User talk:Austronesier/Archive 2

Edit warring by MrMan9700 at List of ethnic groups of Africa

Just to inform you that I started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:MrMan9700_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_). Have a healthy and peaceful ;-) new year ! --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Belated Happy New Year to you! For me, it has started with lots of work to do that has been keeping me busy, leaving little time for WP patrolling (not talking about actual content building). Stay healthy! –Austronesier (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete the information on the Muski's page?

Could not understand what the problem is? Historiofiran simply ignores the sources I have added and does not cite any source to confirm his words(He blocks my sources because of his subjective opinions).

The information I have added to the mushki page can be shown in the form of a screenshot that it is actually written. CeRcVa13 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@CeRcVa13: Check your talk page. Your edit was a blatant WP:copyright violation. –Austronesier (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And if I add this link will it no longer be a problem?

https://books.google.com/books?id=PxQpmg_JIpwC CeRcVa13 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@CeRcVa13: Please read the link I have given you here and on your talk page. Copying text like that is illegal and punishable by law in (almost?) every country on this planet. You are supposed to write your own text that has to be supported by reliable sources. You have to reproduce the message of the source faithfully, but in your own words. Watch out not to engage in WP:close paraphrasing. I also remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. From your talk page I can see that you apparently want to have it your own way, but this is not how it works here. –Austronesier (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. CeRcVa13 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Austronesier. Could you kindly hide the copyvio in [1] as well? Thanks in advance. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

Have you been following the discussion here? I'm not sure whether I've gone bonkers, or become visually impaired, or both. Or neither. I think it's time for me to stop moonlighting on Marxism articles, and get back to good old obscure topics like Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site that are pretty much entirely created and edited by me, hence avoiding any need for discussion. Thanks for reading, if you did in fact read this. ☹️  Tewdar  (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Please do get back to good old obscure topics like Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site. It's good to see content created based on primary sources about archaeogenetics by WP editors who really understand what they are reading. Much coverage of archaeogenetics here is a trainwreck (like the Patterson et al. misreading in Celtic Britons) or a WP:CIR-sockfest.

Not much to say about "Cultural Marxism" and all that jazz. For me, it always has been Kritische Theorie. If I have time and energy, I might try to read and deconstruct the debate, but most probably me and my inner Adorno won't chime in.

Relax for a while and enjoy this Google gallery of Hans Traxler, a major exponent of the New Frankfurt School. Nos da! –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! 😁 Don't waste your time reading that debate. Awesome toons, in my opinion! Nos da dhiso ynwedh! 👍  Tewdar  (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• By the Patterson et al. misreading in Celtic Britons, are you referring to a certain editor who appears to be a little, erm, overexcited by the recent paper? I've changed the section now, so that it begins with something that approximates reality. Wonder if it'll stick? 🤔  Tewdar  (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Yes, the guy got the 90% terribly wrong. It looks good now, but drive-by edits always happen and often remain undetected. Like this one[2], which in effect attributed—in very simple language—the R1b found in Yamnaya samples to Jones et al. (2015), which is wrong. This is a typical WP:CUCKOO-edit. Proto-Indo-Europeans is still quite messy; e.g. Mathieson et al. (2015) is still cited as pre-print with the wrong title. –Austronesier (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

He got the 90%,the Iron Age, the 'confirmed Celtic', and the year of the article wrong, but hey, nobody's perfect, right?  Tewdar  (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Well, he got the direction of geneflow from the continent to Britain right. That's something, innit? –Austronesier (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Western hunter gatherer,

Interesting that you said the sensitivity from that 2017 study needed to be in the article but not clarification that “intermediate” skin is actually a type of light skin as the study you cited even said. And it clearly says the reason the sensitivity is lower is that light skin is broken up into three categories, this is important because there is a huge difference between how people picture intermediate skin and what hiserplex predictions intermediate actually means Yogibear1133 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Mea Maxima Culpa

I am actually originally responsible for the (unsourced, as you pointed out) claim of possible Iranian origins, I think. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! 😁  Tewdar  (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Actually I was lazy, I could have looked for myself. But maybe it stems from a knee-jerk reflex that built up with the antics of an Iranian scholar-turned-editor who was hell-bent to prove that all things IE originate from Iran (and tried to misuse WP as blowhorn for their fringe theories). Maybe you have seen their contributions in diverse talk pages, if not, here's a highlight for you: Talk:Gutian_language#Germanic_Theory. –Austronesier (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like good reading, thanks for that! I have a WP:fringe theory that some R1as and R1bs came south west after the Last Glacial Maximum, hooked up with some CHGs in Iran on the way, and managed to remain undetected by aDNA studies until they showed up in the Pontic-Caspian steppe several millenia later. Can't wait for the Reich lab to prove me right...  Tewdar  (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, that's not that Iranian scholar's theory, is it?  Tewdar  (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: A Y-haplogroup can be picked up anywhere by some guy in the steppe ("Yo, can I join you? I am even willing to learn your terribly suppletive and fusional language!") whose remaining autosomal genome had diluted by 0,0001% after 20 generations...so who knows? 😁 –Austronesier (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Malaysian Malay

There has been an increase of activity around the name of the Malaysian language article and references to it in other articles. I'm not aware of a reason for it, but I'm wondering if you might have some insight. The disruptive editing aside I do the question of the article title to be not that clearcut. I wrote the relevant content about the name a decade ago on the Malaysia page during a period of high 1malaysiaism. The unprecedented political context since then may certainly have rendered this a bit out of date, although I don't know if there would have been an official policy change. I don't have a feel for linguistics article myself, so if you have a vague feeling on the matter that might be helpful. A Moldova solution might be a way forward, or a more obvious footnote. Best, CMD (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I am afraid that my vague feeling might not be up to date, since I am also still familiar with the preference of "Malayasian" to designate the language of national unity. I'll have a look at recent sources if the status quo can be still upheld, or if we have to think of a new page title (probably Standard Malay, since Malay language is the broad article that covers the macro-language). –Austronesier (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that title just became a little further away. I'm not a fan of Standard Malay as a title myself, but it is an option. Not sure if you've seen, but we now have a mess in Help:IPA/Malay and Help:IPA/Indonesian in a weird move-then-fork activity that might need an admin to resolve. Not sure how to go about handling that. CMD (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The standardized language of Malaysia/Singapore/Brunei is generally referred to simply as "Malay", but since this term is also used to refer to basilectal varieties in Indonesia, "Standard" in front of Malay would serve as a kind of natural disambiguation.

As for the Help/IPA content fork, I am not sure if we can simply revert back to redirect and ask for a technical move per WP:BRD, since the residual redirect has been filled with content. Maybe Uanfala who is both page mover and linguist can recommend us what to do here. Personally, I don't think we need two guides for Malay(sian) and Indonesian since the main difference lies in the nativization of certain loan phonemes, otherwise the existing differences are minor and less marked than between RP and GA English. Maybe it might be helpful to rename the common guide to Help:IPA/Malay/Indonesian, but this is something we can discuss after restoring the longstanding status quo. –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the IPA move. It appears to have resulted in a content fork, with only a slight change to the intro text [3] (I had to move the page that was getting in the way to Help:IPA/Malaysian and turn it into a redirect; I hope that's not going to be a source of confusion).

I'm agnostic on the main question, but if both varieties remain covered in the same IPA guide, and we choose to make that clearer in the title, we should go for something like Help:Malay and Indonesian. That's the format used for the other combined IPA guides; the alternative of using a slash may lead to problems as – unlike in the article namespace, here that would indicate that Help:IPA/Malay/Indonesian is a subpage of Help:IPA/Malay. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Thanks for performing the moves. Sorry to see that you get all the abuse now, but that's how these immature POV-pushers are... This is the blocked-in-less-than-a-month type; I'll wait with the discussion until it's guaranteed we can have a conversation among grown-ups :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This should probably be reverted right? Thought it worth checking with you that "Standard Malay language" refers to the Malaysian one, despite its linguistic ambiguity. I also had a nagging feeling that I looked into. After doing so I discovered there were previous cases you were involved in, so if you have insight either way that might help. CMD (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: There's hardly any contribuition by them that should not be reverted. I'll look at the SPI later, but by now, they are beyond 3RR, which will allow an emergency break for their antics. I cant do it; it's late here, and it's hard to report 3RR when my eyes are already at 0.01 Watt. –Austronesier (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I have succeeded to report them. –Austronesier (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well that makes sense. (I also found a case of Srivijaya promotion you mentioned in a previous SPI filing.) Cleanup now remaining relates to created pages. There are some language templates ({{Lang-pea}}, {{Lang-lce}}, {{Lang-mfb}}, {{Lang-liw}}, {{Lang-zsm}}, {{Lang-omy}}, {{Lang-kkv}}, {{Lang-mui}}, {{Lang-plm}}, {{Lang-xmm}}), would you know if these are useful? I am unfamiliar with this area of template space. There are also two language articles, Tanah Minangkabau and Riau Malay. These have one source each. They could be G5ed, but you might know if there is something worth saving. CMD (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I will G5 both Tanah Minangkabau and Riau Malay. The first is weakly sourced an superfluous unless we have in-depth coverage of the dialect; the second could actually stay, but this is a matter of principle. A net-negative editor with untenable behavior is a 100%-negative; they shouldn't get even the slightest impression that any of their contributions are welcome here. Oh and btw, why will Mbis Saravon be able to edit again within less that 48hrs? I have asked the handling admin at the SPI about it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

