Talk:Altaic languages

Article requires rewrite based on latest DNA revelations

Multiple studies now published including data from the Reich lab at Blavatnik @ Harvard, part of the human atlas project funded by the John Templeton foundation, have conclusively demonstrated that the once so-called Altaic theory is no longer a theory, but fact. The language developed approximately 9000 years ago in what is today China, before splitting into three sub branches. This article is therefore completely wrong. Historiaantiqua (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't need a complete rewrite because DNA is NOT language. The Altaic hypothesis is not proven by DNA evidence, nor is any other language family proven by DNA evidence. This is just a way for people to ignore actual linguistic evidence that doesn't prove what they want it to prove. Historical linguistics has its own scientific methodology that is independent of biology, just as DNA evidence is independent of language (there is no "language" gene since language is behavioral, not physical). When DNA evidence matches historical linguistic evidence, then talking about DNA evidence makes sense, but the historical linguistic evidence ALWAYS comes first when talking about language families. DNA evidence never proves a linguistic hypothesis without the solid linguistic evidence coming first. The majority of historical linguists still find the Altaic hypothesis unconvincing based on the linguistic evidence. Thus DNA is a trivial issue and never conclusive. It is clear from your comments and your user page that you are not a linguist, but a historian, so you should leave linguistics to the linguists when they tell you that your assertions are not based on the science of linguistics. The DNA evidence shows that the modern humans of the area derive from older humans in the area, but that proves absolutely nothing about what languages they were speaking as they interbred and reproduced. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the validity of Historiaantiqua's original argument, Wikipedia is free to edit by anyone. You don't need to be an expert or "leave linguistics to the linguists," we simply have to cite authoritative sources, eg linguists. There were some large edits last year that removed content due to "undue weight" without much discussion, I'm proposing that they either be restored with help tags and/or be discussed here first. AnandaBliss (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about the "expert needed"-tag. What makes you believe that Taivo lacks expertise in order to remove undue details cited from primary sources? If it's about consensus, I support this removal. –Austronesier (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to re-remove the table, if that's okay. You appear to have missed that a lot of the discussion on that wasn't here, but was part of a much bigger discussion on the linguistics wikiproject about these tables being included on articles where the familial relationship is broadly doubted. That means we're eating up a lot of space either presenting in-universe evidence which isn't actually showing anything real underlying it and which may confuse the readers, or we're demonstrating a sprachbund using the tools we (as in Wikipedia) typically present familial relationships. Either way, it's a big WP:UNDUE issue here as it is in other macrofamily pages. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The unfortunate reality is that ethno-politics play into this matter. I agree with your proposed course of action. Emotional investment in topics of this sort is a sure indication of one's own bias. Historiaantiqua (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

DNA is not language, but language is an objective reality, as is the DNA, while religious and ethnic categories are mostly non-objective. To suggest that Turkmenic languages are a unique and autochthonous development unrelated to any macro-linguistic family based on the period in which they appear and the locale, and its significant connection to the present day is to propose a fantastical displacement of material reality before never seen in any other language development. Historiaantiqua (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody who considers the Altaic hypothesis as unproven argues that the Turkic language family (I assume that's what you mean when taking about "Turkmenic languages") is "a unique and autochthonous development". That's the polygenesis fallacy that is often evoked by macro-comparatists. When we say that a language or language family is not known or cannot not proven to be related to any other language or language family in the world, we mean exactly that. Languages inevitable change with time, and indeed can change so drastically by modifying/eroding the original shape of words and affixes or simply replace them with entirely new ones, to the point that any genealogical connections to other languages get unrecognizable. And even if some points of resemblance remain that actually do go back to a shared ancestral language, they might be too singular to be distinguishable from the noise of concindental resemblance. In the latter case, historical linguists consider the evidence as inconclusive and hence any claims of language relationship as unproven.

In the case of the Altaic languages, we additional have secondary resamblances as a result of prolonged contact between these individual language families. Robbeets and her collaborators argue that they can unravel the 'real' shared features that go back to common inheritance behind the veil of areal convergence. Some fellow linguists are convinced, some aren't. Many of the arguments that have been brought forward against Robbeets's predecessors can also be applied to her material.

As for the DNA evidence, it is compatible with either scenario: shared inheritance or areal convergence. Since languages and genes are transmitted in completely different ways, a shared genetic ancestry between let's say Mongolic and Turkic speakers might either be indicative of parallel genetic and linguistic inheritance, or a result of language shift and language convergence between groups speaking unrelated languages as a result of interaction and interbreeding with each other. –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Altaic Forms

There’s been a minor edit war brewing with @AnandaBliss over the inclusion of in-universe lists of possible etymologies for Altaic (and other macrofamily proposals). There’s was a discussion on the linguistics wikiproject and to a lesser extent one at WP:FTN about this and the general sense was that since these lists aren’t actually representing real data, as opposed to the controversial interpretations of individual academics, that including these big lists becomes an issue with WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:PARITY, and WP:PROFRINGE.

