Talk:Tibeto-Burman languages

message: (Copied stuff from Talk:Tibetan language)
Ethnologue lists the order of classification for the Tibetan language as Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman, Himalayish, Tibeto-Kanauri, Tibetic, and then the Tibetan language. Wikipedia seems to skip the group Tibetic. See this link: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90303 Any thoughts? ---User:Hottentot
: Ethnologue has a lot of wierd stuff on it. The most normal classification is that given by Benedict in his Conspectus, but I and many think that the subgrouping of the Tibeto-Burman laguages is merely speculation. --Nathan hill 18:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend amending Wikipedia to reflect the Ethnologue classification. At points where serious modern scholarship suggests a subclass is grouped incorrectly in the Ethnologue, it's sensible to include links at that point in Wikipedia hierarchy to the alternative scholarship.  But we need at least a straw man hierarchy to start with, and the Ethnologue is the best candidate.  Nathan, have you read the Conspectus or do you have a copy?  From what I can find in a web search , PK Benedict did not disagree with the existence of a Tibeto-Burman language family.  You must be referring to classification choices made further out in the tree.  For our education can you give us the classification of Tibetan per Benedict to show where it differs from the Ethnologue? technopilgrim 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldnt recommend Ethnologue: they are too general. Better to use more specific sources. I'll provide references at some unknown date. peace – ishwar  (speak) 06:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There have been 4 major classifications (i think). Benedict's (in the 1970s) was the most influential. There is a recent one made in the 90s. I dont see any problem with including all 4 classifications. it may be interesting for readers to compare them. it would also be indicative of how much more research is needed to determine the details of this family. many languages havent been adequately described (some only have words lists written by missionaries). Ethnologue does have bible translators in these areas, so their classification may be not bad. but, i wouldnt really know, not having read about this family. peace – ishwar  (speak) 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have info on the other versions, this would definitely be the way to go, I think.  john k 22:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing group - Tibetic 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Koro language should also be included. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.183.161 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koro language 

message: I think this article puts too much emphasis on disputes among academic linguists while failing to give they lay audience much useful substance. LADave (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's what the field was all about. Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman linguistics has been marred by decades of bitter rivalries, with opposing schools constantly feuding with each other and stalling collaboration. This is partly why Sino-Tibetan classification remains a giant disorganized mess to this very day. Lingnanhua (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not very useful to laypeople 

message: Should there be a redirect form "Tibeto-Burmese" to this article?  I just noticed this on the page for "split ergative", and a search turns up a number of other places for the phrase. But I don't know how to do redirect pages. Jimw338 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from "Tibeto-Burmese"? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion