This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy the Balkans or Eastern Europe discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) He should not be given alerts for those areas.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Hi Austronesier, I have been looking into East Timor lately, and have come up on the question of early population. I understand the traditional "wave" model varies base on what people count as a wave, for Timor it's something between 2-4. However, I am unsure whether that aligns with recent thinking. This paper seems to show 3 waves (Fig 8), but talks about a traditional two-wave model. Anyway, I was wondering if you were more aware of current thinking/current sources (especially on Timor), or perhaps whether it may be better to be vaguer when trying to summarise. Best, CMD (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: It's a pity that this paper does not say much about Timor, although some modern samples are included. I can't tell you how exciting all this research is for someone like me who does historical linguistic research with focus on the Sulawesi and (linguistic) Wallacea areas (plus one major western Indonesian "distraction"). Archeology[1] and genomics point to three major population waves into Nusantara, associated with Australasian, "Austronesian-like" East Asian and "Austroasiatic-like" East Asian ancestries, but the latter seemed to have had little impact on Timor (and eastern Wallacea in general), expect for a little ingression that might be related to later gene flow from western Nusantara in historical times.

As for History_of_East_Timor#Pre-colonial_history, it is obviously quite outdated with its mention of "proto-Malays" and stuff like that. –Austronesier (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of work needed on that History article, not sure if I have the wherewithal myself. That Simanjuntak chapter sticks to just Java and Borneo, but the nature paper does have NTT samples and present-day West Timor samples (a much more informative paper than the final abstract line "Neolithic dispersals into Island Southeast Asia are associated with the spread of multiple genetic ancestries" would suggest). It makes sense to me that getting from prehistoric Java along the Sunda Islands was much easier than getting to the North Moluccas. Still, while interesting on its own terms, I agree it is unclear what the long-term impact was. Through the second source I did find this extensive paper, which suggests that many of the commonly accepted archaeological markers of Austronesian expansion are limited in appearance on Timor, although they obviously did arrive. It doesn't provide clarity on what the existing cultures were, but presumably Australasian/Papuan. I think I'll use those sources to craft a very non-specific sentence for the main page, thanks! The linguistic work does indeed sound exciting. CMD (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Unrelated to this, but a familiar topic for you: I am afraid that "alternative" Philippine history silently is finding its way back into WP, e.g. here[2]. And it's all the OR again, e.g. this[3]. I've only noticed the extent of it now because it's getting pushed into Indonesia-related articles too. –Austronesier (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it ever left, certainly it never got cleaned up from even the main History page. Academia.edu should definitely be sent to WP:RS/P, it has been discussed many many times at WP:RS/N. CMD (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: This is the latest one[4]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there - regarding this edit of yours, firstly thanks(!) and secondly, do you remember where that discussion is you refer to in your edit summary? No problem if you can't find it. As I recall, there was general agreement amongst project members to trim variant languages back to just one (Indonesian). Multiple languages seem to be creeping back in.

I'd be interested in your thoughts - and the broader Indonesian project - in the inclusion of provisional mottoes. For me, they seem a bit meaningless...more like political slogans that actually tell us very little. But perhaps as a non-Indonesian, I'm missing something and they are important. Otherwise, I'd like to propose that they be removed from the infoboxes. (I often feel that people just squeeze as much stuff into infoboxes as they can with the result that a lot is irrelevant).

Incidentally, there were no less than 7 language variants in the Dutch East Indies article (including Tamil and Arabic - I'm sure readers found that very useful ha ha). I trimmed it back to Indonesian and Dutch. --Merbabu (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oops - it was actually User:Ckfasdf who referred to previous discussion. But the rest of my comments/questions above still valid. :) --Merbabu (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and, it was even linked in the edit summary. What a great conversation from a diverse range of editors. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia/Archive_9#Province_infobox_photos... --Merbabu (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Merbabu: I think mottoes are fine as long as they are official, not just transitory (e.g. confined to temporally restricted tourism campaigns), and somehow visible in daily life (e.g. on logos). Just like the US state nicknames and mottoes. Or Tut Wuri Handayani as the motto of the Department of Education which is omnipresent. And of course unlike the shitty made-up city nicknames which mostly appear in Google searches in popup- and ad-infested websites, but not in any relaible sources. –Austronesier (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Merbabu: Talking about meritless bloat, you might be interested to see what's going on in Melanesia. My main task was to sucessfully remove the fringe POV of Maluku and Moluccans being considered part of Melanesia. Since this entailed the removal of useless repetitive country name dropping, it has caused offence with a LOUT-socking chauvinist SPA (who btw thinks I am Malaysian LOL). –Austronesier (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yes, I recall seeing your efforts there. Is the issue ongoing? --Merbabu (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Merbabu: Now it's only the lede thing about New Guinea. Not a big issue, but the version pushed by the SPA is simply not reader friendly and only serves the purpose of increasing visual presence of the word "Indonesia" all over the place. This guy causes lots of intricate errors (and also huge imbalance) in many pages by (mostly) adding Indonesia only (e.g. history of Greater North Borneo languages). –Austronesier (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case you don't have access, Ringe et al. don't seem to mention Corded Ware at all in their paper that uses the impressive sounding ( for the early 2000s, I guess) 'perfect phylogeny algorithm' and 'software' (the "In other words..." part looks like pure OR... scrap the lot, I say! 😁)  Tewdar  18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise there was *no* source given! It's "Indo-European and computational cladistics"...  Tewdar  18:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tewdar: I am baffled that an experienced editor could add so much uninhibited OR, so Ive given them the benefit of a tag. I only looked up in the "trailblazing" paper from 2002 and couldnt find anything of the like. But who knows, maybe Mallory or s.o. else came to such conclusions and we're just not aware of it 😆–Austronesier (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, at least we can confidently start the Proto Albano-Germanic article now, thanks to these phenomenal results... early Corded Ware, I reckon... 😂  Tewdar  19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you’re one of the editors who warned about lack of sources. See [Special:Contributions/Zahamey]. ANI? They see, to have just ignored the warnings. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: Jeez, that's a recurrent pattern of them (User_talk:Adakiko/Archive_4#Problematic_editor) and ripe of ANI. I suspect they are also behind the IP edits in Songhai people, but that's another thing. –Austronesier (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn’t seen Adadkiko’s page but I posted to them earlier. I could block but I think if neither of you two do I’ll go to ANI tomorrow. It’s 7pm here and my wife an I are watching tv while I use my iPad but this needs time and my PC. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: I don't think I will to it tonight. I've just enough energy for some monthly gnoming (typos of "indigenous"). –Austronesier (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don’t blame you, I’m just browsing my watchlist. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just posted this[5] on Talk:Austronesian peoples. I have done so with some trepidation, as I am repeatedly misinterpreted on this matter by Obsidian Soul, who then gets angry – mostly about things that I have not said.

I appreciate your attempt to calm things down. However, on the subject I have just posted on, there are unresolved issues on the understanding of the correct sourcing of a photo and its accurate captioning. These arise largely because there is no definitive source to confirm exactly what is in the picture. In many cases, I would just drop the matter. But the incorrect interpretation I initially made of the photo is the same that many with an interest in sailing rigs would make. That incorrect interpretation would leave the reader doubting the competence of the article. It would be avoided by a better caption.

I note, incidentally, that Lakana still has an error in it – I have previously removed one instance of the article saying the sail was a crab claw sail but on checking back on it now, I find the error repeated in a picture caption. I seem to get no acknowledgement (let alone credit) for correcting careless editing errors (yes, we all make them). Yet I am unable to make progress with something which is a more complex problem.

I have no idea on the solution to this matter. However, I do not feel it is helpful to the Wikipedia project to allow myself to be bullied into silence. I do not necessarily look to you to do or say anything. However, it seems courteous to you to give you this update.