While Altaic’s position is better than, say, Nostratic within academia, this article is still not doing a stellar job at making it clear that Altaic as a language family is not widely accepted. These big lists of etymologies run a risk of simply misinforming a reader when compared to, say, Proto-Indo-European, where the etymologies are broadly considered real reconstructions by the linguistics community even if they’re revised over time as more information comes out. What this article doesn’t need more of as far as I can tell is “if Altaic is a real family, here is why.” Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How can people like yourself continue to say it is not widely accepted while there are more supporters to critics listed in the article and the theory is taught as fact in schools and universities of every Altaic country? The article needs editing, for sure, but you seem to be removing this content just because you don't like it or the theory. The purpose of this page is to explain the theory and then at the end, the criticism. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How can people like yourself continue to say it is not widely accepted while there are more supporters to critics listed in the article

Because, intentionally or not, the article has been heavily edited by people who either are misinformed about the academic status of Altaic or who want to make a case to others. That's not what wikipedia is about. There's also a historical issue of Altaic having more broad support in the past than it does now, so there's a disconnect in the quality of sources between the past and present, and figuring that out can be quite tricky for nonexperts.

the theory is taught as fact in schools and universities of every Altaic country?

It can be taught and still wrong. See: Intelligent Design.

The article needs editing, for sure, but you seem to be removing this content just because you don't like it or the theory.

No, the field of historical linguistics doesn't like the theory due to the lack of evidence. There is absolutely evidence that Altaic is a result of a sprachbund, but not actually a language family itself.

The purpose of this page is to explain the theory and then at the end, the criticism.

You may want to read WP:FALSEBALANCE, I don't think you'd find many supporters for this proposal on this page or any other macrofamily page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This article, without a doubt, has had far more anti-Altaicist edits. If there's more critics you can think of, please list them. They would have listed as many as they possibly could.

And it can be taught and correct, which is more likely considering the many academics who agree with the theory. There's not a single foreign person that I know of who disagrees with the theory that speaks 2 or more Altaic languages fluently. Not a single one. The only people who do are generally Japanese and Koreans who dislike eachother. People who speak Turkish and learn Japanese, or people who speak Korean and learn Turkish are stunned by the similarity in grammar and syntax to the point many of the most used particles are exactly the same. Such as the destination and locations particles. And many others are very phonetically similar, too. Sure, languages in proximity borrow many words, but do they borrow grammar, suffixes and features like vowel harmony? No. Never been proven.

Yes, there's evidence. People are trying to show some of that evidence here and you're trying to hide it.

You can go ahead and check but before removing sourced content you should reach a reasonable consensus. So far, it's just you. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This article, without a doubt, has had far more anti-Altaicist edits.

And the article on medicine spends little time on the humours. This is to be expected when academic scholarship moves on from an idea. "Anti-Altaicists", or at least those generally negative to the idea without an affirmative opinion, represent the mainstream academic consensus.

And it can be taught and correct, which is more likely considering the many academics who agree with the theory.

Then the article should be updated following WP:RS on this. So should the community of historical linguists, in this particular case.

There's not a single foreign person that I know of who disagrees with the theory that speaks 2 or more Altaic languages fluently. Not a single one.

I don't know a single one who does, but Wikipedia's sourcing requirement is beyond either of our anecdote.

Yes, there's evidence. People are trying to show some of that evidence here and you're trying to hide it.

You need to take a big step back and read WP:AGF. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when you're removing completely reliable sourced content and keep citing a conversation that you keep refusing to give a link to? 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to double-comment, but per what I said below, could this article then be re-oriented to mostly focusing on, as you say, "...absolutely evidence that Altaic is a result of a sprachbund, but not actually a language family itself," with a section denoting that a very small minority view it instead as a family, again with not much weight? AnandaBliss (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing to WP:Edit war and we're now at WP:3RR. To address your edit comment; there has been a discussion. There's even references to it above in a different talk page thread, but do not continue to revert and engage in an edit war while we're talking about this here. Note I am not making these edits in a vacuum, I've been eliciting the help of the Linguistics Wikiproject to clean up some of these macrofamily articles with a huge focus excplicitly being these lists of proto forms. By all means, get involved in the wikiproject or make your case here that Altaic specifically should be an outlier in that discussion (I'm open to different perspectives!) but think we'd need a third party from the linguistics wikiproject to comment if anyone else is reading along (@TaivoLinguist?) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, not "we're at", just you are. You've reverted it 3 times. You've mentioned a page 4 times now that you've still not linked. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure "edit war" is a remotely appropriate characterization, as I'm pretty sure I haven't reverted anything twice, let alone three times. Having said that, I must admit I'm a bit of an inclusivist, so in my mind laying out both arguments will reflect scholarly consensus, because the reasoning and support behind both reveals the views of the field writ large. I figured adding the table back would be an easy way to show what the discussion's about. AnandaBliss (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The truth isn't somewhere in the middle on this one, though. An accurate reflection of the scholarship will result in readers concluding that the consensus is Altaic isn't real as a language family. The table has been part of a long-running issue on macrofamily articles where people present long-ranged word pairs in huge table forms which take up a lot of space in the article for what is essentially historical linguistics fanfiction. See @TaivoLinguist's reply above.

