Talk:Mass comparison

message: The text seems to explain that by mass comparision we could estabilish a relationship between languages H and I. What of A thru G, however? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What of the example table? 

message: In my opinion the title Mass lexical comparison itself was biased against Greenberg, by singling out one part of his method that was not meant to stand alone and criticizing it using exaggeration enabled by the isolation. Mass comparison is improved but still shows the same bias.
Surprisingly, there is presently no article on the entire subject, Long-range comparison or Long-range linguistics, that integrates specifics.
*There are articles on constructs like Macrofamily or Superfamily (linguistics).
*There are articles on specific examples of those, like Nostratic, Eurasiatic, Dene-Caucasian, Borean.
*There are articles on techniques like Mass comparison, Glottochronology, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (which uses typology not vocabulary)
*There are articles on practitioners like Joseph Greenberg, Sergei Starostin, Johanna Nichols and others.
But no survey article covering the field. --JWB (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can talk about that all you like, but this article is a great example of Wikipedia failing to distinguish between mainstream viewpoints (i.e. that mass comparison (under whichever moniker you like) doesn't actually work) and non-mainstream ones, and judging by this talk page, it's been like this for years. Honestly, it'd never happen, but Wikipedia would be better off nuking the article from orbit and starting fresh. I certainly don't have the energy to try to fix this pile of POV. Excalibre (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. For example, Maunus's criticism above of the claim that families are sometimes generally accepted or not indepedent of reconstruction is still not vbeen addressed. All parties have evidently abandoned the article since April 17, 2009. It's irresponsible to leave the article in this state and allowing it to misinform or mislead the reader. This is where Wikipedia fails and one solution I can think of is simply to hide the article from the general reader, perhaps, as a quick-and-dirty solution, by turning it into a redirect to Joseph Greenberg's article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is article name biased? 

message: Although I did like this bit: "Greenberg replied that he had considered this very possibility in his previous work, which Ringe had failed to cite and thus, presumably, to read (Greenberg 1993, p. 79)." OOOOOH IT'S ON NOW. I think this conflict can only be resolved by a dance competition! Excalibre (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously it's still drenched in POV you guys 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag which was recently restored by an IP editor with no substantive commentary.
I have no previous involvement here, but I looked at the talk from a few years back and it looks like most of the issues discussed then were fixed.  The IP stated that there was still a big POV problem, but didn't give us any idea about what s/he felt that issue was.
In any event, if there's still indeed an active dispute go ahead and put the tag back in, but please restart a substantive discussion here to let folks know specifically *what* is being disputed.  Thanks! -Helvetica (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV tag (again) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mass comparison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518115445/http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/docs/dy_vajda_perspective.pdf to http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/docs/dy_vajda_perspective.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mass comparison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627150544/http://brettkessler.com/~bkessler/TimeDepth_review/ to http://brettkessler.com/~bkessler/TimeDepth_review/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627150318/http://brettkessler.com/McDonald/ to http://brettkessler.com/McDonald/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)