Talk:Seima-Turbino culture

Archaeology Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Whether or not these languages belong to the Altaic languages is still unclear, but plenty of evidence suggest a connection with the Korean language."

Ural-Altaic is a fringe hypothesis, and the three sources the article cites after this statement seem fishy to me. For example, "The Finnish Korean Connection: An Initial Analysis" opens with this very questionable paragraph:

"It has traditionally been accepted in circles of comparative linguistics that Finnish is related to Hungarian, and that Korean is related to Mongolian, Tungus, Turkish and other Turkic languages. N.A. Baskakov, in his research into Altaic languages categorised Finnish as belonging to the Uralic family of languages, and Korean as a member of the Altaic family. Yet there is evidence to suggest that Finnish is closer to Korean than to Hungarian, and that likewise Korean is closer to Finnish than to Turkic languages."

Should the article at least have a disclaimer that this runs counter to the mainstream academic consensus?--108.20.184.19 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without ANY scientific ref this suggestion is worth NOTHING!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:85F8:D6D1:25D5:9B6C (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unscientific referencing!

"The American Journal of Human Genetics: Volume 99, Issue 1: Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup N: A Non-trivial Time-Resolved Phylogeography that Cuts across Language Families", 7 July 2016, Pages 163-173." We do not talk about journals but Authors!!!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:61BA:41CB:5788:1115 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logical nonsense

"The existence of Uralic Samoyedic and Ob-Ugrian groups like the Nenets, the Mansi people and the Khanty, anchor the Uralic languages in Asia." is logical nonsense, because of equally many UR languages west of the Ural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:85F8:D6D1:25D5:9B6C (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lie/Error

"The buried were nomadic warriors and metal-workers, traveling on horseback or two-wheeled chariots.[5]" - This is a lie. The cited page 517 - at least in the current online version - does not contain any word about whatever chariots! Again a sign for an extremely poor article! Neverthless, after 2000 BC, spoked chariots appeared in the contemporary Sintashta c. ^[1] 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:615B:E55B:1575:BA91 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hans J.J.G. Holm: The Earliest Wheel Finds, Their Archeology and Indo-European Terminology in Time and Space, and Early Migrations around the Caucasus. Archaeolingua Alapítvány, Budapest, 2019, ISBN 978-615-5766-29-9

[1] Hans J.J.G. Holm: The Earliest Wheel Finds, Their Archeology and Indo-European Terminology in Time and Space, and Early Migrations around the Caucasus. Archaeolingua Alapítvány, Budapest, 2019, ISBN 978-615-5766-29-9

[1]