Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk • contribs) 28 march 2015 (UTC)

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)

"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)

@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)

@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)

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, 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.

References

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

at last I invite you to review thoroughly the script of the references I presented before you impartially. We will discuss it soon. I have to go now, the debate remain open. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources you mention have already been used; in essence, what you're trying to say is already said in the article. Carlos Quiles is not WP:RS. NewScientist is unaccessible. And Kozintsev has been discussed before, and rejected. The bottomline is: you want to rewrite this article based on a personal pov. See the fate of User:MojtabaShahmiri, of whom you remind me eerily. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Neutral point of view

There is an obvious tendency to empower the Steppe hypothesis especially focusing on David W. Anthony, ignoring recent genetic findings that could enlighten the prehistory of Indo-European languages' speakers in this article by few users. I suppose it is a must to maintain more scientifically approach in an encyclopedia. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As before: you're pov-pushing on supposedly Iranian origins of pre-PIE - a pov which is mentioned in the article. See WP:DONTGETIT. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

pov-pushing is a claim that you make as an undocumented one. It is an unjust label that I could tag to your claims likewise. Stop claiming and start reasoning. You are investing in Steppe hypothesis as a false dominant theory. Your judgement is personal and you have added editorial adjectives to the article to you pov-pushing approach. Have a nice day سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Putting too much emphasis on the possible Iranian origins of pre-PIE, which is a tentative proposal within the bounds of the Steppe-theory, as you did with this edit, referring to WP:WEIGHT, is indeed pov-puhing:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The Steppe-model is the dominant model, period. And your preferred pov is being covered in the article.

NB: the sentence

The most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the steppe hypothesis

is covered by five sources: Mallory & Adams 2006; Anthony 2007; Pereltsvaig & Lewis 2015 p.1–16; Anthony & Ringe 2015; Haak et al. 2015. Could you please tell us where those sources say that

One of the three most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the steppe hypothesis

with other words, that the Anatolian hypothesis is widely accepted; and that the supposedly Iranian origin is widely accepted? Regarding the Anatolian hypothesis, see Spencer Wells (2017), The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, Princeton University Press, p.168:

Thus, while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle east to Europe.

And Bomhard (2019):

other scenarios regarding the possible Indo-European homeland, such as Anatolia, have now been mostly abandoned

See also note 2. Now, that's the Anatolian hypothesis. The tentative suggestions of an Iranian origin of pre-PIE are not even a hypothesis, let alone a theoretical model, but just that: suggestions, put forward by a handfull of authors. And, despite being a minority view, this pov is being covered in the article. And not widely accepted; Anthony surely doesn not agree with these two claims...

NB2: note that I added these references in response to this request by User:Chiorbone da Frittole, so be carefull with statements like you have added editorial adjectives to the article to you pov-pushing approach. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Iran:

• Mallory, Dybo and Balanovsky (2020): "[G]enetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the homeland either in the southern Caucasus or Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppelands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG)."
• Haak et al. (2015a), supplementary information p.138: ""The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility"; no mention of Iran.
• Reich (2018), p.120: "This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia."
• Damgaard (2018), p.7: "the early spread of IE languages into Anatolia was not associated with any large-scale steppe-related migration." P.8: "We cannot at this point reject a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian IE languages into Anatolia was coupled with the CHG derived admixture before 3700 BCE [Caucasus CHG => Anatolia], but note that this is contrary to the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus, and that CHG ancestry is also associated with several non-IE-speaking groups, historical and current. Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region by way of commercial contacts and smallscale movement during the Bronze Age. Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west [...] the Anatolian IE language branch, including Hittite, did not derive from a substantial steppe migration into Anatolia."
• Wang et al. 2019 (p.8, 9) state that the Caucasus served as a corridor for gene flow between cultures south of the Caucasus and the Maykop culture during the Copper and the Bronze Age, speculating that this "opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus," (p.10) which "could offer a parsimonious explanation for an early branching off of Anatolian languages, as shown on many PIE tree topologies." (p.10) However, Wang et al. also acknowledge that "the spread of some or all of the PIE branches would have been possible via the North Pontic/Caucasus region," as explained in the steppe hypothesis. (p.10)
• Kristiansen (2020): ""...the origin of Anatolian should be located in the Caucasus, at a time when it acted as a civilizational corridor between south and north. Here the Maykop Culture of the northern Caucasus stands out as the most probable source for Proto-Anatolian, and perhaps even Proto-Indo-Anatolian."

