Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broad homeland hypothesis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, there is a lack of sources that define this topic and consequently an absence of reliable sources discussing the topic. This article therefore fails WP:V since it consists mainly of original research and synthesis of unrelated sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broad homeland hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an article about a non-existent theory, supported by synthesis and original research. The article's creator, Rokus01 (talk · contribs), has for quite some time been conducting a campaign on Wikipedia against the Kurgan hypothesis, the most popular model of early Indo-European origins (see here for the opinions of respected science editors like Dbachmann and Mathsci on this). The closest thing we have is a single use of the phrase "broader homeland" in a 1989 book by a professor in the field named Mallory (see here), who wrote "Alternatively, we might wish to opt for a broader homeland between the Rine and Volga during the Paleolithic or Mesolithic which resolves the archeological issues by fiat". A side observation like this does not a theory make, and none of the additional sources in this article appear to use anything like the term; the article is a giant synthetic construction.

Google on "broad homeland hypothesis" turns up 3 pages of Wikipedia mirrors. Google Scholar of the same turns up nothing, and neither does a Google Books. In comparison, Google Scholar of "Kurgan hypothesis", the accepted theory, turns up 7 pages of hits, and Google Books turns up 8 pages of hits. I ran the searches with a number of related phrases, like "broad homeland theory", "broad homeland model", "broader homeland hypothesis", and so on, with the same results.

Merzbow (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For a perfect example of the type of misrepresentation going on here, note this phrase currently in the lead: "The broad homeland hypothesis is 'widely accepted'". Well, it was revealed at this discussion that the source did not use the term "broad homeland" at all in this context; only by original research does this mean the "broad homeland hypothesis" (if there even is such a thing, which there apparently isn't) is widely accepted. - Merzbow (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: I can't find anything that isn't a wikipedia mirror or random geocities (or similar) site. That leads me to suspect its original research... It would be good if we could get a few people who studied this kind of crap. I studied maths, so I'm no help here - all I can do is google things and make formulas. :P --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is just the latest move in a long time war, were Kurganist POV pushers want to make the world believe that since Gimbutas Kurgan theory, there has been no progress. They wrongly insist that the credibility and authority of the current "steppe view" is due to unaltered consensus, while even Mallory nowadays uses "Kurgan theory" strictly to refer to Gimbutas hypothesis only. The most recent sourced reference to backup undue claims to consensus is Mallory's 1996 quote on "widespread support" to a theory involving the Kurgan culture (one way or the other), while he explicitly mentions the broader view also as "widely accepted". Now, this group seeks to reverse the trick and reduce the broader view to the single contribution of Lothar Kilian, contemporain to the late Gimbutas. Instead of aiming their arrows on the broader view and insist on a reduced scope (if any), they should compile actualized information on the actualized steppe view. I have other reasons to suspect this nomination to be not neutral:
• This (smoothly organized) action [1] was triggered by making false reference to a non existent claim in the article of the broader view being the most widely accepted.[2] My repeated request[3] [4] [5] to demonstrate the criticised text were dodged.[6]
• Insisting on a POV tag just because the article did not make reference to a 2006 book of Mallory,[7] [8] while this book is still hardly referred to anywhere, has a focus on the theorized PIE language within an homeland area hardly narrowed down from the corresponding broader homeland range, hardly focus on specific archeological cultures nor the history of each view and at best seeks to give an assessment on the most probable homeland
• Random accusals of WP:SYN without ever giving details on where or how well sourced and compiled encyclopedic information should result into new coctailed "facts".
• the vicious personal attacks of some opponents are well known and to them this article is just another battleground.

Please try to esteem the article on its merits, without giving prevalence to the hypercritic arguments of fanatism. Rokus01 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not think it is now the generally accepted hypothesis, but it has had significant support in the past. POV problems can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on how we can keep an article about a theory that is defined nowhere? Without even a definition, there is no standard to even go about deciding what additional material is relevant. - Merzbow (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, weakly.
  
  First of all, this seems like a content dispute. The article proposed for deletion seems to attempt to have both an encyclopedic style and references. I see no problems there. The actual dispute seems to center more around the title than anything else.
  
  I am by no means an expert in this field, only an interested amateur. This may not be an ideal title to discuss a (series of) alternatives to the proposed identification of the Proto-Indo-European language community with the Kurgan culture. Nobody seems to be suggesting a better one.
  