As for the templates, I find them over-atomistic and don't consider them of much use. I'll take it to WT:LANG and leave the decision of whether to G5-delete them to others who are more into lang-tagging than I am. –

Hello, Austronesier and CMD,

I CSD G5'd Eiskrahablo's page creations including these templates. Their only use that I could find was being mentioned on this talk page, which is what led me to this discussion here. No harm in recreating them if you have a use for them. But I didn't find any of the languages listed at List of ISO 639-1 codes which is what these templates refer to so they might not be very widely used languages. Just wanted to give you a head's up in case you wanted to recreate any of these templates. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I remember that Riau Malay had a source that looked quite useful, although I can't recollect any details about author and title. Is there a way to retrieve just the cited works without too much technical hassle, and just drop them in a temporary page e.g. in my user space? –Austronesier (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with lang tags please

Hi! Over at this talk page I'm getting told off (again!) for using non-standard tags. As you can see, there is no lang tag for late Cornish (ie Cornish as spoken from 1600-1800), and no tags for the Standard Written Form or revived modern Cornish (ie the various modern not very standardized orthographies based on late Cornish). I am not sure what monk means by it is possible to define IETF private-use tags for Module:Lang/data - possible for whom? For me? I'd ask monk but he seems a little grumpy at times...🙄 the apparent proposed solution, using different tags for the 3,216 varieties of revived Cornish, seems guaranteed to drive the editor (singular) of that article stark raving bonkers.  Tewdar  (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Holy shit, these variant tags just kill me. The whole business is so anal. A broad Cornish tag should suffice, probably with some periodization. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I know! Right?! As you may have guessed, it Wasn't My Idea™. I wouldn't mind tagging the whole lot with 'kw' to be honest. The official tags don't even exist to properly periodize, just old, middle, and, er, indiscriminate! I've asked Monk for some new tags, but he seems to suspect that Kernowek Standard and the Standard Written Form are the same thing, which I suspect would give the creators of the former a good chuckle... 😭  Tewdar  (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I wouldn't mind tagging the whole lot with 'kw' to be honest: maybe you'll get away with if you just do it? Or is it under the tight watch of the (ironically) eloquent friar? After all, WP:IAR is policy. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the good [*manac'h] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized private tag: tewcor (help) doesn't care I don't think, unless it violates some ISO standard or other...I started a discussion on that page, which no one will contribute to probably, and then I'll probably change it. Do you think I should make it an RfC?  Tewdar  (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Try WT:LANG, you can ask for input and link to the ongoing discussion. That will probably elicit more focussed and competent feedback than an RfC. –Austronesier (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Ok, it was worth a try, but it's tragic to see that kid's stuff gets more response than your post. *ROTFFL* –Austronesier (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I ought to learn Sealandic, maybe they'd make a MOD:LANG tag for that, eh? 😭  Tewdar  21:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Fascinating! Is it verb-initial? –Austronesier (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There are no verbs in Sealandic. There is no action or meaningful existence there, and hence the language has no use for verbs. 😐  Tewdar  22:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: This is epic!😁 Make sure to copyright it, otherwise in twenty years, this bon mot will be attributed to Shaw. –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I stole it from Shaw's arch-enemy, Hugo Rune, actually.  Tewdar  21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Enochian language

Hi. Could you keep an eye on this? I've been twice brought to 3RR for edit-warring with an editor who claims that Don Laycock isn't a RS because he didn't interview the angels. (Also to ANI, but that got laughed off, and to COPYVIO, which was rejected.) I expect either both of us will be blocked or neither, but just in case. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Geez, believe me, I have seen all this already, but haven't had the time yet to chime in (dito with Rongorongo *sigh*). But sure, I can watch for strange activities in this weird topic. –Austronesier (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The Enochian article is protected until January 25. The current version is basically okay, I think, apart from the language categories; I found an LSA citation for it being a conlang, which should be enough to justify that cat for anyone but the problematic editor. (Should probably also keep an eye on Donald Laycock.) — kwami (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, the crackpot at Enochian has proposed teaming up with the crackpot at rongorongo to defend each other's edits. As part of that he tag-bombed Jacques Guy and then got it deleted. I got the deletion reversed, and removed the excessive tagging, but since Jacques is in your field, I thought you might be familiar w s.t. that shows his notability. I should get around to it eventually if you don't have the time. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Out of Sundaland issues

We've got Stephen Oppenheimer#Eden in the East with no critique (and his Real Eve book the same), we've got Sundaland, and we've got Austronesian languages. They don't seem to match up. And what is the current consensus on out of Sundaland? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Consensus among scholars now is quite the opposite of the centrifugal Out-of-Sundaland hypothesis. Most archeologists and linguist agree that the spread of the Neolithic was centripetal: the Sunda area (and also Wallacea and the Philiippines) was originally populated by autochthonous hunter-gatherers, while Neolithic practices entered via migration from at least two directions: first, there is the well-known Out-of-Taiwan model by Bellwood and Blust, which is 100% supported by linguistic evidence and well-matched by archeological and genetic evidence; then, there is archeological and genetic evidence for a migration of peoples from Mainland Southeast Asia that brought the Neolithic to western Insular SE Asia. These peoples are thought to have been Austroasiatic speakers, although there is no direct evidence for it. Western Insular SE Asia is now all Austronesian-speaking, but the mainland ancestry component makes up to 50% among many groups on Java and Borneo, which means the "Austronesianization" of western Insular SE Asia mot only happened through migration, but also entailed diffusion, assimilation and language shift. Additionally, there was an expansion of horticulturalists from Papua that didn't reach as far as Sundaland, but had some impact at least on Wallacea.

So Sundaland wasn't a cradle, but rather became a hub through in-migration. For a concise assessment of the Out-of-Sundaland and Out-of-Taiwan models, see this paper by Truman Simanjuntak (pp.201–203).

I will have a look how to bring NPOV to Stephen Oppenheimer#Eden in the East. Maybe Obsidian Soul can also help out with ideas and references. –Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks to me that Sundaland#Human migrations needs work as it seems to wander from disputing out of Sundaland to supporting it. My interest in this is because I am working on Gunung Padang as an example of nationalism and archaeology - see my starting draft, misnamed, at User:Doug Weller/Nationalist archaeology. The pseudo-archaeology at Gunung Padang is directly related to Out of Sundaland ideas. I've got a great and recent source (in Spanish sadly, so I had to use Google to translate it) that discusses this but I wanted to be sure it was correct. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just curious, have you ever studied Gobekli Tepek? History is changing and you dont want to stay behind. There is construction material dated at least 11.ooo years and almost sure more than 20.ooo (Gunung Padang). Is that not correct?. JKim (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It is impossible to interpret the validity of these C14 ages because, as far as I have found, they have not been formally published outside of a couple sets of lecture slides by Lutfi Yondri and M. Hum. If a person is not told specifically what the source of the carbon is and how the the samples were pretreated, it is impossible to interpret what the C14 ages are and whether they are true dates are just apparent ages. Also, detailed descriptions of the cores from which the carbon samples came are lacking. Thus, there is no way of deciding whether the carbon came from bedrock, fill, or translocated humic material and what the C14 ages mean until they and their context is formally published somewhere.