re: Edit warring, I had assumed you were the IP above but logged out, and since that appears to be wrong I'm sorry for that. I was basing that off the edits you both made being back to back and identical, but I'll try to be more careful about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd been unaware that there was such unified consensus in that field, and that there was a history of speculative table-style edits. The article fluctuates between controversial, minority opinion and disproven so much that it was hard to make heads or tails of what the "discussion" really was.

In that case, would you present it as a small, minority opinion that doesn't hold much weight (but still "sincere," if that makes any sense), or as a fringe position (i.e. deceptive, universally rejected by scholars)? AnandaBliss (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both, depending on the scholar in question. There are serious altaicists who are well respected linguists and simply disagree with the majority read of the data, but there are also a lot of people who work from the first principle that Altaic is a thing and just plow ahead on that front, which very much can get into fringe territory.

The fact that this article is unclear about the academic standing of the theory is a reflection on both how hard it is to communicate a lot of the subtle nuance here as well as the fact that a substantial number of people are operating on the base assumption from their schooling of the veracity of Altaic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. Reconstructed "Proto-Altaic" forms have no more place in Wikipedia than reconstructed Proto-Klingon-Romulan forms. Both are fictional. Based on the contemporary majority view within the historical linguistics community, "Altaic" is a Sprachbund and not a genetic family. If the anon IP wants the discussion, then it is incumbent upon the anon IP to look up the discussion in the archives. Every generation of linguists seems to bring another crop of budding historical linguists who wish to make a name for themselves by proving the unprovable, namely the existence of an Altaic family. Sadly for them, the linguistic evidence still does not exist and they are never able to expand the supposed proto-vocabulary beyond the forms that were tentatively "reconstructed" decades ago. Thus, they go to non-linguistic methodology like DNA and proto-agriculture to try to prove their case. DNA evidence and agricultural evidence are utterly irrelevant to linguistic reconstruction since there is no gene for language and no cultigen that is language-specific. Altaic is still unproven and is no closer to proof than it was 50 years ago. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems that user just got a two year ban for repeated edit warring. That said, and I'll try to bring this up at the linguistics wikiproject again but we really need a standardized approach to proposed macrofamily articles. There's this huge shotgun approach to handling them and you get situations where people point to the handling Altaic to boost the credibility of proto-Turkic-American Sign Language-Nivkh or whatever the flavour of the day is. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

...we really need a standardized approach to proposed macrofamily articles No, we don't. Each proposal has its own merits and non-merits. As I have said before in WT:LING, proposals of relationships beyond the currently established macrofamilies are not just an amorphous mass of bullshit. In our presentation of these hypotheses and their acceptance we go by secondary sources (per WP:RS/AC). This also includes evaluation of notability for standalone articles and the present question about how much of the proposed evidence we want to include here (and similar articles). If proposals are generally well-favored in secondary sources, it will be less of a WP:DUE-issue when we extract material from primary research articles than in the case of controversial proposals (including mostly rejected proposals). For the latter, we should ideally go by secondary sources when presenting the proposed evidence, although personally, I believe that a short paragraph with material from primary sources that is explicitly tagged as proposed evidence is also fine, especially with unquestionably notable proposals such as Altaic (Transeurasian).

Hence, I don't entirely reject the addition of the contested material from the Oxford Handbook. But:

1. The endless bloated list (following the table) with reconstructions of agriculture-related terms in proto-languages of the indivual language families taken from ch. 43 ("The homelands of the individual Transeurasian proto-languages") does not represent evidence for the Altaic/Transeurasian proposal and is thus off-topic. For uninitiated readers, it's visual prominence alone suggests "hey, the evidential base for Altaic/Transeurasian is huge" whereas it's not.
2. The gigantic table taken from ch. 44 does not just contains "some lexical reconstructions of agricultural terms argued by Robbeets (2020)", but in fact copies verbatim the first two columns all tables with macro-comparative reconstructions in that chapter. So it is in fact a blatant piece WP:COPYVIO. In place of it, I propose a short paragraph that goes "Robbeets (2020) proposes the following PTEA reconstructions of agricultural terms: *foo 'bar' (list proto-forms for the individual families here), ...."

