User talk:Nasz/a

About the correct spelling of the Rohonc/zi Codex
Dear Nasz,

I do not understand your logic in insisting on the old orthography of the Rohonc Codex.

Imagine the following situation: let's suppose that a 17th century English author wrote a book about "Shaxpear", who is actually Shakespeare (author of Romeo and Juliet, and others), but the 17th century English orthography would allow this diversity in the spelling of the name. Now suppose that his book was published in Neverland in 1999, and the simple Neverlandian people who had never had any books, and so never heard about either Shakespeare or "Shaxpear", they take this latter spelling as official. Now suppose that the first to write a Wiki article about Shakespeare is a Neverlandian, and therefore he creates it under the title "Shaxpear". After some time, the rest of the world would notice the strange spelling, and correct it to "Shakespeare". Would you feel it unjust?

This is approximately how I see our situation. Since WWII, using the old Hungarian orthograhy in scholarly communication is a sign of unscholarly or uneducated behaviour (but at least ridiculous and imprecise). Now, thanks to Viorica Enachiuc (whose scholarship is also doubted my many), this unscholarly, or at least ridiculously outdated reference is being spread on the Internet. I do not blame the Romanian Bogdan Guisca, the creator of the Rohonczi page for this error, as he only had access to this information. Just as, in the imaginary story above, the simple Neverlandian Wikipedian had never heard that the world calls their "Shaxpear" -- Shakespeare. The simple Neverlandian should not behave huffy when s/he is corrected by everyone else.

You can check this "everyone" in the bibliography. (Tóth B., Pintér, Gyürk, Nyíri etc. but first of all Csapodi, who is the publisher of the recent catalogue of the Library where the codex is held.) The only thing that may be an error is the hyphen in some of the references (that is, whether Rohonci-kódex or Rohonci kódex or both are correct), and I am going to double check that in Csapodi's catalogue in the following days. About the two references in Turán - you must know that they are almost only accepted scientific or scholarly, by themselves. If you examine Mahesh Kumar Singh's "hoax-transcription", or read several issues of Turán to get a picture of them (as I did), you will also see what this is based on. But in any case you may consult somebody at the Academy of Sciences, you have the link in the article.

Now this was all about the Hungarian spelling. Of course when I speak or write in English, I use English grammar, so I drop the adjectival modifier "-i" at the end of place names: You can also see this "-i" in usage in the names of codices, for example in the article about the Hungarian Hussite Bible, where the Vienna Codex ("Bécsi kódex" from "Bécs" = Vienna), and the Munich Codex ("Müncheni kódex" from "München" = Munich) are mentioned. I do not think that either English or German scholars would ever use a Hungarian adjectival modifier when they speak about the Vienna or Munich Codex in English or German. That is why it seems to me both most precise and most natural to use the English expression "Rohonc Codex" when I am referring to that book which the Hungarians call "Rohonci kódex".

I am planning to translate the English Rohonci page into Hungarian. Of course, that would be named "Rohonci kódex" or "Rohonci-kódex", whichever is the most correct.

I expect that you respond only after you have understood what I wrote above. If you are still sceptical, please consult the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. If you have no command of Hungarian, you should still be able to communicate with them in English, German, French, or Russian, and perhaps in other European languages too.

Regards,

Terminus Technicus 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

warning
here is your requested source, would you like me to print it out and fly over to deliver it personally? I ask you to stop trolling the article now, or face a block for disruption. If you have a case to make, make it in coherent English, on a talkpage. Also stop blanking your talkpage while I am talking to you, it is discourteous, and considered dishonest. dab (𒁳) 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have no objection to Image:R1a EU distribution.jpg except that it is copyvio. You just ripped it from a commercial website. This is not good faith editing. If you sit down and redraw it, I will thank you, since it is a good map, but you'd need to cite the studies it is based on as well. Editing Wikipedia is work, not random prancing around. dab (𒁳) 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok now your writing makes sense. I apologize the way I prompted you (Burrito from 2005) to revile sources in this post. Next time try giving the sources at once. I will do correction. I think when you examine the data from other sources you will modify your picture. Its difficult to blindly accept your words the data is not "correct", ... That's how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter what you "know", but if you can cite other sources, we can include those too  .I just get impression that you know that the source you use is not confirmed fully by other scholars including those from India. I think you use this source because it fit your POV you trying to force in WP. Does it matter for you to sincerely report the information and to make the best effort to not highlight the false data?
 * Nasz 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)