Talk:Kurgan hypothesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV and lay popularity

A lot of self-undermining nitwittery from 50.72.139.25/50.72.161.19. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is major confusion that needs to be addressed about the Kurgan Hypothesis. For one thing, when taken for its entirety, it is already *outdated* and *incompatible* with modern evidence and thinking (as per the academic kind, not lay kind). If we really want to get at what the *true* consensus in academia is today, it is *not* the Kurgan hypthesis in its entirety at all. Many criticisms by various scholars with various points of view have already shown that it is untenable, not to mention the treatment of the Proto-Indo-European speaking community as a single cultural mass is naive, anti-academic and incompetent to say the least. The *real* consensus in academia is that while the Kurgan hypothesis as the late Marija Gimbutas presented it is dead, it however is undeniable that PIE speakers were likely in the general area and academia as a whole accepts the likelihood that a PORTION of the PIE speaking community belonged to these archaeological cultures labeled "Kurgan". Again this makes the Kurgan Theory itself DEAD, but it has been reworked into more elaborate proposals. So this should be properly reflected here with a healthy CRITICISMS section because as this article stands, it is naive, outdated and mind-numbingly POV. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Sources. Volunteer Marek 02:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Fisiak says clearly (Fisiak. Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology, 1997. on page 203): "So even if the physical history in Gimbutas's theory of kurgan waves were all true, the rational probability is strong that in the mixed culture which issued from them, the basic cast of language would be the contribution of the north-central European component, not the steppe component." He speaks from the position of MAINSTREAM linguistics here. It is Gimbutas that is fringe but since it seems this article is inhabited by Gimbutas fans, to no avail, right? No reference will be good enough for some. Meddlesome people will continue to push a POV position for kicks that is counter to mainstream linguistics where PIE is NOT AND CANNOT BE a single language with a single culture. How can a legitimate linguistics theory ignore the most fundamental understanding about Proto-IE (that it can never have been a homogeneous language but rather a spectrum of overlapping dialects with multiple material cultures)? This is the whole point: Kurgan Hypothesis can never be a legitimate theory based on academia's own criteria for logical argumentation. We may only say legitimately that the Kurgan culture as a *material* culture had influence and was likely spread by IE speakers, but the reverse is not and CANNOT be true in mainstream linguistics (that PIE and only PIE underlies the reified "Kurgan culture"). 50.72.139.25 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Ah here is something juicy. Kohl, Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (1995). Kohl speaks on Gimbutas' theory saying on page 93: "In this mythology these societies are seen as gynocentric, peaceful, artistic, egalitarian communities where weapons - particularly male-associated thrusting weapons were largely absent [...]This powerful message, like the earlier myth of the Aryan master race, is familiar to and believed by many more people". Yes, Gimbutas' "theory" is not a scientific proposal; it is a modern, gynocentric political myth that has no place in the sciences. This is *not* POV because it is cogently argued by facts. And these are just quotes from the mid 90s. The year is now 2013. Think of what fascinating advancements in mainstream linguistics and archaeology in the past 15 or so years that Wikipedia continues to ignore. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC) This quote hunting is fun! Haha. And now an internal quote written by another a while ago that contradicts the claims of THIS article at Proto-Indo-European_society: "What follows in this page are interpretations based only on the assumption of the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins, and are by no means universally accepted." Ooops, looks like a problem in POV here. I wonder which could be true: a half-cocked gynocentric myth that never properly addressed linguistic concerns from the start, or the many academics from recognized universities who find a list of criticisms, even when they are sympathetic of it as per some of the quotes I listed above. Duh. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Benjamin Fortson, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2011 on page 48: "Many archaeologists in fact use this as evidence for rejecting the kurgan theory." Then wiki admins will blurb: "Bah! What does Indoeuropeanist Fortson know? What do many archaeologists know!" Am I right? Lol. And... your turn! 50.72.139.25 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I think you have it a little backwards as far as "lay popularity" goes -- during the late 1980s and part of the 1990s, Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza received extensive media coverage for their Anatolian hypothesis (at one point there seemed to be something about it in Scientific American almost every month), even though the Anatolian theory never convinced the majority of linguists involved in the subject. The basic parameters of the Kurgan hypothesis have been the leading theory which the majority of linguists in relevant areas have used as their default assumption for probably about 50 years or so. This of course does not mean that such scholars accept all the details or elaborations of the Kurgan theory offered up by any one person, or that the Kurgan theory is unproblematic in all respects. It does mean that the main alternatives to the "Pontic-Caspian steppe" proposal all have much more serious flaws in the view of a quasi-consensus of linguists. Furthermore, while opinions among archaeologists are more diverse, there are some prominent archaeologists who support the basic parameters of the Kurgan hypothesis (while obviously offering up their own variations and elaborations on the theory). I really don't know why The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World won an award from a society of professional archaeologists if the Kurgan hypothesis is loopy pseudo-science. AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Nope, you are completely wrong and are obviously reading from a lay perspective because the Anatolian hypothesis is even more absurd than the Kurgan Theory. While there is a Pontic consensus, the Kurgan Theory proper is NOT popular among those with brains and a PhD to match. (Sorry if this sounds pompous but to hell with it. This discussion is like arguing with insane fundy Christians who don't grasp basic logic let alone evolution.) And you are ignoring Kohl which I cited just to carry on with your POV about what "POV" means. I got your number: You're a failed linguist bedazzled by an obnoxious neopagan outlook by a pop-culture author to annoy people on Wikipedia with your misunderstandings and to get back at society. ROFL! You can "interpret" consensus however your little heart wishes, but the academic references and legitimate facts I cite have long ago invalidated Gimbutas's relevance in either linguistics or archaeology. She is an overpraised quack in my opinion and her theory, as I said, was *never* possible unless you buy into the one-language-one-culture fallacy of racist quacks. Her revisionism discredits both the sciences and feminism but it sure sold books. So this wiki-POV of yours just shows how Wikipedia can never move beyond 1990 user interface design and a barrage of unreasonable, unbending, policy-obsessed controlfreaks. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC) And I guess I will lastly respond to this vacuous comment: "I really don't know why The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World won an award from a society of professional archaeologists if the Kurgan hypothesis is loopy pseudo-science." Hahaha. Really? You don't know? Come on, you crazy "anon" clown. It's just like when the archaeologist Hawass was anointed Vice Minister of Culture of Egypt by a corrupt ousted president: modern politics, modern politics, modern politics. Did you really think that if someone receives praise that it has to do with historical accuracy? How gullible. That just proves the point that I'm sitting here talking to a teenager. Hahaha, thanks for the fun conversation but you are thick.50.72.139.25 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC) You're certainly favoring us with an exposé of your philosophy of the bitterness of life, but unfortunately, this page is for discussing improvements to the article "Kurgan hypothesis", not for discussing your philosophy of the bitterness of life. And it's quite unhelpful when you identify the term "Kurgan hypothesis" with a blind fanatical acceptance of every last detail of some of the more extravagant assertions made by Gimbutas towards the end of her life, because that's not what "Kurgan hypothesis" usually means in scholarly writing. It may be that there's a moderate recent tendency away from using the term "Kurgan" to alternative terms such as "Pontic steppe" or similar, but you seem to be exaggerating this beyond all proportion, and creating some kind of absolute dichotomy which does not exist. AnonMoos (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Lol, there is nothing more sour than a lonely couch potato who CLEARLY devotes his whole life to his AnonMoos profile page bragging to everyone about their would-be academic credentials who pushes neopagan POV like a crackpot. Just because linguists side with a Pontic consensus does not mean that everyone "accepts" the scholarly validity of your popculture icon. The references are there and there are so many more. Reality is more interesting than barnstar awards and wiki status. Try it, kid! ;o) Again, this has been amusing if uninformative. Thank you as always for the exchange. I may now have nightmares dreaming about how WP made me sad. Woe is me. