Talk:Seima-Turbino culture

"Whether or not these languages belong to the Altaic languages is still unclear, but plenty of evidence suggest a connection with the Korean language."
Ural-Altaic is a fringe hypothesis, and the three sources the article cites after this statement seem fishy to me. For example, "The Finnish Korean Connection: An Initial Analysis" opens with this very questionable paragraph:

"It has traditionally been accepted in circles of comparative linguistics that Finnish is related to Hungarian, and that Korean is related to Mongolian, Tungus, Turkish and other Turkic languages. N.A. Baskakov, in his research into Altaic languages categorised Finnish as belonging to the Uralic family of languages, and Korean as a member of the Altaic family. Yet there is evidence to suggest that Finnish is closer to Korean than to Hungarian, and that likewise Korean is closer to Finnish than to Turkic languages."

Should the article at least have a disclaimer that this runs counter to the mainstream academic consensus?--108.20.184.19 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Without ANY scientific ref this suggestion is worth NOTHING!! HJJHolm (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Unscientific referencing!
"The American Journal of Human Genetics: Volume 99, Issue 1: Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup N: A Non-trivial Time-Resolved Phylogeography that Cuts across Language Families", 7 July 2016, Pages 163-173." We do not talk about journals but Authors!!!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:61BA:41CB:5788:1115 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Logical nonsense
"The existence of Uralic Samoyedic and Ob-Ugrian groups like the Nenets, the Mansi people and the Khanty, anchor the Uralic languages in Asia." is logical nonsense, because of equally many UR languages west of the Ural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:85F8:D6D1:25D5:9B6C (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lie/Error
"The buried were nomadic warriors and metal-workers, traveling on horseback or two-wheeled chariots.[5]" - This is a lie. The cited page 517 - at least in the current online version - does not contain any word about whatever chariots! Again a sign for an extremely poor article! Neverthless, after 2000 BC, spoked chariots appeared in the contemporary Sintashta c. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:615B:E55B:1575:BA91 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"2007 dated to 1650 BCE onwards[5]" is again a lie. In the same paragraph, Anthony clearly states, "Seima-Turbino probably began before 1900 BCE" !!! The guy obviously can NOT READ!! HJJHolm (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Further, the data from Marchenko et al. (2017) are COMPLETELY MISREAD and in fact are "22th to 20th" century BC, with the caveat of missing freshwater corrections at the moment. Was a hard peace of work to muddle through all these references and to correct the confused edit. Sorry. HJJHolm (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Genetics
Regrettably, "N3a3’6" is no longer tracable in the current ISOGG 2019/2020. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:615B:E55B:1575:BA91 (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"one study argued ..." Which study?? This again is extrmely poor referencing.HJJHolm (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Etruscan?
Where does the connection with Finnish and Etruscan fit in? In the book Etruscan Decipherment by Stuart L Harris a compelling basis is made that the language is an earlier root of Finnish. Only once Finnish was used as a foundation have any translations been practical, after that the large corpus of cuneiform text becomes easy to translate. ISBN 1530220955 Idyllic press (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)