Diskusija:Indoeiropieši

The term Indoeiropieši in conjunction with ārieši

I believe on this site exist a contradiction with the correct understanding of “ārieši”. This article says that “Indoeiropieši“ is more or less a synonym to “ārieši“. This is not 100% correct. The real synonym to “ārieši“ is Proto-Indoeiropieši. For more information related this thematic see the English “Proto-Indo-Europeans”, the French “Proto-indo-européens” or the German “Proto-Indoeuropäer” wiki site. I know, especially in the English linguistic area there are sometimes problems with an exact differing between “Indo-Europeans“ (Indoeiropieši) and “Proto-Indo-Europeans“ (Proto-Indoeiropieši). Normally the term Indo-Europeans describes all (today's and also historical) native indo-european speakers, the indo-european ethnic group, but not their original “Stammväter” the Proto- Indoeiropieši. (Sorry, I don’t know the exact English translation.) --lorn10 12:41, 16. Jan 2006 (CEST)

Currently ārieši redirects to indoeiropieši. According to this (your) definition, this article is about ārieši more than about indoeiropieši. Here seems not to be an article, which would describe term indoeiropieši, at all. --Yyy 15:00, 16 janvārī, 2006 (UTC)

As I know indoeiropieši in Latvian is synonym to Proto-Indo-Europeans in English. There are not exact term of English Indo-Europeans for Latvian. Only Indoeiropiešu valodas for Indo-European languages.--Feens 18:37, 16 janvārī, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is, and was never, “my” personal definition. The only article on which I have real worked is the German “Proto-Indoeuropäer” page. And this is almost an exact translation from the English and French site. You can look on the page history; at the English and French site I have only corrected the interwiki links. It seems that this (you say “my”) is the “normal” point of view in this topic.

If the Indoeiropieši article contains really more Aryan related information’s, I think it’s better to remove all indoeiropieši interwiki-links, or someone will correct this “contradiction“.

And Feens, you have as well right, in the English area exist is al lot of literature which (also) hasn’t an exact differing between “Indo-Europeans“ (Indoeiropieši) and “Proto-Indo-Europeans“ (Proto-Indoeiropieši). But I ask you, what is the most important directive in the whole Wikipedia-Vision? I believe, not to overtake wrong or incorrect information’s. The Wikipedia is the perfect place to accurate misunderstandings like this. However, it’s better to wait with large changes until a real “professional” in this matter have checked our little “confusion”. --lorn10 10:03, 18. Jan 2006 (CET)

Yesterday I talk with some profesional and he told me that in Latvia also some specialists use, but some don't use word Pirmsindoeiropieši/Protoindoeiropieši (Proto-Indo-Europeans). I don't know what to do :)) --Feens 10:16, 18 janvārī, 2006 (UTC)

Hi Feens! Interesting, but I think for the moment it’s better to forget our “proto” contradiction, it’s much more important to create a clean and truthfully “Indoeiropieši” article. So, one of the first steps will be, to move all “ārieši” related information to its own “ārieši” article. If that’s done, someone must create the article “Indoeiropieši” completely new. I now, this will be hard, but don’t confuse; you can grab a lot of information from other “Indoeiropieši” article. I suggest you to look at the French or the “Lietuvių” site (The English and German are not as good / exact):

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-europ%C3%A9ens

http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoeuropie%C4%8Diai

If that’s finished, someone can make also a new “Protondoeiropieši” or “Pirmsindoeiropieši” article, but, as said, this is not so essential. Please remember the following explanation:

• Indo-Europeans describe the (today's) speakers of an Indo-European language. This term is sometimes also used to define some “ethnic / physical” parameters, but this meaning is still highly controversial.

• Proto-Indo-Europeans describe the (original) speakers of the (one) Proto-Indo-European language (comparably with Latin, which is the mother language of all Romanic languages). Further this term also explains a hypothetical ethnic group; however this is not in all places 100% accepted. --lorn10 21:45, 05. March 2006 (CET)