• Wrong claim is made that Dogra script was used in Kangra, Mandi & Chamba regions; The file cited doesn't mentions such thing.
• Takri is not modified version of Dogra Akkhar; it is the other way round and one can refer the Dogra Unicode pdf file for that.
• Although the Unicode pdf mentions Central Pahari language was written using Takri, it fails to show any such writing. Central Pahari languages were written using Devanagari and we have copper plates to base this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik9hil (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nik9hil: I looked into your points and agree with you. The article still lacks a bit overall and could use some more academic sources. --Glennznl (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Frank M. Cross, The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet, BASOR 134 (1954), pp. 15-24. (a classic)
• Frank M. Cross, The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet, Eretz Israel vol. 8 (1967), pp. 8*-24*.
• Frank M. Cross, Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts, BASOR 238 (1980), pp. 1-20. (important milestone that incorporated new finds)
• Israel Finkelstein, Benjamin Sass, The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology, Hebrew Bibel and Ancient Israel 2 (2013), pp. 149-220. (radical change of the picture but some of the underlying dating issues received substantial criticism)
• Orly Goldwasser, Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs. Horus is Hathor? – The Invention of the Alphabet in Sinai,Ägypten und Levante 16 (2006), pp. 121-160. (and a fascinating series of further articles by Goldwasser)
• Jo Ann Hackett, Walter E. Aufrecht (eds.), “An Eye for Form”: Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake 2014. (a superb collection of essays)
• Gordon J. Hamilton, The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian Scripts, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series vol. 40. Washington 2006. (partially revised by later articles, especially Hamilton in Hackett & aufrecht)
• Stephen A. Kaufman, The Pitfalls of Typology: On the Early History of the Alphabet, HUCA 57 (1986), pp. 1-14.
• Joseph Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography, Magnes: Jerusalem and Brill: Leiden 1982 (esescond edition 1987).
• Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age, Archaeology and Biblical Studies vol. 11. Atlanta 2010.
• Benjamin Sass, The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C., Ägypten und Altes Testament vol. 13. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 1988.
• Benjamin Sass, Studia Alphabetica: On the Origin and Early History of the Northwest Semitic, South Semitic and Greek Alphabets, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis vol. 102. Fribourg University Press, Fribourg 1991.
• Benjamin Sass, The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. – Twenty Years Later, De kêmi à birīt nāri 2 (2004/05), pp. 147-166.
• Benjamin Sass, Israel Finkelstein, The Swan-Song of Proto-Canaanite in the Ninth Century BCE in Light of an Alphabetic Inscription from Megiddo, Semitica et Classica 9 (2016), pp. 19-42. (new find from Megiddo, may lower the date of the end of the Proto-Canaanite script)
• Ron E. Tappy, P. Kyle McCarter (eds.), Literate Culture and 10th Century Canaan: The Tell Zayit Abecedary in Context, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qumranhöhle (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qumranhöhle: Thank you for this neat and handy overview. I will definitely make use of it when we have chosen a solution and get to work. Glennznl (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is Kamarupi script disputed? Chaipau (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaipau: Because the article uses only Goswami to say that modern Assamese script developed from Kamarupi (which developed straight from Gupta), which is contradicted by much more numerous material and authors saying that modern Assamese developed out of Gaudi/Proto-Bengali. Note also that Goswami claims in the same paper that all BAMO scripts developed out of Kamarupi, a minority view, so the reliability of his statements is questionable. Glennznl (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think Kamarupi script is valuable only in terms of its relationship with Assamese script. Bhattacharya treats Kamarupi scripts independently in his Chapter VIII, and so does Verma. Chaipau (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaipau: Yea I did not mean to say Kamarupi does not exist or is not it's own thing, it obviously does, but I believe Goswami's linking of Kamarupi with Assamese, and it being the ancestor of all BAMO scripts is possibly unreliable. --Glennznl (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Could you point to where it is claimed in Wikipedia, so the attribution can be modified? BTW, that it is the progenitor of the Assamese part of BA is acknowledged by Unicode. "In Assam, the preferred name of the script is Asamiya or Assamese. The Assamese language has also been written historically using distinct regional scripts known as Kamrupi." [1] Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaipau: • was the script used in ancient Kamarupa from as early as 5th century to 13th century, from which the modern Assamese script eventually evolved. In the development of the Assamese script, this phase was followed by the medieval and then by the modern Assamese scripts

