Omniglot uses poorly-done data, might as well find PDFs and other websites to record the correct and widely-used (if not officially-chosen) spellings and alphabets used by local communities.

One example I used was the alphabet for Khamti from India, which I used several charts as my reference to record the alphabet.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Continued in User_talk:PulauKakatua19#Omniglot

Lang tagging

I've noticed that several protolanguages here, such as Proto-Germanic, Proto-Indo-Iranian, and Proto-Celtic, aren't bothering to tag their reconstructed *phonemes* with anything, not even the traditional /x/ slashes, just an asterisk. I can see the utility in tagging roots and such with the lang module, but is it really necessary to have {lang|cel-x-proto|*ɸ|italic=no} kind of markup for every phoneme? What do you think? Should the Proto-Indo-Iranian page be doing this sort of thing too? Tewdar (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I always thought this mainly applied to words or phrases, whether in isolation or interspersed in running English text. I noticed with some shock the pains you have gone through here. Usually we just flatly ignore B.'s tagging requests, but I couldn't have openly said this on their talk page :/ –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Duw re'm gweres! I didn't know he did this to others too. Right, "a complete ignoral" it is then, and asterisks is the only markup I'm using. I've had quite enough of people interfering with that page, actually... Tewdar (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Oh, I remember these exchanges (the phonology tables war and the spurious /dʷ/-thing, right?). By the way, it's great to learn Cornish just by talk page watching[113]... –Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That was that FDom#### meddling with the bleddy geminate/fortis resonant **phonemes** [sic!] all the time, and trying to phonemicize /dʷ/! Grr! What were you doing, learning agan yeth ni and giggling instead of helping? 😂 Tewdar (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: No, how would I have dared (to giggle, I mean)! I only saw it after it had happened. –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't you bring FDom to ANI or something the other day? Also I am very embarrassed that you have been watching my talk page - I have now stopped participating in the JK Rowling page and similar discussions...probably for the best! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Yes, I posted an ANI report and no-one fucking cared. And oh, don't worry about me watching your talk page; it goes back to the days when you made the "spirit of St. Louis" drown in the Mississippi... –Austronesier (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI don't care about anything except GENSEX, it would seem. And I'm very happy for you to watch my talk page. Perhaps I'll post some Kernowek lessons for you! Sometimes I miss our "anthropologist" "friend". But I'm sure he'll be back once his ip address changes sufficiently to evade the block... 😁 Tewdar (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tewdar: No please, missing means conjuring! And thanks for the lessons. Not that I'm especially in need for even more things to do, but this looks like fun :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Assamese

Hello! I have worked on this section recently and thought it might be good to get your comments. Please visit at your leisure: Assamese_language#History. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Sure, it'll be a pleasure for me to have a look at it (within my limited knowledge of the topic)! –Austronesier (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Starting from the top (and not just the section), I have just stumbled across this one: File:As-Axomia_(Assamese).oga. I haven't heard much spoken Assamese yet, but this awfully sounds like artificially generated with a tool that gives AmE values to /ɔ/ and /o/ (the diphthong!). –Austronesier (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

These are some additional examples: https://wikitongues.org/languages/asm/ The first is by a person who uses Assamese at home but studied in an English-medium school. I am waiting for the second video to come up, which is likely standard Assamese. The third is Assamese in the streets. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, File:As-Axomia_(Assamese).oga is a little too artificial. Especially the accents. Chaipau (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Better remove it then? –Austronesier (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Done! I did not realize it was there. Chaipau (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Lovely tree! The kawaii thing (a pig? a mouse? a cat? a *piousat?) in the cone kills me :) Thank you my friend and all the best for you in 2022! Wish you a wonderful holiday! –Austronesier (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. A mouse it is. We have many others, some hand-me-downs from 50 years ago, now unavailable. We also have German clips for real candles from almost 100 years ago, which we light but infrequently (the fire codes have changed). Hope you too have a wonderful and productive year ahead! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit request misunderstand and accusation. Thank you. ——Serial 14:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Issue in which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring at East Frisians, etc. regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, Austronesier!

Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2