Thank your for your patience in this matter. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your talk page is like a sort of eastern european novel I havent got the grasp of yet,

I must say that I find any generalised notions/labels/tags of anything south east asian and indonesian leave me quite phased as to whether validity exists - there is a part of my universities library special collection where a deceased area specialist donated books from a whole industry of attempts at explaining places with book titles that are now very unfashionable... so to answer your question - nah give me a cave on the nullarbor anytime - may you long continue to reflect a buzzing and generous intellect that takes care of the detail - simply put - I dont like unqualified labels, even if they have been used by x. So what? cheers JarrahTree 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JarrahTree: As for my latest ping, I don't think of these things as intricacies, but rather massive bullshit. –Austronesier (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wow I even suffer the ignominous fortune of being proliferated in some shakespearian sense to the domain of the nationalist novelist? as xenophobic as the rest... the propinquity of such damned spot of being dunked into the infinite worm of the inter play between pods of the same pea but with a very slight variant in the dna of, the realm of the peninsula squabbles of nothing (nothing comes from nothing my lord)... nope I am not unpacking all that, dank u, mungkin spaseebo JarrahTree 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I believe you need to see this. Regards. - 117.201.118.17 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IP: Thanks and peace! –Austronesier (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and welcome. Would you kindly check these as well? Thanks. - 117.201.116.204 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please have a look at this. Seems unnecessary and possible POV (addition of languages belonging to one group only). Regards Fyl. - 117.201.113.114 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Yes, that's imbalanced. –Austronesier (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, judging by this user's edits e,g- [6] [7] (rv by uanfala), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], they seem to be a POV pusher. Please do the needful. Courtesy pin Uanfala. Reg Fyl. - 117.201.119.26 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uanfala: Have a look at [13], [14] and the above ones. Regards - 117.201.119.26 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see this. Thanks - 117.201.112.188 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fyl: I will take a deep dip into the Brahmaputra and Indus some time in the next days, promise :) Cheers! –Austronesier (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... Thanks mate. Have a nice day . - 117.201.112.188 (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at [15], especially this POV - a "Northwestern Indo-Aryan", apart from the insertion of South Asia, which can also be seen here. Also see this, which has been reverted. - 117.201.114.183 (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, User Austronesier
I hope you are doing well
I saw that you recently reverted by edits on Urdu article, apparently the population of in the article was presented 30,000,000 meanwhile in Muhajirs it is presented as 15,000,000 keep in mind that population of Urdu speakers in Pakistan is mere 7.5% and estimated 15,000,000 as someone from Pakistan i believe it is my duty to oblige and provide information, the two Pakistani news articles which i presented also showed the figure and I did what was based on 2017 census of Pakistan.
Thanks for understanding.
⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 18:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do whatever you feel to be your duty and obligation, but don't forget to click on the links you add and to actually read the sources. Only then make the appropriate changes to the article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. I forgot to mention that that was theory. Tamil may or not be the mother of Dravidian languages. But the theory that Tamil may be the one. If there are any sources to dispute the claim, you're welcome to add them on the article rather removing the information. Thanks! Bobwikia (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"May or not": that's what we call WP:false balance. Obsolete nonsense that is only upheld in some circles for ideological reasons is not due for inclusion, see WP:PROFRINGE, except maybe as a historical sidenote. Take this to Talk:Dravidian languages. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Austronesier, what is the best way to deal with problematic IPs constantly inserting awkward wording, changing language names, and adding uncited claims, such as Special:Contributions/82.58.201.16? Lingnanhua (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The easiest way to handle this is by their unsourced edits: revert, then warn from level 1 to 4. If they are using dynamic IP addresses, you can ask for page protection. Beware of WP:3RR, but I will have an eye on these pages too. –Austronesier (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot. Lingnanhua (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deep dip into the Brahmaputra and Indus - I wish I had your breadth of knowledge and youth and energy... keep up the great work!! JarrahTree 06:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

permisi pak - disini ada nafas menarik -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_12 the discussion in there about babel issues... JarrahTree 10:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JarrahTree: I've been out of town (off to Pommyland from Kartoffelland) last week and only had a chance to chuckle ("youth"!) but not to reply. My only interest in Babel is in its library, an antecedent to the categorization system of Wikipedia. Btw, have you seen the weird writing in Ethnic groups in Indonesia? –Austronesier (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at this. Likely the same person [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.119.146 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@F.: Yes, that's very obivous. I can remember to have restored the deleted part myself more than once. Actually, it needs a rewrite. It overemphasizes (a bit at least) superficial non-structural similarities (such as the phonetic realization of /a/) which have little bearing on the actual classification. One cannot talk about the position of Bhojpuri in the IA continuum without mentioning its mutual intelligibility with Awadhi. As usual, it's all political. For Bhojpuri activists, calling the language a pure and simple Eastern IA language serves a handy purpose, while those who want to keep Bhojpuri in the Hindi demographics would rather sweep the manifest deep historical connections of Bhojpuri to Odiya and the Bengali-Assamese languages under the rug. –Austronesier (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

always good to see you emerge from under whatever it might be currently, hahahaha

is the reply to the project comments that you make, or perhaps the hindi acchaa...

keep the faith, and keep moving! I plan to be somewhere else in a few months, I must give you the details in an email... JarrahTree 09:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Austronesier,

I am uncertain of what you are referring to in this edit:

And no, "tongue" is not what we use in an encyclopedia unless when talking about the organ

Tongue means "language" in English, such as "mother tongue", "native tongue", "foreign tongue", and so on.

• https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tongue (def. C)
• https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/tongue (def. 2)
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tongue (def. 3a)
• https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/tongue (def. 3)
• https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/tongue (def. 5)

021120x (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a stylistic question. "Mother tongue" stil sounds fairly encyclopedic to me, but "Anglo-Saxon tongue" instead of "Anglo-Saxon language" belongs to a "flowery" register that is to be avoided per WP:MOS. You will hardly find modern academic or (non-pretentious) popular texts that use this kind of language. –Austronesier (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Hate to bug you, but you are much more experienced in language related articles than I am. Could you take a look at this article and let me know what you think. I can't get a machine translation of one of the sources, this one, and I do not think the other one is a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Onel5969! No worries, I'm happy to assist you in the formidable task of NPP when it's about language-related and Indonesia-related stuff.

I have seen the article shortly after creation and I don't find it as problematic as Aluk Todolo at least contentwise. The topic is again notable and has WP:SIGCOV in reliable scholarly sources. I will try to add better sources in the next days.

The first source is borderline. It clearly does not pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP (which in IMO should be the backbone of an anthropological article), but the site has at least an editorial staff, so it is still ok as a supplementary source once better sources have been added. The second one is an amateur blog (admittedly a good one), so not appropriate for WP.

To sum up, in this case I believe tagging is sufficient. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, thanks for the input. I had already marked it reviewed and tagged it, having come to the same conclusion. Always nice to get confirmation from someone more knowledgeable in a certain area.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Austronesier Sorry to break the bad news, but the reverting sockpuppet is back, under the name Signaler62. He must be blocked, again, for good. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austroasiatic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilhelm Schmidt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I revert Oghuric languages to this? I can't see any reason not to. Volgabulgari (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volgabulgari: I can spot a number of reasons (apart from the poor writing which admittedly was a pre-existing condition). I'll discuss this later in detail in Talk:Oghuric languages, please be patient. –Austronesier (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I will await your reply. Volgabulgari (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

😂  Tewdar  15:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tewdar: Basically, I am with Rsk6400, but sometimes, he's too quick with his reverts based on what I often perceive as too cursory judgement. –Austronesier (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Austronesier, I have to admit that you are right. Thanks for correcting my error at East-Eurasian. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was really taking the piss out of our archaeogenetics articles rather than you ("primary source[...]should be used with extreme care" made me chuckle). It was an easy mistake to make. BTW that article was a review, not a primary source.  Tewdar  07:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here’s an interesting take on the usual pro-Turkic pov pushing on Hunnish topics: [24] I’ve never heard anyone try to make a Lallwort cognate argument before- I suppose it will be onomatopoeia cognates next!—Ermenrich (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Hate to bug you, but would you mind taking a look at this article and give me your opinion on it? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969: Oh boy. You put me into a Randy in Boise rage. That guy is CIR on steroids, making up "languages" and "ethnic groups" (e.g. Torajan Muslims) based on ephemeral characteristics. I think I should gather input in WikiProject Indonesia to get him TBAN-ed. Dunno if other editors in the project will fucking care; they have been quite indifferent to similar antics by other problem editors.

