Rationale for moving this page

This doesn't seem like an article at all, it's merely a list of publications. Even IF it could have grown to be a proper article, this list is far too long and would have made it unreadable. Maroux 11:50, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Moving the page discourages the creation of an article on the person (since it leaves a redirect). If a bio were made, then this info would belong there. Moved back. --Jiang 22:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"List of publication by Allan R. Bomhard" is also ungrammatical. --Jiang

Vigorous Objection

Why I object to the term “fringe theory” when applied to MY WORK on Nostratic as well is to the recent changes to my biographical entry: 1. My work has been published by respected academic publishers, including John Benjamins, Walter de Gruyter, and E. J. Brill. One of my books on the subject has even been included in the prestigious “Leiden Dictionary Series” published by E. J. Brill. 2. ALL of my work has been peer-reviewed by competent scholars and found to be worthy of publication. 3. ALL of the early, and much of the ongoing, criticism of the Nostratic Theory by Western (and even several Russian) scholars was/is directed toward the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč. 4. My version of Nostratic differs in crucial aspects from that of the “Moscow School” (Illič-Svityč and Dolgopolsky). Moreover, my work is also far more comprehensive, dealing with phonology, morphology, and lexicon as well as homelands, including the latest findings in multiple, interrelated disciplines. 5. Reviews of my own work have appeared in several journals. Those reviews have been mixed — some have been positive, and some have been critical. I have taken those reviews, as well as private feedback from colleagues and peer reviewers, into consideration when preparing updated versions of my work. I have attempted to address all of the criticism received in the revised versions. 6. I have made much of my work on Nostratic available for free download from various academic websites, and, altogether, it has been viewed/downloaded around 20,000 (twenty thousand) times. It would hardly attract much interest were it of questionable quality. 7. The main opposition to my views comes from supporters of the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč, almost exclusively from a handful of Russian scholars. However, by their own admission, they have an agenda, namely, promoting the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč at all costs. 8. I have dealt decisively with those Russian scholars who defend the work of V. M. Illič-Svityč in a 192-page review (originally prepared in 2021, updated on 12 August 2023) of Illič-Svityč’s Nostratic Dictionary. That review is available for free download from academia.edu and Researchgate. 9. My work on Nostratic forms only a part of my scholarship. I have also made important contributions to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Altaic studies. That work has been favorably cited in publications by numerous reputable scholars. A list of my publications is available for free download from academia.edu. 10. Finally, I get invited to lecture all over the world, and those doing the inviting pay my travel, accommodation, and meal expenses. This would not happen were I advocating "fringe theories".

Let me attempt to break this down one by one
My work has been published by respected academic publishers
I understand that, and those sources are mentioned on Wikipedia. That said, that does not make them accepted theories, merely published ones. Please see WP:PARITY. One book published with Brill does not override the majority of historical linguistis on this topic, and there are an abundance of citations to that effect. I mean no disrespect with this, and clearly you've put an enormous amount of effort into this work, but Mass Comparison is not an accepted technique for determining familial relationships in linguistics.
ALL of my work has been peer-reviewed by competent scholars and found to be worthy of publication.
Mere publication does not meet the standard for inclusion. We need to treat published sources with due weight (see WP:UNDUE) and just because a theory is published in peer review does not mean it's accepted.
ALL of the early, and much of the ongoing, criticism of the Nostratic Theory by Western (and even several Russian) scholars was/is directed toward the views of V. M. Illič-Svityč.
That the objections weren't specifically directed at you doesn't mean that they don't apply to your approach to the theory. Of course, it doesn't mean they do, but you need to provide peer reviewed evidence that they're more accepted. Do so, and I think you'd find that none of us would have too strong an issue including it in the article, though we're not going to treat an extreme minority perspective as co-equal with the majority of linguists. Again, WP:PARITY.
My version of Nostratic differs in crucial aspects from that of the “Moscow School”....
If your theories have merit I'm certain you can provide outside scholarship accepting them more widely in linguistics. I do not intend this as a personal attack, I just merely think you're overweighting the value of publication relative to the wider acceptance of what is published. Your particular take on Nostratic is no more accepted than any other, it's merely different, as I understand it. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm open to reading sources to that effect. I want to build a good encyclopedic article, not attack you.
Reviews of my own work have appeared in several journals...
Wikipedia is not the place to make that case (or for me to criticize it). See WP:ADVOCACY.
I have made much of my work on Nostratic available for free download from various academic websites, and, altogether, it has been viewed/downloaded around 20,000 (twenty thousand) times. It would hardly attract much interest were it of questionable quality.
Publishing is not a popularity contest, and yes, fringe theories often are quite popular.
The main opposition to my views comes from supporters of...
"All my detractors have an agenda" is absolutely the language of fringe theory. You're discounting the general wide rejection of the theory within historical linguists. Again, none of us here have any issue with working with you to include verifiable and more widely accepted material, or even to discuss material that's been discussed more widely in linguistics circles. We're just asking you to provide sources for your statements prior to their inclusion. In the past your editing history appears to almost exclusively be to introduce your own written content into the theories in question, which isn't kosher here.
My work on Nostratic forms only a part of my scholarship. I have also made important contributions to Indo-European, Afroasiatic, and Altaic studies.
That seems like the sort of thing that probably should be included in the article about you. If you'd provide some sources for us I'm sure I and a few other editors will make an effort to include them. Note that your prior attempts to edit out the comments about people being critical of your work won't fly; we're working on an encyclopedia article, not writing a puff piece (or an attack article, to be clear).
Finally, I get invited to lecture all over the world, and those doing the inviting pay my travel, accommodation, and meal expenses. This would not happen were I advocating "fringe theories".
This is a non sequitur, people less credible than yourself are invited to give talks all the time.
Again, none of us are setting out to create an attack article, and I appreciate the enormous amount of time that went into creating your work. That said, just because it's a passion project for you and represents a significant and respectable intellectual effort, does not mean it warrants being treated as more credible than it is viewed by the larger linguistics community. Nobody here is trying to be disrespectful or setting out to editorialize the understanding of Nostratic that exists per your papers, but you cannot expect Wikipedia to reflect your preferred version of this topic when the wider community disagrees. If you have specific edits you'd like to see, again, I suggest you provide sourced arguments (keeping WP:RS and WP:PARITY in mind) and other editors will work to discuss their inclusion. You may also enjoy engaging with the Linguistics Wikiproject on this topic, rather than the talk page of this article, as more people will be able to see it. Warrenmck (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You simply do not know what you are talking about. Please remove my biographical entry from Wikipedia. Thank you. 2603:6080:7200:BD6D:1A7:93EE:D464:C481 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

From reading the comments of Wikipedia contributors, both in relation to my biographical entry as well as the entry on Nostratic, it is clear that several of these contributors are not familiar with the most recent scholarship across several fields. For example, Altaic/Transeurasian is hardly a dead or rejected field. It has recently received new attention on the part of several reputable scholars. "Contoversial" perhaps, but hardly a "fringe theory". And so on, and so forth in other areas. This makes me question the credentials of some Wikipedia contributors and whether they are really entitled to the opinions they are so confidently expressing. Arbomhard (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories