Talk:Brahmi script

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of Parent system[edit]

The parent source of Brahmi Script is not confirmed to be Proto-Sinaitic script or Phoenician alphabet or Aramaic alphabet, it can also be indigenous, therefore there is no confirmed source of Brahmi Script, removal of entire parent system is advised, or at least put valid citations.

"Disputed" Semitic origin[edit]

From what I can see, the Semitic origin of the Brahmi script is the scholarly consensus. Whether it is a direct descendant, or simply inspired, and from which script specifically, does not have such a clear consensus, but the overall Semitic origin does. So, why is it listed as disputed in the infobox of this article as well as of most Brahmic scripts on Wikipedia? Isn't it WP:UNDUE to give that much weight to the fringe and with a clear nationalist agenda hypothesis of indigenous descent of Brahmi? TuxCrafting (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Unfortunately, there is a whole army of Indian nationalist editors who will likely resist removing the undue weight given to the untenable indigenous origin theory. Metta79 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TuxCrafting: I personally think the question marks should be removed, and perhaps only a 'likely' added before Aramaic script (or after in brackets). The consensus among expert epigraphists is that it's primarily an Aramaic derivative. Metta79 (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unreadable because of the paragraphs and paragraphs of meandering, repetitive content that has been added to try to give the impression that there is no consensus and that the indigenous origin theory is just as valid as any other. It would almost be easier to rewrite the entire thing from a clean slate than to try and wade through all this stuff. Linguifauna (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The article, especially the origins section, sounds laughable to anyone who has actually any real expertise on the matter. The fact is the "indigenous" theory of the origins of Brahmi is nonsense and against the scholarly consensus. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some factoring on these notes, not changing their substance because I was not informed enough, but this was my understanding. Remsense诉 10:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the note in the infobox claiming the Semitic origin is not "universally accepted" (neither is spherical Earth, but it is the academic consensus). Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of studies not yet mentioned in tertiary literature[edit]

lots of fringe studies not cited in the tertiary literature need to be removed by 'scholars' such as kak and others. They are undue weight fringe theories promoted by nationalists. Metta79 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, you need to systematically explain here what you had been attempting to do. This is an old article to which dozens of editors have contributed. We simply cannot make changes with little or no explanation in edit summaries. Please do not place the burden of proof on me. It is you who made the changes. On your lies the WP:ONUS for demonstrating that your changes have due weight in the scholarly literature. Two sentences written without capitalization or attention to grammar have little meaning. Please make a bulleted list, each about no more than a few sentences at a time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please read talk page guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS2 Again, please do not talk to me in emblazoned edit summaries in the article. This is the place to make your case. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for heaven's sakes, please don't make fighting Hindu nationalism an excuse to be thrown about lightly. I'm the last person on WP who can be accused of promoting Hindu nationalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really fail to see how it is not promoting Kak and Frawley when we're mentioning their opinions (since they're amateurs, their assessement is nothing but a mere opinion). Unless of course there is a reliable secondary source that considers their views worthy of mention in this context. Salomon's handbook was written in 1998, so naturally he couldn't include them (from a present perspective, I speculate that he probably would mention Kak and Frawley as notable ideology-driven proponents). We need a contemporary source of the same calibre as Salomon (1998) that actually mention Kak, Frawley etc. –Austronesier (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is defending Kak or Frawley, the least of all I. The WP:ONUS is on Metta79 to make a list of what it is they want to do—a systematic list of actionable proposals each about no more than a few sentences at a time. This is an old, old, article. We simply can't make en masse edits with edit summaries that are meaningless. WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's start with removing Kak. It's fringe and misleading, and has no support outside of nationalists. It's not mentioned in any reliable tertiary source. Metta79 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it fringe? I see a couple of dozen references to them in scholarly publishers. I mean dozens. And I just looked. Please don't make your case with so little evidence. You will be wasting my time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about Kak the public figure. It is about Kak making a statement about the origin of the Brahmi script. Context matters. We have so far zero evidence from secondary sources that mention Kak in this context. It doesn't even have to be a source that is specialized in ancient epigraphy. Just present a reliable source mentioning that Kak's revisionist project also includes the promotion of the theory of an indigenous origin of the Brahmi script, and WP is back in company with reliable sources.
WP:ONUS is very much about not including everyting that has been said or written. The last removal of potentially fringe-promoting text[1] was accompanied by a very meaningful edit summary. This is a one-step edit, and reverting it is hardly procedural; Metta79 and I have made our points, so now it is your turn to explain why it is due to mention Kak or Frawley here. Text-integrity and all the collective hard work that went into producing this article is not sufficient for reverting one edit without a substantial reason.
I have to make correction of my earlier statement: Salomon's handbook was published in 1998, so technically, he could have mentioned In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India, but much of Kak's and Frawley's work that established their notoriety postdates 1998. –Austronesier (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations are from 'introductory texts' on the specific subject. They are citations from non specialists. Metta79 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See here, here, here, here, and in Cardona and Jain's General Introduction to Indo-Aryan Languages, and I have barely begun looking, not to mention spent my childhood on Wikipedia opposing both Kak and Frawley.
We need a list of actionable proposals, each about no more than a couple of sentences of text, citing your reasons, including sources. WP:ONUS applies as much to removal of longstanding text as it does to addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kak is mentioned for good or ill in Gregory L. Possehl's Indus Age: The Writing System, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996, " Brähmi scripts has been undertaken by Kak through a study of the sign frequencies in Brahmi and those in the Indus script , as provided by Mahadevan ( 1977a ) . These are " matched " and validated on morphological grounds ( Kak 1988a : 133 ) ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chapple (1993), Joseph (2011) and the Encyclopedia of Hinduism only have passing mentions that are not sufficient to elevate Kak's work above the due-mention level. But Chrisomalis (2010), Possehl (1996) are good, and of course also Cardona & Jain. My suggestion is thus to restructure the contested text (which is entirely build on primary sources) based on these reliable secondary sources. Kak's arguments should not be expounded at the present length, maximally as much as in these secondary sources. Note also that Cardona & Jain's mention of the script is embedded in the wider context of Kak's conjecture that the IVC was Indo-Aryan-speaking. –Austronesier (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting keeping this or that. But in my quick scan of the literature, I notice that we have:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even at this point much interested in this article. If you user:Austronesier and user:Patliputra along with Metta79 would revise this with care, documenting what you are doing on the talk page, I would be more than happy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र: (Patliputra), I meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can accomplish this, it would be a Great Leap Forward. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Kak stuff has been here for 8 years (from what I can tell, it was added not driven by Hindutva ideology, but in a well-meant but indiscriminate expansion of the article), and whatever quibble it takes to improve the article, it will hopefully result in a better article based on the best sources. @Metta79: Alas, this does not include a hitherto uncited paper from 2023 (mainstream or not). –Austronesier (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consfusion on /r/[edit]

I noticed that in the Consonants section of Early Brahmi, ra is listed as /r/ but marked as 'Voiced Retroflex Approximant'. Isn't the latter /ɻ/ not /r/? Username203 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahmi_script&oldid=1215344260"