Coastal Poso simply is a dialect of the Pamona language predominantly spoken by Muslims in the Coastal Poso area, and it differs from the interior Pamona variety spoken around Tentena (= the prestige dialect) as much as the Black Country dialect differs from Brummie English. There is no WP:SIGCOV about the Coastal Poso dialect that would justify a standalone. And there is not a single source among the references cited in that new content fork that treats this dialect as a distinct language. Just take a look at the blockquote from Adriani, which is manifest proof of it. –Austronesier (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I was thinking, but I wanted a second opinion from someone with more specialized knowledge in the area. And I agree, a problematic editor, I do not know how many of their articles I've nominated for AfD/PROD. This will be another one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mind if I quote you in the deletion nom?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969: Only the second part of it :) Or just do an AfD (but try redirecting it first), and I will chime in. I won't delete my uncivil rant here, but that's not meant for further use. ALthough I do have to bring this up sooner or later in the Project talk page or, if things won't change, to ANI. –Austronesier (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- I wasn't thinking about the the first paragraph, I was going to use the first 3 sentences of the second paragraph. This editor has a history of simply reverting redirects, so don't know if I'll bother with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969: another one has mushroomed up[25]. –Austronesier (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. I moved several of their articles to draft in the last few days. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Adequate sources are given to keep or potentially expand the content on Akshumite empire and the Amhara (a book from the Library of Congress archives and more). Could you please help closing the discussion? It seems going no where at this stage. Thank you. Petra0922 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Austronesier yes I had a source but I didn't know how to add it to the edit page but the website is isuu.com/zigula. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Austronesier! Since you seem to have some experience in Austronesian languages, could you perform the merge recommended at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poso Pesisir language? I suspect you will do a much better job than I. Gratefully, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Arbitrarily0! Sure, I'll do in the next few days. –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you much! No hurry. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think of this one? I draftified it, hoping it would be improved, but it was simply returned to mainspace. Would like your take. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969: My take on this is here[26]. The page creator just machine(?) translated the article from Indonesian WP (id:Suku Poso Pesisir, of course without attribution), but didn't check (= didn't care) if the sources are accessible. Which of course means that most likely they haven't even read the sources. I'm considering AfD.

I also still have Torajan Muslims on my to-do list. It's not an ethnic group, but just Torajans who happen to have embraced Islam, without however forming a coherent social group. The sourcing is highly problematic as it contains material from proselytizing organizations talking about indigenous beliefs as an obstacle for conversion. Not quite NPOV. –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969: Check also the latest display of disruptive incompetence by a tag-teaming editor (page move from Poso Pesisir people to Kaili people) after the latter was draftified. Btw, the Kaili people are definitely a notable topic. –Austronesier (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, a bit problematic. But then again, some folks think that of me. . Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969: Oh geez, you might have occasionally gone a tad bit too far while earnestly working to keep shit out of WP, but that's a quite a different thing from deliberately (or at least care- and recklessly) adding outright misleading/fraudulent material. Btw, you can also notify WT:INDONESIA for such matters. I have it on close watch, and there are some awsome Indonesian editors who really care about quality the of information in Indonesia-related topics (like Nyanardsan and Ckfasdf, to name a few). Can you move Draft:Kaili people back to main space? I will curate it later; having the article is better than leaving the target blank (which led to this weird concoction earlier today) . –Austronesier (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I can move it back, but have to request the redirect be deleted first, since it is blocking the move. However, there is quite a bit of unreferenced material. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I've seen you active in linguistics topics before. I wonder what do you think of these edits [27] [28] [29]. A user has apparently went on a crusade to question the designation of Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin as languages. There is a LOT of edits like this [30], and they're all based on ridiculous actions such as adding a citation needed template for Serbs in North Macedonia speaking Serbian. While I am aware that from a linguistic point of view these languages are basically the same, politics also plays sometimes an important role. This mass wave of edits looks to me as highly disruptive and I was seeking for some place to take this all to notice. The linguistics WikiProject talk page looks dead so I was thinking of straight up reporting this user to WP:ANI but I'd like a second opinion. Super Ψ Dro 09:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I can recommend WT:LANG, which is generally more active an potentially draws more attention than WT:LING. The user you mention has a very idiosyncratic approach to matters of ethnicity and linguistic classification. See their talk page and also Talk:List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups#Ethnic_groups_and_languages. –Austronesier (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Akatziri. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kansas Bear: As of now, I'd say "possilikely" in SPI jargon (behavior-wise). This POV[31] is quite telling, as it has been pushed by @Volgabulgari before (see Talk:Hunno-Bulgar_languages). And the user page (based on @BrownEyedGirl's user page) looks like self-outing ("I've been here before..."). But oddly enough, I couldn't find any Pritsak-pushing in a quick glance at their edits, so either they're trying not to be completely obvious, or it's really someone else. –Austronesier (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, these [32] [33] look familiar ain't it? Wasn't there a sockfarm that POV pushed Urdu in all Hindustani related articles? Forgetting the name. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Holy dung, don't remind of that one. User:Muhammad Samiuddin Qazi (sami) is the name. No, I don't believe there's a connection. "Sami" had the writing style of a 10-year old, while the bold novice editor writes and argues like a mature person. I mean, they even got a point, but probably went a bit too far. Also the POV is quite the opposite. For "Sami", everything is Urdu, and he'd have gladly accepted an Urdu-based ethnicity article. –Austronesier (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that Sami guy [[File:|25px|link=]]. I remember, this is not him. I'm forgetting a lot :( This guy does look like an old user. There were quite a few making such edits. There was an diaspora guy I got into a revert war with who was hellbent on adding ethnicity in the SD / lead. He got banned ultimately, but there are many like him. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this edit necessary, considering there's an RfC going on? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: It's premature, and also not really an improvement. I've reverted it for the meantime. –Austronesier (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this an improvement, especially the 'Europe' part, when the region included parts of Kazakhstan? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: What made me chuckle was the cluelessness of the three "improvements" when I saw them on my watchlist. I mean, it is better than just vast "Eurasia", but maybe dropping "Europe" would be the best. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused regarding this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder what's with this user's liberal usage of language classification in related ethnic groups parameter, when many of the said groups either speak those languages as L2 or had a recent shift. I've rm/rv'ed some of the obvious [34] [35], [36]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is recurrent a pattern of their editing. They treat a) linguistic classification as rigid taxonomy and b) mistake linguistic classification for a tool to "classifiy" ethnic groups. Rsk6400 tried his best to explain to them that these are quite different things, but unfortunately, as you have witnessed, with little sustainable result. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like we have new one (you crossed paths before), while mostly active on a particular editing area, now trying to have a "discussion" with an obscure user, surprisingly on the something very common among the SPs. This one is also obvious. Another obvious one, who participated in t/p discussions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Can't say much about the last one which is a pretty inactive account. They've mostly done copypastes, and their mixed "forensic linguistic profile" reflects this. The former needs to quack more; I can't spot forensic linguistic clues yet. –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this edit helpful. I mean, I've read that the word means 'head man', but is it relevant here? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Sorry, a bit late, but yeah, you're revert is the best thing to do exactly for the reasons you have given. Btw, do you also feel that the first two paragraphs of "History" are off-topic? It is based on the conflation of "Munda" in the narrow sense denoting a specific ethnic group with "Munda" as a label for an entire language group and its speakers. –Austronesier (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Seems like the "Munda peoples" article started of as a list, extra things got dumped from various articles including the "Munda people" article overtime (see the edit summary on this one ). I have added/copyedited some parts here using secondary sources, trying best to make it not look like a research paper. And yes, they seem off topic for this specific modern group. It would be better if the first two paragraphs are moved here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we proceed with this? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, go ahead. I can contribute little at the moment because I have to focus on a couple of IRL projects in the next few weeks, but I will watch and assist, especially in case someone insists on keeping the prehistory of the entire Munda-speaking peoples in the Munda article. –Austronesier (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll do it next week. Could you please have a look at these. I've reverted the Punjabi language one which seemed blatantly disruptive. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: The changes to Indo-Aryan languages are massive and unsourced. Admittedly, the section Groups is extremely hard to maintain with NPOV when Aryaman's great table shows how divergent the existing proposals are. But that's no reason to introduce these rather massive changes without sources (even modifiying sourced content!) and discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted. They have removed maps and all, that's disruptive. I didn't see that before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please have a look at this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I can't revert this without insulting someone. Really I can't when I see this kind of total idiocy, not even after taking a deep breath. Bro, save me from being blocked for incivility and revert it quietly... :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like our friend is on a spree adding DIY diagrams in articles today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I bit my tongue and made a partial revert in Chitral with a friendly edit summary.