• The Kamrupi script took the form of the old Assamese script in the latter period. Glennznl (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm...not yet clear to me. But let me see what I can do. Chaipau (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaipau: Btw the Unicode part also discredits this theory further as it says: "The Assamese language has also been written historically using distinct regional scripts known as Kamrupi." It does not say Kamarupi is the ancestor of Assamese ("also"). Glennznl (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let us not split hair further—these are all badly worded phrases and sentences. Unicode is under no obligation to discredit a theory and yet mentioned Kamarupi. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chaipau: Yes it mentioned Kamarupi as a script that was historically also used to write Assamese, nothing else. --Glennznl (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Glennznl, @Chaipau: Already seen this one[2]? Apart from its primary topic, it is another attestation for "Eastern Nagri" and "Bengali-Assamese script". –Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Comparison of Lao and Isan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) The article has entire sections with no sourcing indicated at all, suggesting that some of the content may be original research. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mccapra: Thanks, that's correct. The article was first a section of Isan language that I spun-off because it was too long. It definitely contains original research or just info written from memory by the original author, without any sources. I'll try to fix it up when I find time for it. --Glennznl (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beginning with your edit of the article "Gaddang people" on October 14, 2021 an Original Research template-tag appears at the top. I am making the assumption that you placed the Tag

I am the creator of the page, and have authored most of the content. I have spent some time over several years on this article, updating it as source-material became available on-line or in generally-available published form. I TRY to avoid references to material behind high-cost paywalls, off-line material out-of-print for more than 75 years or only available in foreign languages. As historic material has become available via the Internet Archive, I have incorporated it as soon as I can.

No effort appears to have been made to specifically identify the information or section you are considering to be Original Research (OR). Neither has any conversation on this issue appeared on: the article talk-page, my talk-page, or any communication I have found (and I have looked!). Possibly, such communication was overlooked among the enormous number of edits you process.

Will you please acknowledge your introduction of this template-tag and provide information so a correction or citation can be prepared? Or - if it is NOT your doing, please let me know so I can try to discuss with the originator.

Thank you / Ethnic laundry (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ethnic laundry: Thanks for reaching out. I did place the tag as you noticed correctly, and I did not start a discussion on the talk page since I assumed not many people would read/reply/take action after doing so.

My biggest concerns with the article were already rectified by my first edit which deleted a number of unsourced and sometimes opinionated texts. For example:

What makes the Gaddang a distinct people? They are tiny group, who often identify themselves by their locality (eg: Cauayan) instead of as Gaddang. Their customs do not remarkably differ from their neighbors. But they have through history remained in a compact geographic location of less than a third of a million hectares (extreme distances: Bayambong to Ilagan = 100 Km, Echague to Natonin = 50 Km). And, unlike the biblical Hebrews, it is their continuous occupation of their historic riverbank and hillside population centers - as well as their distinct tongue - which has made them who they are.

While consistently identifying the Gaddang as a distinct group, historic sources have done a poor job of recording specific cultural practices, and material available on the language has been difficult to access.

This caused me to have concerns for the rest of the text. Some unsourced sentences and paragraphs still exist here and there, so I put up the template. Hopefully you understand my reason to do so and the remainder of the unsourced texts can be properly sourced too. --Glennznl (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Comparison of Lao and Thai, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Glennznl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Comparison of Lao and Isan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Glennznl, My name is Bee Htaw Monzel. I am a Mon historien and writer. I am also a Mon epigraphist. I can read and understand Mon inscriptions from 6th century CE to morden Mon. I am not agree with Michael Aung-Thwin who said there is no extant evidence linking the Old Dvaravati Mon script and the Burma Mon script. Michael Aung-Thwin cannot read and understand Mon. Yes, there is evidence how Pallava script changed to Old Mon script in Burma Mon script. Mon script from Burma did not develop from Pyu. It is totally wrong. You are welcomed to read my article "Epigraphy as a source for history of Old Burma" from Advancing Southeast Asian Archaeology 2019.

