Jump to content

Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 94: Line 94:


::::::secondly: there is not an aggressive approach in my side of debate. Cult thing has been deducted from you and the other devoted user to delete everything that I write or reinstate anything that I delete ignoring all references and edit summaries. [[User:سیمون دانکرک|سیمون دانکرک]] ([[User talk:سیمون دانکرک|talk]]) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::secondly: there is not an aggressive approach in my side of debate. Cult thing has been deducted from you and the other devoted user to delete everything that I write or reinstate anything that I delete ignoring all references and edit summaries. [[User:سیمون دانکرک|سیمون دانکرک]] ([[User talk:سیمون دانکرک|talk]]) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
Your pov-pushing is obvious and silly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proto-Indo-European_homeland&type=revision&diff=967253173&oldid=967243046 diff]; but obviously, it's the easy part; it's not clear what studies exactly you're referring to, or what you're trying to say. ''If'' you want to state that PIE, or pre-PIE, originated in Iran, then construct a clear statement based on [[WP:RS]], and add it to the right place, instead of selective deletion of sourced info, twisting accurate info, and making unclear statements at the wrong place. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:34, 12 July 2020

the sforza citation is inaccurate, and i've removed all mention of it until the issue can be addressed

sforza's theory is not in line with renfrew's, but with gimbutas'. his principal component analysis saw three waves into europe, including a neolithic wave (associated with gimbutas' old europe, not with pie) and a very, very strong chalcolithic wave from the steppes (associated with pie). this renders renfrew's argument confused. the expansion he speaks of happened, but sforza suggests it is *not* associated with pie.

advocates of renfrew's theory are often dishonest. it's essentially a modified flood story, so they're dealing with strong religious convictions. please defer to legitimate experts.

Proto-Proto- Steppe apologetic nonsense

What is up with this proto-proto stuff? None of the scholarly sources cited directly make a reference to Iran or the Caucauses as being the proto-proto-indo-eurpean homeland, but rather a strong possibility of being the Proto-Indo-European homeland. Here is the latest from James Mallory and Oleg Balanovsky, in 2020: "genetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the [Proto-Indo-European] homeland either in the southern Caucasus/Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppe lands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG)" Nothing about proto-proto so that needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:7CC4:AA35:E6DA:7CBC (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in terms of logic, there can be a proto language and a "proto proto" language which can even have been in a different place. This one sentence does not therefore lead to those conclusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is really nonsense, it says "proto-proto-Indo-European is the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and early proto-IE", the fact is the common ancestor of Anatolian, Celtic, Hellenic and etc, is Centum branch of Indo-European, and the common ancestor of Centum and Satem languages is Proto-IE. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on the whole it is a fully speculative stuff, fume in the dark, the biggest mistake to base linguistic assumptions based on genetic research, all this topic is unfortunately mostly on that phase, soon will be a proto-proto-proto*(m*x) Indo-European something in Pangea.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You refer to this text?

Recent DNA research which shows that the steppe-people derived from a mix of Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHG, native to the Caucasus and Northern Iran, but also found in northern Pakistan[1]), has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian, or even Iranian, homeland for an archaic or 'proto-proto-Indo-European', the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and all other Indo-European languages.[2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Narasimhan et al. 2019.
  2. ^ Haak 2015.
  3. ^ Reich 2018, p. 177. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFReich2018 (help)
  4. ^ Damgaard 2018.
  5. ^ Wang 2018.
  6. ^ Grolle 2018, p. 108.

Note the inverted commas; but alas, we can remove that phrase, but not the info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KIENGIR: We can't blame genetic researches but those who just believe in the Steppe theory in any case, if it is proved that all other Indo-European languages originated in another land, they will still say this land was proto-proto- and the steppe was just proto-. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point again, MS. Southern origins for archaic PIE is a possibility, a tentative hypothesis, and not more than that. "Speculative," if you like. In the case of your Iranian hypothesis: not even speculative, but nonsense. In case these 'speculations' turn out to be correct, the theory will still state that the bulk of the IE-languages can be traced back to the Pontic-Caspian steppes; that's where the migrations started which brought the IE-languages so far away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely doesn't matter what you and me believe, this Southern of nowhere origins for archaic PIE is your own interpretation, not what scholars say. Venezuela was not the original land of Spanish-speaking people, if it is even proved that Spanish language was spread from there to all Central and Southern American countries. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan:, @MojtabaShahmiri:,
No, I've made my reaction especially to the IP's remarks and Kristian Kristiansen's speculations, however the general weakness and weak-points of the present Indo-X theories are well-known, similarly to others (i.e. Finno-X).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Continuation of topic