Something is likely wrong with these C14 ages because, according to a lecture slide of Lutfi Yondri and M. Hum, in Boring 2, a sample dated to 11,000 BP was collected 0.5 meter (-8.0 m) below a sample dated at 22,770 BP (-7.5 m). In the same boring (2), a sample dated to 19,410 BP was collected 3.3 meters below (-11.3 m) the sample dated at 22,770 BP (-8.0 m). Given the stratigraphic confusion of the C14 ages and lack of any context, descriptions of the cores, samples, and methodology need to be published before any significance can be assigned to them. In the case of the Bosnian pseudopyramids, Miocene bedrock that was "dated" at 29,200 BP was misinterpreted as their age. Paul H. (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Now in main space at Nationalism and archaeology Doug Weller talk 09:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Out-of-Sundaland was sexy in the 2000s, and WP still reflects this. It is not really exceptional, there's quite a lot of stuff here on WP that hasn't be touched for ages. –Austronesier (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I keep running into stuff like that. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: As for Gunung Padang, it's a pity that Truman Simanjuntak hasn't written more about it. Obviously, it is just to dumb for him to seriously engage with it. As in other many cases, mainstream scholars just don't want to waste too much time to debunk bunk. Btw, if you need help with Indonesian sources (both for assessment and actual citation in your draft), ping me; you can also go to WT:INDONESIA, which is alive and active. –Austronesier (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve not spent enough time looking for Indonesian sources but the paper I mentioned may have some, it’s well sourced. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of the use of this source [4] at Sundaland? Doug Weller talk 15:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Just look at the sentence to which this reference is pasted: Genetic research reported in 2008 indicates that the islands which are the remnants of Sundaland were likely populated as early as 50,000 years ago, contrary to a previous hypothesis that they were populated as late as 10,000 years ago from Taiwan. Holy John Oliver! So people flew all the way to Wallacea and Sahul? The source is ok for 2008, but it's use makes me cry a deluge that drowns a big landmass, leaving behind a few remnant islands. –Austronesier (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. This is recent[5] - arguing for out of Sundaland. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Out-of-Sundaland as a source for the Neolithic in Insular SE Asia that started ca. 4kya BP is dead. But of there were of course hunter-gatherer populations in ISEA and Papua before that (like the Toaleans of Sulawesi), and unlike the picture implicitly painted by Bellwood that they had been there since 50kya BP in a sort of static equilibrium and without agency, archeogenetics has uncovered a lot of pre-Neolithic dynamic movement in the area. But note not related to any lost civilization from the LGM (the time gap between the LGM and the onset of the Neolithic is just too big), but simply involving diverse hunter-gatherer populations.

Btw, you have to be careful with the conclusions of Larena et al. (2021). Their genetic analysis is solid, but their interpretation of the data is seriously flawed, especially when it comes to the dating of in-migration to the Philippines. Their database is entirely from modern inhabitants of the Philippines, but still they equate the dating of genetic splits with the time of entry to the Philippines without any evidential basis from ancient Philippine specimen. The split of the Htin/Mlabri-related (=Austroasiatic) ancestry found among the Sama is correctly dated at ca. 10 kya, but that doesn't mean that the Sama have migrated into the Philippines at that time. Linguistic evidence suggests that the Sama have migrated from Borneo into the Philippine area some time in last 2000 yrs, and it was in Borneo where they had picked up "Austroasiatic" ancestry which in turn entered into Borneo with the western route Neolithic ca. 4kya BP. It's always bad when geneticists try to interpret their data on their own. Willard Libby was more humble afaik, and never tried to be a prehistorian himself. –Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember specific sources anymore. But there are plenty in Austronesian peoples that should be useful. I think I used Lipson et al., 2014 as well for debunking the studies which claim Austronesians developed in situ in ISEA.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no!

I hope that this isn't going to be the majority view over there... 😱  Tewdar (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Only one thing is worse than reductive or wrong statements: a reductive and wrong statement. I will answer that tomorrow, and I also will present my general opinion about the issue. If had more time (I mean really, really more time like days with 48 hours), I'd love to write or co-write a WP essay "Reading archeogenetic sources". –Austronesier (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Any comment on this?[6] Doug Weller talk 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That was removed in this edit as more appropriate to ANI; the portion of the removed text you highlighted in your link can be seen here, which is the same as this diff. The IP who placed that, followed up at WP:COIN after their comments were removed at RSN. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• If Hunan201p's initiative fails, and I hope it does, do you think there's any chance of getting However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS. removed from the WP:SCIRS essay? Any dubious additions to articles can be removed per existing policies and guidelines. I see no reason for this exception to the normal process of encyclopedia-building...  Tewdar (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Just reading "phenotypes like intelligence" makes me cry (what a red flag about the POV behind that phrasing!). Have you seen the discussion that led to this addition to SCIRS: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#Primary_genetics_studies? We will really have to argue that the kind of disruption and incompetent editing which caused the discussion can be handled with existing policies. I can read a lot of defaitism there: if you can't beat LTAs, just scorch the earth to avoid further battles—that's of course bad. Here's also an enlightening follow-up discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#Using_of_primary_genetics_sources_at_Uyghur_(and_many_other_Eurasian_pages). –Austronesier (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Since hair colour is correlated with various health issues, pretty soon we'll need a WP:MEDRS to support the assertion in Claudia Schiffer's infobox that she has blonde hair. Nobody cares about that paragraph in SCIRS anyway, not even JoeRoe, who gave it "strong support". When I pruned some of the genetics info from the Yamnaya Culture article, he said it looked good. Almost entirely primary sources still, as far as I can remember...  Tewdar (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Just as the community is traumatized by the battleground mentality surrounding certain topics (with archeogenetics getting the stray bullet of law enforcement), it will hopefully be positively impressed by constructive and mature work in archeogenetic articles. Eh btw, you can't be serious about Western Steppe Herders not being awful. It is still so indiscriminate, incoherent and WP:WEIGHT-less (my daughter would say: "so random"). Yes, I appreciate the fact that there is no single instance of "however" contrasting the finding of two studies, which is always a red flag. But apart from that, it's not quite a fun read. It would be cool if you TNT-ed the whole thing and started it from scratch—and see to it that it will be at least fine as Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site. –Austronesier (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well... I have certainly seen worse articles on here. And at least it isn't complete bollocks. I definitely have it in my sights, though, once I have finished jazzing up my Cornish Phonology article a bit. The genetics studies section needs some TNT careful pruning. And I'm very glad that you like my Yana RHS article... quite a few primary sources from archaeology and archaeogenetics on that one, but hey, it's not like the Guardian article was filled with detail. 😁  Tewdar (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I made this one too! "Low importance", indeed! This is the bleddy inception of the scholarly study of the Celtic languages! Pah...  Tewdar (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This archaeologist needs an article

[7] Harry_Truman_Simajuntak. Interesting name. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WSH TNT

So I was thinking something along the lines of this might be an improvement. Just a brief sketch of the structure for now, but it will allow us to integrate that horrible studies section into sensible sections. Obviously somebody put a fair amout of work into that section, but it just leaves me thinking 'so what?' after I read it, really. I plan on basing it on secondary sources where possible (including primary studies' summaries of previous studies), but that's probably the easy part. Please let me know if you have any suggestions! Also, feel free to contribute if you have the time...👍  Tewdar  15:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: This looks like fun! Probably, we can shift away from the study-focused presentation (A says this, B says that etc.) and just talk about the uncontroversial key facts supported by key sources (like steppe ancestry is generally modeled as based on the two components EHG and CHG; EHG itself is modeled as ANE + WHG (or + WHG + CHG); steppe ancestry appears in Central Europe connected to the emergence of the CWC; the spread of steppe ancestry is linked by many to the expansion of IE languages, or at least many major IE branches; etc etc.). Even though there are no review-type secondary sources about it, many primary sources present these key facts as the generally accepted background (at the current state of research) for their own innovative findings, so in a way, these primary sources are secondary sources for the research they cite. So we should mainly use widely-cited and accepted sources, and probably be more restrained about the latest findings, especially if they present something "new". I wouldn't worry though about citing Papac et al., which is an example for a source that doesn't make any extraordinary claims, but simply looks at things we already know at a fine-grained level. –Austronesier (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm totally on the same page as you for all those suggestions. I'm going to try and get most of it done tomorrow or, failing that, the weekend. I've tracked down a few interesting studies that no-one seems to have included, so I'll try and add them if I can. 👍  Tewdar  18:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll be doing the "Relationship with Indo-European languages" section last, if you are lacking things to do over the weekend. No pressure, obviously... 😁  Tewdar  18:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Tewdar: Your draft seems to overlap quite substantially with Indo-European migrations, Proto-Indo-Europeans, Proto-Indo-European homeland etc. Western Steppe Herder-ancestry is essentially just a rarely used name for Yamnaya ancestry. I would recommend redirecting the Western Steppe Herders (WSH) article to Yamnaya culture. Krakkos (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Krakkos: - well, I would say that WSH should be mainly about genetics, Yamnaya culture about archaeology, and Proto-Indo-Europeans about linguistics... WSH will certainly be focussed on genetics, when it is finished, including any migrations or linguistics sections. Anyway, Yamnaya culture is only one culture, and not the earliest, of those with this ancestry. I think this topic is too notable for a merge.  Tewdar  20:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Plus, we have articles for EHG, WHG, CHG, ANE...  Tewdar  20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Krakkos, great to have you here and thanks for chiming in! I see the crux that steppe ancestry in Central Europe is close to Yamnaya ancestry, but not fully overlaps with it. I'm not talking about the Y-Haplogroup mismatch which is overblown (that's a genetic marker that after 10 generations only represents one out of 1000 ancerstors), but the full genomic evidence. You're right, WSH has become a minority term as of now, but "Yanmaya" is too narrow as a label. Most modern studies just say "Steppe ancestry" or "steppe-related ancestry". Also, I prefer to keep a genuinely archeogenetic article that presents the "hard facts" form natural science underlying the currently preferred Proto-IE homeland hypothesis. This hypothesis is based on the most plausible reading of the available evidence from linguistics, archeology and genetics, but that I'm sure will be refined in the coming years beyond the simple one-to-one equation "Yamnaya = Proto-IE". –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename the article? While the "geographical location + mode of subsistence" nomenclature seems reasonable, 'Western Steppe Herder" is not that popular in the sources. Maybe we should think about a page move to go with the TNT... Tewdar  10:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Most of the rewrite is being done here now, in case you haven't been keeping track... this seems to be taking longer than I thought it would! What do you think of the skeleton? 😁  Tewdar  18:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Your bibliography looks massive. Will you integrate all of those sources for fleshing out the skeleton? That's still a huge task. Btw I'm missing Fatyanovo; just mentioning it because I updated the article by replacing preprint citations with the published ones. (I want to propose that editors who cite preprints should be blocked except for being able to clean up their own mess; the block can then only be lifted when they're done.) –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think all the ones that are properly formatted are already used in the article, and the ones that are merely author + title are not yet used, but might be. Fatyanovo and a few more still to add, but I didn't forget - the Corded Ware->Andronovo links are not fully put together yet. Yes, a few preprints in the WSH article - excellent suggested remedy for preprint fans, you'll make a great sysop one day 😁! And quite a lot of, erm, "misleading" statements in the current article too. Definitely glad I started from scratch. Once I've got most of the content I'm going to replace what I can with secondary sources. Works for me! Feel free to join in if you feel in the mood. All suggestions welcome too...  Tewdar  20:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Just to let you know that would love to join (and eventually will do so), but damn, there's always another distraction (I've got hold of a a copy—somehow, somewhere).😁 –Austronesier (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Distractions... like 'kingfisher spotting', which I've been doing for most of today... yes, they do tend to slow down article production don't they. And what's this, ooh, a new book! I've just managed to get hold of a copy too, we must have the same, erm, librarian! 😂  Tewdar  21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Breathe in.................. and ooooooouuuuuuuuut.......