@Dumuzid: you have done the last revert as an "uninvolved" editor. Since you have already commented in the 3RR-post and also because you are one of the few regulars of FTN that cares about non-STEM topics, I'd love to hear your take on it. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

”As I have said before in WT:LING, proposals of relationships beyond the currently established macrofamilies are not just an amorphous mass of bullshit”

Austronesier, I deeply respect this reply but we’ve had a few interactions start out slightly spicy with you thinking we disagree more than we do. This seems to be one of them, and if that’s me communicating poorly with you I apologize and will work on that.

I’ll repeat again that I’m broadly a lumper, I just take serious issue with others who are more convinced by the lines of evidence which exist at present editorializing the acceptance of that evidence. Heck, I think there’s a chance Altaic is real, just fundamentally pre-evidential as far as a convincing application linguistic methods are concerned.

”No, we don't. Each proposal has its own merits and non-merits.”

I can bring this up back there again, but my concerns stem from the fact that there appears to be what, four or five of us monitoring this entire very niche sub-discipline with any regularity (at least insofar as talk page activity? The only reason we’re lucking out here with this discussion not lasting weeks without an RfC is it’s Altaic and not Amerind or something else similar. Perhaps there’s a middle ground between winging it each time and a strict rubric? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier, I fear you think too much of my opinions! By way of quick disclaimer, I do have a background in linguistics, but that was a long long time ago and I have kept a toe in only intermittently. At this point I am best considered a dilettante. That out of the way, to the narrow point of the proposed addition--I agree that the recent work deserves mention, but I also agree that the reverted versions were far too much. Perhaps it is my dilettante-ness (dilettantitude?), but my lodestar approach is to remember that this is a generalist encyclopedia, and so I default to thinking of an intelligent adult with no background in the subject at hand. Therefore I think a couple of properly couched and footnoted sentences would be appropriate. Obviously I agree that the whole field of "Transeurasian" is far from a prevailing theory, but it doesn't quite fit "fringe" for me and feels more like a significant minority opinion. Again, though, I will certainly defer to my more learned colleagues here.

As to the wider question of a standardized approach, I am absolutely sympathetic to both advanced positions here. Warren is quite right that this is, even among the rarefied nerddom of Wikipedia, an area with a tiny interest group. So some sort of standard approach would seem desirable. But at the same time, I am sympathetic to Austronesier insofar as the obvious ideal is to evaluate each theory on its own merits. I don't think anything like a strictly mandatory approach would work, either philosophically or practically. But I think if perhaps an essay or other document could be put together it might be of some real help. I, for instance, would feel like I was on much more solid ground if I had a bit more guidance in how to approach and think about these subjects. TaivoLinguist is absolutely correct that these theories seem to fly fast and thick, with many of the old ones never really going away. However, as something of an Indo-European guy, I am reminded that William Jones had something of a kooky theory that ended up pretty helpful.

I don't know if much can be gleaned from the foregoing, but I would like to thank everyone involved here for their time and expertise which allow me to keep that toe in the water. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In Full Accordance with Wikipedia's Article Policy, Neutral Point of View

The Undue weight tag has been removed, with my best effort to give the opening section true neutrality to the topic in accordance with proven fact. I will post this quote here for everyone wishing to restore any Altaicist favor to the article's overview.

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

So, in accordance to this policy, until sufficient evidence can be produced for the Altaic Hypothesis (as I believe this article should be titled to not make it seem as if this is a proven language group) for it to be broadly accepted as it once was in the mid-century, or Robbeets and Savelyev's hearsay claim that is is "widely but not universally accepted" to become true, it should not be stated that the theory has wide academic support, or that the Altaic Hypothesis is a leading theory for genealogic relation of Eurasian language. The burden of proof lies on those making this fringe claim, and should have no part on this page.

In the interest of supporting the main hypothesis against Altaic from mainstream academics, I would call on people to cite less pro-Altaic sources, and for people with access to university material to add its contents here. Altaicist sources are disproportionately represented, but the article needs to cite less thesis about the debate itself and more on scholars who passively declare that Mongolic, Tungusic, and Turkic are the broadest available families we know about with current knowledge. Cam0mac (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no false balance here. No one says here that "that the theory has wide academic support, or that the Altaic Hypothesis is a leading theory for genealogic relation of Eurasian language". In fact, we say: "The hypothetical language family has long been rejected by most comparative linguists, although it continues to be supported by a small but stable scholarly minority". And we call it highly controversial, based on a reliable source written by a scholar who rejects Altaic as a language family, but luckily also rejects to engage in shallow zealotist rhetoric which is a trademark of debates about Altaic, especially when they are held by amateurs.

The presentation of the arguments from a mainstream viewpoint still needs a clean up, sure. But this is not handled by unsourced lead-focused editing. –Austronesier (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I do want to say I actually agree with changing the article name to "Altaic hypothesis". I think that'd do a heck of a lot to shortcut some of these arguments that happen over and over. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I for one have no problem with the term Altaic languages for those languages included in the Altaic hypothesis; VSO languages or tonal languages does not imply a clade. But Warren has a point.