My apologies if this is redundant: I am transfering the discussion form the user page of User:Joshua Jonathan#Edit warring (and possible POV-pushing) on Proto-Indo-European homeland here:

@Puduḫepa:, @Joshua Jonathan:, and @Doug Weller:

Hello. There is a fairly new editor, User:سیمون دانکرک, who has recently made an addition with a very long string of refs on the Armenian hypothesis (in the main hypotheses section, meant to support the statement that the Steppe hypothesis is "strongly debated" by new evidence). To me, this addition seems somewhat undue and redundant given the fact that the hypothesis is already represented duly in that same section of the article and elsewhere in the article in other relevant sections. I addition, the new editor's many refs contained several that were either already represented, not WP:RS (e.g. blogs and journalism), or in some cases did not even support the Armenian/Southern hypothesis or discuss it.

I reverted their addition explaining this in the edit notes, but they simply reinstated their edit with the note that it was "relevant", having seemingly ignored my explanations. I reverted them again asking them not to edit war (and to read my explanations and take objections to the Talk page), but they reistated their edit again with bery few changes (again largely igniring what I had explained). They seem to be edit warring and it looks like it may be a case of POV-pushing. It would be helpful and aporeciated to get your opinion regarding this Thank you and much appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the page's history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Proto-Indo-European_homeland

They are now reporting me at ANI claiming that I "tend to edit war": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WP%3AEW Skllagyook (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian model"

User:سیمون دانکرک changed diff Near Eastern (or Armenian) model into Iranian (or Armenian) model, edit-summary

(Near East is abnormally and extensively vague in this case, especially that other important related theories are also included in Near East meaning Anatolian theory. Additionally, South Caucasus geographically is in Iranian Plateau and has been part of History of Iran for thousands of years, except some parts excluded in recent century. In addition it is culturally included in Greater Iran

It was added at 28 march 2020 by User:Alcaios diff, edit-summary

how can you used a source that clearly states "The speakers at this symposium can generally be seen to support one of the following three ‘solutions’ to the Indo-European homeland problem" and write in the article "the three leading competitors"? This is not the first case of reference hijacking in this article unfortunately

This is not what Mallory says. I've corrected this accordingly diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan:: The speakers at this symposium can generally be seen to support one of the following three ‘solutions’ to the Indo-European homeland problem: 1. The Anatolian Neolithic model ... 2. The Near Eastern model ... 3. The Pontic-Caspian model.
My original edit: The Steppe theory, the Near Eastern model, and the Anatolian hypothesis are three leading solutions for the Indo-European homeland. Alcaios (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcaios: thanks; "the two leading competitors" isn't even in Mallory (2013); must have been Anthony, if I remember correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by سیمون دانکرک

User:سیمون دانکرک has added, and re-inserted, a substantial amount of info/characters, which was reverted three times by User:Skllagyook. Skllagyook explained his objections several times; the response was "relevant to the subject" and "if you have any considerations go to talk page and do not delete referenced matterial s. It's against rules."

This edit added

The former [the Steppe theory], placing the PIE homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4000 BC,[1] is the theory supported by most scholars, although it [the Steppe theory] is greatly debated by newest genetic findings in South Caucasus archeological excavations and linguistic studies related to Iranian model.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