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC) "It may be that there's a moderate recent tendency away from using the term "Kurgan" to alternative terms such as "Pontic steppe" or similar" Well duh. Look around. Pore over some more literature. Take your time, you scholar you. You will see that the Kurgan Theory is, just as Kohl put it, a romantic modern myth and no one rational is connecting themselves with it, even in name. There is nothing "POV" about that when the Kurgan Theory proper *contradicts* basic linguistic and archaeological facts and reifies things that don't exist in the black-and-white POV you sport (myths like "a single PIE", "Aryan wave", a reified "Kurgan culture"... all busted in the 21st century). I am totally for presenting the Kurgan Theory in a popculture-relevant way but not academic. Don't be a thick bastard now. (But do carry on anyway.) 50.72.139.25 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC) You're giving Gimbutas some kind of strange status which she does not in fact possess. During the second half of the 1950's and the early 1960's, she was more right than many others were at the time, according to prevailing views among linguists, but that doesn't mean that there's a cult of Gimbutas among linguists, or that they uncritically accept many of the scientifically-unverifiable (and sometimes strikingly implausible) assertions which Gimbutas made later in her life. It means that the basic parameters of the Kurgan hypothesis are a starting point, subject to revision and critical evaluation in the light of later evidence etc. Much of the rest of your comments seem to be an expression of your personal philosophy of the bitterness of life and/or a generalized ranting tirade without too much relevance to article improvement. Meanwhile, Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles on "Kurgan Theory" and "Pontic-Caspian homeland", and it's by no means clear that it should, since the absolute dichotomy you're trying to create between the two is not standard or accepted. AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Wow, bringing up **60 years ago** just to argue that she is "widely accepted" in the **here and now** by your decreasing group of neopagans does nothing for your credibility as a... well what are you exactly? An "anon moo", I guess. Okay, fella. Slow down. Take your antidepressants. Anyways, as I told you, no reasonable person capable of living in the real world thinks that casual wikieditors should care about your internal flipflopping about terms that you don't understand. Confusing "Kurgan Theory" with "Pontic-Caspian homeland" is already suggestive of the poor quality of your education on this subject. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Bojtar. Foreword to the past: A cultural history of the Baltic people, 1999. Page 58, fn 18: Even though M. Gimbutas' book The Balts became less and less acceptable as its spine, the Kurgan theory, was unable to serve as a reference, it still, however, looked good in a bibliography." (And just to clinch the deal, fn 21 too.) It's a shame as these references keep pouring in that AnonMoos, who assures me he has oodles of degrees and yet who has clearly invested many long jobless hours of work into his Wikipedia image, will have to adopt an increasingly paranoid and infophobic stance to preserve the sanctity of the paganist teachings locked within the windmills of his mind. It will be exciting to see what he says next in predictable denial of the many negative academic reviews of his pop idol's theories. Remember the matriarchy issue? Yep. A dead issue too. No matriarchies, I'm afraid. (Which is good because why must women sully themselves in the power politics of men to be validated anyway? It's ironically misogynistic to even insist so but Gimbutas... well... she sadly never thought through anything she wrote and this was the case in the 1950s as it was in her later years. Her stripes never changed and she continued to promote a deranged view of the subject matter she distorted.) 50.72.139.25 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC) If you think that linguists who reconstruct details of proto-Indo-European supposedly somehow have a consuming preoccupation with upholding the existence of prehistoric matriarchies, then you're the one who has no real idea what it is that scholars actually do in their scholarly work. Meanwhile you're preoccupied by your personal philosophy of the bitterness of life (which seems to include a vicious hatred of all things considered by you to be feminist), but this has nothing to do with improving the article "Kurgan hypothesis" (which is supposed to be the purpose of discussions here). By the way, neopagans have at times basically accused me of being a Christian fundamentalist. Whichever it may be, it's all irrelevant to the purpose of improving Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Are you for real? We can all read that it was *Gimbutas* who "supposedly somehow had a consuming preoccupation with upholding the existence of prehistoric matriarchies" which obviously possessed her to mischaracterize a heterogeneous group of PIE-speaking pastoralists as a "patriarchal horde of meanies" that burned down her cartoonish "Old European matriarchy". How could she concoct these absurd pseudo-feminist narratives with a straight face had she properly researched any of the fields she dabbled in? She's a prolific pop-culture celebrity among femino-paganists to be sure but this is where our generosity should end and our rational criticism respecting the methodology of science must begin. Her career showcases a carelessness for detail and this restricted her from overcoming her simplistic interpretations. For the last time, a Pontic-Caspian urheimat is NOT synonymous with nor dependent on her bastardized "Kurgan hypothesis". This is a Wiki fantasy invented by your little band of admin kids. Since PIE speakers were a heterogeneous, multi-dialectal *plurality* of sheep herders without state-level social organization (...welcome to sociolinguistics 101...), there is naturally no "SINGLE language called PIE" to speak of, nor a "SINGLE culture". And still no matriarchy anywhere. Some dialects of PIE may likely be connected to these so-called "Kurgan cultures" but we have no right to insist as you do that they ALL were or to even quantify in desperation how much of her discredited theory is still "usable" to save face. Once properly grokked that any "archaeological culture", reified from an *arbitrary* set of qualities (ie. pottery styles, burial practices, fabrics, or a million other things), can justifiably be redrawn as another arbitrary "culture" with a different set of qualities selected for analysis, the line between "Kurgan", "Funnel Beaker", "Yamnaya" or anything else is nowhere near as crisp as you pretend. It's far more constructive to discuss specific material traits and their relationship, if any, to the issue of prehistoric language distribution than to reify these shortcut terms into large-scale Marxist movements to comfort your selfish aesthetic. A valid sociolinguist or archaeologist learns to appreciate and capably address the built-in vagueness of the abstractions that they build their career around. Respecting the process of critical reasoning is only the first step of adequate scholarship. Life experience informs the better of us that few things in life have such a singlemost cause or perspective. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Whatever, dude -- obviously there was no standardized written proto-Indo-European language, and once the area across which Indo-European was spoken started significantly expanding, maintaining a uniform and homogeneous dialect would be impossible. However, there are processes of koiné-ization and transmission of "wave" influences through a dialect continuum which can maintain a significant degree of mutual intelligibility across a fairly wide area in the right circumstances (as you would be well aware if you had more than a very superficial knowledge of linguistics). Linguists know very well that there are certain limitations to a pure sub-dividing "tree" model of language differentiation, but except in certain aberrant cases (pidgins, creoles, sign-languages, etc.), the best way to proceed is almost always to first establish the patterns of branching from a common proto-language (i.e. using the basic "tree" model), and then examine the left-over residuals where the strict "tree" model can't explain everything. That applies to proto-Indo-European. Much of the rest of your generalized ranting isn't worth replying to, but: 1) Gimbutas did in fact make a positive contribution during the second half of the 1950s and the early 1960s -- or at an absolute minimum, she was more right about the basic parameters of Indo-European origins than many other people were at the time, or than Renfrew and Cavalli-Sforza were 25-30 years later. 2) You seem to have a strange delusion that professional linguists are obsessed with Gimbutas and prehistoric matriarchies, but at least 99% of them couldn't care less about Gimbutas as a person, or about prehistoric matriarchies, and at most are only interested in very selective aspects of Gimbutas' theories (among those of various other linguistic and archaeological scholars) which have a bearing on their work in hand. 3) There is no substantive opposition between the "Kurgan hypothesis" and "Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland hypothesis". They're two terms which mean pretty much the same thing (i.e. merely a terminological alternative). Some may tend to avoid the word "Kurgan" because various people have tried to extend it in various directions, so that it may be perceived to have a confusing variety of possible secondary meanings. However, an absolute dichotomous opposition between "bad" Kurgan and "good scientific" Pontic-Caspian appears to exist nowhere else than in your own mind. 4) Your revisions to the article are not useful in the form in which you have added them, because "Kurgan" or "Pontic-Caspian" or whatever you want to call it still remains the leading hypothesis accepted among linguists (as it has been continuously for a number of decades), and though the opinions of archaeologists and other non-linguists have fluctuated, it's not undergoing any massive wave of rejection that I can see. AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC) "You seem to have a strange delusion that professional linguists are obsessed with Gimbutas and prehistoric matriarchies" Nope, that's you, troll. You're right that no Indoeuropeanist or archaeologist cares about Gimbutas' credibility because she simply has none. Her currency remains pop culture only. If you were literate, you would have understood my mainstream position from the above. Nice strawman but history has already proved her WRONG about Pre-IE matriarchies, WRONG about a "unified PIE" because she's not a linguist, WRONG about singular obsession with burial practices as archaeological "proof" of the presence of a language because she sucked at archaeology and then to prove