The Western Eurasian diagram looks like a highly problematic good faith effort to plot the unplottable (especially when considering all admixture events that are not captured in such a format). It is even more problematic than the Eastern Eurasian diagram which you already had critcized for its SYNTH and simplicism. What immediately struck my eyes is the placement of the Villabruna cluster. It has a clear affinity with Anatolian hunter-gatherers, unlike the latter it just lack Basal admixture. I'll try to figure out which of the individual nodes are well-supported and salvageable before I start a discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These plots may well get removed from commons if reported for OR, not to mention SPI. They have a habit of adding OR legends (and other texts) in diagrams copied from papers, perhaps to suit their narrative, and yes there are multiple IDs active at the moment here and in commons. Thanks for the rev in Chitral article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one seems to be another prx (I've seen them in 'those' articles) Are we witnessing another GHBH? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Well, it's not quite GHBH since neither of them is "bad". If they're the same person, it's just a monologue turned dialogue, which is silly at the most, but not disruptive. But I don't think so. The one who regularly mispells "perhaps" should know by now that I'm very much not into Y-haplogroups :) –Austronesier (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at this change. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See this. This guy was quite active on this article and the geolocation is also Tky, may also be the other more famous one. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Not much POV to see in these edits, except for the addition of the Hindi term in Devanagari plus Latinized transliteration. I'll leave it to you to remove it based on India-specific policies. I don't feel strongly about it; while Hindi is the official language of the territory, it is of little relevance to the Jarawa and Sentinelese.

I'm usually against infoboxes in articles that cover a collective of ethnic groups, unless they are really definable and commonly treated as a collective group in RS's—which is the case for the Andamanese. So it's ok here I guess. –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Indic Script part was taken care of (in the article above), as well as other things. Have a look at this one. Is it correct? The user has some POV issues as well as WP:IDHT as far as sourcing is concerned. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a sock of WCF or a related one, seemingly replying to your comment [37]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at these changes, especially the "some extra Basal- and Ancient East Eurasian inputs" part, considering he's been playing with sim coords and third party calc. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Just try WP:BRD. The editor is responsive and cooperative. I mean, the East Eurasian thing is there (deeply hidden in the Supplementary Information of the preprint), but of course not citeable. As for the guy replying in Talk:People_of_Assam, that looks like s.o. else. Not just GHBH, but really a different individual. At least, that's what my gut feeling says, which still appears to work quite well :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Austronesier, are you aware of any study on the origin and spread of the culture of areca nut and betel leaf? I am, of course, interested in the chewing and the chewing style aspects of it, but I am more interested in the areca nut as a cultural object with possible symbolisms associated with it.

My interest is because areca nut chewing is very common among the Khasis who speak an Austroasiatic language. In Assam the nut is chewed after fermenting it---if you know that happen elsewhere, could you please let me know. But the raw nut when it is still green and sometimes attached to the bunch, are traditionally exchanged or gifted on special occasions (marriage, etc.) It is said that on such occasions, the areca nut symbolizes fertility.

I hope you can point me in the right direction. Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaipau: I know more about the terminology than the actual cultural practice. Most languages that I have studied have three different words, one for Areca catechu, one for Piper betle and third one for the prepared betel chew (with a derived verb "chew betel"). I haven't much come across it, since betel has become marginal in most parts of the Philippines and Indonesia, except for the still common use of Piper betle in Indonesian folk medicine. A good introduction is Betel Chewing Traditions in South-East Asia by Dawn F Rooney, which I guess will answer most (if not all) of the things you're looking for. –Austronesier (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. This is awesome! I wasn't aware of this work. Chaipau (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do know that Kuliak Songhai and Kunama arent spoken in Sudan or South Sudan and that they arent indigenous languages in Sudan right?. Kunama is spoken in Eritrea, Songhai is spoken in Mali, and Kuliak is spoken in Uganda multiple sources report this. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do. Which is why I restored the original text. I have assumed that you have overlooked the word "excluding". Now that I have pointed it out to you, there is of course another good faith explanation for your edit, i.e. incapability to parse the sentence. –Austronesier (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already explained earlier that the Hadendowa are Muslim and follow Islam and no source is needed to prove it as it's well known that they practice Islam. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: I don't how many people already have tried to explain to you the basic policies of Wikipedia including WP:V. It appears that you are unwilling or simple incapable of working cooperatively in this project which includes accepting certain house rules. And apparently, it has already backfired on you. See you in 48h, when your block expires. –Austronesier (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the warm welcome. I'm happy to help to the best of my capacity, but I can't say I enjoy going through these lengthy removal procedures...

BTW, you were right in this edit description I've just tracked down: [38]. If Saribu is Eiskrahablo, then so is Blackman Jr. since no one else seems to think that minor local languages are regulated by Indonesian bodies (w:id:Bahasa Sula Baku + Natuna Malay). In fact, there's quite a few dubious (and suspiciously similar) language articles in the Indonesian Wikipedia, but I've never done anything. And since they're reproducing their stuff globally (Q118173650), I think swift action needs to be taken. Would you be willing to assist me? Semmiii (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also this: id:Suku Mayau, an article about a Sangirese community in Ternate, created by yet another account. Judging by their edit history, they seem to think that I am Eiskrahablo, which is sus :) Semmiii (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Semmiii: Oh dear, it is already tedious enough to follow and clean up their mess (and face their stubborn reverts) here. I have quite given up on fixing the mess in Indonesian WP (I don't envy the admins there). Like you, I don't enjoy building up WP:BLUESKY cases only to make it clear to the uninitiated that a certain article is made-up crap. But we owe it to our readership. There is more than one article on my to-nuke list (e.g. Orang Pulo language; maybe salvageable as Pulau Seribu dialect, but not with such silly stuff such as trying to sell us atret 'reverse' (which is in the KBBI and common in old folk's talk all over Indonesia) as characteristic "Orang Pulo" vocabulary). But for now, it's just that I'm too busy writing reliable sources for y'all to cite before I can "waste" my time again in WP :)

Btw, another related "bad" player has been blocked recently. I'm not surprised that they haven't made an unblock request. I expect they will resurge as a sock. –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I hope you don’t mind me asking this here. A while ago, my edit on Help:IPA/Albanian was reverted with the justification that it was not discussed. I made the edit after my changes on Albanian language#Phonology. According to this paper The Vowels of Standard Albanian, the IPA for ‘e’ is /e/ and not /ɛ/. I understand that there is occasional alternation, but it seems unexplainable to me that ‘e’ would be pronounced always or mostly as /ɛ/. Would you be able to find out more? I’m asking you because you seem knowledgeable about phonology and have shown interest in Albanian. If you can’t or don’t want to, that’s perfectly fine. Just ignore this message. Thank you in advance!

I'm copy-pasting this message to another user. Again, hope you don't mind:) FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting your edit summary[39], which touched on defining the subject of the article, I am wondering if you have any other solution for this encyclopedia explaining terminology that has varying definitions. Perhaps I am over-relaxed about Wikipedia doing that job, having rewritten large parts of Cutter (boat) and all of Yawl. Both these articles have multiple definitions of the subject of the article. There, as in Maritime southeast Asia, one of the reasons that an encyclopaedia user might refer to Wikipedia is that they are trying to work out what the term means. We do them no favours if we confidently provide just one definition.

I am, incidentally, persuaded by Bellwood confirming to me that he has never used the term "maritime southeast Asia". It really seems that is a term for after, say, 500CE, whilst those working BCE are firm users of "island southeast Asia". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: I agree with you that we have to introduce to our readers the bandwidth of a term/concept/etc. as found in relevant sources if there is no sharp definition that is universally agreed upon. If matters become complex, the best thing is to move intricacies out of the lede into a section fully devoted to terminology. The case of Maritime SEA vs. Island SEA is a special one since we are dealing with potential synonyms. We already have two sources by two authors (or rather one author and a co-author) where the two are treated as synonyms, and I have come across another one (admittedly only tangetially related to topic) that does the same (I will add bibliographic details later in the talk page of the article). Then we have many sources which only use either Maritime SEA or Island SEA, with various geographic scopes.