Six sources on a southern pre-PIE: "southern Caucasus or Iran" or "steppelands north of the Caucasus"; Armenia; "perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia"; southern origin 'cannot be rejected' but steppe-origins is the dominant model; "possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus" but the steppe-model also explains the early origins; Maykop culture. That's what these sources say; "Iran" is no more than a "perhaps," as an alternate but less likely possibility for the Caucasus, which is an alternate but less likely possibility for the steppes. The only reason this minority view is being mentioned is because the Armenian hypothesis has some scholarly credibility, and because Mallory and Reich are notable scholars. That's it. And that's quite a lot of coverage already for this. So, yes, any more pushing on this is WP:DISRUPTIVE pov-pushing, giving WP:UNDUE weight to a tentative possibility. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable job in collecting a bulk of evidence but I still disagree with you in the method and tone of summarising a theory or hypothesis or suggestion _as you tend to deviate the scripts that you've well assembled_ according to your point of view. I gather you have a strong bias towards Steppe hypothesis and putting too much effort to document it in this regard. There is a difference between seeking scientific method and seeking a theory and collecting evidence in accordance with it. Finally, even your approach here is different from the main page and obviously biased.سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Page numbers

Hello, I recently noticed many citations made in the lead and in the article without referencing the page numbers of the source cited. Would it be inappropriate to ask for the specific page numbers of the sources? Regards Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 17:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: no, ceertainly not inappropriate (but a lot of work!) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks for the reply, Irrespective of magnitude of the work involved. Do the statements made without pointing out a precise reference be considered as a reliable reference/source? To start with, can we tag all such references with - template? Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 19:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: oh my, what do you expect me to do? Check all instances? In principle, all those references are from reliable sources, and a lot of them do not refer to specific quotes or statements, but to 'larger' explanations, or complete models. Bjt maybe you've got specofic examples? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Ohh my.. what do you expect me to do? None my comments implied, that I asked YOU do something about the referencing issue, and I never questioned the Content cited. I just pointed some referencing errors in the article and asked: could these be considerd as reliable in absence of page numbers and many reference errors and is there a procedure and workflow to correct the errors? To my initial query you commented "( but lot of work)". Would it be wise to overlook the errors, as it requires "lot of work" ? Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I did take a quick look, but I didn't see problematic refefences. But, that waz a quick look, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: To begin with, plz see reference 75 a,b. These point to page-137, where as the cited source is of 14 page article from nature.com. Also Plz check footnotes 10 to 13, where the citations are made with sfn templates but no Sources are provided in Bibliography/Sources. Plz correct me, if iam wrong. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 20:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Haak 2015 must be Haak 2015a, supplementary information; I've added 10-13; probably a left-over from an incomplete copying of info from Indo-European migrations. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Southern archaic PIE? South of what?!

It is clear that some of this article's editors as they behave like so-called self-appointed chief editors of the script, has selected a term "Southern archaic PIE" which is a vague non-informative geographical address and gets us to nowhere to avoid mentioning "Iranian origin" for PIE. You may ask the enthusiastic writers of the text : where is your compass station that shows another theory South of it, so that the presumptuous and recently questioned theory of Steppe hypothesis gain the ground zero? سیمون دانکرک (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Armenian hypothesis, quite obviously. That's a hypothesis; Iran is a tentative suggestion. Regarding "southern," see Haak et al. 2015: "the question of what languages were spoken by the 'Eastern European hunter-gatherers' and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open.". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Latest genetic paper on Fatyanovo Culture

This basically settled the R1a debate: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.184507v1 ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Fatyanovo culture (offshot of CWC culture) contains R1a, which was later found in Sinthasta culture. The Fatyanovo people themselves seem to have admixture from central europe compared to the original Yamnaya people. See figure 1 of the full paper.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I read about at Eurogenes, and printed the article a couple of days ago, but didn't read it yet. Well, that leaves the location of 'Indo-Hittite' as the 'last enigma', I'd say. A scientific mind is a joy forever! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)