Have you been following the undeletion discussion over here? Honestly, I don't know how I manage to retain my composure sometimes (I come across as a lot more reasonable here than I do in real life, I can tell you!) Do all minority languages have to put up with this sort of thing? Anyway, thanks for your input on this - the article has now been restored! 😁👍 Right, I'm off to find some new userboxes - by tomorrow, Tewdar will hopefully be black, gay, trans, and physically disabled. Maybe then I'll get some respek' around here...  Tewdar  18:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Uhm... move on! Consensus is not achieved by everyone having the same opinion (which would by dystopian), but by finding a solution that most can live with (regardless of their deepest rationale/feelings). As Helmut Kohl said: Entscheidend ist, was hinten rauskommt 'what counts it what comes out at the back' (probably he wanted to say hinterher 'afterwards', but laughs will forever be on him). The last part of your comment must be a Rush Limbaugh quote, no? (#jesuisblackgaytransphysicallydisabled). –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Hiebwaffe"

You wouldn't happen to have any specific idea what a "Hiebwaffe" could be, would you? Is this a technical term? It's mentioned by Steuer as one of the things buried here Kriegerbestattung Hamburg-Marmstorf Grab 216. I'm using one of the images for my new draft of Germanic paganism - I think the de.Wiki just says "two lances" while Steuer says Die Waffenausstattung aus Schild, Hiebwaffe und Lanze ist unterhalb der Urne vergraben gewesen, und der Lanzenschaft hat wohl aus der Erde herausgeragt und das Grab markiert.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Yes, it's one category of blade weapons, the other being Stichwaffen (e.g. foils). Hiebwaffen are heavy-bladed swords that allow a slashing attack. Etymologically, it's the equivalent to "hew weapon" which graphically translates it pretty well. –Austronesier (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Danke! Stichwaffe kannte ich, nur Hiebwaffe war mir neu - ich bin kein Waffenkündler.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Abraboy3421#February 2022 pov edits and continued deletion of sourced text in multiple articles

ANI is next. I see nothing useful from this editor. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agree, the next deletion spree should be the last one. Unrelated to this, but most probably interesting for you, see this:[8]. It requires total lack of judgement to copypaste this to WP. –Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not as amazing as finding it came from a supposed scholarly journal.[9]. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to bring this up at RSN?"verbum et ecclesia" site:en.Wikipedia.org shows it being used. Doug Weller talk 20:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrow I start my purge for a colonoscopy on Sunday. Includes no food from 3pm tomorrow until maybe 6pm Sunday. I need to lose about 4kg, that should be a start. I’ve asked someone to translate the Harry Truman article but he’s not around very much. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Stay strong! For this part and all that is to come.

I can also do the translation work (bit-by-bit), that would be my first translated article. Truman Simanjuntak definitely deserves to have an article in enWP. –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Take your time, your help elsewhere is more important and I appreciate it. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Howdy! I hope all is going well for you. The brainwork you've been putting in around here lately is phenomenal. Just thought I'd let you know that I appreciate it. Aside from that, there's something else I want to tell you:

I am noticing a trend on southeast-Asian culture articles, which I know to be a part of your expertise. Lulu.com books are being cited like wildfire by banned sockmasters and disruptive IP editors. I will give three examples here, which are probably related:

• [10] (blocked IP editor)
• [11][12] (Balantoc, confirmed sock of Xiang09)

The Balantoc edits are particularly massive. Although I don't know if Balantoc added all of them, that article now contains approximately 40 references with a Lulu.com citation.

This mirrors something I've seen sitewide. The people who get identfied as sockmasters frequently boast an arsenal of Lulu.com references. But it's not my intention to single out Balantoc or Lulu here. My point is that self-published sources are yet another problem on our plates. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: After a quick look, I have noticed that most of these edits revolve around books by Jean-Paul G. Potet. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about Potet's work. He's a trained linguist (PhD), but most of his works are self-published, so there's little track record that would objectively lift him to subject-matter expert status. His books about Tagalog etymologies contain flaws, but these fall well within the range of avoidable errors that I regularly also find in peer-reviewed publications. So for language-related stuff, this is a typical case where tagging {{better source needed}} is probably more warranted that outright removal. It's definitely not fringe; luckily, Potet fills gaps in the exisiting literature by fully working within the mainstream paradigm.

As for his non-linguistic work, I can't really make a judgement. You can ask at WT:PINOY for wider input; maybe User:Stricnina (not active at the moment, but hopefully noticing my ping) can also help out; @Stricnina has an admirable rigorism when it come to quality of sources used in WP and has done a lot to eradicate historical fabrications that made their way into WP. –Austronesier (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sock

Do you think this one is related to Vamlos/DerekHistorian, or WCF?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.10.217.91

Cheers -- Hunan201p (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: You can add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.243.173.100, because they commented on edits by the other IP as being their own edits.

And yes, this is a {{megaphoneduck}} of the "Austrian IP" complex that is linked to many confirmed socks in the WCF SPI archive. The back-and-forth accusations of being WCF block evasions are a rather crude case of WP:GHBH.

This related thread might be interesting for you. –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The edit summaries [13] [14] [15], also this change by another shady one at media, just in time. The plot was originally added by another potential sp and later removed/readded by IPs. Isn't that obvious? 117.201.119.194 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have said to myself not to mind as long as he doesn't play tricks again. I have been hoping that he would stick to a clean start with one account, staying low profile and collaborating peacefully and in a more mature manner. But once he starts to do things like multiple accounts, edit warring and obtuse bickering, I will probably to go back to zero tolerance. –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Finnic peoples

FYI, edit war again. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you know this fellow?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whhu22&offset=&limit=500&target=Whhu22

I have never met them before. They burst on to the scene in February and started reverting many of WorldCreaterFighter's edits, but also restored some of them after evaluating them as fine, such as at Scythians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scythians#Genetic_sectiona