https://www.academia.edu/44918001/Epigraphy_as_a_source_for_history_of_Old_Burma

Htawmonzel (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Htawmonzel: Thanks. I am aware that other scholars disagree with Aung-Thwin, like "Demystifying Mists: The Case for the Mon" by Donald M. Stadtner. There are multiple pages to edit though, including Mon script, Old Mon script, Burmese alphabet and Pyu script. We should add properly sourced information, and not simply delete text using Aung-Thwin as a source. Also note that multiple sources agree that the modern Mon script is a variant of the Burmese script and not a script that evolved from the Old Mon script. --Glennznl (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Glennznl: Yes, I see. The article needs to be updated. I have never heart that the modern Mon script is a variant of the Burmese script. From this article "Mon language which was derived from the Burmese script." When I check the source from "Omniglot", it dosen't write anything about this. Htawmonzel (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Htawmonzel: First of all we should figure out the ancestry of Burmese/Pyu/Mon, before looking into modern Mon. I believe that Pyu and Mon are older than Burmese, but I am not sure whether Pyu is older than Mon or vice versa, and if perhaps one is derived from the other, or that both derive from Pallava script. We need to find recent and reliable sources. --Glennznl (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chapters 35 and 36 in this book might be useful (although I haven't had the time to go through them in detail yet). –Austronesier (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect I-Kiribati and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Ikiribati until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Glennznl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Comparison of Lao and Thai, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have now taken the article about the Tatar Gypys, I found something here for you: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355873685_Turcoman_Gypsies_in_the_Balkans_Just_a_Preferred_Identity_or_More, this article also says interesting something about gypys in crimea Just one question, to what extent are the Tatar Gypys related to the Ursari or Ruska Roma, and in what connection? Could you also possibly revise the article by the Agrizhan? I no longer write in English. Just wanted to give you this tip. Make something of it. Tatarsko (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I wanted to apologize, I don't know if you perceived it as rude but when I reverted your edit on Abugida I was kinda rude, sorry. I added a source to the entry, btw. As for your comment, I mentioned it because that entire section was about unclear cases. So I think it fit to mention Azerbaijani as was kind in between the Uyghur, Kurdish and Phagspa, Pahwa scripts. Sameerhameedy (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sameerhameedy: That is alright, I did not perceive it as rude. You are right, the entire section is similar, and I find the entire section a bit weird and problematic. Why mention scripts that are not really abugidas after all? And most of that section is entirely unsourced. The article is already a bit convoluted and unclear. I'm going to try to improve the readability somewhat. --Glennznl (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder what a consensus should be, as there are always different voices for a theory, whatever how reliable it is. (In this case, Austro-Tai is not considered to have a consensus, while something less reliable, like Niger-Congo and Trans-New Guinean, are?) I've personally asked a researcher in Fudan University. He said that existence of the relationship between Austronesian and Kra-Dai is 'nearly definite'; the only problem is the positions of both families in the relationship. 17lcxdudu (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@17lcxdudu: Here is a recent assessment by Alex Smith from his paper about Austro-Tai[3] (on p. 90):

The AT Hypothesis remains a tentative hypothesis, although the evidence in its favor continues to grow. The evidence for a special relationship between AN and KD is both of a higher quality and quantity now than any time in the past, and it is hoped that more research in the area will help us understand the precise nature of this relationship.

I think this sums up what most people involved in AN and KD studies believe.

The analogy with Niger-Congo and TNG doesn't really work. No-one doubts that a certain large core of NC and TNG are valid language families; the uncertainly lies with the inclusion of certain prposed branches (e.g. Mande in NC, Timor–Alor–Pantar in TNG). And this is exactly where we stand with Austro-Tai, per Smith's assessment (FWIW personally, I don't always agree with Smith, but in this case, I fully support to echo this assessment in Wikivoice).

Whether Austro-Tai has become "infobox-worthy" in the AN and KD articles is a matter of our collective judgement. The infobox summarizes "key facts" of an article. If the articles give sufficient space to the AT hypothesis as a key data point, it seems fair enough to me to include AT in the infobox as a tentative, but significant hypothesis. The other thing in favor of AT in the infobox is the fact that there are at present no serious competitors to AT. So it is really either AT or primary language family. Of course, there are Austric and Sino-Austronesian, but AFAICS, contemporary proponents of Austric and Sino-Austronesian consider AT to be nested within their wider constructs; also, mainstream support for both hypotheses is neglegible. And well, other truly neglegible stuff like "Austronesian–Ongan" always exists...

Maybe we should move this discussion to the talk page of one of the articles concerned for wider input. –Austronesier (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@17lcxdudu and Austronesier: I think we should wait until a couple of reliable sources state without a doubt that Kra-Dai and Austronesian are related, before we reflect that on Wikipedia. Any further discussion would indeed be better suited on one of the relevant talk pages. --Glennznl (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Glennznl. Thank you for your work on Chiang Saen. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I sincerely consider translating this little list into English. Time to give those photographers a hug. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_byzantinischen_Festungen_und_sonstigen_Bauwerken_im_Maghreb

Antisyntagmatarchos (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Antisyntagmatarchos: You are welcome. That list looks neat and easy enough to translate. I am going to translate a few relevant articles myself into Dutch, which are lacking. --Glennznl (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erg bedankt Antisyntagmatarchos (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Antisyntagmatarchos: In case you want to translate more articles, de:Inka > Inca civilization, and de:Grænlendingar > Norse settlements in Greenland, would be great to have in English. --Glennznl (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norse settlements are coming very soon. Antisyntagmatarchos (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Writing systems derived from the Chinese has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Remsense聊 18:29, 16 October 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]