User talk:2601:CB:8200:44B0:B4DE:4E00:9ED2:8525

Fringe content added to Elamo-Dravidian languages
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Elamo-Dravidian languages appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Warrenmck (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Not a "minority view point". As per the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. Brahui forms a central basis of the hypothesis as it shares just as many features with Elamite as it does with Dravidian, and it's existence validates the hypothesis. As per this hypothesis, it cannot be made invisible since the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis is based on it, and as per this hypoethesis, Brahui is not a Dravidian language but stems from the same proto-Zagrosian branch as Elamite. Please read the hypothesis before making statements such as the above. 71.59.18.238 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis is not accepted among historical linguists and there is no real credible evidence thet Elamite is related. If you have an understanding of the theory I don't have, then please provide the sources per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, but Glottolog considers Brahui Dravidian, as do all linguists I'm aware of. Elamite is a language isolate. Please refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. Warrenmck (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether the hypothesis is accepted or not isn't relevant since the wikipedia entry is about the hypothesis and as per this hypothesis, Brahui forms and independent branch in the Elamo-Dravidian continuum. The hypoethsis clearly outlines why; i.e Elamite pronouns match those of Brahui; many of the verbs are the same; the Elamite auxilary "Dun" matches that of Dravidian's and is seen in Brahui. Also features such as object Elamite marker pronouns such as "ta" and "ka" which have become absent in Dravidian are still very much present in Brahui, thus Brahui at best is proto-Dravidian since it retains features of both Elamite and Dravidian but lacks features that entered Dravidians as an innovation. All these findings point to e proto-braho-Elamo-Dravidian source which later splits into Elamite, Brahui and Dravidian as per the hypothesis, of which you appear to have zero understanding since you aren't a linguist. Also, pages relating to Pakistani history have been innundated with vandalizing by hindu nationalists looking to change the status quo via hindu nationalist POV pushing, which should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Then again, you probably have zero understanding of that either. Please refrain from making false accusations; I have not made any "personal attacks" in edit summaries. 71.59.18.238 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You called two editors Hindu nationalists in edit summaries and said here I’m not a linguist (I am a historical linguist, for the record). You should consider reading WP:CIVIL. Regardless, if you’d like to provide a citation for proponents of this theory not viewing Brahui as a Dravidian language then perhaps that may warrant a mention, but it would need to be in the context of the linguistic consensus that it is, in fact, a Dravidian language regardless of the impressions of some linguistic fringe theorists. Warrenmck (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)