A thorough survey might help us to get a clearer picture here, and I share your impression that the use of "Maritime SEA" is largely found in sources that cover the historical age with its sea-oriented polities, while sources that discuss earlier periods mostly use "Island SEA" (unless they reach as far back as the Pleistocene, when Sundaland still was a landmass). But as long as we don't have a secondary source that actually looks at this terminological issue, definite statements about the scope of these terms and their spatiotermporal bandwidths will be OR.

Personally (my academic background is Südostasienwissenschaften, although I have focused on linguistics in the subject area from the very start), I have always preferred "Island SEA" out of sheer convenience: when abbreviated, ISEA is distinct from MSEA (Mainland SEA). –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, explaining what classification of writer uses which variation of terminology is, without supporting sources, definitely OR. So that's just about alright for trying to understand the subject on a talkpage, but not for article content. My examples of Yawl and Cutter (boat) have the advantage of secondary sources giving the range of definitions in explained contexts. I should acknowledge that in making the comparison.

In trying to find sources on this, it is strange how few of those who use any of the terminology define what they mean. They must know that there are varying definitions. Or is each field within southeast Asian studies so narrow that they all know what they mean? (Rhetorical question – I think I know the answer.)

Incidentally, in my understanding of sources, there were still plenty of islands left when Sundaland was dry land. (The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania is a good example of a source that goes into this, even though it would appear off-topic from the title.) Hence the thinking that this region was the final maritime experimental and training ground before anyone crossed to Sahul. The shortage of archaeology from which to date and learn something of those experimenters is unlikely to be overcome, as their settlements are now under water. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: A short update: I've been quite busy lately, but since my activities naturally also involved reading material that covers the region we're discussing, I automatically have had the chance to survey the literature for the usage of Maritime vs. Island SEA. I have indeed encountered many sources that use these terms in a matter-of-factish way without defining them. The intended scope often becomes visible when adjacent regions are mentioned. E.g., when Denham writes about the spread of Austronesian languages from Taiwan to ISEA, it is clear that his definition differs from the rather insular one by Blust and Bellwood. It seems that for Blust and Bellwood, the necessity to explicitly define "their" ISEA is higher than for Denham, who meets the readers' expectations.

A few more examples: Island Southeast Asia (including the islands of the Philippines, insular Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago) (the expecetd literal meaning), Island Southeast Asia (including Malay Peninsula), Island Southeast Asia, including modern Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia (the Bellwood definition, but unspecified "Malaysia" includes the Malay Peninsula). I haven't come across not a single source (except for a dubious web site) that talks about "Maritime Southeast Asia (including Taiwan)".

Btw, what about Malay Archipelago? The inclusion of New Guinea in the latter is also variable depending on source, so there is much overlap with Maritime and Island SEA again. –Austronesier (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rather suspected further study would show additional variability and uncertainty. To me that emphasises the need for Wikipedia to make clear that there are a range of definitions (as well as many undefined usages), perhaps with examples of who among important authors in the field use which ones. Clearly such analysis would need to avoid being OR, but to be excessively restrained by that principle would make this a poorer encyclopaedia. In short, this is an editing dilemma.

Actioning something on my "to do" list, I have looked for a definition from Barbara Watson Andaya (the originator of my interest in this point, with her scathing review of Shaffer, Lynda Norene (1996). Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500.). Using both an Amazon preview of her book A History of Early Modern Southeast Asia and the google books snippet view, I see that she does use both "maritime southeast Asia" and "island southeast Asia", but I can find no definition of either. Does that imply that she simply follows the precise dictionary definitions of maritime and island? She does appear to differentiate the two and describes "island southeast Asia" as "appropriately named". I suspect that reading the entire book would leave you no wiser as to exactly what is meant. I wonder if any of her readers resort to Wikipedia for clarification? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a new bit of terminology: "Southeast Asian archipelago", used by a geologist. (Encyclopedia of European and Asian Regional Geology, chapter on Indonesia) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: I think I will collect in my sandbox whatever relevant sources I come across. I'll ping you so can also add your finds. FWIW, maritime has various definitions which might come into play when scholars choose between "Maritime Southeast Asia" and "Island Southeast Asia": e.g., for biologists, Orangutan and Anoa are not maritime animals, so they'd rather locate them in "Island Southeast Asia" than in "Maritime Southeast Asia". This is of course completely speculative reasoning; however, it might help us to keep our expectations low to encounter any kind of consistency. –Austronesier (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User:Austronesier/Island vs. Maritime Southeast Asia. –Austronesier (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See this explanation. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot: You can't beat reality. Check out these articles by a group of immunologist:[40][41][42]. Highlights: Berber, Hittite and Georgian are Dene-Causasian languages; Sanskrit is an Iranian language. The mastermind behind these crackpotteries is the last named author of these papers. I have come across this stuff in a dispassionate survey to find out who actually talks about Dene-Caucasian in the 2020s. –Austronesier (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you refer to myself as a block evader, and go on to attack me as edit warring? I added material from legitimate and widely accepted academic sources. I contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Why should paleogenomic studies be omitted from the section about the origins of Afroasiatic? 50.100.222.203 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dunno, maybe I had too much Mogu-Mogu Lychee that day? –Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are you? You might want to look at the major changes to Ethnicity today. Not a subject I deal with much, but some clear problems. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As well as... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tumi_(ancient_language) JarrahTree 09:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller and JarrahTree: Thanks for the heads up, I will chime in one by one. I'll start with the language hoax, which is an easy one for me. The edits in Ethnicity are one of their kind. Very American I guess. Pretending to be anti-racist but oozing out racialism from evey pore ("melanized people"!). And these nasty personal attacks against User:C.Fred just cry for a battleground/NOTHERE indef block. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Austronesier In case you missed it a 31 hour block was followed by an indefinite. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: And now TPA is gone too. I usually put user pages of editors that have an obivous potential of blockworthiness on my watchlist, so I didn't miss a thing. FWIW, unlike some other editors do (see Ethnicity talk page), I have little reason to assume good faith with that crackpot. The POV looks so much like a caricature that's it's hard not to think of a Joe job by a white suprematist 4chan troll. –Austronesier (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing surprises me anymore. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were guarded in your language, but [43] may be why a certain editor has perhaps inadvertently opened a can of worms with less guarded comments. I dropped a message on their talk page to try to help. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Too guarded maybe. I should let my inner Tewdar loose in cases like these from time to time (greetings btw, we're still in touch). My frustration with that user's antics is going to the roof! –Austronesier (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, some editors do seem to consume a lot of time! Pass on my greetings to Tewdar, and tell him there is a pasty (or perhaps a Cornish orthography article) waiting for him whenever he decides to return. Maybe I should also offer beer... 😁 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I wonder if you'd like to contribute here in case you missed it. IMO clearly problematic, but chances are you have more knowledge about the topic. Thanks in advance. Semmiii (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I would really appreciate it if you can also send a recent language estimate for number of speakers of Dongolawi and Midob. Thanks! Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well any update did you find anything on Ethnologue for the updated figure for Dongolawi and Midob? Also do you know the updated number of Sudanese Arabic speakers both L1 and L2 speakers if there is any. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: Here's all the stuff you want:

• Beja speakers in Egypt: 83,000 (as of 2022)
• Beja speakers in Eritrea: 121,000 (as of 2022)
• Sudanese Arabic: 39,100,000 in Sudan, all users. L1 users: 30,100,000 in Sudan (2017). L2 users: 9,000,000 (2019). Total users in all countries: 42,373,370 (as L1: 33,373,370; as L2: 9,000,000)
• Dongolawi: 35,000 (as of 2023)
• Midob: 85,000 (as of 2017)

Feel free to ask for more (in moderate doses), but please be patient as I'm all not too active in Wikipedia at the moment. Cheers! –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait can you give me the reference number for Midob and Dongolawi thanks. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and did you mean total users 33 million or 42,373,370? Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cookiemonster1618: All data is from the 26th edition. The green text is a direct unchanged quote from the site. Just ignore the total figures. In Wikipedia we priorize L1 figures, with L2 figures as additional data. –Austronesier (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also can you give me the number of speakers for Kenuzi in Egypt and reference number Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if you're at all tempted to continue responding to Zahida2013 over at Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but FYI they've already been confirmed as a sockmaster. Just waiting on an admin to make their way through the SPI backlog for the block to go through, so you might as well save yourself the time. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Generalrelative: Thanks for the heads-up! I was done with them anyway. Going in circles with people who simply don't get it is indeed an utter waste of time. –Austronesier (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello can you give me the population estimate of Nobiin speakers in Sudan just Sudan and also updated edition of Kenzi or Mattokki speakers thanks. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I understand your busy and that you don't use Wikipedia that much. But I need the following figures from Ethnologue.

