User:Antifinnugor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Greeting
2 Motto
3 Clique
4 Links
5 Users

[edit] Greeting

Hi, I greet the other editors of the wikipedia. Have a nice time here.

I am primarily interested in - linguistic - History - Countries

[edit] Motto

As the name indicates, I am researching the motivation behind setting up the linguistically unlogical and unnatural artificial mini groups, the uralic and finno-ugric group. These are the pages I am talking about: User:Antifinnugor/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups, Finno-Ugric_languages and Uralic languages

[edit] Problems with the fu&uralic pages

The "scientific" methods of the promoters are today not different from those before 150 years:

Use wrong typology, that does not mention, that the similarities are the ones of the Turanian group, to that also belong Basque, Turkish, Armenian, Persian, Sumerian, Etruscian and other languages.
Fail to mention the numerous and fundamental grammatical differences in the uralic group
Set up erroneous cognate lists, even in the less then one dozen words there are numerous unsimilar elements. Stating, that there are 200 cognates, in reality less than ten.
In the cognate list putting words, that have completely other meaning into the same row suggesting they all have the meaning of the English word. Writing English words into the Hungarian column.
Fail to present a basic word list. If criticizers present one, they immediately delete it without arguments (as usual), with no comment or zynical/brazen comments.
Fail to mention, how unsimilar are the languages both in dictionary and in grammar
Fail to mention the important differences in the phoneme set and morphology.
mentioning completely unrelevant linguistic features like palatalization without explanation of any kind, why they do that.
Their typology list is completely unstructured, unlogical, almost unreadable.
In their "critic" section they criticize and defame the criticizers rather than the wrong theory
On their promoting pages they give no explanation of any kind of the so called "features", also there is no grouping there, and they use unappropriate wording like modern or innovative for languages.
They show very few links to alternative sides, even though there are quite a number of them. For example, the FU page fails to link to Dr.Marácz article about the unteniability of the Finno-Ugric theory.

[edit] Methods of the promoters

But the most interesting are their methods against the criticizers of their theory:

Call the criticizers charlatan, troll, what they write fecal or a piece of junk How fine, isn't it?
According to their own words, they want to butcher the critique article. This came from one promoter, (Dbachmann) who himself suggested previously to write a critique page. What a correct behaviour.
The same finnougrist calls others to vandalize the critic page: Thanks again for collecting this material. (you may want to help turn Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups back into a redirect) — please open the RfC, I will sign it immediately. dab
Nominate critique pages for deletion
Do not respect the democratic votes and unscrupulously redirect and/or delete the page contents
Unscrupulously delete everything the criticizers write onto the promoting pages of the theory without discussion of any kind with no comment or zynical/brazen comments. They do not let a single character from criticizers remain on the original page.
Add all kind of "dubious" "needs discussion" and similar signs to the critique page without a word of discussion, without mentioning any kind of reason.
They change the text of the critic page: criticizers say to one criticizer says. How intelligent and convincing.
When their promotion pages get signed as "needs discussion" and they get a long list of problems, they answer briefly in fact saying nothing, ignore the answer that states, the problems are still there, and remove the sign "page needs discussion" instantly.
To questions regarding their page, that does not explain much, they either do not answer, or give arrogant answers like: 'You're apparently not a linguist, and I don't see why you waste so much time persisting in dictating the content in this article. --sign of author
They redirect referring to some completely unknown consent, and for example the author of the above arrogant sentence refuses to answer any question on his talk page.
Defame linguist criticizers as non linguists.
Write about nationalism and the like instead of arguing.
They absolutely do not seem to want any consensus or compromise, do not offer any, instead they keep deleting and refusing to discuss or even to explain simple but not explained entries.
Shout for rfa against the criticizers while they break the rules quite obviously.

[edit] critics section

I cite from the present finno-ugric page the so called "critics section": "Entirely outside the sphere of linguistics is the claim of "untenability" of the Finno-Ugric family by László Marácz, referenced by de Smit for its "morbid fascination"." This style- not to reference Dr. Marácz excellent and convincing article about the unteniability of the finno-ugric theory, but to refer to a certain "de Smit", who probably (according to the name) knows no word neither Finnish, nor Hungarian, reminds to the methods of the KGB, that never cited any critic, but criticized the criticizers calling them lunatics and the like. This is a very low level of discussion and no scientific, but a dogmatic level. The wikipedia is not a collection of dogmas and a place to protect dogmas by any mean. At least this is one of its written principles.

Also a remark from a supporter: 'Antifinnugor', I appreciate your cooperation, but please do not write on subjects which you are not familiar with. The supporter, Hippo, wrote this, after I corrected some obviously erroneous entries on the support page in Hungarian, that he obviously does not know.

[edit] Clique

Some wiki editors, a clear minority of all editors, create a clique. In the clique they

feel free to force dogmatic views to the other editors.
unscrupulously delete other editors entries with or without cynic comments over a longer period of time, cynically calling this "janitor work"
encourage each other to ignore the wikipedia rules, for example to vandalize certain pages, they don't like
provocate other editors with: "why do you speak about things you do not know" or they answer questions with: "stop influencing articles with your stupid objections", call other editors "charlatane", and their writings "feca" or "piece of junk" and the like, open admit, they want to "butcher" other editor articles or vandalize it by redirection , and the like
they even do illegal things like collecting texts of a certain wiki editor, (like user:nyenyec did) like the kgb and other terror-organizations did, and they clearly hurt the laws with that that protects intellectual property. Other members of the clique support this illegal behaviour.
they refuse to present different opinions as their dogmas defaming the authors of the different opinions as "semi scientist" and the like.
the answers to their provocations they call "uncivilized behaviour"
raise rfa-s against other editors and witness for each other, unscrupulously defaming the other side.
call the supporters of other editors sockpuppets and write private messages like "I suggest in friendship to delete the entry of editor x, since this editor is a sockpuppet".
refuse to put any reference to any critical wiki article to their dogmatic articles using the above mentioned deleting technique.
try to delete critical articles. If the other editors do not agree, they redirect the critical article by vandalizing it.

They want to promote their dogmatic views and to suppress all other opinions using the above procedures, hoping, they can fool the majority with their defamatory and offending inbehaviour.