Talk:Sino-Uralic languages

Proto-languages

Instead of comparing Mandarin and Min Nan, which are highly eroded synchronic languages, wouldn't it be a better idea to compare Old Chinese, Proto-Sino-Tibetan, or some other proto-languages? Otherwise, it's just confirmation bias at work. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 13:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The source did not provide a proto form, except old Chinese. ValtteriLahti12 (talk)

@ValtteriLahti12: Although I appreciate the sober and unobtrusive way you have written this article, without bombast and promotional undertones that so often comes with articles about fringe topics, this long-range proposal unfortunately completely lacks notability. Most of it has been published in an obscure journal, and nothing of it has been cited by anyone else: in Google Scholar, all citations to Jingyi Gao's papers are by Jingyi Gao. It's a closed one-person universe with literally zero impact in the field. Even if we acknowledge in the infobox that it's fringe, we cannot include this topic in Wikipedia if scholarly and other public response to it is nil. I will add WP:PROD-tag to the article. You may contest it to get wider input at the subsequent WP:AfD. –Austronesier (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I even had doubts about it's notability myself, so I am not even going to contest the deletion. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Though I managed to find one book which shortly mentioned it, calling it false. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Such a profound critique , "false"!

Google books are not everything. Have you read his articles? :In any article there is a catalogue of previous works.

There are many journals like "Central Asiatic" or "MSU journal" mentioned, where previous publications have been made.

And yes, there is a self-quotation. But I supposed there was a time when Newton self-quoted.

Otherwise he could have just quoted Aristotle as hundreds others and stay hidden in the shadow of a great authority.

In sum, if someone develops new trend of work in humanities it is more than natural, him is not being quoted at first.

Also, author works in (and not outside, n.b.) Pekin international university and published works which were not related to "Sino-Uralic theory" as you called it. There is big dictionary of Estonian-Chinese and there are problems of early Sinitic languages he adressed which had nothing to do with Sino-Uralic.

Also, ValtteriLahti you made it sound in the last edit of the article like the finding of the author are driven by his "Sino-Uralic" views. Fistly, who else the carrier of those views? Please, I would like to know.

And secondly, I do not insist on proto-Sinitic speakers and proto-Finnic speakers being related, I am incompetent in that which I know, but I see that some archeologists favored this idea.

And as I told before this connection is not the gist or nub of this theory, it is a work with data of Sinitic languages and Uralic languages, datas which are not dissimilar which led to the comparisons, which led to attention to archeology, not vica versa. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Seeking an update re:deletion request

What's been going on regarding the potential deletion of this article? I came here for the specific purpose of requesting deletion, but I see that this has already been done, albeit without any progress. The most recent information I can see is that somebody contested the deletion without any explanation as to why (the link provided by the user in question is a dead link). Can somebody explain why this article ultimately wasn't deleted? SyntaxW02TheThird (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It was mentioned in more sources found afterwards. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It has a lot of scientific value because it has the explanation of the method. Author is not some conspirology nut but recognised lexicologist. His studies show that he knows not only how to compare but also all mentioned him languages. Therefore propisition for deletion is absurd. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This should neither be promoted as a common view or a scholarly concensus, as there are a few advocates, being mainly exclusive to China and Estonia. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ValtteriLahti,

Scholar published in highly acclaimed Central Asiatic journal.

Is it influential enough for you?

How I can write you not here?

Common scholarly consensus on such matters as distant linguistical past of humankind rarely exists due to scrupulosity of the methods and variety of the data.

One I can say for sure : big journals, more or less accepted this "theory" as we call it.

And moreover, and what is most important : the nub of this theory is not the suggestion that Finnic and Sinitic populations probably had common origins in the very past, it is the analysis of the present data, all of that takes more talk on the details. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Central Asiatic journal", in particular, sorry. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly concensus does exist, such as no serious scholar denies the Indo-European family, there is no such thing for Sino-Uralic and the article must reflect that it’s a hypothesis ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not connection between the English and German languages? It does exist, but not here. Indoeropean family definition is a previous stage of human thought. In time Uralo-Sinitic theory can be accepted.

No, I disagree, it is not "just a hypothesis", it is the working theory at the least. "Hypothesis" is a thought.

Theory, correct me if I am wrong, is a thought with a lot of data attached to this thought.

And scholarly consensus is not measure of scientific value. There are a lot of trivial things on which scientific consensus is achieved. The more variables the more hectic or unachievable consensus would be. Are you guys the linguists by any chance? The works have been published in univesity and in the very prestigious one.

