User talk:Varoon Arya/Proto-Germanic

Goals and scope
The primary goal of this article is to present an adequate linguistic description of the Proto-Germanic language in terms of its synchronic features.

Secondary goals include:
 * to present a concise description of the diachrony, i.e. the history of the developmental stages, of Proto-Germanic; and
 * to present a relevant description of the socio-historical context in which it is presumed Proto-Germanic developed and was spoken.

Comments
(Reviewing Editors: Please enter any comments here)

Noteworthy policies
Of course, all Wikipedia policies apply to this article. However, there are a number of policies that deserve to be highlighted given the nature of this particular article.

Though widespread consensus exists on most of the fundamental features of Proto-Germanic, it remains the object of ongoing research. While reviewing and reporting upon available literature, it is important to clearly distinguish between mainstream views and the views of individual authors in order to maintain compliance with WP:NPOV. In this respect, three types of view can be identified:


 * Traditional or Mainstream: This describes that kind of view taken by all or most authorities in the field. In the literature, it is either explicitly identified as the ‘standard’ view, or is presented without justification in preface to a discussion regarding it. This type of view can be included in the body of this article (in patently obvious cases without attribution), and it can be treated as a ‘fact’, which Wikipedia defines as “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute”.


 * Emerging Consensus: This describes that kind of view taken by a significant number of authorities, usually after a particular point in time. As with any field of ongoing research, views on Proto-Germanic change with time, with once popular views becoming outdated and subsequently replaced with newer ones. In the literature, this type of view is most often explicitly identified as an ‘emerging consensus’. It may be presented in the body of this article provided that an authority on the subject has declared it to be an ‘emerging consensus’ and can be cited as stating such. Note that, according to the policies WP:NOR and WP:SYN, Wikipedia editors must refrain from using sources to support claims to a consensus which is not recognized as such in qualified literature.


 * Idiosyncratic or Fringe: This describes that kind of view taken either by a small minority of authorities or by one individual. It usually represents the results of original research and frequently stands in opposition to the traditional view. In literature of an argumentative nature, this type of view is typically that which receives the greatest amount of attention and is often accompanied by copious amounts of supporting evidence and argumentation. Though the insights provided by such views are often interesting and perhaps even useful to specialists, they are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the body of this article. However, provided that the authority in question enjoys good standing in the academic community, an idiosyncratic view may be mentioned briefly in a note at the end of the article linking from the mainstream view with which it conflicts and with a reference to literature in which it appears.

One notable exception to the above pertains to views on subjects upon which there is neither a mainstream view nor an identifiable emerging consensus as yet. In this case, idiosyncratic views may be included in the body of this article provided that they are clearly labelled and introduced as such, given equal amounts of attention as outlined in WP:DUE, and properly referenced.

Comments
(Reviewing Editors: Please enter any comments here)