Are they part of the administration team, or something else? I don't understand how somebody could just appear out of nowhere with such familiarity with an LTA. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Definitely not part of the administration team. It looks pretty much like WP:GHBH. User:Fylindfotberserk has also noticed lots of stuff like that going on with diverse IPs claiming to revert WCF, but eventually just end up polishing up the Austrian IP edits. But no need to rush this. I have been watching them, and sooner or later they'll make a mistake that will give them away. But they seem to have improved their orthography skills, so we can't catch them that way this time :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a new one. Removed the same para like the blocked one. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: The edit range is classic (Jomon, Uyghur, Andamanese, genetics), but I don't see exactly what role they have in the WCF sock charade. Let's wait for the CU results. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Skimming through their edits (first 100), I found atleast one where they blanked the same para. Self-rev in "good faith" and weak pleas on SPI cases seem to be other characteristics. While these are not exactly indicative, but when you bring all these things and the topic area together, things look fishy. The style of writing also. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: After having seen this CIR-ridden edit with its tail-wags-dog use of the source, I think you're on the right track. This is the handwriting of the -IP. –Austronesier (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I like that idiom, apt. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Have a look at this one[16]. Still hard to present diffs yet, but I immediately recognize the giveaway blunders in their diction. It's an endless Whac-A-Mole game, minus the fun. –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed content per talk lol, when the only person "talking" is WCF. Looks like them obviously. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at this, seems like a new one. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Another one seemingly using GHBH tactics. This one is suspect as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: @SapmiSamo has come into my radar too and indeed looks suspicious. Not sure about the IP though. They seem to have a genuine interest in India-related topics that goes beyond the usual ethno-camouflage of WCF. –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP added a synth-ridden pie chart made by a possible sock of WCF at commons in the first week of May. I uploaded a correct version of it after a month, but soon another IP from Est replaced it, which I reverted. Today the older IP removed it, added another 2012 uploaded plot which is supposedly "more precise" and also claimed to "fix typos" while actually making a lot of changes. This very plot was also added by SapmiSamo here. Their edit summaries look familiar, not to mention editing/referencing skills. The other India-related edits (mostly reverts or minors) seems like a sham, emulating possible genuine edits by the previous users of the proxy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a new one since the blocked IP range is considered to be the 'LTA'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I can see a certain overlap in "targeted" pages. Also the inclusion of Melinda Yang's great but still barely cited review article is a tell-tale sign. But OTOH, I can spot a higher competence (e.g. this is actually a really good one[17]) than I would associate with the usual suspects (see my latest rant here[18]). Let's wait and see. –Austronesier (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User deleting well sourced paragraphs and removes inline citations from the talk page. Thank you. El_C 14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"IPA" section from your userpage

Hello, Austronesier,

by chance I discovered your userpage (OK, to bei honest: via the thread at ANI). I'm fascinated with the IPA section! After looking at it closely, I discovered that these examples are german toungebreakers in various german dialects. So excuse my question, do you by any chance, speak german? And do you mind If I cp the section to my en and de userpage? Cheers, --Maresa63 ^Talk 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maresa63: Thank you for dropping by. Yes, ANI is a great place to learn more about editors that haven't caught our attention before LOL. Actually, it's all the same dialect (the one I know best, even though my L1 is the standard variety), except for the last example that was kindly added by SebastianHelm. And sure, you can freely copy them. The third one is btw an old local joke among musicians about a choir member asking about a misprint in the note sheets. Oh, and please try to do an IPA tongue twister in oberpfälzisch! :) –Austronesier (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Uh, okay! That's very kind of you. By the way, I did wonder about the third one, I even thought: "a 'des' to many". The musical context clears it now. Being no linguist either, I don't know, what you mean by "L1". The last one gave it away, that it is "something german" - and may function in most german dialects. I'm from Bavaria btw. The first one I thought is some kind of hessian. Would be nice of you, if could some "solution" to all of them - so I, and my potential victims 😉 could read it after trying to pronounce and understand it. Many thanks! --Maresa63 ^Talk 17:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! "Frankforderisch" 😉 that's very nice! My boyfriend is Hesse, too, but not from Frankfurt, so he doesn't speak frankforderisch *sigh*. Thank you for the laughs, much needed in this time! Bye --Maresa63 ^Talk 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Maresa63, Hessian is roughly divided in two halves; the southern half is all close enough to Frankforderisch. And don't feel bad about not getting the third one; I didn't get that one, either. I hadn't even heard it before, even though I've been in German choirs for years. But maybe it's a joke instrumentalists hide from singers for fear that they might turn the table and say it about them. ◅ Sebastian 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Internet Archive Scholar vs. JSTOR

Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

FAC review Levantine Arabic

Hi Austronesier, You may have already seen it, I nominated Levantine Arabic for FAC. So far there's no general review. Your feedback/general review would be more than welcome given your knowledge and expertise! Thanks for any help you can provide. Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi A455bcd9! I might have some ideas, but being busy and unfocused as always, I can't promise anything; there's hundreds of to-do's that I have put aside for quite some time (@Chaipau: Assamese language suddenly comes to my guilty mind...). Maybe you can also try to announce it at WP:LANG. –Austronesier (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought FAC were automatically announced on WP:LANG, but I've just posted another message :) A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Take your time, no hurry Chaipau (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: For some strange reason, I didn't get your latest ping[19]. But I'm nosy enough to hark your worries anyhow :) I'll have a look at it. –Austronesier (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Again thanks.  :-) Chaipau (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Austronesier, FYI the nomination got significant support. We now just need a source review for a closing decision to be reached. If that's something you're familiar with, your help would be more than welcome! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: What does a FA source review entail in practice? –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

If only I knew 😂. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

So I asked and here's the answer. Not sure how much it helps :) A455bcd9 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Austronesier. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian Anthropological Study Removal

Hi Austronesier,

You removed the scientific, peer-reviewed publication from Robins and Shute which examined the limb proportions of 18th and 19th century New Kingdom pharoahs with the justification that the terminology was out of date. Although, the terminology is exact of date, the results of the study have not been discredited by other scholars. Hence, I can easily re-write the sentence to reference Sub-Saharan affinities rather than "negroid" as this is a valid article and should be featured in the relevant articles.WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi WikiUser4020, thank you for bringing this up. Please note that it is not just about "terminology", but about exactly what I have written in my edit summaries, viz. the outdated framework of human biological races. You cannot translate "negroid" into any meaningful concept at all in modern anthropology (nor "caucasoid", "mongoloid" and whatsoever; races are discredited). To do so would be misleading and violate WP:OR. The paper by Robins and Shute is historically relevant which is why I don't object to its use in Population history of Egypt where it is featured in proper context. But it should not be used to promote factoids in articles about individual ancient Egyptian rulers. It would be of much greater benefit for this encyclopedia if you have modern (e.g. genomic) research that properly links the ancestry of individual ancient Egyptian rulers to specific Sub-Saharan populations (without lumping the diversity of Sub-Saharan peoples under the rac(ial)ist term "negroid").

Btw, is it ok for you if we copy this discussion to the talk page of one of the concerned articles (e.g. Tutankhamun as the most visible one) in order to get wider input from other editors? –Austronesier (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Austonesier,

Yes, please do copy the discussion to other talk pages for wider input from other editors in related talk pages. Although, I have seen other recent articles featuring modern anthropologists still make reference to this terminology. An example is with Joel Irish in 2006 making this statement "Henneberg et al. suggest that the Nabta Playa people may have been most similar to Negroes from south of the Sahara. The present qualitative dental comparison tentatively supports this conclusion" and Zakrzewski (2003) described her sample as "super-negroid". Although, DNA studies could greatly assist in determining population affinities, these studies have also in turn been criticised for having biased, pre-fixed methodologies.WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: done, see Talk:Tutankhamun#Egyptian_Anthropological_Study_Removal. –Austronesier (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Source for the 10%

It was a survey conducted by a Pakistani demographic team who asked 1000 Punjabis whether they speak Punjabi or not. Around 150 said they can't.

I was trying to find the source but i'm unable to find it anywhere. Sorry. MT111222 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

150 out of 1000 is 15%. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It was around 150 not exactly. So i'd say 10-15% MT111222 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic group

You created a page called "Bimanese people" and you labelled them as an ethnic group but are continously refusing to label "Punjabi people" as an ethnic group.

Why? MT111222 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to change it in Bimanese people, if you're that interested in precision 😁. –Austronesier (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As you created that page, i think it is only fair if you correct your mistake. MT111222 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Popular article to link to

So many links to my Yana RHS site article these days! The latest from Japanese people. It's funny though, because most of them seem to be made by either an IP editor from Vienna, or through a proxy of some sort. Hmm...is this pattern of editing behaviour familiar to you? 🧐  Tewdar  19:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Inevitably, your beautiful article will also be defaced with passages like "A 2023 study concludes that [insert random text here that bears 30% resemblance to the actual content of the source]...". It's all from the "Austrian IP" side of the WCF sock zoo. If it's an IP from Austria, it is pretty obvious, but also the proxies are easily recognizable from their editing style. There is a policy called WP:BANREVERT. I think this is still the best approach. Correcting their edits will only encourage them to add more random text in random articles without considering due weight and informative value for our readers. They will do it anyway, but it is better to whack the mole before the whole garden has become a mess. Another nice policy is WP:DENY; just shoot on sight and proceed as if nothing has happened 🧐.

