Template talk:Long-range comparative linguistics
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
New template for the "Moscow circle"
[edit]Even though I strongly disagree with the ideas proposed by the "Moscow circle" of linguists such as Starostin, I've created a navbox template for them nonetheless. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sagotreespirit: Where shall we set the cut-off to promising proposals that are slowly gaining ground with growing evidence? I have added "Amerind", as there is no doubt here about its long-ranginess, but what about Khoisan or Altaic, which are maybe less probable than Austric or North Caucasian? –Austronesier (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I wouldn't add Khoisan or Altaic. The language macrofamilies that I have in mind are the ones that are more specific to the "Moscow/Starostin school" of historical linguistics. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sagotreespirit: But then, Altaic is fits well here, because even if the proposal is old, Starostin and his school have been the most vocal supporters of it, especially with the EDA. Plus, you have added Greenberg, Ruhlen, Gell-Mann, Bomhard, so it's more about Moscow and "friends"? –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Sure, let's add Altaic then. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sagotreespirit: But then, Altaic is fits well here, because even if the proposal is old, Starostin and his school have been the most vocal supporters of it, especially with the EDA. Plus, you have added Greenberg, Ruhlen, Gell-Mann, Bomhard, so it's more about Moscow and "friends"? –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: I wouldn't add Khoisan or Altaic. The language macrofamilies that I have in mind are the ones that are more specific to the "Moscow/Starostin school" of historical linguistics. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Does this template really need to exist?
[edit]This appears to be a low quality aggregate of information, grouping theories with some degree of acceptance with fringe theories, and likewise serious scholars with minority opinions and fringe linguists themselves. The grouping appears somewhat arbitrary other than it's attempting to link the people and proposals for long range historical linguistics in a way which is totally agnostic to any actual veracity of those claims, and proposals like Altaic have their own equivalent template already. Warrenmck (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't agree with their claims, the long-rangers, whether we like them or not, are notable enough. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)