just how WRONG she had been for decades, her only career path led to pandering to neopaganist quacks and naive feminists at the expense of any modicum of historical accuracy. Then your fanboy response amounts to: "Waaaannnnhhh! But she did things in the 1950s and you can't talk to my idol that way!! Wannnnhhh!" At some point, you must realize that you're joblessness is unhealthy so... thanks for the laughs, barnstar boy. This is a fun Sunday discussion. I hope your Wiccan POV works out for ya. 50.72.177.136 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Whatever, dude; if there's one thing that I'm most definitely not, it's a Wiccan -- and you don't have sufficient evidence available to you to conclude that I adhere to anything, and in any case such ad hominem has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia articles. It's unfortunate for you that you prefer glib shallow pop psychologizing and foul-mouthed but largely substance-free ranting tirades to discussing anything like facts or evidence that would be relevant to article improvement. AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Lol, cool story, bro. My clearly typed out refs add to what the Dutchman already mentioned above who also doesn't buy you and Gimbutas' pagan fantasies. Reality is so much more complicated and interesting than a dead woman's dead theory. Renfrew is a linguist. You are a nothing. Please get that right. I will pray for you, Wiccan. :o) 50.72.161.19 (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I really don't know why you're gripped with this fanatical obsession that professional Indo-Europeanist linguists are all-consumingly preoccupied with Gimbutas in their daily work, because that's definitely not the case. And Colin Renfrew is an archaeologist. And you can ask Bloodofox below whether I'm a funky neopagan, because I'm sure he has a quite contrary impression (not that either of you has enough valid relevant information from which to form a solidly-based judgement on the matter). AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Strawman. Badly played. You're obvious. 50.72.177.136 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Anon IP, the problem is that none of the sources you quote above get to the essence of this [1]. Basically you need sources - multiple ones or very authoritative ones, since this is in the lede - which more or less explicitly state that the Kurgan hypothesis "has been increasingly questioned in recent decades". What is not sufficient is quoting sources which disagree with some aspect of the hypothesis. Some of this stuff could go in the body of the article, for example in the Criticism section, but please mind WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek 19:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, I know. It's because you need an article to spoonfeed with literal quotes like "Marija Gimbutas sucked ass and she was incompetent", which of course is never going to be found because even when deserved, academia shuns from reprimanding the ignorant. Yet I've presented valid criticisms and the worst thing you can do as Wikipedians is betray your own principles by not absorbing available information and pretending that certain arbitrarily chosen "saints" should be protected from criticism because it might "hurt their feelings" from beyond the grave. Wikiboys prefer politics over facts as is evident here. Again, support for someone that was wrong on ALL counts? Give me break. You've entertained me, people. Thank you. But seriously, wow. 50.72.177.136 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Krell, Gimbutas' PIE homeland hypothesis, 1998: "Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data. This is putting the cart before the horse. Such an unsystematic approach should have been given her linguistic proponents real cause for questioning the relevance of her theory, especially if one considers that, by virtue of its nature, the study of PIE is first and foremost a matter for linguistic, not archaeological investigation." Krell, Gimbutas' PIE homeland hypothesis, 1998: "Given all the internal and external problems with Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis, her arguments should undoubtedly be scrutinized more thoroughly by the linguistic community, the archaeological community, and the popular press who have contributed to making the Kurgan-PIE correlation a widely accepted hypothesis." (This is NOT saying that it is an acceptable hypothesis nor does he mean that it's necessarily popular in academic circles. He is pointing specifically to LAY OPINION and the responsibility of academic "ivory tower", detached from the popular world, to SPEAK OUT AGAINST mystic pseudoscience. He urges SCRUTINY by specialists to lend deserved voice against Gimbutas' REPREHENSIBLY THOROUGHLY WRONG WRONG WRONG 'THEORY'. Wrong on everything! This quote is probably as damning as it's going to get knowing academic culture and political niceties that all academics are expected to dance around in feign of respect where none is merited.) 50.72.177.136 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Even the female academics are seeing past her matriarchal rants: Cynthia Eller, The myth of matriarchal prehistory: Why an invented past won't give women a future, 2002. (God I love how correct that book title is!). Eller confirms on page 209 under footnote 18 the existence of academic monopolies abetted by an internal culture of anxious silence: "Shelby Brown argues that ′professional disagreement with Gimbutas's view of a powerful gynocentric past is largely expressed through silence,′ adding that ′Gimbutas is an ′insider′ with an impressive record of excavation and publication, and she does not threaten the archaeological status quo by criticizing her colleagues". (Wink wink, nudge nudge. So we learn that if we say only good things about tyrant Gimbutas, we will keep our career path intact at the expense of our soul and science.) 50.72.177.136 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Actually I just noticed that further down in that footnote, Eller REALLY takes a good stab at the old Lithuanian vampire: "There has been considerably less silence since Gimbutas's death in 1994. Archaeologists are much more likely criticize Gimbutas vigorously now that she is gone and all that is left are her nonarchaeologically trained disciples." (She is of course speaking of AnonMoos and other "barnstar-educated" bums.) 50.72.177.136 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I think this conversation is over. Grow up first and come back in a few years and maybe then you can convince people to take you seriously.Volunteer Marek 22:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Haha. Of COURSE this conversation is over for you. Don't whine. Gimbutas is bullshit. Note Lehmann. Historical linguistics: an introduction, 1993: "The kurgan hypothesis aroused strong opposition. None the less, it attracted devoted followers, especially in the United States, who published vigorously in its support. Decisive archaeological data in its favor were not assembled. While it remained the hypothesis to disprove, it did not establish itself generally." (So... no relevant evidence, a horde of American dolts flocking to pseudoscience as is typical of a country with a bankrupted educational system and instead of placing burden of proof where it belongs, Gimbutas is given privilege against deserved criticism. Lehmann is a recognized linguist whereas Marek and AnonMoos are nothings on Wikipedia.) 50.72.177.136 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC) All I see is random bolding, random capitalization, random ad hominem. This is extremely childish and not worth spending time on. I personally vote for an IP ban (and a deletion of this discussion) until said user has learned the fundamentals of interacting with others on the internet. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I don't believe in "team-playing" in your clique. I believe in democracy (and many voices as above are not really being heard). When others are complaining about the POV in the above comments and references are being ignored without DUE CAUSE, Wikipedia is sending a message that it is a troll haven for teens and that IT DOESN'T WANT ANY MORE FUNDING FROM BENEFACTORS. Oh no, did I bold that? Did you not like my stylistic preferences? I will cry about that then. Waaannnnh. We may as well call this an extension of 4Chan. Why pretend to respect this site? It doesn't even follow its own rules of POV and reference-deleting vandalism. Get bent is my new slogan for Wikipedia. LOL! Iconoclasty is needed on Wikipedia. I don't shy away from that because it's the source of innovation for any healthy organization. 50.72.177.136 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Why isn't this page protected and the crazy IP banned already? Whatever happened to flagged revisions? Seriously.Volunteer Marek 23:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Don't be daft. There must be made a difference between the "Kurgan Hypothesis" **fantasy** (ie. NOT a valid scientific theory) that Gimbutas concocted from her own selfish struggles of acceptance and the more *minor* role that burial mounds play in the history of the **heterogeneous** Indo-European speaking peoples. Gimbutas' Aryan Invasion is bullshit. Only kooks and ignoramuses with no education on the matter fight against this. The Enc.Britt. is a much better gauge of academic status quo than YOU, Marek. Get off your high horse and maybe even put some clothes on for once.50.72.161.19 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Blocked, although semi-protection of the article and talk page might be better. However, if Encyclopedia Brittanica actually reports a different theory as being mainstream, that's an indication that the "Hypothesis" might now be discredited. I quite agree with some of the statements made here that evidence of "prehistoric matriarchies" (the anon's term) is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Note that I haven't returned the article to the status quo; I'll leave that up to content editors here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I haven't seen the Encyclopedia Brittanica's entry. It wouldn't really make any difference what it said. Non-specialist encyclopedias are generally worthless in these areas. Pre-historic "matriarchies" are a controversial topic that the above anonymous user's comments approach with a surprising amount of ignorance. Beware agreeing with the above anonymous editor on any point, he or she clearly has an agenda. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. Let's do this properly.

