Talk:Marija Gimbutas

message: Much of it reads like a translation, i.e. Lithuglish - certainly not written by a native speaker. Whoever wrote it, was struggling with English articles and prepositions. This is almost always a dead giveaway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE PLEASE CAN SOMEONE EDIT THE ENGLISH

message: Will someone please look at this. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this is plagiarized from somewhere. This is not Helga's English. It reads more like the blurb on a book.  Danny
This is a very biased article, it hardly touches on the fact that the vast majority of classical scholars dismiss her work almost entirely. Someone reading this would think that she was a respected scholar, whereas she is considered with something close to ridicule in most academic circles. Can someone present the other side of the argument and clean up this article? Fairywings 14:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed.  This article needs major work.  The Jade Knight 06:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular issue appears to remain unaddressed.  The Jade Knight (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism and POV concerns 

message: The first reference,
*Gimbutas, Marija 1946. Die Bestättung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit. Tübingen: In Kommission bei J.C.B. Mohr.
seems somehow buggy to me ("Bestättung" does not exist in German AFAIK).
Is somebody sure about this orthography ?
PS: after a quick google, I decided to fix it. — MFH:Talk 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct title ? 

message: *the cultures of Old Europe built fortified sites that indicate the presence of warfare. 
Tacitus Germania ~"they dwel apart when they chose". Bu this is very late observation. Where are the forts from 7 kya? Nasz 09:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  debuking of debuking 

message: Marija was born in Vilnius which is certainly now in Lithuania. Someone has just edited this to Wilno, Poland. I suppose it was Poland in 1921... but is this the recommended format for Wikipedia citations? -- Evertype·✆ 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "puppet state" references seem unencyclopaedic to me. -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vilnius or Wilno 

message: Since when gossiping, even if from an professor should find space on Wiki?
Same goes for a ten lines long totally useless excerpt from "Gimbutas' personal editor".
The excerpt cite: "Although it is considered improper in mainstream archaeology to interpret the ideology of prehistoric societies, it became obvious to Marija that [...]" And why it became obvious to her? mah, no a word on it.
I'm taking both parts away. If you feel they should restated, please explain you reason to do so. --Dia^ (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your aggressive POV on this outweighs the "I don't like it". This quotation should not be removed for the reasons you state. -- Evertype·✆ 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not decide what should go (or not) on wiki and gossiping is not among it. And excerpt should have a meaning, not just for decoration. If you don't like how I expressed myself in this page. Fair enough. But here we should discuss about content in the article. --Dia^ (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gossiping?

message: She seems to have had no problems living in Nazi Germany during WW II.  This suggests she was politically acceptable to the Nazi regime.  Clarification is needed.
:She didn't live in Nazi Germany. She was a Lithuanian living in Nazi-occupied Lithuanaia. Lots of Lithuanians lived in Lithuania at the time. She was a college student, and it is doubtful that the Nazis took any notice of her. There is in no way an implication that she was "politically acceptable" to the Nazis.--RLent (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She lived in Germany fo rmost of the war.  Not in Lithuania.  And she undertook her doctoral studies while in Germany, receiving her PhD from Tubingen shortly after the war.  She could hardly have been enrolled in a university if she was not politically acceptable. Al-Nofi (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked over the article and I agree that, if someone's said it in a reliable source, this criticism should be included (I do seem to remember someone mentioning it in a book of WWII miscellanea). Even had she been an undergraduate in Lithuania, she would have had to meet certain political standards). If it's acceptable to talk about this regarding Paul de Man, it should be here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What was Gimbutas doing during WW II?

message: Being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Marija Gimbutas - as I thought, it doesn't appear that this belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted an edit from the same IP because it foisted an uncited, partisan, personal condemnation on Paglia's reputation and judgment - presumably because she dares criticise Gimbutas' hobby-horse. Having read the talk-page linked above, I'll revert the remainder of the IP's contributions to this article. The IP's contributions in related articles might be worth a critical look. Haploidavey (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at  "Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events"], PLoS ONE 2012, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034288 you find "R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." with [3] being "Gimbutas M (1970)  Proto-Indo-European Culture: The Kurgan Culture during the Fifth, Fourth, and Third Millennia B.C. In: Cardona G, Hoenigswald M, Senn A, editors. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: Papers Presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 155–197.". Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out in Talk:Haplogroup R-M17#New source? Haber et al and now also Kurgan hypothesis#Genetics, this conclusion makes no sense. It's like arguing that modern Indo-Iranian languages not being descended from modern Balto-Slavic (let alone Slavic) languages "does not support, as previously thought", the Indo-European hypothesis: complete straw-man and non sequitur due to anachronistic thought comparable to "if we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?". D'oh! Of course nobody in their right mind (i. e., Paleolithic Continuity nutcases obviously do not count) expects a haplogroup typical of modern Slavs in Afghanistan since nobody thinks that modern Slavs are among the ancestors of modern Indo-Iranians! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Of course, I agree that none of this belongs into this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits on genetics 

message: the goddess thing is controversial, but it's not her place in history. would you expect to go to an encylopedia page for newton and read about his theological views? he wrote a huge amount on the topic. we don't need more ad hominems from thinly veiled creationists like colin renfrew. considering this person's immense contribution to science, this page is really woefully inadequate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly links Renfrew to creationism? His Anatolian hypothesis is not pseudoscientific (only – IMHO – wrong). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  gimbutas' contribution is her undisputed kurgan hypothesis 

message: I am bit worried "the goddess thing is controversial" is a typical way of saying since there are contradictory view points this topic should be avoided. One of the reasons why I like Wikipedia is that it allows many view points, unlike classical logic. It is true that her contribution to "kurgan hypothesis" is also important and it should be given due importance. I think there is also this main-stream opinion that works of Lewis H. Morgan and Fredrick Engels should be excluded but I think this connectivity between different knowledge that exists in Wikipedia is important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukidambi (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that we should absolutely not downplay her contributions to the archaeology of prehistoric Europe, only because some of her – or other people's – interpretations of the evidence she collected are exaggerated and dubious. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis H. Morgan and Fredrick Engels 

message: An anti-Wiccan just added the words "pseudohistorian" at various places in this article. I deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.47.229.134 (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just eliminated NPOV references 

message: should like be updated to his current position that Gimbutas's Kurgan Theory is simply too large to be of use.
A la The Horse, The Wheel and The Language, he argues there is irrefutable widespread evidence of destruction and mayhem but it has to be the result of gangs not infantry so it's not *war as we know it*.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Anthony's criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marija Gimbutas. 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/20040204135051/http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Gimbutasbio to http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/Gimbutasbio
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) 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marija Gimbutas. 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/20100606092451/http://www.opusarchives.org/gimbutas_overview.shtml to http://www.opusarchives.org/gimbutas_overview.shtml
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) 12:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article sorely lacks a section discussing the speculative and pesudoscientific character of much of this archaeologist's "work". It would even be a clear and worthy example to illustrate, in the "Pseudoscience" article, how ideological prejudices and bias can lead to willing distortion and misinterpretation of reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.195 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimbutas's academically rejected work is discussed in the article's reception section (Marija_Gimbutas#Reception). That said, the article's lead should provide a summary of the article's contents, but it currently does not. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information (discussion of the pseudoscience)