Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups

from VfD:

Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups
A duplicate of Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups. The same arguments (except lemma orthography) apply. We neither need nor want separate "critique" articles, not even as playground for cranks. If it encyclopedic, it needs to be included in the NPOV presentation of the main article. If it is unencyclopedic, it shouldn't be in any article, except perhaps List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. --Pjacobi 15:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page was made into a redirect to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups. If that page is eventually deleted, the redirect can be speedily deleted. Hence, this VfD doesn't seem relevant anymore. --Dbenbenn 00:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * delete. I listed this page for speedy deletion, since it's a copy-move of Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups  --Dbenbenn 23:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * rename Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups and redirect. Isn't "Critique" the correct term?  "Critic" makes it sound like one person (and maybe it is, but...) Gsd97jks 21:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, borderline crank, original research (insufficient evidence of peer-review, strong political agenda). Wyss 23:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it is not original research. Please look at the references, these are resources. It is based on resource of others, also on the word lists, swadesh lists, etc.. Antifinnugor

Talk:Finno-Ugric_languages, dab (&#5839;) 10:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * COMMENT This is the proper title, I make no comment on the article content itself, but based purely on duplication deletion, then Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups should be deleted, and turned into a redirect to this page. 132.205.15.43 03:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * rename move the two pages into one. Antifinnugor 09:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. but note that the duplication was a clumsy attempt at pagemoving, an not intended as spam. (i.e. the "Critic" one would have become a redirect). I originally supported the creation of a detailed article of FU criticism. In my understanding, an article should be deleted if the title has no promise of becoming a relevant article, while the content may of course be changed without deletion. However, in the weeks of discussion about the issue, no material worthy of more than a brief paragraph has come to light, and I do not think the article has any promise until more detail is accumulated in the Criticism section on Finno-Ugric. (so far, I have seen one peer-reviewed linguist "debunking" FU, and the peer-review I have seen about that work was utterly condemning. This one instance is still mentioned in the main article. This article could be about the political controversy in Hungary, but asking for such an article is asking for trouble. But I think Magyar nationalism would be the proper place to discuss these things.
 * Magyar nationalism? You mean Antimagyar defamation page? Antifinnugor 18:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete or put it into a Magyar nationalism article, as proposed by Dab.--Wiglaf 10:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Magyar nationalism? You mean Antimagyar defamation page?
 * Delete Insofar as it does include encyclopaedic information, that information either belongs at Uralic languages or in a Magyar nationalism article.Hedgehog 14:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Magyar nationalism? You mean Antimagyar defamation page?

end moved discussion

Why isn't this article (merged and) deleted?
It seems to me, the VfD should have resulted in deletion. The general policy to not accept POV forks of articles is enecated every day.

But for this time I didn't put the VfD or Merge label in, but only a NPOV warning, until all related Rf* are processed. --Pjacobi 22:12, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * I made this page a redirect to the "correct" title, Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups. Whether that page is a redirect itself at any given moment is a random function of Antifinnugor's activity level.  But the double redirect doesn't matter, since no main-namespace pages link here.  dbenbenn | talk 23:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

pjacobi, you nominated this page for deletion. The other editors decided to keep it. Why can you not accept simple rules and decision of other editors? You need arguments for npov label, as the label states. rf*s are a completely different subject. Please try to keep the wikipedia rules. If you keep vandalizing this page, you force me to open an rfa against you because of that. Thanks, antifinnugor 19:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 5 votes delete
 * 1 vote redirect
 * 1 vote keep
 * 1 vote abstain
 * Pjacobi 21:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

RfC
Here's my (professional linguist's) 5 cents for the RfC. This page is complete, utter, unsalvagable bollocks. Should have been deleted long ago. Fringiest of fringe crank POV pushing, presenting nonsense hypotheses (Sumerian influence on Basque!) and downright obvious falsities (Persian "Turanian"!) as facts. Worthless. I will support renewed AfD, but waiting to see what the actual editors think. Lukas (T. 21:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still here? Actually there were several copies of it and I think at least one of the clones went to AFD and got deleted more than a year ago. See above. -- nyenyec &#9742; 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Lukas Pietsch
Lucas Pietsch. Yeah. Well known over the web, primarily for his hatred, racism and defamation. I am really sorry for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam88 (talk • contribs) 3 March 2006, 09:16.

protected
there was a vfd over this, resulting in redirect. There was an arbcom decision banning the one user who kept reverting for a year (the ban may have expired now, depending on whether it was reset when the user violated it). If you want this article unprotected, establish a consensus here on talk first. dab (&#5839;) 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * protection (and also permanent vandalisation by redirect) is a clear misuse of the administration privileges of dbachmann, and protection of his vandalismus. This is a valid page, the editor's vote shows it. Please unprotect it immediately. Thanks, Adam88 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * don't bother, you wouldn't recognize policy if they shoved your nose in it. dab (&#5839;) 15:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)