This article does not provide a complete and rounded view of its subject. I recommend reading Bojtár 1999, pp. 57–63 as was once cited in this article. Professor Bojtár clearly asserts Renfrew to have refuted the Kurgan hypothesis, quotes Adolfas Tautavičius's not exactly glowing reaction to The Balts, and directly attacks the hypothesis on several points. Several of these points are not even touched upon in the article:

• Bojtár questions (Bojtár 1999, pp. 59) the presumption that "for 2000 years the whole of Europe was the 'strolling garden' of one population".
• Bojtár quotes (Bojtár 1999, pp. 60) Janos Makkay asking what historical events can possibly parallel this thesis of an expansion lasting for 1600–2000 years that retained its language and culture unchanged through that whole period.
• Bojtár argues (Bojtár 1999, pp. 61) that the thesis that a nomadic society can stand apart from a pastoral one is countered by Renfrew's observation that the former always requires the co-existence of the latter.

There are a fair few points beyond that, that I won't go into detail on. (Read the source!) But this article contains none of this alternative scholarly view on the Hypothesis. The refutation of the Hypothesis as given by this article rests solely upon Kell. But even from reading Bojtár alone it would be clear that that's not the case, given that Bojtár cites Stuart Piggott and Peter Ucko in support of demolishing one of the "two cornerstones of Gimbutas' Old Europe theory" (Bojtár 1999, pp. 62).

Moreover: one shouldn't read just Bojtár alone. It transpires that there are quite a lot of people who disagree with the theory, and contrary to what is stated in the collapsed discussion above, they didn't all start after Gimbutas's death. According to Robert Drews (Drews 2004, pp. 131–132), Alexander Häusler has been arguing against the Hypothesis since the 1970s, calling it a "Phantasieprodukt" at one point. Drews in an earlier book (Drews 1994, pp. 29–31) also cites Piggot and Häusler on the subject of the introduction of the wheeled vehicle, which they both take the Kurgan Hypothesis to task on. (Drews also cites a 1986 paper by Anthony that we don't have, calling it a "comprehensive criticism" of the hypothesis.)

Both Bojtár and Drews acknowledge the popularity of the Hypothesis, with Bojtár echoing Mallory's words from a decade before about Britannica and Larousse. (This is where mention of Britannica comes from Bloodofox. It's actually in the academic sources on the subject.) But Drews called it "increasingly suspect in archeological circles" (Drews 1994, pp. 30) in 1994 and Bojtár noted that its acceptance was "especially by lay opinion" (Bojtár 1999, pp. 57) in 1999.

What it seems we have here, that we really should not, is an article that reflects the very "lay opinion" that Bojtár talked about a decade and a half ago, rather than an article that informs the reader of the various problems with the Hypothesis that have been presented by other scholars over the past 40 years. As such, this article does not present much more than a one-sided, and lay, view of the subject.

Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bojtár, Endre (1999). Foreword to the past: a cultural history of the Baltic people. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Central European University Press. ISBN 9789639116429. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Drews, Robert (2004). Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. Routledge. ISBN 9781134340736. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Drews, Robert (1994). The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-european Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691029511. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

First off, Bojtár Endre appears to be a literary critic and translator, and this unfortunately reinforces the old and recurring pattern whereby many people from related and adjacent fields think that "Renfrew has refuted the Kurgan hypothesis", but very few actual linguists actually working on Indo-European problems think that this is the case. As long as this pattern remains unchanged (and considering that the book The Horse, the Wheel and Language won an award from a professional society of archaeologists only three years ago), it's hard to see how the generalized Kurgan / Pontic-Caspian steppe hypothesis can be considered to be "refuted".

This talk page is not actually the place for us to be personally the merits of competing hypotheses with each other, but regarding the Janos Makkay comments, the Anatolian hypothesis actually requires a much higher degree of linguistic stasis over a much longer period than the Kurgan / Pontic-Caspian steppe hypothesis. And as far as "lay opinion" goes, the Renfrew / Cavalli Sforza work was heavily covered in popular science journals during the early 1990s (Scientific American seemed to be especially relentless in pushing it), so that's a double-edged sword. AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. With regards to IP 50.72.161.19's edits to the article, it's not that everything about them was totally wrong. Instead, it's that IP 50.72.161.19 has been repeatedly told that his edits were not overall useful in the form in which he added them. It would be nice if IP 50.72.161.19 could discuss things with other people so as to reshape his edits into something which actually would be useful, but whenever IP 50.72.161.19 posts anything to this page, it's always a pointless tirade based on his strange personal postulates (such as his apparent belief that linguists are constantly preoccupied with the issue of prehistoric matriarchies in their professional work, whereas the truth is completely opposite). AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Your application of Makkay to another hypothesis is, as you rightly say, irrelevant. It has, however, been applied to this subject, in scholarly sources, and is one of the many things that this one-sided and incomplete article fails to address. And Endre Bojtár is Professor of Philology and Head of the Department of Central and Eastern European literature at the University of Budapest. He's also Head of Central and Eastern European Literatures Department at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Wasn't my calling him Professor Bojtár enough of a hint for going and looking him up? ☺

These are not just random dudes. These are experts in their fields of expertise challenging the Hypothesis on archaeological, sociological, and linguistic grounds. This biased article simply does not reflect their scholarly point of view, or even mention it at all. It reflects only that lay opinion, that isn't the scholarly one, on the subject. It's nothing to do with appearances in Scientific American of other hypotheses. That's just a complete red herring. It's everything to do with scholars in the field noting that the lay opinion sides with a hypothesis that doesn't in fact have scholarly opinion uniformly behind it, and hasn't had even since some of the contradictory work of Piggot, Ucko, et al. in the 1960s.

Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That's enough about 50.72.161.19, now. Seriously. This talk page section was not restarted on a whim. Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- Bojtár may be highly distinguished in his field, but it does not seem that his field is Indo-European linguistics, and nothing that you've said above changes that. This might not be very important in other contexts, but in the case of the Anatolian / Cavalli-Sforza & Renfrew hypothesis vs. the Kurgan / Pontic-Caspian steppe hypothesis, it reinforces a longstanding pattern that very few actual working Indo-Europeanists have supported the Anatolian hypothesis. The Kurgan / Pontic-Caspian hypothesis won't be too effectively discredited unless more than one prominent, respected, and well-known Indo-Europeanist comes out publicly against it.

And my comments about Janos Makkay were highly-relevant to showing how some of his assertions are flawed, since he complains about the Kurgan hypothesis requiring linguistic stasis, but the Kurgan hypothesis does not require linguistic stasis (only a period of sprachbund or dialect continuum), while the Anatolian hypothesis does require effective stasis... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Map of Indo European migrations is outdated CRAP

In this given map, the epicenter of a kurgan burial tradition is being confused with the *proper* epicenter of the Pontic-Caspian theory. PIE should be shown to originate from the orange to the LEFT of the pink centre. 50.72.177.136 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The origin of the "Yamna horizon" (considered by many to have very probably been the first significant expansion of Indo-European language) was in the left part of the pink area. The map could be improved, but I don't see that it's flamingly flagrantly false... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the above user was recently blocked. I am requesting a formal ban. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For now, I'm removing all pointless tirades and inflammatory comments. AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban or not, you're evidently retards. Unless *YOU* HAVE PROOF that the source and spread of kurgan burial practices is somehow *IDENTICAL* or even moderately correlated with the spread of Indo-European languages, *YOU* are pushing unscientific POV. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute here about the overlap of kurgan burials. But the identification of kurgan burials as exclusively or even necessarily partly Indo-European is unproved.50.72.139.25 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous IP -- Sredny Stog could very probably be connected with Proto-Indo-European, or with Pre-Proto-Indo-European, or with nearby languages related to Pre-Proto-Indo-European, or with several of the above. However, there's not much evidence in Sredny Stog of marked geographical expansion of culture traits (which could be an indicator of marked geographical expansion of spoken language, though the two don't always go together), and the full "package" of early Indo-European technical and cultural items doesn't quite yet seem to be assembled. On both those counts, Yamna seems more likely to signal the beginning of significant expansion in the area where Indo-European was spoken, and therefore a map which has arrows pointing away from an area which includes early Yamna is not "crap" for that reason. When you accuse me of being a rigid kurgan burial always and only means Indo-European fundamentalist, that's another in a long line of things that you've said that I am, but in reality I'm not. AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen what you've removed that the anonymous IP said, Anon; accusations of neo-Nazism, ad hominem attacks of "retard", etc. I urge you to stop feeding the troll and just start deleting his or her comments. Uncle G's bumbling enabling isn't helping matters much either. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The CORRECT ACADEMIC CONSENSUS that opposes the Kurgan "theory"

Gimbutas' Kurgan Theory was never once accepted by anyone other than fringe asshats (neowiccans, pseudo-feminists, gullible joes off the street, etc.). There has always been evidence to disprove it from the moment it was theorized. Hence THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA'S KNOWELEDGEABLE REJECTION OF THE KURGAN HYPOTHESIS.