But don't worry, sooner or later Yana RHS will also be linked to by regulars. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I used BANREVERT on the edit to Yana RHS. There are quite a lot of moles in the garden at the moment...  Tewdar  20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Yeah that's BANREVERT Tewdar-style😁 ...but we still need to work on the DENY-part 😁 –Austronesier (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Shit, sorry. Like Will Smith, I am a work in progress...  Tewdar  20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Malayalam page

Hi Austronesier, if you can please keep an eye on the Malayalam page, that would be appreciated. I had to rewrite the article (again) from the persistent attempts at giving undue prominence to the fringe primordial origin theory. thanks. Metta79 (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Metta79: I haven't noticed the latest primordial fringe "attack" because is was drowned by subsequent (less problematic) edits. But sure, I'll try to keep it more actively on my radar. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Metta79: What's your take on this edit? –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I believe the Tamil Nadu Archaeology department are lying about that date. It is impossible if you study the paleography. It is a fringe theory that has not been accepted by mainstream academia, and it should not be in the Brahmi article stated as if it is fact.

Brahmi script is primarily derived from variant forms of Aramaic letters which only emerged post dissolution of the Achaemenid empire in the 4th century BC (when Imperial Aramaic script could no longer be kept uniform by the empire's scribes). It also has Greek letters which were likely brought in to India post Alexander the great's invasion into India in the same time period. Additionally, Tamil Brahmi is clearly derived from Asoka Brahmi, the four additional unique Tamil letters are merely tagged on to the Prakrit Brahmi alphabet order which was arranged phonetically as per vedic tradition. The Tamil letters do not follow this order proving it was a derivative of the northern system. Additionally, Megasthenes a Greek diplomat in the court of the Maurya explicitly noted that Indians did not write and memorised texts by oral tradition. Similarly, emperor Ashoka recruited scribes from the Kharosthi script using northwest to write his Brahmi texts throughout India, including the south. He would not have needed to do this if Brahmi script was already well established in southern India. Finally, the alleged 580bc Tamil Brahmi text letters are very similar to Asoka Brahmi, a difference of 320 years should result in some divergence due to natural evolution of the scripts. We don't see this at all. These half baked scholars from Tamil Nadu Archaeology department are either too dishonest or too incompetent. Metta79 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Metta79: Thank you for your input. This all is very similar to the POV-pushing related to Indigenous Aryans .–Austronesier (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately some Hindu nationalists are policing the main 'Aryan' page too, I got tired with revert wars. There needs to be some authority that penalises these fringe editors. Metta79 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Roast Orc

I blame the Celtic from the West supporters! "No, p is fine, still Celtic, anyway, it might mean something else, everyone knows Celts came from Spain, haven't you read Lebor Gabála Érenn!?"

Not that this theory is any less convincing than the others, mind you.  Tewdar  11:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I heard there is Celtic and Peltic, both going back to PIE *kʷéltikos. And of course, Lusitanian PORKOS actually is P-Italic and means "oak" (akin to Latin quercus with ablaut): as a diligent IP has proven, all fragmentarily attested IE language are actually to be classified as Italic[20][21]. Forza Italica! –Austronesier (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Halbrundem Griffansatz?

Hi! 😁 So, this means something like "half-round grip attachment" and is a type of Bronze Age sword... any ideas? Is it a sword with a ring-pommel or something? Apparently, the only decent books about the Knovíz culture are in German 😭 or Czech 😭😭😭  Tewdar  18:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Not 100% sure, but I think Griffansatz is the part of the blade that come right next to the guard (or grip, if there is no guard). So it's not about a ring-pommel. Do you have a link to the text so I can see it in context? –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Or try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. They're a very helpful crowd, especially @Lambiam always has a useful answer. –Austronesier (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It's from Hrala, Jiří (1973). Knovízská kultura ve středních Čechách pg 148: Sel­ ten sind auch Schwerter, am häufigsten sind Exemplare mit Zungengriff und halb­ rundem Griffansatz vertreten /Taf. XLVI:6; XLVIIil/. Die Leitform, das Rieg- see-Schwert, kennt Mittelböhmen und die ganze Knovizer Kultur aus geschlosse­ nen Funden nicht, während es in der Milavče-Kultur nicht nurvom namengebenden Hügelgrab, sondern auch aus zwei weiteren Grabfunden bekannt geworden ist. Maybe I'll try the reference desk, thanks.  Tewdar  09:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Official language in 3 country

Hi bro, I have questions why you remove Singapore & Brunei flag in Malaysian Malay? They also using same standard. I think we need to add Singapore & Brunei to Malayan Law (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How on earth do you find reliable sources?

I found your edit on my page Central Bontok (thank you) and noticed that you added the consonants for the Guina-ang dialect. I can't even add any info without Ethnologue. Leahnn Rey (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leahnn Rey: In the case of Central Bontok, I happen to be familiar with Laurie Reid's work, but in general, you can look up the "References" part at the bottom of every Glottolog entry. You will usually find lots of valuable entries there that might be helpful to expand language stubs and to convince new page patrollers about the notability of the subject. –Austronesier (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier Thank you. Leahnn Rey (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask you about these changes

and just noticed you were online.[22] Doug Weller talk 11:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks, these changes have escaped me. I think both dates are wrong: 3000BCE is too early, and 1500BCE too late. I have to check the latest research, but I can remember that the earliest Neolithic finds in northern Luzon are from around 2200BCE.

It also depends on how you define things. If you take "Out-of-Taiwan" literally, the locally confined onset of the (pottery-defined) Neolithic in Luzon can be taken as a starting point; if you talk about the mass expansion over ISEA and Oceania, 1500BCE is a good date. –Austronesier (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused about both dates myself. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I highly recommend: First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia. It's Bellwood's magnum opus about the Austronesian expansion (reviewed in Antiquity). We don't cite it yet in Austronesian peoples, but actually, it's a must. It was written before SE Asian aDNA was analyzed, so physical anthropological evidence mostly comes from craniometry (which has proven to be a somewhat unreliable predictor of genetic ancestry) and might be outdated. But its summary of archaeological and linguistic findings is up-to-date. (I have a copy to share [= to borrow, of course😁], if you're interested). –Austronesier (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

NATO "phonetic" alphabet

Do you have any refs on the ICAO/NATO phonetic alphabet not being what we normally mean by 'phonetic'? I've seen something like that but can't remember where. There's been a move on Wikt. to move it to simply "phonetic alphabet", and looks like that might spill over to WP. — kwami (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Is there any other spelling alphabet that bears the term "phonetic" in its name? If not, a single misnomer shouldn't be enough for a dictionary definition which says that one of the meanings of "phonetic alphabet" is "spelling alphabet". –Austronesier (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The argument is that it isn't a misnomer, that saying it is is linguistic snobbery. It's not a misnomer because "phonetic" means "related to the sounds of speech", and the ICAO/NATO code is designed to overcome difficulty in recognizing the sounds of speech and so follows the normal definition of "phonetic". Also that we shouldn't even add an additional (sub)definition of "phonetic" to cover it.

There are various other radiotelephony alphabetic codes ("spelling alphabet" strikes me as a misnomer as well), and AFAICT it's common to call them all "phonetic alphabets".

There's also "phonetic names", e.g. when reading Egyptian or Mayan personal or place names as we think they were actually pronounced, those are the "phonetic" names of the person or place. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The discussion is still fresh, let's see what the veterans say. Luckily, Wiktionary has clever people like e.g. Lambiam who don't hesitate to call dumb things dumb. –Austronesier (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, there's been no such move (unless we're talking about the template that I created yesterday for these and then moved hours later, I guess). Kwami is just annoyed that I reverted their prescripitivism on phonetic alphabet (which I called linguistic snobbery after several attempts to explain that we care about usage, and don't derive meaning from etymology). So far as I'm aware, it's well-established Wiktionary policy not to include a sense for a word that's only used in a single compound, because at that point it's not intrinsically related to the word, but the compound term itself. Theknightwho (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Asking for assistance

Hi, I apologize for this sudden request (and nice to meet you, in case I havent introduce myself properly). I want to thank you first for discussion in some of my merger proposals. I am aware that we both have different scope on articles we mostly interact with. However, I think you also have a lot of knowledge on Indonesian cities and regencies history.

I have trouble on Kendari history sections during currrent GAN because its very hard to separate city's history from that one of the region. And also even more troubles with many regency articles that has very little of its history documented or written sometimes, making expansion let alone GA really hard. May I ask assistance on these, especially for current Kendari article?

Thank you, and again I apologize for the sudden request. Nyanardsan (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nyanardsan: Hi, yes our paths have crossed a couple of times, but we haven't sat down over a glass of tea with some sanggar yet, so nice to meet you too and thank you for dropping by :) Actually I'm more familiar with SulSel, SulTeng and within Sultra only with the Buton area, but I'll try to have a look at Kendari if time allows. I have little opportunity to contribute to content building at the moment, that's why you mostly see me patrolling and commenting. –Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Need your help

Regarding this, Could you please send me the article via email or add the names of those accounts? Thank you. Northeast heritage (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: I'll gladly send you a copy of the article, but you need to change your settings so I can send you an email via Wikipedia. Also, what do you mean by "the names of those accounts"? –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to accept email confirmation. Hopefully it will work now. "the names of those accounts" is about "All these accounts confirm" given in quote of the citation. Anyway, Have a great day. Northeast heritage (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm grateful to you. I downloaded it. Thank you again. Northeast heritage (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Northeast heritage: You're most welcome. Sorry for the delay, I was out of town. Btw, do you know WP:LIBRARY and WP:RX? You have already exceeded the minimum level of 500 edits to get access to the WP Library, there is lots of good stuff available which otherwise is paywalled. And for sources not available there, the people of the Resource Exchange project are extremely helpful. –Austronesier (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Recently i got access to WP:LIBRARY but i wasn't aware of WP:RX. Northeast heritage (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I read the article and its source (Guha 1991). Actually, these sources of Guha's claim are for other tribes who lived in hills and Guha made generalized comment on Bodo-Kachari people because he had assumed advanced agriculture was brought to Assam by Indo-Aryans. Guha's claim is copied by the Authors. Copying mistakes are very common because the different names used for Boro people are also used for larger group Bodo-Kachari people. Bodo-Kachari group was created on the basis of linguistic relationship. Now the name of linguistic group, Bodo has been changed to Boro-Garo/Bodo-Garo/Bodo-Koch. Even scholars get confused with the names, So normal readers easily get confused. It would be great move if Bodo-Kachari people article is moved according to new linguistic naming convention. Thank you. Northeast heritage (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have an idea where Bodo-Kachari people could move to, please propose. It took quite some time here in Wikipedia to make the Boro/Bodo distinction. Chaipau (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

See

[23] and [24]. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I can spend one and a half hour (and longer) fiddling around in WP, but definitely not watching fuckwit videos. @Callanecc: Biblicaldna is refspamming again and obviously engaging in off-wiki harassment. Time for an indef block. –Austronesier (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t blame you, just don’t like this idiot attacking me on YouTube, but it comes with the job. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"Roll up roll up ladies and gents, take a look at me new next gen haplogroup predictors, two for a fiver, as seen on YouTube, all the top Ukrainian film producers are using this... nothing is better at predicting Yaroslav Osmomysl's haplogroup, guaranteed, alright three for a fiver, and I'll throw in this genuine piece of Tutankhamun's coccyx..." 😁👍 Tewdar  14:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

My film review: "A stonking tour-de-force. The non stop breathless action will have you on the edge of your seats. The devastating force of the polemic will have you hiding behind them. Don't miss the moment of screen wobble at the nine minute mark, and when the slide changes some minutes later, the effect is almost hypnotising. The subtle metaphor of the red pointer moving over blurry text will amaze you for its brilliant philosophical perspicuity. No expense has been spared in the special effects department, and the sound track will surely find its way to the academy short list. This third full length movie version of "arguments I won with myself in the shower" is no less(more) amazing than episodes one and two. Bound to be a classic of its time." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy and Tewdar: Have you met before? If not, take a seat and have a cuppa. Apart from doing a great job, being located (roughly) on the same shore of Pritanī, having an interest in archaeogenetics and a common Eurasian wiki-buddy from Almaen, I couldn't imagine two editors that are more different in style (and temper) than you fellas.😁 –Austronesier (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe our paths have crossed a few times on the Cornish Language article. They may be the only editor I haven't got into a row with over there, so they must be doing something right! 😁👍 Tewdar  15:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, we did cross paths there, and I have seen you elsewhere. "They may be the only editor I haven't got into a row with over there." Well not yet... ;) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Tenun

Hi @Austronesier. Do you agree that Tenun's article should be lock? I'm pretty sure that sockmaster will be ruined that article. I'm pretty sure this account @Ipusco Luzon is part of @Eiskhrablo. Farhan Curious (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Farhan Curious: Reported. It's tiring, but without protection, the page serves its purpose (see: Honeypot_(computing)). –Austronesier (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Move

What gives with this guy? [25] I can't see how that is a good idea. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: For reference: Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Gichoya_et_al._2022. I'll chime in later in the discussion. I'm quite familiar with Bellwood's migration models and the recent genomic research of Asia and Oceania, so I can spot the flaws of the arguments presented in the move discussion and the preceding section quickly. I will also answer Rsk6400's secondary sources challenge, even if it wasn't directed at me :)

I really hope you can help me to slowly build quality content about archaeogenetics and ancient human migrations. IE- and steppe-related material has seen many improvements, but much of the rest is an utter trainwreck (Jōmon people is a prime example of how such a mess has evolved, mostly through LTA edits). –Austronesier (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah that explains a lot. I would be happy to help with these but once you move beyond IE I am on the fringe of any pretence at expertise :) I can see some obvious issues regarding Jōmon people but I would have a lot of reading to do before I felt I could contribute anything more than questions on a talk page and copy edits. Genetics in the lead though? Always a bit of a red flag! Another issue, I am going to be busy from mid September (new semester). I need to try to resist the temptation to look at my watchlist too often! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: It's essentially a hydra. I have just decapitated a wrong statement in Genetic history of East Asians that came with a citebomb of seven references none of which supported the statement. Looking at the size of the article and the edit traffic, you can imagine that other pieces of flawed material will start to grown again (like this edit[26] four days ago, which is quite a misreading of the source; I'm too tired to fix this now).

Yes, the watchlist can be very tempting and also distracting when there are more important things to focus on :) –Austronesier (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

OK I may not have great expertise in East Asia, but I only had to read that source once to see how that was misrepresented. One wonders if they even read it! I just made a bold edit. Challenging nonsense edits I can do :)

Incidentally, something else I can do is translate from French. Last night I made this Armorican Tumulus culture. It is basically a clone of the French page which I am now working through in the hope of making it better than the French page ;) It is a work in progress. I am aware of some faults - primarily that I think it needs some more introductory prose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Its like watching fungus growing on a fruit: [27] Two IP edits from Vienna WiFi hotspots. One is just unsourced and the other is random primary source stuff. I haven't touched them - what are your thoughts on that IP editor? Ignore and wait for him to be banned? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Just to let you know, I'm experimenting a bit with how to make archaeogenetic information more encyclopedic, not only relying on secondary sources (which are scarce anyway), but also building content with mainstream research results that are supported by multiple and often-cited primary sources. This is my latest attempt in this direction, here is another one. –Austronesier (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me these. The lack of secondary sources is a huge issue on pages like EEF of course, and so, as you say, the pragmatic solution of building content on the range of primary sources is, to my mind, an excellent way to proceed. I am sure you are aware of the twin risks, which are (1) that someone reverts this as WP:OR and (2) that editors with their favourite primary sources will keep plonking their "Riker says Jumanji share 93% mtDNA haplogroups with Inuit and the remainder with fruit flies" or whatever. Personally though, I think writing like that is exactly what wikipedia needs to turn the hotchpotch of nonsensical lists of papers and gene distribution tables into something useful. The main reason I haven't done something similar on EEF is because it is a lot of work! So yep, that is good stuff, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say more on the risk of reversion as WP:OR - the example you had there used the paper's summary and conclusions to draw information out in a readable way. That is not OR. In fact, if everyone who posted up their papers spent more time describing the summary/conclusions and less time reproducing tables, numbers and details, then articles would be a lot better off. But the really hard part is assessing the information in the round, with a view to the other well cited sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: There is of course the question of due weight and the risk of POVs by people who read these papers with a personal or collective identity agenda. In any case, I will slowly go through some articles (especially covering archaeological cultures) and try to do something similar. I read dozens or more papers to get a broad picture, just to add in the end one sentence based on two or three of the most focal ones for that information. I hope I will get some support by the group of quality editors among the active watchers of these pages. –Austronesier (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Edit warrior at Proto-Dravidian language and other articles

Hi! FYI, the unregistered editor edit warring over at Proto-Dravidian language has also been causing problems at Harappan language. Looking at the contributions for 71.59.18.238 and 2601:CB:8200:44B0:0:0:0:44EE, it seems to be a pattern going back to 2018. They seem to be an editor whose made it their mission to "correct" perceived Indian nationalist bias by making changes unsupported by any new references, and without regard for whether the references already in the article contradict them. Most of them have been reverted or were later corrected by other editors much later (and so are effectively reverts, but aren't labelled as such in history due to the edits in between).

