481:. 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 VĂ©kony. 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 Knowledge, 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 Knowledge. -
237:'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 VĂ©kony references to see if they actually support the claims made in the article.
523:
402:
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
275:
as a scientific description of a well-known famous relic. A transcription made by an officially acknowledged
Hungarian scholar Assoc. Prof. VĂ©kony is included, which is surely correct. However, if anybody knows a more accurate, published transcription - it is possible to include. This article fulfill
375:
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
417:
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 (VĂ©kony) for the
Knowledge article. You cite VĂ©kony (an archeologist) multiple times, mostly
447:
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
549:
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
313:
does not appear to be on the same scholarly level as VĂ©kony. 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
532:
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
721:
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
501:
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
349:
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 VĂ©kony. In my cited article, which was the submission of the
Hungarian Standards Body (but I wrote it)
424:
which explains the controversial nature of some of VĂ©kony'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
Knowledge articles.
448:
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. -
149:
376:
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 -
735:
And there was a point that the author of this Knowledge 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?
581:, which is very unclear, slanted to support VĂ©kony, 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.
418:
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
533:
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. –
209:
143:
407:
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
363:. 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 VĂ©kony. Moreover, the book of mine
310:
On Knowledge 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
673:
110:
648:
624:
577:
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
408:
83:
78:
87:
755:
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.
70:
359:
I also referred to VĂ©kony. As you see, VĂ©kony published in Hungarian and in German. I do not know any publication of VĂ©kony in English about the
727:
The other point I want to make is that it is totally right for an editor to link his/her scientific article to Knowledge and use it as source if
510:
and István Vásáry (members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), who identified the alphabet to be identical with that of the writing on the
370:
213:
756:
164:
131:
347:
311:
17:
366:
Hosszú, Gábor (2011): Heritage of Scribes. The Rovas Scripts’ Relations to Eurasian Writing Systems. First edition. Budapest,
74:
511:
125:
772:
745:
711:
688:
663:
638:
615:
590:
572:
564:
Yes, but he refers to the works of Róna-Tas, and those are important. Not everything in that article is Riba's opinion. –
559:
541:
457:
434:
385:
331:
285:
263:
246:
225:
189:
52:
522:(I couldn't find the archives of these journals from 1983 online, but RĂłna-Tas himself lists them in a bibliography of a
356:. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
307:. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
121:
413:
Removing your article from the references does not change that. Worse, it masks the fact that this article is copied
787:
360:
171:
66:
58:
36:
786:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
699:
Since the term "Rovas" and the classification of the script are partly the problem I have moved the article to
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
760:
550:"rebuttal", only a "critique". However, for the correctness, I will include the reference to his article. -
684:
659:
586:
430:
327:
242:
221:
768:
741:
636:
611:
555:
486:
453:
381:
281:
259:
503:
137:
700:
157:
764:
737:
403:
using Knowledge to lend credibility to your work and gain a wider audience for your ideas and the
708:
519:
477:
I guess you are not familiar with the Rovas scripts. However, you state without any basis that I
185:
254:
I agree the extension of the article with the alternative theories, this is a correct method. -
680:
655:
582:
570:
539:
426:
367:
323:
238:
217:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
507:
631:
607:
578:
551:
482:
449:
377:
277:
255:
201:
529:
205:
514:. Its discoverer Irén Juhász is a noted archaeologist, she published this artifact in
704:
319:
181:
420:
565:
534:
315:
234:
49:
479:"seem to be claiming that he categorically agrees with your views and conclusions"
353:
304:
104:
180:
Notability and inclusion of content already the subject of deletion nomination.
346:
Thanks for checking my article. The work of Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work
404:
354:
Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS
305:
Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS
301:
from your article (which you have subsequently removed from the references):
606:
I created the English version of the Hu-WP: Vékony Gábor article. -
780:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
703:
and edited the text for terminology which makes it less bad. --
528:
Now about the validity of the translation of those runes.
100:
96:
92:
763:) 09:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, logged out somehow:
210:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Carpathian Basin Rovas
156:
216:
created by the same editor, all of which are at AfD.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
790:). No further edits should be made to this page.
409:International Organization for Standardization
674:list of Language-related deletion discussions
170:
8:
672:Note: This debate has been included in the
649:list of Hungary-related deletion discussions
647:Note: This debate has been included in the
625:list of History-related deletion discussions
623:Note: This debate has been included in the
671:
646:
622:
518:(journal of the Hungarian Academy) and in
526:. So the artifact is clearly notable.
233:. Striking my delete above as I find
7:
276:the requirements of the Knowledge. -
731:the article is already published.
297:This Knowledge article is actually
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
512:Treasure of NagyszentmiklĂłs
807:
361:Szarvas Rovas inscription
67:Szarvas Rovas inscription
59:Szarvas Rovas inscription
783:Please do not modify it.
773:09:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
746:08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
712:14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
689:05:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
664:05:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
639:18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
616:09:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
591:06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
573:20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
560:08:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
542:23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
458:07:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
435:08:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
386:06:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
332:17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
286:14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
264:08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
247:06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
226:11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
190:10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
53:03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
212:. This is part of a
701:Szarvas inscription
421:Hungarian Quarterly
520:Acta Archaeologica
44:The result was
691:
677:
666:
652:
641:
628:
499:Keep and rewrite.
371:978-963-88437-4-6
316:original research
798:
785:
678:
653:
629:
568:
537:
231:Keep and rewrite
214:rash of articles
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
46:Keep and rewrite
34:
806:
805:
801:
800:
799:
797:
796:
795:
794:
788:deletion review
781:
566:
535:
516:Magyar Tudomány
504:András Róna-Tas
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
804:
802:
793:
792:
776:
775:
757:109.98.236.189
749:
748:
729:
728:
724:
723:
715:
714:
693:
692:
668:
667:
643:
642:
619:
618:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
527:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
439:
438:
392:
391:
390:
389:
338:
337:
336:
335:
289:
288:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
803:
791:
789:
784:
778:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
734:
733:
732:
726:
725:
720:
719:Do not delete
717:
716:
713:
710:
706:
702:
698:
695:
694:
690:
686:
682:
675:
670:
669:
665:
661:
657:
650:
645:
644:
640:
637:
635:
634:
626:
621:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
601:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
571:
569:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
548:
545:
544:
543:
540:
538:
531:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:Csanád Bálint
505:
500:
497:
496:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
459:
455:
451:
446:
443:
442:
441:
440:
437:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
416:
410:
406:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
388:
387:
383:
379:
373:
372:
369:
364:
362:
357:
355:
348:
345:
342:
341:
340:
339:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
308:
306:
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:Do not delete
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
194:
193:
192:
191:
187:
183:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
782:
779:
752:
730:
718:
696:
681:Voceditenore
656:Voceditenore
633:I, Jethrobot
632:
603:
583:Voceditenore
546:
530:Gábor Vékony
515:
498:
478:
474:
444:
427:Voceditenore
419:
414:
412:
399:
374:
365:
358:
351:
343:
324:Voceditenore
309:
302:
298:
294:
272:
251:
239:Voceditenore
230:
218:Voceditenore
206:content fork
196:
195:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
608:Rovasscript
579:Rovasscript
552:Rovasscript
483:Rovasscript
450:Rovasscript
378:Rovasscript
352:G. HosszĂş:
303:G. HosszĂş:
278:Rovasscript
256:Rovasscript
144:free images
320:synthesis
765:Föld-lét
738:Föld-lét
705:Evertype
415:verbatim
405:movement
299:verbatim
182:Vanisaac
111:View log
753:Comment
722:needed.
697:Comment
604:Comment
567:Alensha
547:Comment
536:Alensha
475:Comment
445:Comment
400:Comment
344:Comment
295:Comment
252:Comment
235:Alensha
204:theory
150:WPÂ refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
208:. See
202:fringe
197:Delete
122:Google
88:delete
200:as a
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
769:talk
761:talk
742:talk
685:talk
660:talk
612:talk
587:talk
556:talk
524:book
487:talk
454:talk
431:talk
382:talk
368:ISBN
328:talk
318:and
282:talk
260:talk
243:talk
222:talk
186:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
172:TWL
109:– (
771:)
744:)
687:)
676:.
662:)
651:.
630:—
627:.
614:)
589:)
558:)
506:,
456:)
433:)
384:)
330:)
322:.
284:)
262:)
245:)
224:)
188:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
767:(
759:(
740:(
709:✆
707:·
683:(
679:—
658:(
654:—
610:(
585:(
554:(
489:)
485:(
452:(
429:(
411:.
380:(
326:(
280:(
258:(
241:(
220:(
184:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.