This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
No one will see a discussion you post here, since this is a draft and on nobody's watchlist. I meant that you should discuss merger on either of the existing pages, probably the first one.
You seem to be mistaken about the meaning of "due weight" vis à vis English Wikipedia policy. The concept of due weight in WP:NPOV concerns which verifiable content should be presented within a given article. Whether or not an article should exist depends mostly on whether it is notable, which polygenesis is. Given that there's not another clear reason they should be handled within the same article, I think it is best to retain two separate articles.
1. No one will see a discussion you post here, since this is a draft and on nobody's watchlist. I meant that you should discuss merger on either of the existing pages, probably the first one.
OK, thank you. I already posted it in the discussion of the Wikiproject Linguistics.
2. Whether or not an article should exist depends mostly on whether it is notable, which polygenesis is.
Polygenesis is only covered (according to my research, correct me if I'm wrong) in primary sources, and it's a fringe theory (see above the link [6]). However, monogenesis is covered by secondary sources by the reviews of 'proto-world roots'.
Given that there's not another clear reason they should be handled within the same article, I think it is best to retain two separate articles.
2 another clear reasons:
The main polygenesis article is a stub since 2006, and there isn't much research on it.
Polygenesis, following the above reasonment, is not notable enough to have it's own article. Most historical linguists are monogenetic and I didn't find any reviews of polygenetic "demonstrations".
Not rude in the slightest, quite the contrary! I suppose my previous conception was that both theories are fringe as such, because most linguists agree there's no means of insight or analysis that go farther back than ~6000 years. What I do find interesting is there's no mention of either whatsoever on Origin of language—obviously that's an article that mostly engages with other disciplines, but I wonder if it would be worth slimming down Proto-human language and stuffing both into a section of that article. Remsense诉11:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense Thank you. Indeed, the article on the origin of language doesn't mention monogenesis or polygenesis (being the two only options, excluding the possibility of a Borean bottleneck). I think the origin of language article focuses more on the anatomical, neurological and paleological origin of language, while my proposed merge would focus on the linguistic side (the origin of language article is already too big). So, should I post the possibility of a merge in the Proto-human language and Polygenesis talk pages? Pcg111 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense And one think I've forgotten to say, when scholars refute the "reconstructions" made by Ruhlen, they don't refute the monogenetic theory; they assume that the monogenetic theory is right. That's why I think it isn't a fringe theory, although proto-world is. Pcg111 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