A correct alternative which *is* accepted by and popular among mainstream academia: PIE most likely started in the NW Pontic as a **collection of co-evolving dialects** spread across a large expanse (not some "single language" in one pin-point region). The Kurgan burial practice is a SEPERATE cultural wave. It is only marginally related to language spread.50.72.139.25 (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's moderately nice that you finally provided some information about a scenario in which "Kurgan" and "Pontic-Caspian steppe" might not be synonymous. (It would have been even better, of course, if you could have done this before emitting so much overheated rhetoric and pointless meaningless insults.) Any linguistically-supported theory of Indo-European origins will posit a period of several centuries when Indo-European was a dialect continuum spread over a fairly wide area. However, the "never-any-small-original-linguistic-homeland" idea sounds like an archaeologist's gimmick which would really not find favor with the great majority of linguists. In any case, it's natural that having identified a region and approximate date which was likely the beginning of Indo-European language spread, people will then want to go on and see if they can find anything corresponding to this linguistic moment in the archaeological record. Some scholars may tend to avoid the term "Kurgan" because various proposals have tried to extend it in various directions, until it has lost clarity of meaning. However, I really didn't get the idea from reading The Horse, the Wheel and Language that the Kurgan hypothesis as a whole has been discredited, and I'm inclined to give a lot more credence to what David W. Anthony says than in what you say... AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, typical denial. You're just nonsense. BURIAL MOUNDS HAVE RATIONALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE. You know it but you deny it anyway. More nonsense of the sort "my impression is... it sounds like to me... blah blah blah". You ignore every decent book on the planet. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In pure abstract metaphysics and logic, there's no necessary connection between a burial mound custom and speaking a certain language, but certain scholars examining detailed historical, linguistic, and archaeological facts have posited that such a connection did in fact exist at certain times and places, and this remains a quite viable theory, as far as I can tell. I know quite a bit about the linguistic aspects without being an actual Indo-Europeanist linguist (though I've met several of them over the years), and the most recent relevant archaeological book I read was the "The Horse, the Wheel and Language". If you want to call that "ignoring every decent book", then you're free to do so, but I don't see how it advances the discussion, or helps you convince anyone to change the article. I'm no archaeologist, and I'm aware that the support for Kurgan / Pontic-Caspian steppe is less among archaeologists than it is among linguists, but your claims about "academic consensus" do not appear to be correct... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Renfrew's linguistic timedepth

I copied this single and confusing run-on sentance for discetion. I removed the glottochronolgy text as it contradicts the meaning of the writing, and added a citation needed template.

This belief implies a significantly older age of the Proto-Indo-European language, ca. 9,000 years as opposed to ca. 6,000 years, and finds rather less support among traditional linguists than the Kurgan theory, on grounds of glottochronology (though this method is widely rejected as invalid by mainstream historical linguistics), since the PIE language contained words for devices especially related to cattle-breeding and riding invented not earlier than the 5th millennium BC by nomadic tribes in Asian steppes, and because there are some difficulties in correlating the geographical distribution of the Indo-European branches with the advance of agriculture.

Archeology re: Indoeuropean Language family.

Hi all! Can someone please help? I am not that much familiar with the subject of the article, and going through the article could not find anything relevant to archeology. I mean if there ever was this great civilization of Indoeuropeans surely they must have lived in an area before their migrations.

• Does archeology support the Kurgan hypothesis and the Indoeuropean theory at large?
• Are their any archeological findings? A city, a village, pottery or anything of the sort.
• Could someone please suggest a reference or point me to the right direction in order to answer this puzzling question?

The article about Indo-European languages right from the beginning reads as if the indoeuropean family of languages is a certain undisputed fact and not a theory, the most accepted hypothesis is the Kurgan hypothesis but on what is it based? Archeology supports the Kurgan hypothesis? Is that the case? Thank you!! 23x2 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a specialist of the subject, but what I read is the indoeuropean language family is quite well established linguistically. The kurgan culture as a culture of the steppe between 3rd–1st millenia BC is well established archeologically, and its burials could be connected to the Rigveda, so the connection to the Indo-Iranians is quite well established. Its time scale agrees with the time of appearece of the Indo-Iranians in India and Mesopotamia. The kurgan hypothesis is about the indoeuropean homeland (urheimat), and the spread of the indoeuropean peoples. It is not well or at all established archeologically. Hidaspal (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hidaspal. 23x2 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, the Kurgan theory of Indo-European origins can never be established archeologically (nor can any of its competitors, by the way) because pots don't talk, and there are no inscriptions. Archeology cannot prove linguistic relationship (and crucially, they cannot even present clear evidence for most historical migrations, much less prehistorical migrations), either, that's the domain of linguistics. It's linguists who try to assiocate cultures discovered and defined by archeologists with known languages. There are plenty of archeological findings, by the way. We do have cities, villages, and pots en masse, but which are those of the Proto-Indo-Europeans? Your guess. Again, pots just don't tell us anything about the language(s) of their owners. All that can be done is guesswork.

Linguists, historians, archeologists, geneticists, all see quite different parts of the same proverbial elephant – archeologists, for example, provide evidence for everyday life, especially the life of the masses of simple people, and usually see only continuity, historians (and indirectly, linguists) of the preoccupations of the élites, wars and migrations, rarely of the lower classes. Geneticists also see mostly continuity – things staying the same, populations converging (or some very early migrations), or slow changes spanning millennia, not migrations happening within decades. All those experts find it really hard to talk to each other and draw a common picture. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Florian. Pots dont talk, :) nicely put, tell that to the archaeologists. Some pots do tell stories my friend. If you disregard archaeology in an attempt to comprehend the past then what do you base it on? You have already answered: "All that can be done is guesswork.". The indoeuropean language and the theories supporting them are just that. Theories... Problem is, in wikipedia, The indoeuropean language is erroneously (in my opinion) portrait as a proven fact, and not what it truly is. A theory. 23x2 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

23x2 -- Linguists tend to favor the Kurgan hypothesis (or slight variations on it) much more than the Renfrew-Cavalli-Sforza Anatolian hypothesis, but it's not established beyond all reasonable doubt the way that the existence of the Indo-European language grouping is. One misconception that you may have is that the early Indo-European speakers were not a "great civilization" in the sense of Pharaonic Egypt etc., and no serious archaeologist ever looked for or expected to find ruins of cities or whatever in 4th millennium BC southern Russia. If the early Indo-European speakers had an advantage over others, it was probably that they were among the first to ride horses and/or use simple basic horse-drawn carts or wagons with plank wheels, systematically on a large scale... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you AnonMoos 23x2 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, the Kurgan hypothesis has the advantage of being more plausible in various respects than the competing approaches, which suffer from even more problems.