  In the relatively recent (2006) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (ISBN 0199296685), Mallory and Adams review the fairly wide range of suggestions for the PIE homeland, and the several different methods used by their proponents, and conclude essentially that the problem is intractable. We have plenty of historical or just sub-historical examples of language spread concurrent with technological advances (e.g. Bantu). We also have plenty of historical evidence of cultural spread or convergence among peoples who spoke unrelated languages (e.g. Plains Indians). I practice a religion devised by people who spoke Aramaic. Attempting to identify the original PIE speakers with a type of pottery or burial practice, or anything other than a written language, may be a fool's errand. It's almost as hard to guess where they're from from the meanings of plant and animal names, which can be repurposed (deer, moose, elk).
  
  I think its important to assume good faith here, otherwise somebody's going to go Neolithic. I'm inclined to let this remain. If someone can propose a better title, I'd be open to suggestions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is precisely the content of books like that of Mallory and Adams that should be reflected here on WP. They are cautious, explain the difficulties of mixing archaeology and linguistics, and give a balanced representation of current thought and methods. That does not seem to be happening in this particular article. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is about a theory, based on one book by Kilian, which has not acquired any support from the academic community. The article itself seems to be synthesis and original research. It confuses Kilian's proposal with that of Hausler, who argues in favour of an easten european homeland, although they are quite different. Part of this confusion also results in false claims about the the general acceptance of Kilian's theory. There has been little academic take-up of Kilian's theory; in the only review I could find, Renfrew dismissed it as too far from mainstream theories. The term broad homeland does not seem to be currently used in mainstream literature. The fact that the article has existed for a long time is irrelevant; it is pushing a fringe point of view as if it were an accepted piece of mainstream academic research. Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep based on Smerdis' example of independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kilian's hypothesis is not in fact discussed in the book of Adams and Mallory, nor is the book used as a source for the article (despite my suggesting it should be on the talk page). Other authors, such as Renfrew and Baldi, indicate that Kilian's proposal is unscholarly. In "The Foundations of Latin" by Philip Baldi (1999), Baldi writes on Page 42, that "Kilian posits a vast linguistic contimuum between the North Sea and the Volga. Kilian's proposal, which is is not supported by either linguistic or archaeological evidence and argumentation, groups together a number of disparate settled agriculuralist and steppe communities. They encompass a geographic area between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometres long, which he lumps together without historical justification". Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Talk:Broad_homeland_hypothesis#Validity, otherwise merge into Kurgan hypothesis. This article is actually an {{essay-entry}} on "Criticism of the Kurgan hypothesis" by one of our leading WP:SYN-artists, Rokus01 (talk · contribs). It takes a phrase used by Mallory and unduly turns it into a supposedly stand-alone "hypothesis". dab (𒁳) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is very silly to base deletion of an important theory on being described by various authors rather than referred to by a fixed name. Any descriptive name would do:

• "Maximum geographic extend theory"?
• "Common linguistic ancestry theory"?
• "One widely accepted IE homeland theory"?

P.S. Even sillier to propose a Merge, to contain this article theory within a competing theory: this would be like merging Tomb of the Unknown Soldier into Adolf Hitler.

Also, this is not the right place for making (never properly sustained) personal attacks and advertisements. Rokus01 (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an important theory that maybe right or wrong but nevertheless should be available in wikipedia as one of the "possible" theories. after all we do not base deletion of articles on the that "the theory is weaker than the other theories" QuantumShadow (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we do base deletion on "this theory does not exist". I don't see a single reference by anyone voting keep to an academic source that actually defines this theory. This is a point the closing admin must address whatever the outcome. - Merzbow (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think admin should address pittbulls that seek article deletion to escalate their private content dispute. The problem is of your own definition, since the theory -as sourced- has been evaluated and described (defined) at least two times by Mallory. This is not the first time you become aggressive when ran out of arguments: the spirit of Wikipedia is cooperation and multiple points of views. Rokus01 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rokus, describing other editors as pittbulls is uncivil. If you continue, then you could be blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the basis that unlike the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses, there do not seem to be reliable sources discussing a third competing theory (which would have a name if there were such sources debating a 3rd theory). A number of the references seem to be do sources which are not discussing this 'third theory' but have been used by the author of the article in what I also see as an essay simply criticising the Kurgan hypothesis. So, basically OR and Synthesis, who knows, maybe suitable for publication somewhere, but not a notable hypothesis. This is nothing to be with it being weak, nothing to do with multiple points of view (or cooperation, people can look at various talk pages and make their mind up about that. And nothing to do with POV. Unless we can find (plural) reliable sources discussing a coherent hypothesis that is obviously the subject of this article, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of reliable sources indicates the subject isn't notable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only 68 Google hits once "wikipedia" is removed. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - content dispute. Cut out the crap, add opposing views, and cross-reference it. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, if you remove the original research, you will be left with nothing. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.