By the way, I noticed that Cam0mac changed the first sentence to say Altaic was a proposed language family, which seems odd if it still has adherents. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

On consideration, you might be right. I did intend to solve an issue with the page, in the way that the opening paragraph definitely had some words suggesting Altaic is equally relevant to proven linguistic families, but also that modern sources, as cited in the page, use the term "Paneurasian" instead. Cam0mac (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

VSO languages or tonal languages does not imply a clade

This is why I actually think Altaic languages to Altaic hypothesis, with a substantial subsection for "Altaic languages" in the article, actually lets Wikipedia address the nuance right out the gate without biasing readers. And it does so in a less aggressive way than some sort of "purge the Altaicists" would achieve. Likewise this format could be useful for things like Nostratic languages being changed to Nostratic hypothesis, and reserving "languages" for proposals with a wider degree of mainstream acceptance. That'd also neatly and instantly visually distinguish them from actual extant language families on "see also" lists and the like. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Altaic languages → Altaic hypothesis – Per above This article has been a constant struggle to get the academic consensus to be the focus of the article, particularly in light of many people simply not realizing the Altaic hypothesis isn't actually widely accepted as fact. "Altaic hypothesis" is heavily used in the literature (i.e. here) and allows us to differentiate the sprachbund and language family arguments more clearly in the body of the article. It also means someone looking up the topic on Wikipedia who isn't familiar with it isn't going to be met with the same heading we use for language families followed up immediately by a statement that it isn't likely a genetic language family. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This move, and others like it, would better represent the context which other Wikipedia articles link to it from as well. I hold my own beliefs about the content, but starting with the title, calling the page "Altaic Languages" does prepare a reader to believe that Mongolic, Tungusic, and Turkic are typically classified as Altaic Languages, not that they are referenced by the Altaic Hypothesis. Cam0mac (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment common name is clearly Altaic languages ([1]) however that’s just one WP:Criteria

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

But does the common name refer to Altaic as a language family, which isn't actually a thing most likely, or does it refer to the broader hypothesis, which is what this page is about? I'm not surprised "Altaic languages" is far more common considering the sheer volume of people who accept it as fact in various parts of the world. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks a bit like a solution in search for a problem. First, "Altaic languages" is the common name for this assemblage of languages. Second, the natural identifier "...languages" does not imply a genealogical relationship, as noted by User:Tamfang in a comment[2] in the preceding section. Other examples like Paleosiberian languages, Papuan languages come to mind; in each case, these assemblages of languages are treated as a single topic for reasons of their own, and in fact, unlike with Altaic, not even a minority of scholars believes that Paleosiberian or Papuan are genealogical families. While that's of course "other stuff", it illustrates the weakness of the premise that a title "Foo languages" somehow lends undue weight to a minority position about the nature of their relationship. Finally, "Altaic languages" is also freely used (without scare quotes!) by scholars who are unshaken in their opposition to the Altaic hypothesis, like Juha Janhunen or Stefan Georg. –Austronesier (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  The language groupings you cite are quite different, since the Altaic Languages page is nothing but a page about a possible genealogic connection, not as a geographic grouping. A Papuan and Paleosiberian are in their contents more similar to Languages of India than to a hypothetical Superfamily classification, as they establish in their opening paragraphs and information box. Altaic Languages only exists as an Assemblage because of a hypothesized genealogic relation, and it is in fact Inaccurate to say the contents described are "Altaic Languages", since scientifically they cannot be proven to be so. Cam0mac (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The current article is structured as a genealogical family and talks extensively about the Altaic hypothesis rather than Altaic as a geographical grouping, while I do think that that should mean we move, you can’t talk about the geographical grouping without mentioning the hypothesis. And keeping the more general purpose name allows us to talk about the areal link whereas moving would limit the scope of the article.

  I thought we could attempt to reorganize the “Altaic languages” article to put the focus on the non-genealogical grouping while also having sections on the hypothesis, but I don’t think these two topics are separable in that sense. GMFinnegan (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like that's a case against changing some "[Family] languages", rather than a case for Altaic. When we refer to Papuan languages, as I understand it, we're using a general geographic grouping that is an artificial convenience, as opposed to "We're referring to a distinct genetic grouping of languages". On the other hand, when we refer to, say, Nostratic, we refer specifically to a hypothesis and zero features the languages actually share.

