Talk:Cucuteni–Trypillia culture

Arhogenetics

Inconclusive studies

Recent genetic studies about Boykos show that the H, T, and J haplogroup frequencies in Boykos appear to be similar to those of the Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture. The regional chronological successor to the Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture group(LBK), the Eneolithic agricultural civilization of Trypillia-Cucuteni, shared its genetic pool with the LBK group (A. G. Nikitin et al., unpublished data, 2009), and so is a higher chance of leaving a genetic footprint in the modern inhabitants because of its more pronounced presence in the area (M. P. Sokhatsky, personal communication, 2008).

Further references:

1. http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf33/pericic33.pdf

References

Unused References

http://madalinvaleanu.3x.ro/2.download/1.%20Omul%20si%20mediul%20natural%20HTML%202006/Omul%20si%20mediul%20natural.htm

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf34/DPbecker34.pdf

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf33/pericic33.pdf

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf32/32budja.pdf

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf32/32kyparissi.pdf

Recent edits

@Reaper1945: The sites are not listed as cities in mainstream sources, the sole WP:PRIMARY source you have picked spends quite some space on exactly this (the definition of "cities" and fitting these therein). Quoting pop sci mags like New Scientist to claim this to be the origin of civilization is laughable when no one in the mainstream would consider cultures as civilizations or this to be one of the cradles of civilization let alone the origin of it. Also not sure why quote picking from linguists like Asko Parpola (not an archaelogist nor one who specializes in the region) is being proffered into the lead.

And please stave off from "Downplaying European history for personal POV" WP:PERSONALATTACKS like these over content disputes. Gotitbro (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro It would be more favorable if all your recent edits were not done in removing content from articles related to European history, not to mention downplaying actual academics and not providing any concrete evidence that what they provide in information is inherently wrong. Maybe you have not studied Cucuteni that much, but it has quite the impact on Southeastern Europe, as mentioned by the studies given. You say a culture can't be a cradle of civilization, clearly, with a population of over 1 million, the earliest cities, advanced agricultural and metallurgical techniques, thousands of buildings in an area, etc. What are you relying on for mainstream exactly regarding Cucuteni? English speaking only? Reaper1945 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY sources should not really be used in articles, nonetheless the sole purpose of the Chapman study is to show that these were cities against the mainstream view that these weren't (the paper says so as such).

And this wasn't a civilization that is sensationalism, compare articles from Britannica, Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Hrvatska enciklopedija, Great Russian Encyclopedia, Den Store Danske, Brockhaus to see what the mainstream views are.

Hundreds of academic papers are published in journals about a topic each year, many of them are later not accepted in the mainstream. That is why we should always be vary of WP:RECENTISM from primary sources and should not give them undue weight at enwiki articles. And should in most cases cite only secondary reception, preferably when they have received the sought acceptance. Gotitbro (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I can add three points:

• This is a topic that deserves sources that pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is simply too important to rely on pop-sci articles, especially when there is no lack of high-quality academic sources. And the label "civilization" is rarely used for the CT cultural network.
• A statement like "The civilization has been described by some as having invented civilization" cannot be sourced to a sensationalist pop-sci headline. This is a single attestation for this kind of lingo, but you obviously need a secondary source in support of "has been described by some" that exactly says this (or any paraphrase of it): "some say".
• One of the biggest mistakes that can easily be made is to confuse the achievements of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture with its impact. Even researchers who are most enthusiastic about its achievements acknowledge that it is not the CT model of urbanization that caught up in western Eurasia in the end.

If you want to build this article (NB: not just the lede!) on mainstream sources, stick to sources of the calibre of Gaydarska and many other active researchers in the field. And when you cite primary research papers when you can't avoid it, focus on the parts that summarize the state of the art (including existing debates about disputed topics). Just as an example, take Hofmann et al. (2024)[1]. In the first two paragraphs of the introduction, they provide background information, which is perfect for us to cite, before the go on to present their (methodologically) novel research results, which we should only cite with in-text attribution (but not before the paper has been cited in multiple indepedent academic sources). –Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wikain: Better participate in a discussion that is already ongoing, rather than edit warring and making edit summaries with unsubstantiated claims of "rampage" deletion. You are restoring clearly POVPUSH materia that was recently added and the WP:ONUS is not on those disputing its inclusion.

In your latest edits you have again restored a WP:PEACOCK quote from a linguist and another primary source. Mainstream sources do not make these claims (see the numerous WP:3PARTY sources listed above). Gotitbro (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You should self-revert and seek WP:CONSENSUS here. And read WP:BRD and WP:STABLE on how things proceed. Gotitbro (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is peacoking:

The culture was wealthy and influential in Eneolithic Europe and the late Tripolye culture has also been described by scholar Asko Parpola as thriving and populous during the Copper Age.

As for the credentials please stop criticizing. You already said that a PhD in Archaeology was invalidated for a blog post and now this. Ancient and modern linguists are not the same, Asko Parpola trajectory includes history and archaeology research, as expected for an ancient linguist, since the evolution and expansion of old languages can only be understood through history and archaeology. Wikain (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please learn to discern what is and isn't a WP:HISTRS for a certain topic. We almost never cite people with bare PhDs and that too with a blog is a clear no go. What you need are people who are recognized experts in a field, citing Parpola - an Indologist - from a book about Hinduism is not what would constitute an RS for this topic. Moreover quote mining is what we mostly avoid (see articles on other "cultures"), this shouldn't be any exception.

Also "please stop criticizing", editors scrutinizing sources and calling out puffery is exactly what they need to do. Gotitbro (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)