Talk:Hunor and Magor: Difference between revisions
comment |
→NPOV dispute over removed text: new section |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The anon above really says it all. These alleged claims are so fringy and so laughable they don't deserve even a passing mention, even under [[WP:FRINGE]]. Even a fringe view, if it is to be presented as a "notable" one, needs reliable sources. Right now, we don't even know who these two guys are supposed to be, let alone what they have published (except for some web pages mentioning them.) In particular "T. R. Michels" never seems to be mentioned in connection with Hungarian outside Wikipedia. Hamori has one whopping passing mention in google books and zero on google scholar. I'm going to remove these claims again, and the burden of evidence is clearly on whoever wishes to keep them to demonstrate these claims are verifiable and notable. We really could spare us all the trouble by applying a bit of common sense. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
The anon above really says it all. These alleged claims are so fringy and so laughable they don't deserve even a passing mention, even under [[WP:FRINGE]]. Even a fringe view, if it is to be presented as a "notable" one, needs reliable sources. Right now, we don't even know who these two guys are supposed to be, let alone what they have published (except for some web pages mentioning them.) In particular "T. R. Michels" never seems to be mentioned in connection with Hungarian outside Wikipedia. Hamori has one whopping passing mention in google books and zero on google scholar. I'm going to remove these claims again, and the burden of evidence is clearly on whoever wishes to keep them to demonstrate these claims are verifiable and notable. We really could spare us all the trouble by applying a bit of common sense. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
== NPOV dispute over removed text == |
|||
Hamori and other published authors are of the view that there are connections or close parallels between elements of this legend, and various Sumerian legends. |
|||
It seems this view has run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge" because they wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader, which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about, and all of the numerous published authors who have written or hypothesized about possible Hungarian-Sumerian connections, fall into the category of "things they'd rather people did not read about", n0twithstanding the fact it is readily available elsewhere on the web. This is totally against the NPOV policy and the basic philosophy of wikipedia, because we are only supposed to describe ALL of the points of view neutrally, even those regarded by some as "fringe", not decide which ones to suppress or [[damnatio memoriae|damn their memory to non-existence]]. Therefore I feel this case may have to go up for mediation, or even arbitration if necessary. [[User:Til Eulenspiegel|Til Eulenspiegel]] ([[User talk:Til Eulenspiegel|talk]]) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:58, 29 August 2008
F. Hamori, T. R. Michels Why, oh why are these two "scholars" mentioned in virtually every article related to Hungarian legends and Hungarian pre-history? They are fringe-figures, their theories are regarded as unscientific as those of Erik von Daniken. If I were to write a book about the similarities between the Hungarian word 'mag' meaning 'seed' and the name Magor and that this would suggest that Hungarians are in fact related to trees would you include my 'work' as well? - Peace be with you.
Fringe stuff
The anon above really says it all. These alleged claims are so fringy and so laughable they don't deserve even a passing mention, even under WP:FRINGE. Even a fringe view, if it is to be presented as a "notable" one, needs reliable sources. Right now, we don't even know who these two guys are supposed to be, let alone what they have published (except for some web pages mentioning them.) In particular "T. R. Michels" never seems to be mentioned in connection with Hungarian outside Wikipedia. Hamori has one whopping passing mention in google books and zero on google scholar. I'm going to remove these claims again, and the burden of evidence is clearly on whoever wishes to keep them to demonstrate these claims are verifiable and notable. We really could spare us all the trouble by applying a bit of common sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
NPOV dispute over removed text
Hamori and other published authors are of the view that there are connections or close parallels between elements of this legend, and various Sumerian legends.
It seems this view has run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge" because they wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader, which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about, and all of the numerous published authors who have written or hypothesized about possible Hungarian-Sumerian connections, fall into the category of "things they'd rather people did not read about", n0twithstanding the fact it is readily available elsewhere on the web. This is totally against the NPOV policy and the basic philosophy of wikipedia, because we are only supposed to describe ALL of the points of view neutrally, even those regarded by some as "fringe", not decide which ones to suppress or damn their memory to non-existence. Therefore I feel this case may have to go up for mediation, or even arbitration if necessary. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)