I find it diminishing and NOT neutral that you publish this under word of "fringe". And that only some words are taken out of the context of MASS comparison, where hundreds words compared.

I also do not like when new data such as about "Great Song dictionary" gets deleted.

And moreover, you say, I promote something, but I can promote whatever I want if this theory is a fringe? And this theory establishes links between Uralic words and Sinitic. Links are important because rarely one who is good at knowing 30 Uralic languages is good at Sinitic as well.

You guys have to give some points and appreciation for the project itself. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

To some degree, Sino-Uralic theory, ok, is accepted amongst leading journals on linguistics, there is no denying that. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not quite correct. Gao has published his theories in a handful of journals (NB not "leading journals on linguistics"; this term would apply to journals like Diachronica or Language), but this does not mean that the publishers "accept" or endorse his theories. They simply consider his articles worthy for presentation to academic discourse.

Only very few secondary sources have mad any mention of Gao's proposal, and none of them supports his proposal. It remains speculative, fringe, and of questionable notability per WP:GNG. –Austronesier (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

None of comparative linguists has ever published in "Language", at least, it is not what I know of.

Are you linguistical specialist by any chance?

You publish the article, you make the author to make the changes and you accept his theories. I work as the editor, I know how this work. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I have seen from your contribution history that your only edits are about this article. Are you in anyway connected to the author, or do you just happen to be enthusiastic about the topic? –Austronesier (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I am enthusiastic about this theory as I am about Indoeuropean. I am connected to linguistics in general and I know that a lot of first-rate journals support the findings and the theory. I am enthusiastic about Proto-Altaic and Proto-Sino-Caucasian as well so you cannot called me a biased anyhow. I do not see that anyone here fully understans how this works at least, what I see, you apply logics but you do not have inner knowledge of the comparative work. The same with the journals.

Otherwise you would not call "MSU journal" or "Cental Asiatic" or "Trames" secondtier.

Also, I see strange nihilism here which I encountered on Academia.edu as well. People deny connections just for the pleasure. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

My position is that the article has enough mentions to exist, but it should be worded to reflect its minority acceptance status. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a grandiose theory and grandiose project. It is hard to compare even two languages, not talking about 60 languages.

It is of course, has the right to exist, as for minority - ok.

But it is not a natural science, there are others stages of mind than 0 and 1 or "yes" and "no". Person develops theory, data supports it, it should say to us, that Uralo-Sinitic connection should be heard, at the very least. In his PHD there are 400 or something basic words that show connection.

Gao fistly showed connection between 200 Swadesh-list words. If tomorrow some person decided to prove connection, let us say, between Altaic and Austronesian, then it is not enough to have this thought. Data has to respond to this wish.

This discovery should be noted and appreciated.

As for minor status acceptance, all theories, that involve units biggger than IE family are not pristine from the point of view of natural sciences but has gained enough edge demonstating regularities on the data level in order to be widely considered. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

So it should be considered on the same level as Altaic theory considered which I noticed, Valtteri nihilisticall denies as well with tendencious quotes from the secondtier text boooks, indeed! Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "secondary sources"? It is not a history of Roman Empire to have "first sources" such as Commentarii de la bello Gallico. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am a historical linguist, I have published articles in peer-reviewed journals and books (Routledge, OUP), and also done reviews for double-blind peer review. I am pretty familiar with the procedures. And again, no, publication does not mean endorsement. As for secondary sources, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. "I work as the editor": "The editor" of one of the journal that have published Gao's articles? That brings you close to having a WP:conflict of interest, which you should disclose. –Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Who do I have the honour of talking with, if it not a secret?

I read carefully the article but I do not see the problem for me, yes, working for the AAAtec, where Gao J. published the articles. I would look at any work of historical linguist, yourself as well, if you decided to write about the celestials. So, I am far from the bias.

I support this line of work in journal where I am the editorial board member, I do not see how it is a problem. I invited there ALSO authors whose opinions contradict the notion of the Sino-Uralic. I treat all macrolinguistical conceptions fairly not being zealot anywhere.

And I did not see historial and linguistial argumentation from you yet at all, if we speak about OUP. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It means that I know the ropes only and it is better for you guys to have this debate with me than with some incompetent person who might want to rewrite the article. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, Wikipedia is not the place to debate about the validity of a scholarly hypothesis based on our personal opinions. I don't edit in Wikipedia to promote personal views, but to ensure a balanced mainstream-based presentation of topics in my expertise and/or interest.

