The argument from majority Fine this is Wikipedia and not primary literature so the argument from majority is not automatically considered a logical fallacy OK But how many people have rejected the DC hypothesis for reasons other than bah yet another long range proposal Again the fact that the Proto Caucasian and Proto Sino Tibetan reconstructions used are difficult to test is in the article you re welcome to move it to a more prominent position Sure Trask has mainly because his reconstruction of Pre Basque is different I will mention this more prominently in the article But besides Here is a post by Stefan Georg on when a hypothesis on language relationships should be considered accepted For the record Georg is currently most famous for fighting against the Altaic hypothesis though he accepts a Tungusic Korean Japonic grouping as likely rejects Nostratic rejects DC but accepts Seefloth s Uralo Siberian because it s based on morphology Here is a follow up by Trask here one by Vovin and here another one by Georg To be an Indo Europeanist you have to know a lot about each of the branches of IE How many people other than the late Starostin have anything near that kind of knowledge about East Caucasian and West Caucasian and Yeniseian and Sino Tibetan and so on Bengtson seems to be working on it but he almost completely limits himself to Basque the two Caucasians and Burushaski which he finds to be closely related but he almost never mentions Sino Tibetan or Na Den That makes about one half of a person that is capable of judging the DC hypothesis as a whole beyond finding mistakes in the data from one of the supposed members For that matter Starostin himself largely ignored Na Den Basque and Burushaski Is there already a paper that takes the proposed evidence apart If so I ll be glad to cite it For the record here is a discussion of a paper that shows IMHO quite clearly that what little evidence there was for including Omotic in Afro Asiatic was wrong A link to that paper is included Here incidentally is an introduction to Burushaski secondary literature which makes favorable comparisons to Yeniseian and Sino Tibetan In sum I don t see anything wrong with presenting the hypothesis in its latest incarnation on Wikipedia It is a controversial discussion subject so comparatively many people will find it interesting In the meantime I ll add some morphological evidence suppletive pronoun paradigms noun class prefixes to the Macro Caucasian section of the article provided that Bengtson tells me that this paper is actually published I ll also try to make more mention of the hypotheses that combine Sino Tibetan with geographically adjacent families and thus contradict DC