I don't mean to be a bother, but I'm not familiar with the processes for dealing with problematic editors beyond asking them to stop and discuss at the Talk page of a particular article, and this clearly goes beyond a disagreement over one or two articles. Your more experienced attention would be appreciated; if you're too busy to deal with this yourself, perhaps you know other experienced editors who may be able to help. – Scyrme (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Scyrme! I know too well how frustrating it is to encounter POV-pushers in underwatched pages; you don't want to edit-war, but eventually find yourself in the midst of a slow-motion edit-war. I have seen the changes to Harappan language in my watchlist but haven't reacted quick enough. Next time I will, including posting a warning template for unsourced edits. If the problem continues, we can bring it to one of the admin noticeboards. –Austronesier (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Here's another one: Linear A is the target of a self-promoting amateur scholar. Maybe you can join in handling this. If it goes out of hand, we can still ask for page protection. –Austronesier (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Free book! 😁

New book by Thomas Olander is free to download from here! Just in case you didn't see this yet. Which, now that I write this, seems quite unlikely...  Tewdar  18:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: I've only had seen the title before, with its sexy catchword "phylogenetic", which is off-putting for people like me. But having browsed through the volume now, I am happy to see that most chapters are devoted to qualitative evidence, and not to mimicking the methodology of geneticists who have to deal with datasets that are larger by six magnitudes and have no other choice by to rely on computational methods. –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You must have enjoyed reading this one, then.  Tewdar  19:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah LOL. Data is secondary when the method is the truth. –Austronesier (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

POV-pushing at Bamileke people

I'm guessing you probably saw my post on Doug Weller's page explaining the situation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#Seeming_POV-pushing_at_Bamileke_people) where I mentioned you, given your recent edit to the article, which was much appreciated. On the Talk page, the user continues to reply but still seems unwilling to WP:LISTEN and their and my exchange has gone on for days but has not gotten very far. They seem intent on pushing their preferred view and even insisting that it is consensus against all explanations. I'm thinking of taking it to WP:ANI but hope not to. Any help is greatly appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: WP:FTN is the best place to go. I will chime in tomorrow as a historcal linguist. Diffusionist theories that attribute every facet of indigenous African culture to Ancient Egypt are deeply rooted in 19th century racism, but somehow found their way into African academic discourse, mostly due to Cheikh Anta Diop. Talking about fringe: linguistic affiliation has nothing to do with ethnicity. There is no such thing as "ethno-linguistically Niger-Congo". Linking the Bamileke languages to Ancient Egytpian is of course rubbish, but this alone doesn't disprove anything about potential cultural links. These are also plain fantasy, but for different reasons. –Austronesier (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and help. And I think you are right, on both points. Regarding the problematic origins and implications of Egyptian diffusionist theories (and their weak foundations), as well as my inaccurate wording/conflation. I will investigate WP:FTN. Skllagyook (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you please look at

[28] I'm not happy with all those deletions. It is a large article, but I'm not sure that's the best way to fix it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry that I haven't reacted to this before. I think the best way is to summarize the major approaches (Egyptians were black, Egyptians were not-black, Egyptians were Africans, Egyptians were neither black or white, Egyptian were diverse, etc. or (my favorite, cf. Mertz 2011): Egyptians were Egyptians) in Wikivoice with attribution. The quotes could then be transferred to efn-footnotes. –Austronesier (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Still not up to editing myself though, damn cancer. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Finnic peoples (2)

Thanks. I wonder if we should move Finnic languages to Balto-Finnic? That title seems to be a contributing factor. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think we agree that we don't need to have matching scopes for "...peoples" and "...languages" articles. "Finnic languages" is quite firmly established for the "Baltic Finnic languages", but I'd leave the final authoritative word on this to Tropylium. "Finnic peoples" is less sharply defined, and the "extended dab" which you have created serves its purpose well. –Austronesier (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I think Tropylium was involved the last time this came up.

‎3 Löwi's latest claim is that the dab page needs to be deleted as a content fork of Baltic Finnic peoples, but (assuming they're making that argument in good faith) that article already has "Baltic" in it, so it probably wouldn't make any difference if we did the same to the language article. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I assume in good faith that they doesn't really know what "good faith" (as in "good faith version" which is a bad thing to say in an edit summary if understood literally) and "content fork" mean. The main problem really might lie with the opening sentence that takes the extensive meaning of "Finnic peoples" as default. In the old-fashioned linguistic terminology (Finnic = non-Ugric Finno-Ugric) there was a taxonomic hierarchy with "Balto-Finnic" nested under "Finnic". But in ethnography, there is no actual taxonomy but just varied usage of the fluid supra-ethnic marker "Finnic". So we should try to capture this in a less definite manner as in the current version. It reminds me of the long-winding discussions over the lede of Habesha peoples, an equally fluid term albeit for historically quite different reasons. –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of this as a stub for the broader use of the term. We have Balto-Finnic peoples for the narrow use, and Finnic peoples for the broad use, with hat notes to redirect people who find themselves at the wrong article.

Also, the couple hundred incoming links are about the eastern Finns or are historical references to Finnic peoples in general. Anything we could identify as being about the Baltic Finns we linked directly to the Balto-Finnic article. So I think taking Finns in the broad sense as the default is justified by why most people are going to be there.

I suppose we could make it more about the topic and less about the word. — kwami (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see first. I have a gut feeling that we won't see an AfD-discussion in the near future anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the Hungarian language

Sorry for the wrong redirect, I didn't know that Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins doesn't include the Finno-Ugric, as it was explained in the article too. Thanks for fixing it. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Eskimo

I've been convinced for a long time that Akinaur is a sock of Fatbatsat. As such I've opened a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatbatsat. If you have anything to add it would be appreciated. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Except for the "Revert:" thing and their shared belief that one hypothesis is the ultimate truth, there is little material to establish a behavioral connection (talk page blanking is too commonplace). FWIW, ihe IPs which made related edits all geolocate to Singapore, and so does the Google Books link in this edit summary. So we have at least logout-"socking". But only a CU can tell if there's a relation to Fatbatsat. "Attempt reconciliation"[29] comes a bit as a surprise from this aggressive individual; but then of course, there is no real attempt to reconcile. –Austronesier (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

CU confirmed that they were indeed a sock of Fatbatsat. I agree with your assessment that LOUTSOCKING has also occurred. I guess that Singapore IPs making the same edits can just be reverted sight unseen from now on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Who?

[30]. I'm confused. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Pretty sure it's @WorldCreaterFighter (on a proxy, I guess). –Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit summaries, way of writing, use of round brackets [31] [32], I wonder if there is a connection. Also this looks to quite close IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Blocked shortly after as a collocation web host, whatever that is. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Latin tenses

That Daniel Couto Vale (whose speciality is computational linguistics) seems determined to destroy my article on Latin tenses by changing it to his own ideas. Look for example at this addition: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latin_tenses&type=revision&diff=1121648797&oldid=1121647587 But really I don't think he knows what he's talking about. He seems like an amateur in this field. What do you think? I am going away in a couple of days so I don't really have time to argue and revert everything. But personally I am horrified at the mess he is making of the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC) I am thinking of waiting until I get back from holiday and then (if someone else hasn't done it first) put all his stuff in a different article called Latin tenses (functional grammar), and revert this article to what it was two months ago. What do you think? He has reduced what was a B-class article to a C-class one already. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: Which is exactly why I haven't proceeded to convert the citations yet. Per WP:BRD, I have no qualms to revert all these edits to the last good version. Just give me a reference point, I'll glad restore it. Note that it's not exactly "your" article, but your version is infinitely more in line with the mainstream view on the topic compared to the OR stuff (with pseudo-sources that don't address Latin grammar at all → WP:SYNTH) by DCV. As I said in the talk page, abusing WP as a webhost for novel ideas is absolutely a no-go. –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent plan! I'd be most grateful if you would do that. The last good version, before Daniel began to change it, was that of 26 August 2022. Let him put all his ideas in a different article, where he can have free rein to arrange the material as he likes! Then we can get on with the business of tidying up the references, when I get back from holiday. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC) PS. I use the phrase "my" article loosely, of course, but only in the sense that I began it and contributed most of the material. For that reason I feel responsible for keeping an eye out for vandalism. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that Daniel Vale Couto has now created new articles, such as Latin imperative mood and Latin tenses in dependent clauses, which consist mainly of content lifted directly without change from Latin verbs and Latin conditional clauses (I wrote that one too) as if he had done all the research and collected the examples and references. Is that allowed? It must be confusing for readers to find the same material twice, but with the addition of errors in Daniel's version. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

As a talk page watcher :) I'll jump in here. Yes, re-use of the information is allowed, but it must be attributed. See WP:ATTREQ. Your work remains under your copyright, but by contributing to Wikipedia you have licensed it for re-use as long as it is attributed. An edit that adds information from another page should have an edit summary to the effect of stating where it came from. This can be repaired with a dummy edit. See WP:RIA. I would do this for you but might mess up what came from where. You can make a dummy edit that includes the attribution.

Also of relevance in that page is the section on Content Forking. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: –Austronesier (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Thank you. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I cant see why u use this language https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunung_Padang&diff=1121885492&oldid=1121878775. No need to offend new scientists and researchers. Even more, this attitude gives wings to them. Thanks :) JKim (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Religion in minor

FYI the individual who you reverted on Religion in Malaysia has popped up on Religion in Indonesia to make similar edits. Best, CMD (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Austronesier!

Happy New Year!

Austronesier,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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