Talk:Mario Alinei

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Tag as Unbalanced

Mario Alinei is the proponent of distinctly minority points of view: on the methods of historical linguistics, on the Uralic languages, on Etruscan, and on European archaeology and prehistory. I don't feel that this article, as it currently stands is balanced, in that fails to mention that most specialists on these subjects, almost without exception, reject Alinei's ideas. The difficulty, however, is that Alinei is so almost universally regarded as unserious, that hardly anyone reliable ever bothers to say so. I feel that links to Alinei's own material should be reduced, references to the handful of criticisms of Alinei that exist should be found and added, and a summary of what is thought to be wrong with Alinei's ideas added to the article. Bofoc Tagar 13:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

feel free to fix it. dab (𒁳) 07:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream linguistic IE theory is full of bugs, archeologically absurd and ideologically biased, (just have a look at Renfrew's if you don't like Alinei's papers), so I don't see why Alinei could not have the permission to express his ideas. I don't see either why the author of one of the most significant works against this widely indefensible IE Theory, being moreover professor emeritus from the University of Utrecht etc. should request your approval for an article in the Wikipedia;

By the way, I find rather suspicious your desire to censor the references to Alinei's papers; that's not the sign of a very scientific spirit. Nor is your spiteful anger against Alinei either. Just try and re-read yourself "The difficulty, however, is that Alinei is so almost universally regarded as unserious, that hardly anyone reliable ever bothers to say so". You did.

What I consider as really unserious and rethorically preposterous is sentences like this one : "most specialists on these subjects, almost without exception, reject Alinei's ideas". Good. Who ? Where ? Which papers ? Which books ? Which arguments ?

Kentel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentel (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic Continuity Theory appears to be taken seriously by at least 11 academic writers. Is this overlooked simply because the haplessly monolingual majority of English wikipedia editors cannot read most of the papers?

All I've seen on wikipedia thus far is a lot of hand-waving by essentially anonymous wikipedia editors that Mario Alinei is a lunatic on the fringe and is considered so by everybody... without a single citation to that effect, of course. If indeed this seemingly highly respected and widely acknowledge professor is universally disgraced on account of his more recent theories, it should be rather trivial to show citations to that effect. I'd love to see some... --198.103.167.20 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you guys don't understand how historical linguistics works (and, quite possibly, science in general), doesn't mean that it's bunk. Renfrew's thesis is implausible for various reasons, but not insane from the outset; Alinei's "theory" (which is anything but), on the other hand, is, frankly, idiotic - not only pure hogwash, but dangerous on top of it. Read this article by distinguished expert, Don Ringe, and this comment by Mark Liberman with further references. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's not just linguists who take issue with Alinei's quaint ideas. I came here from Talk:Homo erectus#New pic (go to the end of the section), which, despite a digression, proved fortuitious in the end, as through the search terms "Mario Alinei crank" I discovered the wonderful article above, which just came in quite handy for another purpose. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone notice that "Alinei" is just one letter swap short of alieni, the Italian word for "extraterrestrials"? (Which also leads to a few Google hits where his name has evidently been misspelt as "Mario Alieni".) How fitting given that his speculations are of a crackpot level comparable only to Ancient Aliens. ;-)

By the way, somebody with the user name "Alinei22" just tried to get the article listed for deletion ... Maybe he should get his wish, under the condition that we are allowed to expunge all mention of him and his ideas from article space too. @Dbachmann: What do you think? Curious, isn't it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

a book is missin in his bibliography

please add:

Gli Etruschi erano Turchi. Dalla scopeta delle affinità genetiche alle conferme linguistiche e culturali, 2013 UzunbacakAdem (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Uzunbacak Adem