For the purpose of editing in Wikipedia, only coverage in secondary sources matters. As the article stands know, it predominantly rests on Gao's articles, which are primary sources for the Sino-Uralic hypothesis. The only secondary scholarly source which talks about Gao's hypothesis in length is Künnap's review. This is a far cry from any kind of "acceptance" from other scholars in the field (in response to your statement "Sino-Uralic theory, ok, is accepted amongst leading journals on linguistics" – journal don't accept theories. They accept submitted manuscripts.) –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I will not be proven biased. But I wish you to note that article with the name "theory" consists of a lot more than just scholarly opinion unsubstantiated. You wish for the theory to get momentarily acceptance everywhere? Indoeuropean theory fought for 3 centuries to become what it is today. Still, if you accept the manuscripts submitted by the authors it does mean that you think this theory has more than mere the right to exist. And I do not see any other way, except, yes, reviews, you are right here, that journal can express its support or the acceptance. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Austronesian! Noted. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a very unlikely hypothesis, but still nonetheless a hypothesis that's been cited elsewhere. There is no reason to delete this article. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 02:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I see there's been quite a discussion here; I'm not sure why I wasn't notified. Must have forgot to click "watch this page" I guess.

Anyways, there is absolutely a reason to delete this article. Not every hypothetical family deserves its own article; at best this should remain a footnote in the "External relationships" section on the Uralic languages page (and I suppose it should be added to the Sinitic languages page as well). Virtually every theory about external relationships of Uralic languages has been more widely accepted, or at least more widely cited, than this one, outside of perhaps the more outlandish Sumerian or Etruscan types of proposals. For comparison, Uralo-Siberian at this point is a fringe theory as well, but supported by more than one scholar independently (Fortescue, Seefloth, also mentioned by Vovin and Kortlandt) and at least one etymology from this proposal has been considered as being seriously worth examining in the Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages (though the relevant chapter by Ante Aikio in that work remains neutral as to whether said etymology points towards a possible genetic relationship, or just early borrowing). For Sino-Uralic, "cited elsewhere" is technically true I suppose, but are you suggesting that one review and one passing mention in a book favouring a different but similarly fringe theory is enough to be Wikipedia-notable?

Also, regarding Belolipetsky's arguments here (though I would support ignoring said user's arguments entirely due to the conflict of interest already mentioned in this thread), it should be noted that I am not trying to get this page deleted because I disagree with it. I think it's a very interesting proposal in concept, though admittedly unlikely and at this point rather poorly-executed. Instead, I am trying to get it deleted because of notability – see "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability" from Wikipedia:Notability – and considering the significant departure from the usual standards of linguistic comparison, I am strongly of the opinion that this proposal would need to be cited a number of times for it to be considered notable, otherwise there is no reason to assume that it is being taken seriously by experts in the field (perhaps a cautious "yet" is in order here).

SyntaxW02TheThird (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The theory is not mentioned by those two sources alone. It was theorized earlier by Karl August Hermann, and mentions of it were made by Estonian linguists such as Jaan Kaplinski and Urmas Sutrop, though writing in Estonian. A similar theory was proposed by Morris Swadesh. I hold that it has been mentioned by enough sources to have an article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I spent the entire morning trying to find references to the theory, it should now be good enough to stay as an article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@ValtteriLahti12: Rest assured that I won't be the one to initiate an AfD seeing the gradient towards passing the WP:GNG threshold. Although I still feel we're below it at this point. But that's just me. I've found the original text of Karl August Hermann's piece in JSTOR[1]. I guess we should cite the original article, supplemented by a cite to the Estonian translation. –Austronesier (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Austronesier What should be done about the edits from Vulpes tartuensis that appear to be made for promotional purposes? --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a slight feeling that this user might be the same user as Belolipetsky or related to them. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The examples in the lead are embarrassingly flawed: voiced initials in Southern Min arose from denasalization of nasal initials. This is a specifically Southern Min innovation: other Min varieties and other southern Chinese varieties have ŋ- in these words, as do Middle Chinese and all reconstructions of Old Chinese (as acknowledged in Gao and Tender).