References

  1. ^ Haak 2015.
  2. ^ Reich, David (2018). Who We are and how We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-882125-0.
  3. ^ Reich, David (2018-03-23). "Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  4. ^ Wang, Chuan-Chao; Reinhold, Sabine; Kalmykov, Alexey; Wissgott, Antje; Brandt, Guido; Jeong, Choongwon; Cheronet, Olivia; Ferry, Matthew; Harney, Eadaoin; Keating, Denise; Mallick, Swapan (2019-02-04). "Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8. ISSN 2041-1723.
  5. ^ Wang, Chuan-Chao; Reinhold, Sabine; Kalmykov, Alexey; Wissgott, Antje; Brandt, Guido; Jeong, Choongwon; Cheronet, Olivia; Ferry, Matthew; Harney, Eadaoin; Keating, Denise; Mallick, Swapan (2018-05-16). "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus". bioRxiv: 322347. doi:10.1101/322347.
  6. ^ "Genetic evidence from the South Caucasus region shows surprising long-term stability". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  7. ^ Quiles, Carlos (2017-11-18). "The renewed 'Kurgan model' of Kristian Kristiansen and the Danish school: "The Indo-European Corded Ware Theory"". Indo-European.eu. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  8. ^ Quiles, Carlos (2018-05-10). "No large-scale steppe migration into Anatolia; early Yamna migrations and MLBA brought LPIE dialects in Asia". Indo-European.eu. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  9. ^ "World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  10. ^ "World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  11. ^ Haber, Marc; Mezzavilla, Massimo; Xue, Yali; Comas, David; Gasparini, Paolo; Zalloua, Pierre; Tyler-Smith, Chris (2016-06). "Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations". European Journal of Human Genetics. 24 (6): 931–936. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.206. ISSN 1476-5438. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Kozintsev, Alexander. "Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue". Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 47 (3-4), pp.293-380.
  13. ^ "Story of most murderous people of all time revealed in ancient DNA | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  14. ^ "Genetic evidence from the South Caucasus region shows surprising long-term stability". phys.org. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
  15. ^ Holmes, Ian (2018-04-25). "What Happens When Geneticists Talk Sloppily About Race". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-07-11.

I don't understand the "although"; the Steppe theory is the leading theory. At best, it could be added to the fourth paragraph ("A notable third possibility"), but as Skllagyook noted, the "Near eastern model" is already being discussed. And Carlos Quiles definitely is not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you for looking at this. I am going over the recently added sources again (which you have compiled here), and, as I thought, several (refs/footnotes 3, 6, 13, 14, and 15, as you have them listed here) do not seem to mention to southern hypothesis at all - some seem quite irrelevant, and the others (as I also mentioned in my notes) are for the most part already incorporated in the article (some already in the 4th paragraph of thd main theories/main hypotheses section). Skllagyook (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two theories are not mutually exclusive. None of those studies argue that PIE was not spoken in the Steppe. They aver that it was spoken earlier in the "Near East" (generally in northern Iran} before migrations of 'proto-PIE' speakers towards the Pontic-Caspian steppe. For instance in Kosintsev (2019): Three migration routes from the Near East to the steppe across the Caucasus can be tentatively reconstructed — two early (Khvalynsk and Darkveti-Meshoko), and one later (Maykop). Alcaios (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly and (unfortunately) rarely, this recent comment has included some useful related scientific considerations and facts. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, Skllagyook, and Alcaios:
I have not seen a reason for deletion of my editions. Is there a credible cause for it. In return I see this article has been turned to a cult for praising Steppe Ancestry theory and especially its contemporary progenitor and defender David W.Anthony. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three problems:
  • Presenting tentative proposals for a southern origin of PIE as 'the Iranian model'. That's not what those sources are about; some of them raise the possibility that the pre-proto-IE was spoken in an area in northwestern present-day Iran; they do not throw the entire steppe-model into limbo. Nor is that their prime intention; they are not about an "Iranian model"; they are about the steppe-theory.
  • An unclear statement which does not adequately express your point of view: what exactly is "debated" abot the steppe model?
  • Taking an agressive stance, as reflected in "cult" and your complaints at the noticeboards, while omitting the initial step of initiating a discussion at the talkpage here.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: your so-called problems' answers:
The limbo you are mentioning is not claimed by me. For example: there has been several excavations regarding human ancestors; many of them has been a revision on the history of human being. This does not mean that the skeletons are false or irrelevant or etc.
secondly: there is not an aggressive approach in my side of debate. Cult thing has been deducted from you and the other devoted user to delete everything that I write or reinstate anything that I delete ignoring all references and edit summaries. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your pov-pushing is obvious and silly diff; but obviously, it's the easy part; it's not clear what studies exactly you're referring to, or what you're trying to say. If you want to state that PIE, or pre-PIE, originated in Iran, then construct a clear statement based on WP:RS, and add it to the right place, instead of selective deletion of sourced info, twisting accurate info, and making unclear statements at the wrong place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proto-Indo-European_homeland&oldid=967259164"