Draft talk:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis

Merging (linguistic) Monogenesis and Polygenesis

[Copied from [1]].

Hello. I think that Linguistic monogenesis and Linguistic polygenesis could be merged into the article I translated, like in [2] Spanish, [3] Catalan, [4] Galician and [5] Dutch. They're about similar topics and having an article about linguistic polygenesis would give it undue weight, because the mainstream scholars advocate for monogenesis (see [6], a paper defending linguistic polygenesis but starts with the line "Monogenesis of language is widely accepted..."). Is this a good idea? Pcg111 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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.
2. 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.

Remsense诉 10:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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".

Sorry if I'm being rude, and correct me if I'm wrong. Pcg111 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)