Talk:Allan R. Bomhard

Rationale for moving this page

This doesn't seem like an article at all, it's merely a list of publications. Even IF it could have grown to be a proper article, this list is far too long and would have made it unreadable. Maroux 11:50, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Moving the page discourages the creation of an article on the person (since it leaves a redirect). If a bio were made, then this info would belong there. Moved back. --Jiang 22:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"List of publication by Allan R. Bomhard" is also ungrammatical. --Jiang

Vigorous Objection

Why I object to the term “fringe theory” when applied to MY WORK on Nostratic as well is to the recent changes to my biographical entry: 1. My work has been published by respected academic publishers, including John Benjamins, Walter de Gruyter, and E. J. Brill. One of my books on the subject has even been included in the prestigious “Leiden Dictionary Series” published by E. J. Brill. 2. ALL of my work has been peer-reviewed by competent scholars and found to be worthy of publication. 3. ALL of the early, and much of the ongoing, criticism of the Nostratic Theory by Western (and even several Russian) scholars was/is directed toward the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč. 4. My version of Nostratic differs in crucial aspects from that of the “Moscow School” (Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky). Moreover, my work is also far more comprehensive, dealing with phonology, morphology, and lexicon as well as homelands, including the latest findings in multiple, interrelated disciplines. 5. Reviews of my own work have appeared in several journals. Those reviews have been mixed — some have been positive, and some have been critical. I have taken those reviews, as well as private feedback from colleagues and peer reviewers, into consideration when preparing updated versions of my work. I have attempted to address all of the criticism received in the revised versions. 6. I have made much of my work on Nostratic available for free download from various academic websites, and, altogether, it has been viewed/downloaded around 20,000 (twenty thousand) times. It would hardly attract much interest were it of questionable quality. 7. The main opposition to my views comes from supporters of the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč, almost exclusively from a handful of Russian scholars. However, by their own admission, they have an agenda, namely, promoting the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč at all costs. 8. I have dealt decisively with those Russian scholars who defend the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč in a 192-page review (originally prepared in 2021, updated on 12 August 2023) of Illič-Svityč’s Nostratic Dictionary. That review is available for free download from academia.edu and Researchgate. 9. My work on Nostratic forms only a part of my scholarship. I have also made important contributions to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Altaic studies. That work has been favorably cited in publications by numerous reputable scholars. A list of my publications is available for free download from academia.edu. 10. Finally, I get invited to lecture all over the world, and those doing the inviting pay my travel, accommodation, and meal expenses. This would not happen were I advocating "fringe theories".

Let me attempt to break this down one by one

My work has been published by respected academic publishers

I understand that, and those sources are mentioned on Wikipedia. That said, that does not make them accepted theories, merely published ones. Please see WP:PARITY. One book published with Brill does not override the majority of historical linguistis on this topic, and there are an abundance of citations to that effect. I mean no disrespect with this, and clearly you've put an enormous amount of effort into this work, but Mass Comparison is not an accepted technique for determining familial relationships in linguistics.

ALL of my work has been peer-reviewed by competent scholars and found to be worthy of publication.

Mere publication does not meet the standard for inclusion. We need to treat published sources with due weight (see WP:UNDUE) and just because a theory is published in peer review does not mean it's accepted.

ALL of the early, and much of the ongoing, criticism of the Nostratic Theory by Western (and even several Russian) scholars was/is directed toward the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč.

That the objections weren't specifically directed at you doesn't mean that they don't apply to your approach to the theory. Of course, it doesn't mean they do, but you need to provide peer reviewed evidence that they're more accepted. Do so, and I think you'd find that none of us would have too strong an issue including it in the article, though we're not going to treat an extreme minority perspective as co-equal with the majority of linguists. Again, WP:PARITY.

My version of Nostratic differs in crucial aspects from that of the “Moscow School”....

If your theories have merit I'm certain you can provide outside scholarship accepting them more widely in linguistics. I do not intend this as a personal attack, I just merely think you're overweighting the value of publication relative to the wider acceptance of what is published. Your particular take on Nostratic is no more accepted than any other, it's merely different, as I understand it. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm open to reading sources to that effect. I want to build a good encyclopedic article, not attack you.

Reviews of my own work have appeared in several journals...

Wikipedia is not the place to make that case (or for me to criticize it). See WP:ADVOCACY.

I have made much of my work on Nostratic available for free download from various academic websites, and, altogether, it has been viewed/downloaded around 20,000 (twenty thousand) times. It would hardly attract much interest were it of questionable quality.

Publishing is not a popularity contest, and yes, fringe theories often are quite popular.