While the early Indo-European speakers clearly lacked a sophisticated urban civilisation, their culture was apparently nonetheless relatively complex or technologically advanced, especially in the context of the European copper age and their neighbours. Agriculture (on a limited scale, but made probable by the word for "plough" especially), varied animal husbandry, use of secondary animal products such as milk and wool, metalworking (gold, silver and copper), burial mounds, perhaps wooden fortifications, quite apart from the domesticated horse, carts and wagons. In certain respects, the contemporary cultures of South East Europe may have been more technologically advanced, in others, they were less advanced. I tend to imagine the early Indo-European speakers a lot like Plains Indians of North America; probably the single best modern analogue, along with Turkic- and Mongolic-speaking groups of Central Asia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Florian 23x2 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In short, you all agreed or insinuated how arbitrary and plausible the Indoeuropean language is. And the fact that it is a Theory, a guesswork of linguistics. This has to be reflected in the Indoeuropean language article i think. Thanks 23x2 (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the existence of the Indo-European language grouping is extremely solidly established, and has been for over 150 years... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"It's only a theory" is a standard objection against the theory of evolution, too, and likewise misses the scientific sense of theory (an established model able to explain numerous isolated observations), as opposed to the everyday or lay sense (a spontaneous guess). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Florian. You will find multiple archeological evidence supporting the theory of evolution. 23x2 _φ 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos: I've made the point several times that in the mid-4th millennium, there was no great civilisation anywhere in the world, as this requires (according to a common definition), among other things, true writing, which no culture is known to have had for certain prior to about 3200 BC. So if by 3500 BC, the Indo-Europeans did not have writing, that doesn't really matter much in context, because the Egyptians probably didn't either, and Pharaonic Egypt the way we usually conceive of it didn't exist yet. Check List of largest cities throughout history and pay attention to the period 3800–3500 BC. The Yamna culture could be described as at least proto-urban by the time. It didn't take much to have the biggest "city" in the world at the time. There were stone steles and complexes of temples and sacrificial altars in Bronze Age Ukraine. If there was any civilisation at all in the Early Bronze Age, the Ukraine certainly had one. These guys weren't barbarians: they were remarkably technologically advanced for their time. In light of these relatively recent discoveries, the Bronze Age Ukraine is absolutely believable as the origin of the world's most widespread language family. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

An important correction: The "cities" I've mentioned are really in the middle of the Ukraine, but they do not belong to the Yamna, but to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which is generally hold to predate the Indo-European expansion and to have been non-Indo-European-speaking. It rather belongs to the Danubian Old European cultures, whose origin appears to lie in Anatolia. The Indo-European Urheimat does not extend all the way to central Ukraine – it only covers the south and east of the country. --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Criticism section is unsourced

I just want to emphasize that the "Criticisms" section of this article currently lacks any citations, and as already pointed out by an earlier edit, in addition to this fact its claims are in need of clarification, and perhaps specific examples which would lend direct weight to the author's thesis. Without any such sources or examples, in addition to its reliance on mostly the research of a single (unsourced) author, I find the validity of the current content of this section questionable. (2620:104:E001:9010:A418:D62A:6362:475A (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC))

Precursors

The idea to locate the Indo-European homeland in the Eastern European steppe regions is certainly not original to Gimbutas; according to p. 19, Theodor Benfey had already advanced it in the 19th century. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On p. 38, Gimbutas herself acknowledges Otto Schrader as a precursor. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

People proposed just about everywhere between the North Pole and the Ganges in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Precursors should certainly be acknowledged, but if Gimbutas was the first one to correlate Soviet archaeological discoveries etc. into an overall synthesis, the existence of precursors does not take that away from her... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I've done no more than pointing precisely that fact out (the existence of precursors). I certainly did not intend to take anything away from her. Quite the opposite, if anything, the existence of precursors (especially if they used sensible arguments from reconstructed lexicon or the like, which at least Schrader actually did) adds even more weight to her KH: it's even more mainstream and less controversial and arbitrary than some of the anti-KH polemics make it out to be.

It's very far from the ideology-guided crank idea some people caricature it as – not infrequently because it contradicts their own ideology and sometimes crank ideas. That includes not only nationalistically motivated propagandists, but also well-meaning, honestly confused people, including scholars from fields outside (and sometimes even inside) linguistics and archaeology. I see it all the time on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Some also think that because most of Gimbutas' later ideas have (to put it charitably) little merit, all of her ideas have little merit. Rather, she did monumental and valuable work here. It's also notable that despite persistent attempts to link the steppe Urheimat hypothesis to NS ideology (or its 19th-century precursors), the Nazis never latched onto the hypothesis even though it was already around and not completely incompatible with their ideology. (Even if it was admittedly much more convenient to see Germany or Scandinavia as the Urheimat and not the Ukraine or even Russia. Still, ideologies tend to find rationalisations around such problems – medieval Mongol/Turkic admixture in the Slavic peoples was actually used to justify their status as Untermenschen IIRC.) Instead they stuck with the Corded Ware hypothesis (whose popularity even among unideological academics prior to Gimbutas' work is, however, understandable in hindsight). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As a scholar Mario Alinei said, "In short, the first IE specialists – imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century - chose to see the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a superior race of warriors and colonizers, who would have conquered the allegedly "pre-IE" Neolithic Europe in the Copper Age, and brought their 'superior' civilization to it. (...). At the same time, while the concept of the Arian super-race gave shape to the myth of the Battle-Axe horse-riding invaders, another myth, within the Arian larger myth, emerged: Pangermanism. Within the Arian superior race, the German father-founders of IE studies saw the Germanic people as the supermen, the purest and the closest to the original blessed race, and chose the Germanic area as the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980). Interestingly, also the central idea of the NDT, namely that the inventors of farming were the Indo-Europeans, rather than the 'real' Middle-Eastern, Sumerian and/or Semitic, people, is yet another vein of this often unwitting ethnocentrism that runs through the history of research on IE origins." --Ragdeenorc (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Indian nationalists will love this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Alinei with his PCT helps all sorts of ethnocentrists and nationalists – Indian, Turkish, etc. – by providing "scholarly" ammunition and distorting real scholarship into straw-man caricatures. The pot calling the kettle black, to the nth degree.

BTW, I don't think Renfrew claims that the Indo-Europeans were the (only, or at all) inventors of agriculture, only that they spread it throughout Europe. Also, by his own logic, isn't Alinei an ethnocentrist, only from the Semitic point of view (and countless others)? After all, the invention of agriculture in the Middle East was about 10,000 years ago, and we don't know anything about the ethnic and linguistic composition of the region back then – neither Semitic or Sumerian were spoken then, and chance is that precursors weren't either (Semitic is often suspected to be an import from Africa, and Sumerian from the Iranian Highlands or so). Of course, in Alinei's unwittingly hyper-ethnocentric view where ethnic groups and languages are pretty much fixed in place (unless proved to be otherwise to his full satisfaction) and change hardly at all, Semitic and Sumerian can impossibly be latecomers to the Middle East and must have been present in a recognisable form already in 8000 BC.

Much of Anthony's book is readily available to read on Google Books. Mongol-style (or rather Lord-of-the-Rings-style) huge armies of prehistoric super-barbarians overrunning Eurasia and conquering a super-empire are nowhere to be found; they only exist in the imagination of cranks like Alinei and of white supremacists, not in that of serious scholars. Considering the primitive technology and low population densities of the Early Bronze Age, the Indo-European expansion must have been a much less spectacular process than the Mongol conquests, whose linguistic impact was almost negligible and mostly limited to the further spread of Turkic rather than Mongolic languages. Nor is the European invasion and colonisation of the New World really a close analog because the scale is so different. Which is why serious scholars don't speak of an "Indo-European invasion" at all. Nor do they suggest any kind of inherent supremacy of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, nor do they call them "Aryans" nor a race, nor support chauvinistic movements and ideologies of supremacy, whether Germanic, Turkic, Indic or any other; instead they denounce them. In fact, 19th-century nationalism and the mere concept of race have been so thoroughly discredited in academia that Alinei obviously just missed the memo. The scholarly community is so acutely sensitised to this issue that any hint of continuity (ha!) with pre-1945 ideologies is disastrous for any proposal. Which, as I stress for the umpteenth time, is far more obvious in immobilist scenarios like PCT than for migrationist scenarios like the Kurgan model – after all, PCT assumes Scandinavia to have been Germanic for about 10,000 years, and Central Europe for even longer, much longer possibly than even the Nazis would have assumed (I think the Corded Ware was dated to around 2000 BC back then). This is a "theory" that postulates Germanic cavemen in Ice Age Germany! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gimbutas – a feminist and pacifist –, in fact, did not think of the Indo-Europeans as a superior civilisation at all – it was her to first argue that (Pre-IE) Neolithic Europe was actually more advanced and sophisticated and indeed a peaceful, egalitarian civilisation (opposing the traditional concept of civilisations as hierarchical and warlike), destroyed by villainous Indo-European barbarians. This is Aryan ideology turned on its very head!

