Talk:Proto-Indo-Europeans

message: The concept "centum branch" as subdivision of PIE is long outdated, because identified as later development. See any modern textbook.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:61BA:41CB:5788:1115 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a "Centum" subgrouping, but there are "centum" languages, peripheral to an innovating central "satem" zone. AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Centum branch" 

message: The content in the physical appearance section is a hoax. None of the studies cited say that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were dark haired or dark skinned, and all of them are primary research papers. Please see this archived talk page discussion at the Yamnaya article for the full details which concerned these exact sources and exact statements.
However, numerous secondary sources do state that populations like Corded Ware and Yamnaya were light-skinned, and had a variety of hair and eye colors. 
- Kossina's smile, V. Heyd.
- Skin color and vitamin D: an update, A. Hanel, C. Carlberg
Skin Deep: Dispelling the Science of Race, G. Evans
So, at least this dark Proto Indo European hoax can be deleted. Hunan201p (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the entire section "Physical characteristics". For details, see my comment at Talk:Yamnaya_culture#The_dark_Yamnaya_hoax_(again). Given that there is no simple one-to-one identity between the Yamnaya_culture and the Proto-IEs, the whole business of ascribing general physical characteristics to the Proto-IEs is even more baseless. –Austronesier (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Well then, why even bother keeping the section when all three verification-failed sources do not even link Yamnaya to proto-Indo-Europeans? Hunan201p (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dark Proto-Indo-European hoax 

message: They weren't hypothetical, they really existed, they just wouldn't have called themselves "Proto-Indo Europeans" AmazinglyLifelike (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that phrase needs re-wording. "Hypothetical," yet the term "Indo" itself is a reference to the western word for India, which comes literally from the cross-cultural interpretation of someone saying "Hindi" with a native accent, the hard-"H" is not pronounced, so it sounds like "Indi," and this we get words like "Indian," or Proto-"Indo"-European, and this again implies the reality argued by Hindu scholars that Hinduism is well over 10,000 years old, and thus does form a religio-cultural shared background to be aware of, and calling that "hypothetical" is damaging to scholarship. I'd prefer to see references here to articles about the etymology of the word "Indo," than see an early unfounded claim that this is all conjecture. Carl.r.larson (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- the word "Hindu" actually comes from the Persian language.  (It would begin with an "s" as in "Sindhu", the Sanskrit name for the Indus River, if it came from an Indian language.)  I fail to see what this has to do with the question. AnonMoos (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hypothetical People" 

message: This Pseudo-Theory is since years debunked as a fallacy and it`s refuted. 2A01:C22:A901:6700:CD3A:2DD:5E64:CEDB (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be quite noteworthy if you could provide reliable sources.  Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSEUDO-THEORY