  Altaic gets a little more grey area in being both a sprachbund and a hypothetical family, but very frequently where "Altaic language" is used it creates more confusion than anything else, I think. If we handled it on a case by case basis, I still think "hypothesis" is more neutral and passes WP:VERIFY slightly better than a continued use of "languages". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  But if we move the article to "Altaic hypothesis", its main content will have to be restricted to the proposed language family that is historically quite notable and still exists as a notable non-fringe minority hypothesis. But where will be our space to talk about "Altaic languages" the way mainstream linguists perceive them, viz. as a typological convergence area aka sprachbund? Recreate "Altaic languages", just because the article that actually is bound to have this mainstream information (but presently hardly hasn't anything about it) is repurposed to only talk about a minority hypothesis? Ok, it's the "fault" of people like Taivo and me who restrict our editing activities to keeping the shit out, instead of expanding the article about what "Altaic languages" definitely are "in the real world" (to use User:Nø words): a textbook example (or the textbook example) of typological convergence at every parameter (phonology, grammar, lexicon). But I see little reason to fork these two inextricably entwined topics over two articles, when we already have an article with an apt title?

  Oh, while we're at it: "languages" in "X languages" primarily serves as a natural disambiguator (I won't repeat why I disagree with the claim of the "hidden" implications coming with "X languages"; see also the guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(languages)#Language_families). In the case of Altaic, there is not need to disambiguate, because there are no topics called Altaic people, Altaic food, Altaic music etc. So why not move to plain "Altaic" instead? –Austronesier (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sprachbunds are normally in articles called "X sprachbund", e.g. Balkan sprachbund, but while there is one article titled "Altaic Langauges" it is bound to contain information about the fringe hypothesis over information as a regional sprachbund (source: the article in its current state and the talk page history), but you seem to be the first to make the case for 2 articles existing (Straw man). The new title would in no way disallow a section about what Altaic is actually interpreted to mean, it might even encourage it given the tone of evidence supported material only (see Hyperdiffusionism for a non-scientific topic prominently featuring opposition)

  On the note of implied truth in article titles, and I am knowingly going to use a very obvious example, but when looking up an article, or simply Googling something like "Moon landing", readers do expect the title to be a truthful depiction of what is in the article. "Moon landing" says to a reader "This is an event which happened". Aesthetic does matter in that way. In Altaic's current state, a non-academic Googler, who may subscribe to a common fallacy that theories and hypothesis are the same, will read the title, skim the introduction and infobox, and conclude "Altaic Languages exist", or at the very lest could exist, not with the necessary nuance of how mainstream scholars say it or the lack of evidence. This is all supported by words like "important language family, by some", "small but stable scholarly minority", and overall mirroring the format of Proto-Indo-European language, especially in past editing wars showing the potential misdirection of an article's title, instead of Italo-Celtic

  All this, truthfully, will maybe make Altaic seem a little different than other hypothesized proto families, but I don't think wrongfully so. Not only do title formats remain up to editors' whim all over Wikipedia, but this a unique page for its place in comparative linguistics, and as a hypothesis still held dearly and essential by an outspoken minority. In that way, this does disambiguate, because it will look less like real language families and be up front and honest about its status as a hypothesis. Cam0mac (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  The question of the topic range is not a straw man. It is essential. Altaic languages is the common name for the assemblage of these languages, regardlesss of whether an author considers them to be a sprachbund (and nothing else) or a genelogical language family (that additionally has acquired sprachbund properties). "Altaic hypothesis" obviously only refers to the latter position, because the sprachbund is not a hypothesis but communis opinio. Whatever the shape of this article is now (and the POV-tag is there because the article gives undue weight to the macro-family hypothesis and only minimally expounds on the reality of Altaic languages as a manifest sprachbund), limiting the focus of the article to a history of what has become a minority hypothesis instead of telling what they are is doing the real misfavor to our readers.

  As for implied truth: try this at Flat Earth. We call things by the term that mainstream academic discourse employs, whether things are real or not. And this why the Balkan sprachbund is called Balkan sprachbund and the Altaic sprachbund Altaic languages. A scholar talking about Altaic languages maximally will have to make a comment about their own position with regards to the genealogical (non-)relationship and also the micro/macro-scope question, but will continue to use "Altaic languages" (or following the fashion, "Transeurasian languages"); I have mentioned works by Janhunen[3] and Georg[4] before, here's[5] another example. "Balkan languages" is less precise and thus not preferred in the literature when talking about the sprachbund (although there is an upcoming Cambridge University Press volume The Balkan languages doing exactly that). –Austronesier (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is a distinct difference between Flat Earth and Altaic when Flat Earth is not an article about Earth, and exists in the same space as Earth. And I'll reiterate, the Flat Earth Article is about nothing but how pseudoscientific it is, unlike the proven, time and time again, nature of Altaic which is to be about its status as a Family, oft assumed to be real and provable.