The main opposition to my views comes from supporters of...

"All my detractors have an agenda" is absolutely the language of fringe theory. You're discounting the general wide rejection of the theory within historical linguists. Again, none of us here have any issue with working with you to include verifiable and more widely accepted material, or even to discuss material that's been discussed more widely in linguistics circles. We're just asking you to provide sources for your statements prior to their inclusion. In the past your editing history appears to almost exclusively be to introduce your own written content into the theories in question, which isn't kosher here.

My work on Nostratic forms only a part of my scholarship. I have also made important contributions to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Altaic studies.

That seems like the sort of thing that probably should be included in the article about you. If you'd provide some sources for us I'm sure I and a few other editors will make an effort to include them. Note that your prior attempts to edit out the comments about people being critical of your work won't fly; we're working on an encyclopedia article, not writing a puff piece (or an attack article, to be clear).

Finally, I get invited to lecture all over the world, and those doing the inviting pay my travel, accommodation, and meal expenses. This would not happen were I advocating "fringe theories".

This is a non sequitur, people less credible than yourself are invited to give talks all the time.

Again, none of us are setting out to create an attack article, and I appreciate the enormous amount of time that went into creating your work. That said, just because it's a passion project for you and represents a significant and respectable intellectual effort, does not mean it warrants being treated as more credible than it is viewed by the larger linguistics community. Nobody here is trying to be disrespectful or setting out to editorialize the understanding of Nostratic that exists per your papers, but you cannot expect Wikipedia to reflect your preferred version of this topic when the wider community disagrees. If you have specific edits you'd like to see, again, I suggest you provide sourced arguments (keeping WP:RS and WP:PARITY in mind) and other editors will work to discuss their inclusion. You may also enjoy engaging with the Linguistics Wikiproject on this topic, rather than the talk page of this article, as more people will be able to see it. Warrenmck (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Warren: Sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about and come across as antagonistic, even belligerent. I NEVER requested or even expected that my "preferred version of this topic" be the only point of view presented. That is a blatant misrepresentation! What I expect is that the obvious bias and disorganization in the current entry on Nostratic be removed. What I actually requested was that the original entry be restored (see "talk" under "Nostratic") due to the inaccuracies in the current version -- I did not specify what the inaccuracies were. To return to the current entry, please, either restore the original biographical entry or remove it altogether. Thank you. On another note, thank you for the invitation to engage with the Wikipedia team. I respectfully decline -- I prefer to spend my time doing research and writing on topics that are of interest to me. 2603:6080:7200:BD6D:1A7:93EE:D464:C481 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Observation

From reading the comments of Wikipedia contributors, both in relation to my biographical entry as well as the entry on Nostratic, it is clear that several of these contributors are not familiar with the most recent scholarship across several fields. For example, Altaic/Transeurasian is hardly a dead or rejected field. It has recently received new attention on the part of several reputable scholars. "Contoversial" perhaps, but hardly a "fringe theory". And so on, and so forth in other areas. This makes me question the credentials of some Wikipedia contributors and whether they are really entitled to the opinions they are so confidently expressing. Arbomhard (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to restore original entry

Please, either RESTORE the original entry (see the following) or DELETE it altogether. Thank you.

Allan R. Bomhard (born 1943 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American linguist. He was educated at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Hunter College, and the City University of New York, and served in the U.S. Army from 1964—1966. He currently resides in Florence, SC. He has studied the controversial hypotheses about the underlying unity among the proposed Nostratic and Eurasiatic language families. He has published nearly 100 articles and 19 books on comparative-historical linguistics, as well as a number of books/booklets on Buddhism. 2603:6080:7200:BD6D:1A7:93EE:D464:C481 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Without proper sources for the claims in the proposed paragraph, it cannot be included, because of our strict policy on basing all claims in biographies of living people on published sources. In particular the description of Bomhard's education, Army service, and residence have already been removed from the article for exactly that reason and cannot be restored without sources.

