This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia
My deletion of text referring to Jolkesky's 2017 non-peer reviewed proposal for a genetic link between Paez and Zapotecan has been reverted by an anonymous editor. I believe that inclusion of this proposal is WP:UNDUE since its arguments have neither been peer-reviewed nor adopted by other researchers. Nasua Narica (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of such proposals on Wikipedia that have not been peer-reviewed, but are reasonably well supported by good arguments. Generally, a proposal can be included if the author shows a good track record of serious academic publications and is not just another random conspiracy theorist on the Internet. Including the proposal does not imply that it is the truth, but rather shows how it is one out of many hypotheses. You can ask @Kwamikagami: and other editors about this. I'm restoring the paragraph for now. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took it out again. Two problems -- its' only "perhaps genetic" but it's in the classification section, and of course that a genetic connection would have to be with OM, not just Zapotecan. But that wouldn't be so bad if we had several paragraphs of contradictory proposals. The fact that this is the only proposal that we cover in the classification section violates WEIGHT in my opinion -- not because it's not peer-reviewed (as Sago notes, there are a lot of proposed classifications we mention in various articles that aren't peer-reviewed), but because spending 2/3 of the classification section on this one unlikely idea is completely out of proportion to its notability. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