  The straw man was you implying that a title change would keep out sections about the realization of Altaic as a Sprachbund, which is proven in other articles, focusing on a fringe theory or unscientific belief but still containing ample opposition, as not being a reality. Cam0mac (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support -- True, "Altaic languages" is common name, but as there probably is no such thing as Altaic languages in the real world, I don't think that carries a lot of weight as an argument for keeping the title. Alternatively, "Altaic language hypothesis". (We have an article called Unicorn, so we can have one called Altaic languages too, but we don't need it; obviously it should redirect to the present article.) Nø (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer Altaic language hypothesis Kowal2701 (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Inspired by a newer post above, I like the suggestion to name the article simply "Altaic" too. Nø (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Languages has been notified of this discussion. Austronesier (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't really care one way or the other because the article clearly labels this as a controversial, and widely rejected, hypothesis of a language family. One option would be to move all the "hypothesis" material to an article labelled "Transeurasian Hypothesis" (because that seems to be the current term for the hypothesis and the controversial language group). That would leave this article for the Sprachbund for the group of languages that is commonly called "Altaic". "Altaic Hypothesis" isn't really a term that has been used in the literature. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Such a split risks being a content fork. "Transeurasian" is a rebranding of "Macro-Altaic", perhaps in the hope of getting a fresh hearing. All the problems remain, and the Sprachbund is a key part of discussing them. Kanguole 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as an unnecessary distraction. Considering the general case, the advantage of the current practice of interpreting "X languages" broadly is that we don't have to come to a judgement about each proposal to encode in the article name. The situation is often complex, and best explained in the article text. This particular article is quite clear about the status of this proposal. Kanguole 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Austronesier. Even if it's not widely accepted that the languages are linked, this concept still refers to a clear set of languages that are linked by the "hypothesis". The article is about a group of languages discussed in sources, with the title not necessarily implying anything about their relationship. And the WP:COMMONNAME appears to support this title too.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% sure WP:COMMONNAME applies quite as well as some here think. The common name of Altaic (language family) is absolutely "Altaic languages". The common name for the entire set of theories and research linked to Altaic hypothesis, such as the sprachbund, aren't necessarily "Altaic languages" but definitely are "Altaic hypothesis". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject East Asia, WikiProject Languages, and WikiProject Central Asia have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist to help reach consensus - looking like no consensus at the moment ASUKITE 17:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Austronesier: The article begins "Altaic is a controversial proposed language family". I think that's a very bad start for an article also about a real sprachbund. I would generally expect an article to start with what is definite and then branch out from there to theories and hypotheses. Srnec (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think the matter hinges on whether the primary meaning of "Altaic languages" is the proposed language family (which I believe is primary in terms of origin of the term), or the sprachbund (which may be said to be primary because it is not so generally discarded, but on the other hand, Transeurasian may be a better word for this). Perhaps we should seperate the two meanings more clearly by making "Altaic languages" a DAB page, linking to "Altaic language family" (about the discarded theory), and "Altaic sprachbund" (which probably should link to "Transeuraisan"). That might reduce these prepetual discussions. Nø (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is tricky. We need to mention both aspects in the lede. We did so in an earlier version, but not really in a helpful way. Separating the two topics into two articles is problematic, since much of what historically was considered evidence for a genealogical relation of the Altaic languages at the same time consitutes still manifest evidence for the modern interpretation as a sprachbund, which latter is btw not linked in any way with the term "Transeurasian". This term is promoted by pro-Altaicists in the first place for what they consider a language family. –Austronesier (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a matter of different interpretations of the same data about the same set of languages. Having separate articles about each interpretation would be a WP:POVFORK. It is more helpful to readers to assess the significant views (with due weight) in one place. Kanguole 06:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we only report on scientific consensus? No, we also report on many notable but discarded theories. It's not a POV, it's history. We do not need to clutter a page on a valid (if not proven) scientific theory like the Altaic sprachbund (a.k.a. Transeurasian) with discussions of a (largely) discarded historical theory like Altai Language Family. Nø (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We do discuss notable but discarded theories, but in the same place as the theories that have displaced them. One has to go through the new to explain why the old is mostly abandoned. Kanguole 14:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We do not discuss creationism in an article on evolution. (Actually, I haven't checked that, but I'd expect at most a "See also" link, or perhaps a brief discussion in a History section.) Nø (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Creationism is discussed as a religious belief. What we have here is a set of neighbouring languages with similarities of typology and some shared vocabulary, with differing interpretations of this data. That is most usefully covered together.

I think I'm mainly reacting to your suggestion that this would avoid arguments, presumably because each side would have their own space. But that would not be useful to readers. It's much better to have the arguments and present a view of the dispute that reflects current scholarship. Kanguole 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

oppose: Hypothetically interconnected or not, it's still a grouping of languages. GustaPapp (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: contrary to what the above discussion often seems to imply, there is little literature about a putative "Altaic Sprachbund". What typological literature unambiguously recognizes is a Ural-Altaic Sprachbund (the inclusion of Uralic in it is underlined e.g. in much recent work from Janhunen and is clear also e.g. in Nichols 2024, "Northern Asia as a linguistic area"), and this is where the negation of an Altaic family places them by default. There might be occasional implications that the Altaic languages are an even tighter sub-Sprachbund. However, especially if we mean TMTKJ macro-Altaic and not just TMT micro-Altaic, it is not clear to me if this is explicitly shown by anti-Altaicists, or even explicitly asserted (e.g. a claim about a major Turkic loanword stratum in Mongolic does not necessarily mean it would be even larger than other well-known major Turkic loanword strata, as in e.g. Hungarian). Especially the inclusion of Japanese seems to hang on etymological proposals, not really typology. Ural-Altaic languages also has the lucky property of being obsolete as a language family proposal… So it seems to me that, if we want to have a clearly separate article that would discuss the typological / convergence interpretation of Altaic, it should probably be at Ural-Altaic Sprachbund. (This also narrowly leaves me in favor of retaining this page as "Altaic languages", but I'm not strongly for or against.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment/oppose: I think the broader issue with the WP:NCLANG guideline, and here I'd question the guideline's applicability to other contested groupings, is that "X languages" implies X is accepted as some grouping, even if the nature of that grouping is disputed, or that "X languages" is widely, unproblematically used in the literature. But if X is just a widely rejected macrofamily proposal then "X languages" lends it too much credibility. Titles like Papuan languages, as mentioned by Austronesier, are fine, but I'd question things like Nostratic languages.

Back to this article, if the academic consensus recognizes Altaic as a sprachbund, or "Altaic languages" as "a thing" at least, then this article should stay - and maybe an article on the Altaic hypothesis should be split off at some point. I can see how the title could be seen as granting the Altaic hypothesis too much credibility, given how widely accepted it once was and how many adherents it still has, but as long as the lede paragraph says it isn't widely accepted any confusion seems minor. Erinius (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the issue: WP:NCLANG implies that this page should be at the current title. Personally, I'm in favour of that guideline, but if people want to change it, they should make a proposal there. Kanguole 10:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree WP:NCLANG implies that the current title is accurate. I think I'd probably adovcate for a change in that specific policy to allow for "Hypothesis" when that's used in the literature and a proposal doesn't have wide acceptance, but I do think that ties our hands here if the article is primarily about the proposed language family. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is about a set of languages with similar typology and some shared vocabulary, and the competing explanations for this situation. Kanguole 09:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Then the article needs to be much clearer in that it’s a historical proposal with limited extant support and its purported members are considered unrelated. Hence, hypothesis.

and the competing explanations for this situation

but the truth isn’t somewhere in the middle. We don’t dedicate time to explaining how observed similarities could be due to Nostratic, so while it’s implant readers get the historical context we’re trying to present that in an article that’s currently formatted in such a way that the historical context looks present and mainstream, rather than just a substantial facet of the history of the Altaic preaching and research around it.

I don’t exactly think we can go against WP:NCLANG considering how it’s written but I think that policy should make it easier to distinguish mainstream linguistic theories from more peripheral ones, because presenting them all the same way does unfamiliar readers a disservice. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in need of substantial improvement. It is tagged for undue weight and there is also far too much he-said-she-said and too little linguistics. But the second sentence of the lead says

The hypothetical language family has long been rejected by most comparative linguists, although it continues to be supported by a small but stable scholarly minority.

That seems clear. Where we differ is that you want the statement in the article title. I believe that the guideline is wise to use a non-commital naming scheme (from an established phylum like Indo-European languages to a fringe theory like Nostratic languages) with the evaluation in the article itself, where there is plenty to room for a properly weighted discussion. Kanguole 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Note I think Nostratic should have hypothesis appended as well, as should other theories without mainstream acceptance. I’m not just trying to spike Altaic here, but obviously this is outside the scope of this specific name change. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is a about a set. A set that does not comprise shoes, potatoes, baryons or fugues. It is a set of languages with significant coverage in an ocean of reliable sources under the label Altaic, for whatever reason people believe that they can be discussed as a set. The most basic title for this set is plain "Altaic"; "...languages" is a natural disambiguator.

Changing WP:NCLANG as to include inherently POV-based and therefore contentious labeling will turn future move discussions into a time sink when things like acceptance or academic consensus additionally come into play.

This is not just about fringe and non-so-fringe macro-families. It generally applies to internal and external classification, which can include groupings with a negative, zero or positive temporal gradient of acceptance, or which never gained wide acceptance at any time.

Do Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan have to be framed as "languages" or a "hypothesis" (in the case of Niger-Congo it is additionally about the largest accepted scope, which significantly varies among experts)? What about Khoisan, Penutian, Hokan, Trans New Guinea, Austro-Tai, Yok-Utian? And what about contested subgroups of established language families such as West Germanic (the acceptance of which goes in waves), Finno-Ugric and Ugric, Tibeto-Burman, Malayo-Sumbawan, Central Algonquian and so on? The title is not place to make such decisions. We'd better offer well-sourced prose properly summarized in the lede for this purpose. –Austronesier (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.