Admittedly, she still thought in terms of invasions, inspired by Stalin's conquest of the Baltic states – so what if she was a Baltic nationalist –, and this moralistic black-and-white view of at least prehistory has been abandoned in the meanwhile. However, she distinctly opposed totalitarian and right-wing ideologies, so attempts to impute Nazi sympathies to her is ludicrous. Gimbutas is the last person who would endorse fantasies about Aryan supermen.

As for the medieval Balts, they do appear to have been a more archaic society than any other contemporary Indo-European group (at least in Europe), and their languages were extraordinarily conservative as well; so taking the Balts as the closest model for the Proto-Indo-Europeans does at least make some sense. According to Gimbutas, the Baltic peoples, despite their Indo-European heritage, also preserved significant Pre-Indo-European, "Old European" elements. (Nowadays, scholars aren't so confident to be able to tell aspects of Indo-European and Pre-Indo-European culture apart this reliably and cleanly. The Indo-Europeans weren't this one-dimensional, it is suspected, as skeletons in kurgan graves, accompanied by weapons, have been identified as female, suggestive of high-status women – even "Amazons".) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify "advanced"? Arguing that the Indo-Europeans were technologically behind pre-IE Europe sounds like a fringe theory. Otherwise, everything else sounds correct. Khazar (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's Gimbutas' view, which is not necessarily mainstream nowadays, but she probably meant more in a social than a technological sense (compare p. 26). Mind you, even if she also meant that Neolithic "Old Europe" was technologically more advanced (I'm not sure if she actually ever said that), that doesn't mean that it was much more advanced, only a little, and in some ways the Indo-Europeans may have had a technological advantage instead – even apart from horse-riding, but that was really their main advantage. (I can't think of anything else, actually.) The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, generally considered non-IE and part of "Old Europe" although probably directly bordering the Kurgan horizon, had towns of 10,000 inhabitants in the 4th millennium BC smack-dab in the centre of the Ukraine, then the largest towns in Europe if not in the world; that's pretty advanced in either sense if you ask me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs more degree educated people like you. :-) Khazar (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative theories

I agree with Blades to include a small overview of competing theories. It helps in understanding what's being discussed, and what distinguishes the Kurgan-hypothesis from other theories. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the alternate theories. The problem is that it goes out of the scope of the article. This is about a specific hypothesis, not its competitors. Another problem is that there needs to be due weight and giving this much mention to the fringe theories that compete with the Kurgan hythesis violates Wikipedia's rules. All this info should be added to the Indo-European Urheimat page instead. Khazar (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We can reduce the amount of content but it is good to refer to them because they are similar theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

They're far from similar. The kurgan hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory. Its competitors are frequently labeled as fringe. Khazar (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept the rule of WP:DUE weight or I'll let an administrator take care of this. Khazar (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Change from "predominant hypothesis" to "one of the proposals"

The Kurgan hypothesis is in fact predominant among linguists specializing in the study of Proto-Indo-European (though of course with many slight variations, not always following Gimbutas exactly)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pastoralism vs. agriculture, redux

Just wanted to point out that while words for "plough" and "grain" have indeed been reconstructed to PIE (and possibly even for specific grain types – I'd need to check the EIEC for details; compare Sanskrit यव), I have seen the point been made that ethnic groups, or language communities respectively, can have words for concepts that play no role in their own culture, but in neighbouring cultures, and it is not at all unheard of that nomads have some agricultural lexicon (though usually not a rich, differentiated one). My understanding of the general thinking of the "steppe camp" is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were essentially – or predominantly – (semi-)nomadic livestock breeders for whom plant-based agriculture was just not particularly important, i. e., either they did not cultivate plants at all (though they could have acquired plant-based food through trade or raids, although animal-based food is generally valued much more due to its higher energy content so they may not even have seen the need), or only as a supplement, so it played a minor role comparable to hunting (and gathering) – lots of ethnic groups engage in hunting (and gathering) without being foragers, so even if the Proto-Indo-Europeans did engage in crop-raising after all, they were not necessarily farmers, just like occasional hunting did not make them foragers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that the evidence would seem to indicate that the Indo-Europeans (or some sub-groups of them) were opportunistic agriculturalists -- some individuals in most groups knew basic agricultural techniques, and in many cases they had no objection to clearing land and planting a crop in spring if they thought that they would likely be around to reap the harvest in autumn. What they weren't is permanently-settled agriculturists with stone houses and elaborate granaries for storing grains from year to year. I once read that PIE likely only had one vague word for grain in general, but I don't know the details... AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds just like the "supplemental agriculture" proposal I mentioned, doesn't it? Or is there a subtle difference? Just wanting to make sure that we're on the same page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a big difference, but "opportunistic" might make it clearer that at some moments when circumstances were favorable, a relatively large share of their nutrition could come from agriculture, but they didn't rely on agriculture as their main food source over the long term. Sorry if this is considered nitpicking. -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll better use "crop-raising" from now on, "agriculture" being an annoyingly ambiguous term, as it can be the general term including not only crop-raising, but also animal husbandry/stockbreeding.

As for the general grain term, maybe the PIE lexeme *iéuo- which gave the mentioned Sanskrit yáva- is the one you mean, but it has also been specifically connected with barley.

Fortson does maintain that there are several reconstructed terms for different types of grains, but does not mention any details. This is really a job for EIEC, which I don't have here, though. In any case, Fortson indicates that crop-raising does appear to have been rather important in the reconstructed proto-culture, and this appears like a poor fit with the Eastern European steppe cultures indeed, which Fortson doesn't really talk about (at least not in the portion viewable in Google Books). There must be further investigations dealing with this particular problem. Does Anthony treat it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, on de:Diskussion:Sredny-Stog-Kultur, an IP says: "By the way, the thesis of the first horse domesticators is obsolete. It is assumed that they consumed horse meat, but did not breed [horses]. They were farmers and herdsmen, not a typical steppe people. Rather, goats, sheep and cattle belonged to their household, as well as dogs, where the role of the cattle increased. To which extent is still controversial. The typical weapon of this culture was the spear, which was widespread as effective long-range weapon in the whole Black Sea region."

But then, this doesn't seem to jive with David W. Anthony's conclusions, which appear to be quite authoritative (compare Domestication of the horse). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, Anthony's theories of horse domestication have pretty much axed Levine's where there are disputes. The bit wear research is particularly compelling. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I know hippology is your focus, but do you happen to know if Anthony talks about the agriculture vs. pastoralism problem and what his conclusion is? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not up on what that issue is all about, but in The Horse, the Wheel and Language, (excerpts here) Anthony clearly argues that the nomadic horse-riding people prevailed over settled, agricultural people, if that's what you are asking. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is to which extent the people of the Yamnaya horizon and related cultures engaged in crop-raising as a food-source besides animal husbandry. I can't find the answer to my question in the Google Books preview right now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look later today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

New genetic study

A new genetic study by Reich et al. in support of Gimbutas's Pontic Steppes theory has popped up in Nature: Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe and should probably be incorporated. --87.180.223.9 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing :) 82.71.30.178 (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. It's noticed; who's going to write? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Scenario

Could a native speaker please comment on the recent controversy about wording? I'm pretty sure that "scenario" fits excellently here, and "propositions" sounds incorrect, but perhaps somebody has a better idea yet. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Could you look over the article and check if anything sounds stylistically or otherwise odd or incorrect? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, "propositions" is not the right word. "Proposals", maybe, but not "propositions". "Scenarios" works better there. "Scenario" is kind of a synonym for "model", which was already used, so it's a way to avoid repeating "model(s)". You could say:

• The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model) is the dominant theory of several hypotheses for Indo-European origins.

but that's not a very interesting sentence. "Scenarios" suggests an imagined situation and series of events, and that's actually correct. It is a situation and series of events that anthropologists and linguists have imagined, based on as much information as has been gathered. A proposition is a proposal; the word is often used in connection with business, making a deal, etc. (or in logic).

I'll read the entire article now. CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the word "scenarios" is used in the heading "Invasionist vs. diffusionist scenarios" in the section Kurgan hypothesis#Revisions. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved Thank you. This fully conforms to my own thoughts on the matter; it's just that as a non-native speaker, I cannot speak with equal authority as you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. A scenario in social sciences is an envisioned/ imagined/ postulated possible outcome of a set of circumsctances. In the arts (scenic and literature) it has a specific meaning, whcich is not the case here. Any dictionary will tell you that.

