Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

text in glyphs

[moved to article]

unsure how to represent the rtl reading. Maybe we should mirror the glyphs after all, since rtl reading seems to be general consensus? At the moment I'm trying breaking the text into lines, but small browser windows will mess it up. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be asking too much of the readers, especially since we list the numerical form rtl, simply to read backward? Septentrionalis 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean? The numerical transcription runs ltr. The problem with rtl is not the reader, but the rendition in the browser, since things tend to get messed up at linebreaks. The above sample now has three words per line to avoid this, but if you make your browser window narrow enough, you will see what I mean. dab (ᛏ) 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The numerical form has words beginning with 02/Mohican; here you end with it. Have I got r and l mized up? Septentrionalis

The reading direction has changed. On the article the nummers are written left to right. Here the glyphs are written form right to left. Here also the words start with the Mohican. Kadmos 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

the numbers are ltr, like English. The glyhps are rtl like Hebrew. Your 02 top left of the numbers is the Mohican top right: This is what I'm talking about, if we keep the original glyph orientation, they read rtl. Timm on kereti.de has mirrored them so he can present the text ltr. I uploaded them in the original orientation because it could be conceived as "pov" to favour inwards reading direction. But since the scholarly consensus is "inwards" anyway, it may be better to mirror the glyphs after all. If somebody re-uploads all glyphs mirrored I won't mind, but I can't be bothered to do it. dab (ᛏ) 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Virus

An encyclopedia should not be subjective. The fact is, that we don't know, if the disc represents language at all, or if it is calendrical, for instance. This 'Phaistos disc' article has lost its proportions by the latest months of attacks.

86.48.21.153 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Ole Hagen

hm, what? There is a large literature on the subject, and it is obviously encyclopedic to document the literature. dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it has fairly strong resistance to me.... Septentrionalis 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want more room for a interpretation as calendar you have to name some reviews for such a theory.

As far as I know there is no doubt in the scientific world that the Phaistos disc contains a syllabic writing. Everything is as expected for this type of script. 45 different signs, a distribution with a lot of rare signs, etc. On the other hand there is no hint pointing to a calendar. For instance there are 242 signs and not 356 etc. All interpreations as calendar are going back to Pomerance, Leon, 1971: The Phaistos Disc. An Astrological Magic Chart? In: American Journal of Archaelogy, Volume 75, Nr 2, p. 211.

About Pomerance several reviews exist. Here comes the review written by Y. Duhoux: "POMERANCE (L.). The Phaistos Disc. An Interprétation of Astronomical Symbols. Gôteborg. P. Àstrom, 1976; un vol. in-8°, 76 p., 19 pi. (STUDIES IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY, Pocket-Book 6). Prix : 30 cour. suéd. — Le petit livre de L. Pomerance est le dernier en date des essais d'interprétation du célèbre disque de Phaestos (vers 1600 avant J.-C.). La théorie défendue est que les signes du disque n'auraient pas de valeur phonétique, mais seraient des idéogrammes. Plus précisément, le disque contiendrait un calendrier agricole. L'ouvrage, stimulant et intelligemment écrit, est le résultat d'une longue réflexion de l'auteur. Il repose sur une documentation volumineuse et sur la consultation d'experts de toutes sortes. Il faut malheureusement signaler que son fondement, à savoir la valeur idéographique des signes du disque, est totalement incorrect.

On sait, en effet, que le nombre de signes d'écriture différents utilisés dans un texte d'une longueur donnée varie de façon significative d'après que l'on a affaire à une écriture alphabétique, syllabique, ou idéographique. Le disque de Phaestos, long de 241 signes, a 45 signes différents. Ce chiffre est de loin inférieur à ce que l'on observe dans des textes à écriture idéographique ; il correspond exactement, en revanche, aux caractéristiques de textes écrits en écriture syllabique à syllabe ouverte (du type japonais ou chypriote classique, par exemple). L'erreur de L. Pomerance vient de ce qu'il a été frappé par l'échec de toutes les tentatives de déchiffrement phonétique du disque, et de ce qu'il en a conclu que l'écriture du disque ne devait pas être phonétique. Cette déduction est évidemment fausse. L'interprétation idéographique elle-même repose sur des identifications contesta¬bles, dont quelques exemples donneront une idée : le signe 27. représentant une peau, devient une peau de bœuf, et deux «peaux de boeuf» accolées signifient «labourer» ; le signe 26. représentant un objet non identifié, est pris pour une queue de serpent, laquelle est, à son tour, identifiée avec la constellation de la .Queue de Serpent; le signe 12. représentant un cercle dans lequel sont inscrits sept petits cercles, est pris pour le symbole des Pléiades ; etc. — Yves DUHOUX." [Duhoux, Yves, 1976: Review: Pomerance, The Phaistos Disc - An Astrological Text? In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire = Belgisch tijdschrift voor filologie en geschiedenis, pp. 157 - 158.]

Kadmos 20:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You write: All interpretations as calendar are going back to Pomerance ...(quote over). I would say, that an astrolabium is somehow different from a calendar, never mind. Can you also tell me 'from whom then derives the notion, that the characters were letters or syllables?'. I still believe, that the overwhelming focus on particular interpretations is out of proportion.

If the astrolabium is not a calendar where is the problem? That they are syllables see Chadwick, