Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szarvas Rovas inscription
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and rewrite. Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Szarvas Rovas inscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability and inclusion of content already the subject of deletion nomination. Vanisaac (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas a fringe theory content fork. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpathian Basin Rovas. This is part of a rash of articles created by the same editor, all of which are at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep and rewrite. Striking my delete above as I find Alensha's arguments convincing concerning the topic itself. I hope other editors who have access to the Hungarian sources will work on this because the current content is not acceptable and had basically been used as a coatrack for the movement's theories. I especially hope someone will check the Vékony references to see if they actually support the claims made in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree the extension of the article with the alternative theories, this is a correct method. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. Striking my delete above as I find Alensha's arguments convincing concerning the topic itself. I hope other editors who have access to the Hungarian sources will work on this because the current content is not acceptable and had basically been used as a coatrack for the movement's theories. I especially hope someone will check the Vékony references to see if they actually support the claims made in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete as a scientific description of a well-known famous relic. A transcription made by an officially acknowledged Hungarian scholar Assoc. Prof. Vékony is included, which is surely correct. However, if anybody knows a more accurate, published transcription - it is possible to include. This article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This Wikipedia article is actually verbatim from your article (which you have subsequently removed from the references):
G. Hosszú: Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
On Wikipedia you are now crediting the two transcription tables to Prof. Gabor Vékony. However, in your article they are credited to Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work [1] does not appear to be on the same scholarly level as Vékony. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your assertion that the WP article is a "scientific description". Nor does it inspire confidence that your references actually support the assertions you make, as opposed to providing a basis for original research and synthesis. Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This Wikipedia article is actually verbatim from your article (which you have subsequently removed from the references):
- Comment Thanks for checking my article. The work of Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work [2] is a catalog of the Rovas inscriptions, and he included some descriptions of the researchers. It is very usable, since it is a CD edition. He explicitly referred to Vékony. In my cited article, which was the submission of the Hungarian Standards Body (but I wrote it)
G. Hosszú: Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
I also referred to Vékony. As you see, Vékony published in Hungarian and in German. I do not know any publication of Vékony in English about the Szarvas Rovas inscription. That is why, I had to translate it to English. Obvious, that I use my own translation in every publication, where I refer to this result of Vékony. Moreover, the book of mine
Hosszú, Gábor (2011): Heritage of Scribes. The Rovas Scripts’ Relations to Eurasian Writing Systems. First edition. Budapest, ISBN 978-963-88437-4-6
is the review of the results of the Hungarian scholars besides some own results. I cited this book many times, since it is in English, oppositely the majority of the Hungarian books in the topic of Rovas scripts. However, I excluded this book from the reference, since I was criticized that I want to advertise my book. Therefore, I have to cite the original Hungarian books, only. (Anyway, I cited these books earlier as well, when I cited my book.) Please, let me know, if my reasoning was not clear. Thanks. Gábor -Rovasscript (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for checking my article. The work of Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work [2] is a catalog of the Rovas inscriptions, and he included some descriptions of the researchers. It is very usable, since it is a CD edition. He explicitly referred to Vékony. In my cited article, which was the submission of the Hungarian Standards Body (but I wrote it)
- Comment The main reason editors are !voting for deletion is that in their view these articles constitute original research and synthesis of a fringe viewpoint, not accepted by the majority of scholars in the area. Advertising your work by adding your name to the article is a secondary issue. You appear to be using Wikipedia to lend credibility to your work and gain a wider audience for your ideas and the movement with which you are closely associated, particularly since the article cited above concerns the proposal you are currently making to have this "script" approved for coding by the International Organization for Standardization.
Removing your article from the references does not change that. Worse, it masks the fact that this article is copied verbatim from it, including all the tables and illustrations. Plus, there is a serious discrepancy between the two articles concerning the reference for the tables, substituting the name of a more well-known scholar (Vékony) for the Wikipedia article. You cite Vékony (an archeologist) multiple times, mostly work from 1987, and seem to be claiming that he categorically agrees with your views and conclusions. I actually very much doubt that. Incidentally, there is an article in English from the Hungarian Quarterly which explains the controversial nature of some of Vékony's views with rebuttals and criticism from several academic linguists. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) neither this article nor any of the scholars it quotes appear in your Wikipedia articles. Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Hungarian Quarterly is not a scientific journal and the cited article was not referred in any paleography papers. Therefore, I simply did not know this paper. I thank you for including this article of Riba, since it is in English at least, and for the correctness it is necessary presenting the alternative theories as well. When I started this article, it was not my task to create a full study. Everybody can contribute. At first, I included that theory what I think the most correct. I never wrote that other approaches do not exist. -Rovasscript (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main reason editors are !voting for deletion is that in their view these articles constitute original research and synthesis of a fringe viewpoint, not accepted by the majority of scholars in the area. Advertising your work by adding your name to the article is a secondary issue. You appear to be using Wikipedia to lend credibility to your work and gain a wider audience for your ideas and the movement with which you are closely associated, particularly since the article cited above concerns the proposal you are currently making to have this "script" approved for coding by the International Organization for Standardization.
- Comment I guess you are not familiar with the Rovas scripts. However, you state without any basis that I "seem to be claiming that he categorically agrees with your views and conclusions". However, I clarified many times - and you can read this also in the several submission of mine to the ISO/WG2 (character encoding standard organization) that this concept was created by Vékony. If you do not know something, how can you state it? The fact is that you is going to justify why this article should be deleted. However, the original purpose of the AfD is to help the editors to improve the article and avoiding the deletion. What happen here is not ensuring the quality of the Wikipedia, but a completely different thing. I have no illusion: it will be deleted, despite of the fact that this contains only independent information with controllable references. This page fulfills the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk)
- Keep and rewrite. I'm not sure about the other articles (the amount of information about this subject on the internet makes it impossible to tell scientifically proven truth from nationalistic fringe theories) but the Hungarian version of this article states that this artifact was studied by András Róna-Tas, Csanád Bálint and István Vásáry (members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), who identified the alphabet to be identical with that of the writing on the Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. Its discoverer Irén Juhász is a noted archaeologist, she published this artifact in Magyar Tudomány (journal of the Hungarian Academy) and in Acta Archaeologica (I couldn't find the archives of these journals from 1983 online, but Róna-Tas himself lists them in a bibliography of a book. So the artifact is clearly notable.
Now about the validity of the translation of those runes. Gábor Vékony was a respected archaeologist who taught archaeology on ELTE (one of the most prestigious universities in Hungary). His theory merits a mention, even if it was rebutted later. (Articles like this must mention all significant theories on the subject, and if there is a debate about them, the wikiarticle should show all points of view instead of deleting the article.) Riba's rebuttal should be included too, especially as he refers to one of the academians mentioned above. – Alensha talk 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I fully agree with extending the article. In order to be accurate, some facts about István Riba: He is the editor the "HVG" (Weekly Word's Economy), an economic journal in Hungary. I never read any reference to his article in the paleographical papers. Consequently, his article cannot be taken as "rebuttal", only a "critique". However, for the correctness, I will include the reference to his article. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but he refers to the works of Róna-Tas, and those are important. Not everything in that article is Riba's opinion. – Alensha talk 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article by Ribas is a summary of the controversy, not his own opinion and I have made that clear in the text now. Further material was then added by Rovasscript, which is very unclear, slanted to support Vékony, and does not accurately summarise the key points of the Ribas article. But that's a discussion for the talk page if the article is kept. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but he refers to the works of Róna-Tas, and those are important. Not everything in that article is Riba's opinion. – Alensha talk 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully agree with extending the article. In order to be accurate, some facts about István Riba: He is the editor the "HVG" (Weekly Word's Economy), an economic journal in Hungary. I never read any reference to his article in the paleographical papers. Consequently, his article cannot be taken as "rebuttal", only a "critique". However, for the correctness, I will include the reference to his article. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I created the English version of the Hu-WP: Vékony Gábor article. -Rovasscript (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the term "Rovas" and the classification of the script are partly the problem I have moved the article to Szarvas inscription and edited the text for terminology which makes it less bad. -- Evertype·✆ 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete I really don't understand how an article should be deleted based only on the fact that its content represents/may represent an alternative theory or a minority opinion, in this case a scientific one. This fact (if its indeed the case) should be specified in the article and no rewriting is needed.
- The other point I want to make is that it is totally right for an editor to link his/her scientific article to Wikipedia and use it as source if
the article is already published.
- And there was a point that the author of this Wikipedia article wanted to promote some kind of movement by writing it. So what? Does this mean automatically that the article can't be fair and ballanced? Föld-lét (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I can see zero original research or synthesis in the article, and if you think that there is any of that kind, than it would be nice to point it out. 109.98.236.189 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, logged out somehow: Föld-lét (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.