• Cambridge
• Merriam Webster
• Oxford

You can use many words, other than scenario - hypothesis theory paradigm assumption postulation supposition model speculation conjecture estimation inference extrapolation presumption interpretation deduction. And in future don't revert something that you are not sure of as you did, especially when it comes to language. Also, I find it rich that you revert, with a note for me to not revert, long before you had any replies from native speakers. If that is your attitude, I want nothing further to do with you, you can have your scenarios. Corinne, thanks for your input. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not a native speaker, either. Corinne is. Don't mar this article with poor English. General dictionaries are poor sources for specialised technical vocabulary. "Historical scenario" is a well-established term. (It also happens to fit the third meaning listed in Merriam-Webster, "a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events" – nothing about future or past here, it could also be a murder scenario that lies in the past and that is pondered by a police officer, or it could be a wholly fictitious scenario envisioned by an author.) You don't even recognise the differences between hypothesis and theory. All the words and technical terms you listed are far from synonymous, which you clearly fail to understand. Frankly, you're clueless. If my attitude not to tolerate meddling Randies in Boise like you puts you off, that's completely fine with me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I was sure that the phrasing was unidiomatic. (I may not be a native speaker, but I've developped a pretty good Sprachgefühl in the last 15 years, so it bothers me when something sounds off and when consulting with native speakers, it usually turns out I'm right.) Only when you insisted, I looked for help from a native speaker. I still don't understand why you ignore Corinne's advice in practice even though you've thanked her. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Kurgan culture

In the section Kurgan hypothesis#Kurgan culture is the following sentence:

• The model of a "Kurgan culture" postulates cultural similarity between the various cultures of the Copper Age to Early Bronze Age (5th to 3rd millennia BC) Pontic-Caspian steppe to justify the identification as a single archaeological culture or cultural horizon.

I don't understand this sentence. To me, Gimbutas identified "a single archaeological culture or cultural horizon" because she saw "cultural similarity between the various cultures of the Copper Age to Early Bronze Age Pontic-Caspian steppe". She didn't see or stretch the idea of cultural similarity between the various cultures so that she could identify a single archaeological culture, did she? The verb "to justify" suggests this. It seems that anyone who would say that she did is disparaging her work and her ideas. If I am right, then it should be made clear who made this statement and that it is a [somewhat indirect] criticism of her work and ideas. If I am wrong, I would appreciate it if someone could explain the sentence to me. CorinneSD (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an archaeologist, but my understanding is this: Nowadays these cultures are normally treated as distinct, if related. Gimbutas linked all the steppe cultures in question as if they were a single homogeneous culture for the sake of her conception that they were all implied in the origins of the Indo-European languages. Contemporary archaeologists do not seem to like the term "Kurgan culture" much because it is such a broad (and loosely defined) catch-all term spanning many millennia and dozens of cultures and archaeological horizons across a vast region. It is really only useful in the context of her model of Indo-European origins. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The following section suggests to me that the archaeologist who criticises Gimbutas's term "Kurgan culture" here is David Anthony (although this is probably a widely shared criticism among modern archaeologists). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I am under the impression that the similarity of the cultures in question is not really in doubt – however, what exactly their relation towards each other is and what exactly the reason for this similarity is is not immediately obvious from the archaeological record. It was mainly Gimbutas's original concept that they were all linked by migrations (not just cultural diffusion, for example), ethnic and biological relationship and (different stages of) a common language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The current wording is non-NPOV. It suggests that the Gimbutas was drawing spurious connections in an attempt to force the data to fit a pre-concieved theory. If this is an accusation made by other scholars, the text should make that clear. If not, it needs to be re-written, perhaps to something like "The model of a "Kurgan culture" treats the various cultures of the Copper Age to Early Bronze Age (5th to 3rd millennia BC) Pontic-Caspian steppe as a single archaeological culture or cultural horizon, based on similarities between them." (Assuming that's an accurate description of the hypotheses - I'm not an expert or archaeologist either). Then go on to (neutrally) describe how well accepted (or not) with hypotheses is. Iapetus (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Two serious issues with the opening sentence

There is a problem with the opening sentence: to say that "The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model) is the dominant theory of several scenarios for Indo-European origins." is to say that there are: 1. a several scenarios; 2. for each each scenario there are a number of theories; 3. the Kurgan theory is the dominant of these theries in EACH of these scenarios. Which means we have one concept too many - either scenarios or theories, not both and especially not one as a subset of the other. Secondly, we have two links to Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses, one directly, the second via a redirect. I have redirected the second one. Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No idea why I have to repeat what Corinne said, but "scenario" is a kind of synonym for "model", and models are closely linked to theories, so this is just a way to avoid repeating the same words over and over. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The wording is clunky (although not as bad as it used to be), and using multiple synonyms for the same or similar terms could cause confusion. Howabout this as an alternative: "The Kurgan hypothesis (also knows as the "Kurgan theory" or "Kurgan model") is the most widely accepted theory regarding the origins and spread of the Indo-European languages". It makes clear what all the alternative names are, reduced other repetition, and ensures Wikipedia is only using one term to say what it "is". I'm not quite sure what and how many links should be included. Iapetus (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I like both your suggestions. I've adopted the other one unchanged, but I've taken the liberty to modify this one a little in order to reduce repetition (also, "proposal" is more neutral and avoids the choice between theory, model and hypothesis), and preserve the pointer to the general article about IE Urheimat proposals linked through a descriptive phrase. What do you think of my choice of words? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine. Iapetus (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't like this wording. I think the word "solutions" introduces another unnecessary term, and suggests "solutions to a problem", and it's not really a problem, it's as accurate an explanation or guess as to what actually happened in history as professionals in the field can formulate. I prefer sticking with "hypothesis" and "hypotheses", but there is no need to mention "hypotheses" after "several" because it will be understood.

Here is the sentence as it is now:

• The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory or Kurgan model) is the most widely accepted proposal of several solutions to explain the origins and spread of the Indo-European languages.

I suggest the following concise wording:

• The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory or Kurgan model) is the most widely accepted of several that attempt to explain the origin and spread of the Indo-European languages.

You really don't even need the word "the" before "Indo-European languages":

• The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory or Kurgan model) is the most widely accepted of several that attempt to explain the origin and spread of Indo-European languages. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. For the record, Florian has now made it "proposals" which was the first term I used, which he immediately reverted and vehemently opposed. Which only confirms what I have known all along - Florian just wants to have the last word, regadless of whatever it might be — even ...oops ... the very word that I first suggested. Guess he had forgotten about it. Shame, poor soul. And Florian Blaschke, you seem surprided that I thanked CorinneSD even though I did not agree with her — why shouldn't I? Are you suggesting I thank only those with whom I agree? Is that your attitude? Not mine, I listen to all sides and take it in, unlike you, hell-bent as you are in having your way. But that is an ego issue that only you can work on. Corinne and I go back much longer than just this interaction. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Native speakers

And Florian, for your information, you wouldn't know a native speaker one bit you in the backside. You make the mistake of judging by my name and assuming that I am not a native speaker. Bad mistake. This is the Wikipedia, remember? I could be Japanese for all tat you know. But know, I am what my page says I am, with nothing to hide. I have been an English language journalist for years, I am a translator, editor and proofreader by profession — working in English. I translate, edit and proofread at African Union and UN level. I am also an English language trainer with former students that include Angolan Cabinet Ministers. So, bite your tongue before you go around saying "Don't mar this article with poor English". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. If the English you added to this article is dodgy, it's still dodgy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, "you wouldn't know a native speaker one bit you in the backside" is itself ungrammatical English, so you inadvertently proved my point and undermined your own. (Adding an "if" would help.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

At the very least (together with the "tat" typo), it illustrates nicely just how easy it is to fall into the trap known as Muphry's law.

In view of your chest-thumping here, it's also pretty hypocritical to accuse me of having an "ego problem". (Equally hypocritical, by the way, is your accusation of unfounded bias on my part against you due to your non-English name, given your bungled dig against me.) Your assumption that authority equals infallibility does not inspire confidence in the worth of your education. (And I'm exercising considerable good faith by accepting your claimed credentials unexamined in the first place. Arguments from authority are particularly ridiculous in situations where credentials are far easier claimed than verified, such as on the Internet.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)