Also, the Sino-Uralic proposals do not include Sino-Tibetan as a child node: they are presented as an alternative to Sino-Tibetan. Kanguole 21:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed those examples ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually it seems those examples are typical of Gao's method, which is to disregard as suspect all existing work on reconstructing the history of the languages involved, and instead to compare attested forms in widely separated languages, such as Southern Min and Finnish or Estonian. Kanguole 22:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I did read him occasionally using proto-Uralic and Old Chinese. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

But he says he's only providing these reconstructions for reference, and not using them for comparison. Kanguole 11:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

They are flawed, yes, I've got plenty to say on that matter myself, but that's not an argument in favour of deletion, which is why I avoided delving into it in detail. There's plenty of reasons not to take this proposed family seriously, but as long as it's been talked about enough in a variety of sources (which at this point I get the impression that User:ValtteriLahti12 has successfully defended) then I'm going to stand down in terms of pushing for deletion. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do mention specifically that relevance does not need to be established on a basis of English-language sources, so unless somebody who speaks Estonian can come in and point out some glaring issue with the other sources, I don't see a reason to contest the ongoing existence of this article. It would be nice, of course, if some explicit counterarguments published by a specialist in the field were mentioned, but from what I can tell (from English and Hungarian sources at least) nobody's been bothered so far with critiquing a theory like this. SyntaxW02TheThird (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That is the problem: no-one has found Gao's theory worth engaging with. We have one book review, some summaries of Gao's book chapters, some people saying it looks interesting, another saying it's nonsense, but none of them engaging with the substance. Even the review is mostly a recounting of the book, with little and shallow evaluation. Having looked at the substance, this is understandable, but it does raise notability issues. It is not reasonable to expect every proposal to be refuted. It is reasonable to ask for impact in the field. Kanguole 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

According to this source, his theory has had some impact on linguistics: "The author suggests that all the roots in Primitive (oldest) Chinese and even in Old (older than 2000 years) Chinese could be disyllabic similar to Uralic types. This suggestion is cited by the author of the second foreword Feng as a valuable new conception for solving disputes of Old Chinese phonology." --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

But claiming roots were disyllabic is not the same as concluding that they're related to Uralic. One might accept the first but not the second. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I do not believe Sino-Uralic nor defend it. However, I stated that Gao's theory has had an impact on the field, as what I mentioned was an aspect of the theory, which Feng mentioned as being inspired from Jingyi Gao’s theory. I hold that the theory should maintain the article, while making clear that the theory is not mainstream. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally being mentioned here, should give some notability. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That is one sentence on his contribution in a conference report. Kanguole 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Though a possible alternative is making an article about Jingyi Gao and moving (though more briefly) mentions of the theory there, as there are more sources for Jingyi Gao himself than for his theory. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he meets WP:PROF. Kanguole 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Estonian wikipedia has an article about him and I was able to find more references to him than what is found for the theory. It appears that the majority of references to the theory and to Gao himself are written in Estonian (likely as he published much of his work in Estonian), thought I am not fluent in Estonian, I am able to understand it written to some degree. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@ValtteriLahti12: Maybe I'm missing something, but most of the Estonian sources are news reports (some of the written by academics), not scholarly works. Apparently even in Estonia, the hypothesis gets more attention from the media than from academic peers. That's still good in terms of WP:GNG, but we should clearly disentangle these two kinds of coverage. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This recently added one is written by Gao himself, with a brief summary by the editor. Kanguole 17:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits by Vulpes tartuensis

User:Vulpes tartuensis Your edits have multiple problems, I will address each point.

• The reference concerning Gao Tianjun & Jiang Juan was deleted by earlier editors for being a mere mention (here), this is a misuse of the sources.
• The words "After a resting time of rethinking the keystone of the Sino-Uralic researches, since 2014" appear to be a defense of Gao's character, which is promotional.
• As Kanguole said, the examples in the lead are problematic.
• 5 Chinese linguists is not "many", this gives the reader a false impression that Gao's theory is mainstream.
• Jaan Kaplinski's comment is redundant, his words are included within the words "expressed interest".
• You attacked those who disagreed with Gao's theory by adding "though without arguing details", this appears to be promotional again.
• You need a secondary source for the claims about his methodology, if you provide one, it can be added.
• The massive table is redundant, the section about the proposed sound correspondences are enough.

Come discuss the issue on the talk page or I will have to consult an administrator. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the trimmed version is more encyclopedic and less promotional. I find it rather telling that the most excessive and promotional-sounding details were added by users who have not edited any article except for this one. There might be a WP:COI-issue here. –Austronesier (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Gao Tianjun & Jiang Juan‘s report introduced Gao's theory with positive tone, not merely mention, and the word I used is "positively reported", not supported.

2. A description of Gao's research process can be expressed in another way, but not simply labelled as promotion.

3. "Many" may be changed to "several"

3.Kaplinski's comment is highly related to this topic, and readers have rights to know another researcher's concrete attitude toward this theory. His attitude may not be homogeneous with others' "interest", it is not responsible to label them together under a simple word.

4. I didn't attack those who disagreed with Gao's theory, if you are so kind as to check Kumar, van Driem and Stobdan's book, you may find out that only one sentence in it is related to Gao's theory.