Bilen ethnic group and language new edition.

Number of Nobiin speakers in Sudan.

Number of Nara speakers in Eritrea new edition.

Number of Kenzi language speakers in Egypt.

Thank you have a great day. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A455bcd9: Not sure if you're doing requests, but @Cookiemonster1618 needs from data from Ethnologue. Right now, it is hard for me to keep up with their pace of requests, maybe you (as a G.O.A.T. contributor to Ethnologue) can help me out and take turns in feeding them :) –Austronesier (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do! I think the best option is to join their free contributor program. I don't contribute so much nowadays but I contributed so much in the past that I won a lifetime free subscription haha a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look over there and, uh, yikes, that's the worst offender. I've tried cleaning up some of it today, but it's very much not up to Wiki standard. It's also got a pretty massive false balance issue. Warrenmck (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Warrenmck: Yes, yikes is the right epistemological characterization of that piece. It's a long pro-Greenberg essay, but not an encyclopedic article. And quite undue for a dead discussion that was full of red herrings. I am quite amazed that one of Greenberg's favorite red herrings is not mentioned at all, viz. the insane claim that mainstream historical linguists too heavily rely on "binary" comparisons which according to Greenberg, Ruhlen etc. has hampered the progress of historical linguistics. I mean the very term "mulitilateral" was part of Greenberg's PR tactics to attract non-linguist followers by essentially spreading a groundless myth (which was explicitly debunked by Bill Poser[44] and others). As for the broad heuristic inspection of data, no mainstream historical linguist denies that this is a good start for looking for promising wider connections among language families which then of course needed to be substantiated by rigorous methods. But Campbell and others pointed out that even heuristically, Greenberg did an utterly bad job. In any case, I feel that we need to add a few basic things (like the "binary" red herring), and at the same time trim the article, especially removing all the essay-like stuff that aims to produce WP:FALSEBALANCE. But wait, actually there is no false balance, but WP:PROFRINGE: Greenberg's position is given much more space than the position of his "detractors" (weasel alarm!), and Greenberg is always given the last word. –Austronesier (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Austronesier honestly I have pretty big issues with basically all the content of/the existence of the “Long Range Historical Linguistics” template, not that I think it’s all bad but it does seem to sort of funnel people into a fringe bubble without much to counter it. Warrenmck (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, there's another user who removed the census information and estimate on the number of Acholi and added an unreliable source I have undid their edits but they keep reverting back. Please see the issue. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will regularly see that people change content but leave the source as is. In such a case, cross-check with the source to make sure and then revert. If somebody replaces Ethnologue data with data from other sources, keep in mind that Ethnologue is a good source, but not necessarily the best one. Often, we can update data based on reliable scholarly sources. But of course, if somebody is trying to gaslight us with bullshit (as in yesterday's case), then we must counteract. –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there is a user who's name is Metaphysics34 can you please give them a warning to stop adding unsourced additions and vandalising articles. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I hope this is not canvassing. But a user is again on the Bamileke people page making what look to be POV-pushing and tendentious edits (including what look to be some questionable sources and elements of Synth/OR) to support a Nile Valley origin of the Bamikeke people. Could you take a look when you get the chance? (I'm not sure what the rules are regarding whether you are supposed to ping a user then you mention or refer to them - or whether that only applies to notice boards. If it is the former, I will add their name/handle and ping them.) Skllagyook (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skllagyook: I have the page on my watchlist and am aware of the ongoing changes. On a quick glance I have spotted a pattern of problematic use of sources similar as in the edits a couple of months ago. If time allows, I will have a closer look an chime in. Maybe the NPOV noticeboard might be a good place to get wider community input. –Austronesier (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. If you could, it would be appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid the edits of that editor are starting become more egregious and OR. They are now beginning to edit war at Ibrahim Njoya (using a tiny genetic component found in a study and not discussed at all in its text as evidence of some oral or genealogical tradition of Egyption origin). They will not listen to my summary notes explaining why this is OR. I'd really rather avoid reporting them. Skllagyook (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skllagyook: I'm all with you, see my latest comment below. But please be patient (with me, not the POV-pusher lol). I need time to take a deeper look into the issue in order to adequately deconstruct it. –Austronesier (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Thank you for your reply. Skllagyook (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you been watching all the changes going on at Low German? Do you have any opinion? It's hard to keep up with all the changes.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference [45].--Ermenrich (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ermenrich: Dat hef ick ook sehn op min Watschlist. I still have to take a closer look at it. If you don't feel dizzy yet, have a glimpse at Low Franconian, Limburgish and Meuse-Rhenish (and maybe others) 😂 –Austronesier (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ermenrich: For some reason I can't explain myself, I've devoted more reading time to Low Franconian lately rather than to Low Saxon, so I can't say much yet about the linguistic quality of the recent edits in Low German. But all in all, I can see a lot of careless editing reminiscent of de.wiki there, with OR, SYNTH, and worst of all, it looks like a big ocean of COPYVIO. –Austronesier (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, de.wiki style editing is definitely a problem (though it hadn't occurred to me that they were importing de.wiki practices until you said that). Synth, OR, and Copyvio also... I wonder if a rollback is in order and how hard they'll fight it. Some of the editors/IPs are quite "litigious" when it comes to Low German topics elsewhere on the Wiki (witness what happened at Thidreks saga).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Sunda–Sulawesi languages has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Sunda–Sulawesi languages until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, What's weird is that when I did my edit here yesterday at the Malay phonology article, all's I ever remember is only adding the bracket mark within the Plosive/Affricate box. I do not remember editing the section describing the palatal affricate sounds (in Line 112) at all. I honestly don't know what happened, but as far as I know, maybe it could have been a conflicting edit or something, because I swear I did not edit that part. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Fdom5997! Thanks for clarifying this, I was frankly a bit surprised but great to hear that it was by accident. It might have happened while navigating through the last revisions. I regularly experience weird jumps when browsing through diffs in the desktop view on my mobile browser. –Austronesier (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dear, This says - Our current phylogenetic understanding suggests that haplogroup O2a-M95 originated >12 kya in East/Southeast Asia and expanded more recently into South Asia (Fig. 1). The frequency distribution and coalescent pattern of various founders amongst Mundari groups clearly show that the migration of Austroasiatics to South Asia was much later than the origin of O2a-M95 (Fig. 1). The diverse founders as well as the large number of unclassified samples (41% for Mundari, 38% for Khasi and 1% for Tibeto-Burmans) suggest that the dispersal of Austroasiatic speakers to South Asia was not associated with the migration of a single clan or a drifted population. Neither does the contrasting distribution of various founders discovered in this study amongst both Mundari and Tibeto-Burman populations support the assimilation of the former to the latter.

Is it a good source for People of Assam#Peopling of Assam ? Northeast heritage (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Northeast heritage: It is as good as any source that only discusses Y-haplogroups when autosomal genomics says infinitely much more about the past of a given group of populations (you should know by know my opinion about uniparental cruft), it is as good as any source that makes claims about ancient migrations without including any actual ancient sample, and it is as good as any source written co-authored by George van Driem who is certainly a reknowned linguist but who is also known for his tendency to embrace fringe theories like wild macroclassificatory speculations or the Father Tongue hypothesis (his own pet-theory).

We find such sources all over the place in Wikipedia, and many appear to think that they are good enough to build encyclopedic content, but I have a more rigorous perspective on it than many other editors. –Austronesier (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, aDNA is must and yet that paper challenge some of prevailing assumptions in Peopling of Assam. Northeast heritage (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) The paper mentioned above is surely a primary source. In a relatively superficial view, much of the problem with Wikipedia's coverage of this branch of genetics is due to excessive use of primary sources. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(*big sigh*) Yes, it a mix of excessive use of primary sources, cherry-picking of data to prove a POV, and often genuine lack of competence. –Austronesier (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok dear ThoughtIdRetired, Could you please have a look into People of Assam#Peopling of Assam? I believe that paper will be very useful. Northeast heritage (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. According to the citation number 3, ɬ is just a phonetic used to represent the palatal lateral [ʎ] sound.

