User:Austronesier/Linguistic macrofamilies

This is an essay about the representation of linguistic macrofamily proposals in Wikipedia.

Overview

The term macrofamily refers to proposed linguistic groupings that unite two or more established^[a] language families (including one-member families = language isolates) under the assumption of descent from a common ancestor, viz. the hypothetical proto-language of the proposed macrofamily.

There exists a wide range of macrofamily proposals. Some have a long history of debate, while others never went beyond being a singular, ephemeral idea without any lasting impact in the field. Some are widely considered as promising, while others are met with overall rejection by specialists in the field. Some macrofamily proposals deal with well-studied families (e.g. Nostratic), while others come from understudied areas where linguistic connections between languages are still being uncovered as more data becomes available (as in the Amazonian or Papuan areas).

Consequently, every proposal needs to be evaluated on its own by general Wikipedia standards for notability (for standalone articles) and mention with due weight (in articles related to the macrofamily proposal).

Notability and due weight

Standalone notability

Some macrofamily proposals clearly fulfil the criteria of WP:GNG. For instance, the Altaic, Penutian or Austric prospals have a long history of discussion in the literature with a significant numbers of proponents for each hypothesis, i.e. these proposals are not primarily linked to only one scholar. Further, these proposals are regularly mentioned, presented and discussed in independent sources.

In such cases, a standalone article is the best form for covering the proposed macrofamily.

[Add something about the depth of detail when presenting the arguments that have been put forward by proponents of these hypothesis and the problems that come with it (WP:PROFRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc)]

Notable proposals linked to one scholar

[...]

If the author passes WP:NSCHOLAR for other reasons than only the macro-proposal, we can consider to present the hypothesis in a section of the article about the author, instead of covering it in a standalone article.

[...]

Proposals that do not pass WP:GNG

some can be mentioned with due weight in other articles (typically in the articles about the individual language families that are involved) (stuff like Güldemann's Sandawe–Khoe-Kwadi)

some are too ephemeral, so even for a short mention will violate WP:due weight (stuff like Basque-Dogon etc.)

Acceptance

Labelling the acceptance with "promising", "controversial", "disputed", "rejected", "fringe" always needs a source. Personal assessment or personal knowledge about the unpublished views of scholars is not acceptable. Ideally, such labels should come from a secondary source that explicitly aims to give a picture of the mainstream academic consensus (WP:RS/AC).^[b] Personal assessments by experts in the field can also be cited; when there is doubt about their neutrality in an ongoing debate about the proposed macrofamily, in-text attribution is preferable.

Change in acceptance over time

Some proposals have undergone shifts in the acceptance by mainstream scholarship. Some older sources for WP:RS/AC thus may have become outdated.

Many of the proposals which pass WP:GNG do so on the grounds that they had widespread acceptance historically and were presented as facts in secondary and tertiary sources (e.g. Altaic, Penutian). This can particularly cause problems when the academic consensus drifts away from the general understanding of the public, which is particularly pronounced with Altaic languages. Editors should be aware that secondary sources from regions where these theories are treated as given may operate on the assumption that an older understanding of the relationship between languages is a given. Only mainstream sources from within the field of linguistics should be used to determine the status of a macrofamily proposal.

In other cases, proposals were initially perceived as bold and far-fetched, but subsequently have become more widely accepted after more solid evidence has been presented in the framework of the comparative method (e.g. Austro-Tai). In this case, care must be taken not rely on old sources that reflect initial rejection at an earlier stage of scholarship. Nevertheless, such outdated views can be mentioned with attribution for historical interest. –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Notes

^ "Established" here means generally accepted by the academic mainstream as convicingly proven based on the principles of the comparative method.
^ IF a scholar is know to belong to a "camp" in an ongoing debate, this doesn't automatically bar them from being considered a neutral source about academic consensus. For instance, Stefan Georg is a notable critic of the Altaic hypothesis, but has a record of describing the debate in a neutral fashion, and at one point even co-authored an article about the "state-of-the-art" with supporters of the Altaic hypothesis.

[1] "Established" here means generally accepted by the academic mainstream as convicingly proven based on the principles of the comparative method.

[2] IF a scholar is know to belong to a "camp" in an ongoing debate, this doesn't automatically bar them from being considered a neutral source about academic consensus. For instance, Stefan Georg is a notable critic of the Altaic hypothesis, but has a record of describing the debate in a neutral fashion, and at one point even co-authored an article about the "state-of-the-art" with supporters of the Altaic hypothesis.

[a]

[b]