5. Complemental resources about the theory are to be added. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason why we need Kaplinski's comment directly copy pasted, but not the comments of every other author spelled out similarly. Several is no better than "many", the theory is not mainstream at all, the words "some" and "few" are the only usable terms. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that a mere mention is "positive" from the "tone" is not proper use of the sources. I'd also like to ask if you are related to Belolipetsky? --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for inaccuracy, not just "tone", here is the original text I'd like to quote.

"Gao Tianjun and Jiang Juan reported Gao’ study in English in Journal of Chinese Linguistics: “Gao reexamined the history of comparative linguistics in China. He argued that the lacking of the etymological studies causes the chaos of studies on the linguistic affinity of the Chinese language. So, he recommended renewed etymological studies and presented some relevant procedures and outcomes. His etymological studies indicated that the Chinese language has two major linguistic sources: Shennong or Sino-Uralic, and Xuanyuan or Sino-Germanic. Shennong is the substratum, and Xuanyuan is the superstratum.”

Gao Tianjun; Jiang Juan. Report of The 6th International Conference in Evolutionary Linguistics. The Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 43 (2015), 1, 256–264. [2]

Kaplinski's comment is representative comment has no reason to be deleted as a related statement to this theory, and your label of "interest" is not accurate, as I've said.

Honestly I have nothing to do with Belolipetsky you mentioned, is it important for you? Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That is just a review of his theory without any indications on their part as for their opinion on the matter, it is neutrally presented, not positively. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Gao presented Sino-Uralic in opposition to Sino-Tibetan. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And another sentence in this version is problematic as well.

"Others have argued that Gao's comparisons are methodologically flawed." And this sentence is based on the book Himalayan Bridge of Kumar, van Driem and Stobdan. Actually Gao's theory is mentioned only once in this book, I quote the original text here:

"The history of linguistics is strewn with false “Sino” theories that were founded upon methodologically fawed comparisons, bewilderment about the historical grammar of Chinese and inadequate knowledge of Trans-Himalayan languages: Sino-Tibetan (Przyluski 1924), Sino-Yenisseian (Schmidt 1926), Sino-Caucasian (Bouda 1950), Sino-Burman (Ramstedt 1957), Sino-Indo-European (Pulleyblank 1966), Sino-Himalayan (Bodman 1973), Sino-Austronesian (Sagart 1993), Sino-Kiranti (Starostin 1994), Sino-Mayan (Jones 1995) and Sino-Uralic (Gao 2008). None of these models are supported by sound evidence and they all represent false language family trees."(van Driem 2020: 51)

[Van Driem, George. 2020. From the Dhaulagiri to Lappland, the Americas and Oceania. In Himalayan Bridge (Kumar, Niraj; van Driem, George; Stobdan, Phunchok eds.). Routledge.]

So first, the word "others" is inaccuracy, because the only one argued it in published resource is van Driem, so the plural form make no sense here. And second, my comment of "though without arguing details" is correct and should not be deleted. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Silence does not mean that they rejected it for the sake of nothing, your edit gives that impression. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion and impression, which is not supported by any published resources. I insist that my sentence should remain unchanged until you can find any 1. other scholars 2. arguing on this theory in published resources 3. with details. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We should mention George van Driem explicitly in-text and paraphrase his statement about Sino-Uralic as one of several hypothesis that he considers unsupported by sound evidence. That he is in the position to say that as one of the leading scholars in Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics should be obvious. –Austronesier (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit (Vulpes) is clearly an effort to promote the theory, by adding the terms "non-Uralic, non-Sinitic", you are giving the impression of their opinion being useless on the matter, additionally many such as Kaplinski didn't mention details, yet you want to single out his sentence which said the theory is plausible? There is a clear promotional tone in your editing. Wikipedia:Fringe theories --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Van Driem's criticism has no detail, this is a fact, which should not be deleted. Whether you think this fact itself is promotional to this theory, this your are problem.

2. What you are arguing with me is again a double-standard clearly. If neither Kaplinski nor van Driem didn't argue any detail, why van Driem's statement should be kept while Kaplinski's verbal endorsing should be deleted? Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And van Driem is opposed to Sino-Tibetan as well, maybe the term of Sino-Tibetan should also be added into your sentence "that Sino-Uralic along with other theories such as Sino-Indo-European are constructed by using flawed methodologies"? Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Van Driem supports Sino-Tibetan completely. He merely subgroups it differently than Matisoff (just about everyone has their own take on subgrouping). — kwami (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If you claim that van Driem has not offered details about ST being a "false family tree", then you obviously haven't read his work. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)