2. The ɬ that you think replace the Blust's *ñ aka Voiced palatal nasal ɲ and the *N aka Voiced palatal lateral approximant ʎ has a huge difference between the two. That's not how a recronstruction work.

3. The whole thing is a reconstruction. There is nothing to do with asterik

4. Compare Blust and Wolff tables and use the logic

Sin Tahari (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, note 3 says that *ɬ is the character used by Wolff for this proto-phoneme. He assumed that its phonetic value might have been [ʎ], but that's no reason to fiddle with his notation. Reconstructions in historical linguistics are full with non-IPA characters or also IPA characters that are not used with their canonic value. It's up to the scholars who make these reconstructions, and we can only change the notation if reliable sources do so too. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Low Franconian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ripuarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering if you had any opinion on Waruno Mahdi's theory on the pre-Austronesian populations of ISEA providing a fully functioning maritime technology that established westward trade connections out of the region prior to the arrival of Austronesian speakers. His arguments are based on linguistics, as well as taking in the movement of some plant (i.e. crop) species at early dates. Given the linguistic basis to the theory, it occurred to me that you might be able to give some guidance on (a) the robustness of what is proposed from a linguistics point of view and (b) the general reputation of Mahdi in the field of linguistics.

You will find Mahdi laying out his ideas in:

• Mahdi, Waruno (2016). "Origins of Southeast Asian Shipping and Maritime Communication Across the Indian Ocean". In Campbell, Gwyn (ed.). Early exchange between Africa and the wider Indian Ocean world. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-33822-4.(also at[46])
• Mahdi, Waruno (2017). "Pre-Austronesian Origins of Seafaring in Insular Southeast Asia". In Acri, Andrea; Blench, Roger; Landmann, Alexandra (eds.). Spirits and ships: cultural transfers in early Monsoon Asia. Singapore: ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute. ISBN 9789814762755.

Looking at some reviews of the latter work, I see favourable comment on Mahdi's contribution at[47] and cannot find any unfavourable academic review.

To be clear, Mahdi's theory does not preclude further technological development by Austronesian speakers as they migrated across and out of ISEA. All I understand Mahdi to be saying is that their predecessors had a complete and functional package. As a personal view, without some miraculous archaeological discoveries, I doubt we could ever be sure who invented exactly which component of any of the technologies used.

Stepping away from linguistics and looking just at maritime prehistory, it seems obvious that ISEA must have had a functional maritime technology for as long as humans lived there. This is argued by, for instance: McGrail, Sean (2014). Early ships and seafaring : water transport beyond Europe. Barnsley: Pen and Sword Books Limited. ISBN 9781473825598.
and even Horridge tentatively attributes, in a later paper, some technological advances to pre-Austronesian residents of the region.(" Probably this was not an Austronesian invention....[48]) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: Waruno Mahdi is recognized in the field as someone who makes bold proposals within the boundaries of solid methodology (at least, mostly so). Some of them stand the test of scrutiny by peers, others are eventually dismissed based on better evidence. Personally, I consider some of his proposals overly bold (= untenable) from a linguistic point of view (for example his identification of the second syllable in *qata 'person' with the pronominal element *ta '1p inclusive'), but I know that some leading experts in Austronsian linguistics take his work as something seriously to be reckoned with. For our purposes here, if ever anything is primarily based on Mahdi alone and not supported by secondary sources, we should always explicitly attribute it to him as a novel idea.

I'd love to dig deeper into this, but I'm pretty busy with off-wiki writing so I can only contribute at a very slow pace. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I had a suspicion (no idea where from) that Mahdi's ideas tested the boundaries. I will need to re-read some of these sources and see what is supported and what isn't. At this stage, I guess the support would be from outside linguistics. Frustratingly, a major paper on the early arrival of the banana in Africa^[1] cites other papers by Mahdi as a source, so I would want to be sure that the overall package of evidence didn't include, for want of a better term, a circular argument. (Bellwood cites Denham and Donohue 2009 in his First Islanders (p. 117) which I take as useful support of that evidence for early maritime mobility.)

So much of the prehistory of water transport is uncertain that it will take some thought to get it into encyclopaedic language. I have yet to fully grapple with the argument over when the sail may have been invented in ISEA – I have some notes of who argues that sail was used in the first settlement of Australia (that's one "yes", one "no" and a clear "don't know"). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an opinion on these changes?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ermenrich: Oh boy, if it's not the Huns, it's the Ancient Egyptian race controversy and AA-related pages. I haven't looked deeply yet into their edits, but so far they look ok. Pinging Fylindfotberserk who also has an eye on "new" editors devoted to archeogenetics; this editor might be related to the one we've been monitoring for some time, no? –Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And quite frankly, I like this edit of theirs[49]. –Austronesier (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also liked that edit - it seemed like a useful corrective. But somehow it often seems like genetics editors have some sort of agenda, and as I'm not well-versed in genetics I'm often at a loss as to whether something is POV-pushing or not (unless it's painfully obvious).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like him. I wonder how he manages, considering he's going full throttle here. There are many in commons also, this one for example. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I have sent you an email... –Austronesier (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've replied. That profile is indistinguishable [[File:|25px|link=]]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, Srnec has found an interesting new review article from 2022 that I haven't skimmed through the whole way but that includes a statement of WP:RS/AC on "Germanic" on the first two pages. At the risk of re-starting the wars, I added them to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ermenrich: That's a great one! –Austronesier (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder who is this guy 'collaborating' here. Picking up old fights [50]? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The charade never ends -_- Austronesier (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check this out. This guy made a new page based on this article. See the images, especially [51] [52] which were recently added [53] after the "trimming". Also note the tag 'visual edit' common in all of their edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Sent you an email. –Austronesier (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I replied, I've discussed about something also. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used the term Khasi-Aslian because one of the sources used it, possibly as an all encompassing term for Khasi, War, Jaintia, etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Apparently, it's a Diffloth thing, who fancifully coined it for the AA languages minus Munda (i.e. good old Mon-Khmer). Never noticed it before. Van Driem heavily uses it in his publications, and he's one of the co-authors of the paper cited. I changed it to Khasian since all non-Munda AA languages in South Asia belong to that subgroup. –Austronesier (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem using a standard term, but the article name is Khasic. Is 'Khasic' the common name or 'Khasian'. If it is the latter, a page move? What might be 'Aslian' by the way? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Both are common, it seems. I know "Khasian" from Paul Sidwell's works, and it appears to outnumber "Khasic" in Google Scholar. So a page move might be warranted.

I guess Diffloth coined "Khasi-Aslian" because the Khasian and Aslian branches are somehow the extreme points of the geographic extension of the AA languages excluding Munda. –Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Khasi-Aslian" seems too broad of a categorisation as far as South Asia is concerned, especially since Aslian languages are not spoken in the region. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder who is this, overlap in one topic area, timecard seems different though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: LOL, their usernames look effing similar, but that is definitely a coincidence. I have interacted a lot with chollish bish in their main topic areas (Afrocentrism and Racializing Tut & friends). I don't agree with them on every point, but they play a key role in maintaining a certain counterpoint against editors who share Zahi Hawass' feelings about Egypt not lying in Africa (he really said that: الأهرامات ليست إفريقية XD). –Austronesier (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this IP range from Atlanta is a nuisance. Showed up in one the articles I patrol today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like this guy is making up new language families [54]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: That Atlanta IP is extremely obtuse. "Hindu nationalist edit" LOL. The other editor is turning WP into a Glottolog clone everywhere. Its a recurrent problem: Template:Dravidian languages already has been streamlined to match Glottolog much earlier. You need to check if all Glottolog clades (including terminology) are fully supported by the sources cited. On a quick glance, at least Kannadoid and the Kannada-Bagada clade are well founded (Zvelebil 1981 and Krishnamurti 2003). –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to know that these terms are not unsourced. Anything that ends with -oid, which isn't a dino clade, alerts me, remind me of pseudo racial concepts. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following up on your false and misleading statement which you don't even have the decency to strike out when exposed, could you please answer these specific questions:

1. do you dispute that Flier&Graziosi [55] states that the Ukrainian language was, until mid-19th century, usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian?
2. do you dispute that Flier&Graziosi is a reliable secondary source?
3. do you dispute that the names historically used by Ukrainians for their own language are relevant in the article on that language?