Also, in no sense is that the original version of this article. The original version of this article, in 2004, was an indiscriminate listing of publications without any context or sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

David: I did a copy and paste from an earlier version of my biographical entry and changed "Charleston" to "Florence" and updated the number of books and articles -- that is all. This is ridiculous and inssulting -- you cannot possibly think I do not know where I live or when and where I was born. What sources could you possibly require -- college transcripts? Military records? Proof of address? List of publications? Birth certificate? I have made many of my publications (both books and articles) available for free download on academia.edu and Researchgate. Pictures from my military service are on Facebook plus my diploma from the Army Intelligence School at Ft. Holabird, MD. as well as the certificate of appreciation for my service in Vietnam. My life is an open book, and you are welcome to check for yourself -- much of it is already on the Internet. The current version of my biographical entry is biased and inaccurate. Please, either restore the EARLIER version (as corrected), or delete it altogether. Moreover, please do NOT remove Warren's comments. He has totally embarrassed himself, and I want his comments there for the whole world to see. Thanks. Allan 24.211.74.172 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe you when you state this history. But my believing you is not sufficient. For this kind of content, Wikipedia rules demand published sources, not merely good faith in the honesty of semi-anonymous contributors. I'm sure you can imagine the kinds of abuses that have happened on other biographies to produce the recognition that such rules are necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

David: That is, indeed, a valid point. Fortunately, I have the required credentials, and, as I said, they are freely available on the Internet for the world to see. Check amazon.com, for example, and you will see several of my books listed for sale. Check E. J. Brill, and you will see one of my books there. Do a Google search on my name. Please state what PROOFS you require -- I am sure I have them all. I am a well-established researcher, with publications going back to 1973. Do you need copies? You can download them, or I can supply them. This is hardly even a challenge. What do you actually need, and how can I get it too you? Allan. PS: David: There is no need to disagree here. Do not take my word on any of this. Please take the time to check the Internet yourself and verify that what I am saying is true -- everything you could possibly need is and has long been in the public domain. Thus, it has absolutely nothing to do with belief or trust -- instead, factual evidence is paramount. Thanks. Allan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

David: Thinking about what you wrote above, let us look at the history here. By your own admission, I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia since at least 2004. Once the entry was finalized, it remained pretty much the same for around two decades and then, for no apparent reason, it got changed recently to a distorted, biased entry. For nearly TWO DECADES, no one questioned my credentials or the contents of my Wikipedia biographical entry. Indeed, even in the distorted current version of the entry, several of my publications are listed. Thus, the current distorted entry, by itself, fully corroborates my credentials! Since both you and Warren have thrown up meaningless roadblocks to restoring the earlier version (with corrections), it appears to me that there is some sort of hidden agenda operating here, almost as though someone tried to pull a fast one, got caught, and is now trying to cover their backside. So, what is really going on? Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 01:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

On the 2 decades thing, in 2004, WP:s rules were less strict. Over time, they have changed, but that doesn't mean content are updated quickly or at all, that require someone to notice and bother to do something about it. Finding "old stuff" that doesn't measure up is common. On todays WP, WP:BLP matters, and a WP-article about you is meant to be a summary of independent WP:RS about you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Let me be quite specific here. Replacing "old stuff" that "doesn't measure up" is absolutely a smokescreen for replacing a factual narrative with one's personal prejudices, personal opinions, biases, etc. Let me give a concrete example. The current version of my biographical entry includes the following statement: "The theory is widely rejected by mainstream linguists.[1][2] Among Nostratists [sic], he has been described as 'a maximalist who casts his nets as widely as possible' among far-flung languages not generally believed to be related." The appropriate reference is given (fortunately). However, when one checks this reference, one finds that the writer is not even a linguist, let alone anyone who has done original research on Nostratic. Thus, saying "The theory is widely rejected by mainstream linguists.[1][2] Among Nostratists, he has been described as...", using the given quotation as a justification for making that statement is a blatant misrepresentation! To make things even worse, the quotation is taken out of context. Here is what the author is referring to: "...he [Bomhard] is a maximalist who casts his nets as widely as possible: to the language families recognized as Nostratic by Pedersen, he adds Dravidian, the Kartvelian languages of the Caucasus (such as Georgian and Circassian), the Chukchi-Kamchatkan languages of eastern Siberia, and such long-extinct languages as Etruscan, which was spoken in central Italy, and Sumerian, whose homeland was southern Iraq." Even more interestingly, the author concludes: "A Nostraticist, I suppose, would scoff at such a possibility, or at least say, 'I am dealing with linguistic science. If you prefer to deal with imaginative fantasies based on religious texts, that’s your right, but don’t invoke me as your authority.; That’s fair enough. There are linguists who consider Nostratics an imaginative fantasy, too. I think they’re wrong, but I wouldn’t go so far as to swear on a Bible that the Bible had nothing to do with it." (italics mine). Thus, it appears that those who made the changes to my biographical entry were not really interested in replacing "old stuff" that "doesn't measure up" but, instead, in promoting their own distorted agenda -- the proof that this is, in fact, the case is there for all to see. Consequently, I come back to my uncompromising demand that the current biased, distorted, incomplete biographic entry be replaced by the earlier, factual entry (with corrections)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)