Talk:Paleohispanic languages

message: Some anon. is adding the claim that the Sicani language is Iberian, with the most ridiculous refs (mirrors of Wikipedia, blogs, books a quarter millennium old). Seems to think that it's up to us to disprove speculation rather than the other way around. kwami (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per talk:Sicani, I suggest you actually examine the history of the articles (which, considering the massive actions you have taken upon yourself to do to the article, you should have done thoroughly). I am not the one adding that claim - it was long in the article. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are the one insisting these ridiculous refs are valid support for the claims being made. kwami (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No - I have removed all unreliable sources. 78.151.133.195 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sicani 

message: I oppose this proposed merge for the reasons outlined on the Hispano-Celtic language Discussion page - please join the discussion already on that page.Jembana (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only opposition to merge given with no support voiced - removing tag.Jembana (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of Hispano-Celtic language page into Palaeohisopanic languages page

message: As we now know, ALL Neolithic male lineages were totally annihilated. Autosomal DNA became more than half migrant. So, were these languages inherited through women? Or are they young immigrant languages? Or are they actually early Y-haplogroup R1b-L23 languages? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM. I cannot see how this could influence the way we present the current state of knowledge about Paleo-Hispanic languages here in WP. In any case, can you define "Y-haplogroup R1b-L23 languages" for editors not familiar with this kind of blog- and forum-related terminology? Genes don't talk, bones don't talk, so I guess it must refer to some kind of correlation between present-day language families and haplogroups. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's been some kind of misunderstanding here due to ignorance of historical linguistics. Real molecular genes have not a thing to do with the classification of languages. All linguistic genetics means is that because one language appears to descend from another the family tree metaphor can be applied to languages by analogy. I note that these linguistic nuances are little understood by the general population of readers. Some articles are even marked too technically difficult for the untrained person. I think that means we don't want that type of article, although sometimes it is inevitable. In such articles as I am led to work on I intend to help remedy the difficulty by defining some terms and paying more attention to the origin of such terms. Usually WP does not want the article to be denuded of technical detail so the only other answer I can see is more explanation.  Botteville (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The annihilation of Neolithic male lineages.