Talk:Indo-European people

Untitled

I do not want to exclude the possiblilty of statements like "The Greeks are Indo-Europeans". However, this smacks of identification of "The Greeks" with some Bronze Age people, and such a statement is most likely to be found in texts with a racial pov. The statement is more likely to be phrased as "The Greeks are speakers of an Indo-European language" or something similar, emphasizing its linguistic nature. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Usage and scope of the term "Indo-Europeans"

Gruezi, lorn10 !

Thanks for your comments on the Indo-Europeans article.

If you wish to have the article discuss non-linguistic matters, we'll need to re-cast the woefully inadequate opening definition-sentence, which currently reads: "Indo-Europeans are speakers of Indo-European languages". I don't wish to do this myself: I have it in mind that millions of people from Asia and the Americas and Africa now speak/write using members of the Indo-European language family without that making them racially or culturally "Indo-European". I presume that the processes of migration and cultural overlaying operated too wherever the original Indo-European-speakers first formed into recognisable groupings.

As for the phrase "The term [Indo-Europeans] may apply to ... Proto-Indo-Europens", you have no dispute with me, but possibly with whoever wrote the former version of the text: "The term is used to apply to ... Proto-Indo-Europeans". -- If that usage exists, then fine: let's explain the usage (and its paradoxical and incorrect nature) in the article. If the usage does not exist, then likewise, fix the article by eliminating the false claim. (I did not intend to change the meaning that I found in my last edit.)

- Pedant17 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

the usage is not paradoxical at all, considering that Proto- translates Ur-. In set theoretical terms, the Proto-IEs are a subset of the set of IEs, by definition, in temporal order of the set, a coherent subset including the set's minimal element. dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

the racial nonsense

was added by Lorn10 (talk · contribs) on 2 June. Thanks for reverting. dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lorn10, the point of a disambiguation page is not to link to every article that mentions the topic in question. It is reasonable to mention Indo-Europeans in an article on "white people", but it hardly stands to reason that someone looking at Indo-European people is really looking for the article on white people in general. You could, otherwise, also link to mammal, arguing that obviously all Indo-Europeans are in fact mammals. dab (ᛏ) 10:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I now recognize „yours“ definition of a disambiguation page. However if such notable and capable members of the Wikipedia community like you starts to “believe” what people think and should think, I really see black for the future of the great Wikipedia vision: …but it hardly stands to reason that someone looking at Indo-European people is really looking for the article on white people in general.

Nearly as well confusing: It is reasonable to mention Indo-Europeans in an article on "white people"… There must be something like a “clear line” in the Wikipedia; a fact like this cannot be reasonable at one article and at one other inadequately. As a result, it must be in general not reasonable, on every article, on every language in the whole Wikipedia.

And concerning your “mammals” example, usual people like me (and this is probably not a small part), haven’t such a high perception. Following this, much of them don’t see the higher (or deeper) relations of genetic, racial, ethnic, etc. They only see Indo-Europeans on White (people) and Indo-Europeans on langue related articles.

They see one term, one absolutely identical term, which stands in two different relationships.

Sure, I don’t know many, and definite much lesser than you, but this is an important and current missing information which must be in any case mentioned on a truthfully “disambiguation page”. If not at the Indo-European people page it must be note at the Indo-European one.

Once and for all, my intention was never to postulate abstruse racial theories. In fact I chiefly only repair or add wikilinks and connect missing coherences. I haven’t any higher ambitions. Therefore it is absolutely incorrect what some people think about me. Genetic, racial or ethnic assumptions of “Indo-European” exist long before my Wikipedia “awakening”. --lorn10 22:35, 04. August 2006 (CEST)

I apologize for the "nonsense" bit. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be a dab

This page gives links to just two possible uses, and the substantive information on the page outweighs the disambiguation info. It doesn't need to be a dab. -- Hongooi 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

it needs to be a dab because otherwise it would be a 100% WP:CFORK. I admit the solution is not satisfactory. Perhaps we need an Indo-European (term) and redirect there. dab (𒁳) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article page doesn't fit WP:MOSDAB and from the outsiders perspective, it would seem to be prime to either present as an article, or to change to appropriate MOSDAB page. Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Indo-European_people there is a definite trend in what people are referring to this subject, and it might be useful to base the article in those terms, and have a OTHERUSES link. Remember that this is meant to be encyclopedic, not drilled down research specialist. MOO -- billinghurst (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Proto-Indo-Europeans

This page is a redirect to Proto-Indo-Europeans. I've started a discussion about this on Talk:Proto-Indo-Europeans. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)