Crash48 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC) (redacted for emphasis –Austronesier (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Crash48: We are all volunteers with a limited amount of time and - at least in my case - also a limited amount of nerves. Therefore I don't think that you should take one problem to as many talk pages as you did (the article's talk page, NPOV noticeboard, 3rd opinion, my talk page, arbitration, and now this one). It also has the effect of confusing other editors.

Austronesier, you are surely correct that a second revert is not the best of solutions, but there is no 1RR restriction on Ukrainian language, and I thought that the discussion had really gone on for long enough. I really had hoped that my attempt at a compromise (adding the name "Little Russian language") would be acceptable to Crash48 and put an end to that endless and fruitless discussion (Referring to your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ukrainian_language).

All the best, Rsk6400 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rsk6400: It's quite telling when people feel so entitled to a quick response that five fucking hours of not answering are interpreted as "deliberately ignoring" them[56]. Soll ich mich jetzt wie ein schäbiger Lump fühlen, der unter der Gemeinheit zerbricht? –Austronesier (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not ? Graf Schwerin was a model Wikipedian. He had an open mind, was able to learn new things in discussions with others and collaborated with others towards a common goal. ;-) Rsk6400 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Crash48 (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

does Santali actually have a synthetic declension? It seems that its speakers write the supposed suffixes separately. I found this document where the supposed suffixes are written as separate words except for the title of a magazine from the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Also, in this Santali article from the Santali Wikipedia the genitive marker "ᱨᱮᱭᱟᱜ" (reak', reag) appears only by its own in case that this is not another word, which I wouldn't presume as well due to its frequency. The only words that I found being written together nowadays so far are the genitives of the personal pronouns and the demonstrative pronouns. HeliosX (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HeliosX: Linguistic analysis can differ from speakers' intuition when they spell their language. All grammatical descriptions of Santali that I am aware of treat case markers as suffixes (e.g. Ghosh's chapter in the Routledge volume The Munda Languages). But since Santali is agglutinating without any fusion, the case marking-suffixes are clearly identifiable for speakers, making them more prone to be spelled separately. –Austronesier (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you find counterexamples of Santali speakers using the declension suffixes instead of separate words, excluding the personal and demonstrative pronouns? HeliosX (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You mentioned that Adelaar has never used "Batakic" but in Endangered Languages of Austronesia (2010) in page 24 seen here, Adelaar mentions in the first paragraph that "Batakic" as one of seven independent language groups in Sumatra and seems to use it interchangeably with "Batak". Does that not warrant for at least mentioning that Batakic is an alternate name for the Batak languages?

-Ultron90 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ultron90: Fair enough, I should have said "not used in Adelaar (1981)". The attestation in Florey (2010) is a good catch indeed. I'm not aware that Adelaar has used "Batakic" ever before or after (at least not in the 2005 Routledge volume, nor in the upcoming OUP Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages). So we have two attestations plus Glottolog. I don't feel strongly about it, but it's just that we shouldn't give marginial terminology undue weight to appear in prominent position. Note that Google search results often contain previews of the lede of WP articles at the very top. So for people searching for Batak languages, "Batakic" will jump straight into their view, and they might end up using it for stylistic variation and whatnot. Eventually, this will propel the term "Batakic" into the universe when most specialists don't use it and we really don't need it: there is no ambiguity as in the case of Malay vs. Malayic or Makassar vs. Makassaric. But that's just me. You may copy this discussion to Talk:Batak languages for better visibility, so others can chime in. –Austronesier (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright I'll include it in the talk page

-Ultron90 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

are Santali word-final stops or stops before a morpheme pronounced like unreleased stops with a glottal stop or like voiceless ejective stops? HeliosX (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Austronesier, sorry for the very casual question, but I was wondering if you know (or know where to find) much about very local variations in Hokkien. We have for example our stub at Southern Peninsular Malaysian Hokkien, but local speakers have informed my for example that Malacca and Johor Bahru Hokkien is different too, which I cannot find any information on (all online discussion seems to be about the differences between Malacca/Singapore and Penang). Merry Christmas, CMD (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @CMD! Unfortunately, I know little about the subject, and a quick search in the literature hasn't brought up much beyond what you have already mentioned (e.g. Churchman's paper about the peculiarities of Penang Hokkien). No study appears to discuss internal variation within Southern Malaysian Hokkien. –Austronesier (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to worry, I thought that might be the case! Best wishes, CMD (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cultural organizations, but don't know if this is the best way to cover the concept. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kwamikagami: It's mostly ideology/activism that turns these "Foo peoples" concepts into actual things. Celts (modern) is probably the least ugly one (when compared to pan-Germanism or pan-Slavism), and post-Cold War Finno-Ugric activism is a bit similar to it. However, I don't think that academic conferences like IFUSCO and the International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies should be seen within this framework. I can't really recall what the deleted article Finno-Ugric countries looked like. –Austronesier (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can see it in the page history of Uralic peoples. — kwami (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to tip that a user by the name of Widjono Wahyuni has been profusingly deleting citations regarding the Malaysian use of the kris, even though the citations are valid from resources like the Malaysian Foreign Ministry and Reuters. It is suspected that Widjono is warring on the basis of nationalism or nativism (overlapping with anti-Malaysia sentiment) as shown from inclination towards entries related to nationalistic imagery like it, Nusantara (term) et cetera. Oh, and his profile has nothing but the Indonesian flag and arms flexing emoji in it. You might need to look into that problem.

an anon tipper (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:5409:43:B9A8:53DD:2C86:FEA8 (talk) Reply[reply]

It takes at least two to edit war. Read WP:ONUS + WP:CANVASSING, and articlulate your concern (about content, not editors!) in Talk:Kris. –Austronesier (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Austronesier,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

I'm sorry for making those edits without understanding the policy. I know the policy now and won't make the same mistake again. Thank you for reverting them. Take care and happy new year! User:Uhhhum (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Uhhhum, no worries! I've seen on your talk page that @Bon_courage has already given you some helpful tips. Happy editing! –Austronesier (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than personal attacks and wrong accusations as sock puppet (which 100% I am not) , I request you to be professional and productive. Standards or underlying sources. You clearly know what sources are saying on Saraiki. We all can work togather for linguistic topics, respect and politeness requested. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me out: what specifically in my two comments[57][58] in Talk:Saraiki language constitutes a "personal attack"? Also, if you believe that "we all can work together", why do think it is not necessary to achieve consensus for changing a longstanding introductory sentence of an article, especially when others disagree (even if it is initially only one, viz. User:Snusho)? Because of the edit-warring in Dec 2023, I restored the status quo ante. We have a good practice (NB not a policy) in Wikipedia called the WP:BRD-cycle. Being bold is perfectly fine, but in case of disagreement, one shouldn't force one's way by all means. No comments here about my SPI report. I will answer you there if necessary. But see to it not to create a mess in unrelated pages[59] or sections that are reserved for the admins handling the case[60]. –Austronesier (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, We can work toghather as community specially for linguistic articles. No hard feelings. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Live up to it then and self-revert. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Someone developed this with classification as a Papuan language, but specific claims were contradicted by the sources used. Anyway, thought it's possible you might know something about it. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Great thing you've spotted it. Yup, it completely contradicts what's in the source. I guess it's either User:Eiskrahablo or User:Blackman_Jr.. Both are entirely clueless about everything connected to languages, but they are unstoppable in their urge to add their bullshit in enWP, idWP and Meta. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit-warring again, trying to claim that the Finns were invented as the speakers of the Permo-Finnic languages rather than the other way around. — kwami (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm terribly busy these days, so can't chime in quickly, but I will contribute to the discussion soon. I agree with both you on many points, especially on those that both of you think to disagree about when most probably you actually don't. –Austronesier (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I noticed your response to a question on the Navajo language talk page, where you said you were looking for more recent sources about dialect variation. I found a paper that might interest you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0271530911000346. I hope you find it useful! Abitowlish (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]