Talk:Tyrsenian languages

message: The reference for this paragraph leads to what seems to be a non published draft by Robertson  (see page 28: " This version 
is a draft of a work in progress") . If there is no alternative reference published it seems to need some special argumentation to add here a non published work as the only basis for a theory. I mean that if this is the only reference then seems non valid and the section should be deleted till it is published in some reliable source, but that maybe it has been (but not stated in the article) or there is another special reason to this exception that I am not aware of. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian, etc.) hypothesis frequently includes Etruscan, but I don't know about a link specifically with NC. Little of this stuff gets into peer-reviewed journals to begin with, so it would probably be responsible of us to avoid ms. kwami (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems sane and goes into quite a lot of detail, so I thought it worth a very brief and cautiously-worded mention. I could be wrong... Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I do not misunderstand the rules the reference is not valid until it is in a reliable source. There should be a very good reason to make an exception. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. While it's not exactly fringy, there are tons of these long-distance proposals with very little evidence backing them up. You can suggest that English is a Chibchan language with the methodology that many of these proposals use. The approach is great to suggest possibilities to look into, including connections that people might not otherwise have thought of, but has no rigor to stand on its own. kwami (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be guided by yourselves, and I wouldn't suggest it's worth more than a mention at present. But I note that it provides better evidence than the generality of dubious inter-family relationship ideas, and is not recycling any other fringe theories. It's also not a particularly long-distance theory. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It could very well work out. People were wary of Dene-Yeneseian too before Vaida gave his talks/pubs. But Tyrsenian is so poorly attested that I'd rather wait for some response to this work. At least a passing note that it's interesting and maybe he's on to something. It's just so easy to massage the data. kwami (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northeast Caucasian languages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tyrsenian languages. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(329)EGRWND.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm OK with the removal of all non-encyclopedic scholars from the "fringe scholarship" section (as suggested by a recent edit) if that is supported by Wikipedia policy as long as we can define what we mean by encyclopedic/non-encyclopedic and be consistent. How do we define encyclopedic/non-encyclopedic? And do all of the other scholars in that section qualify as encyclopedic? Mr G (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you yourself wrote, you didn't find any academic comment against Brunner (and Tóth) position, because Brunner and Tóth have been most likely ignored by scholars since what they claim is considered completely implausible, and the authors are not considered authoritative. I know you agree with me, Wikipedia cannot be a list of everything that is out there on the internet on a given topic. For the other question, probably not, not all scholars in the "Fringe scholarship and superseded theories" section qualify as encyclopedic. In fact some should be checked and removed. Looking closely, for example, S. Yatsemirsky is, I think, an amateur scholar, should be removed. How do we define encyclopedic/non-encyclopedic? In the case of the Etruscans, for example checking if they are mentioned in the main texts of Etruscology. I give an example. What Steinbauer or Facchetti have argued om the Etruscan language is not accepted by scholars of Etruscan civilization, but their position (which are, however, two completely different positions) has been mentioned, it has been part of the debate. I don't know who Palmer 1965 is. The reference seems to be missing. I think it can be removed. --Tursclan (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Thank you. That seemed reasonable. I thought since one of the sources was published in Anthropos is seemed at least as worthy of inclusion as some of the other sources, but if you agree other sources that are equally should also be removed then it seems fine. Mr G (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check all the names in that section tomorrow. --Tursclan (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe scholarship and superseded theories  

message: I'm not sure what "Palmer 1965" refers to as it's not in the sources section. Does anyone know? Mr G (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know who Palmer 1965 is. The reference seems to be missing. I think it can be removed.--Tursclan (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Palmer 1965 is likely Leonard Robert Palmer. --Tursclan (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a guess, but maybe it's the 1965 publication Mycenaeans and Minoans: Aegean prehistory in the light of the Linear B tablets this is listed in our article about Leonard Palmer. In Google Books I can see in snippet view that he mentions Etruscan and Lemnian in the book. –Austronesier (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it definitely looks like that book. I checked it out, and the reference is on page 61. But it's a very brief mention, and Palmer is referring to what Michael Ventris argued between the 1940s and 1950s (Ventris died in 1956). Since years there has been no consensus on a link between Linear B and Etruscan (partly because in addition to Lemnian, Raetic language has been included in the discussion). Furthermore, Linear B is considered Mycenaean. What Ventris exactly claimed should be checked. Because Minoan is one thing, Mycenaean is another, but in the Wikipedia article Palmer 1965 is included as source instead in another hypothesis, that of the Anatolian Indo-European languages, but I can't find any references to this hypothesis in Palmer's book. --Tursclan (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palmer 1965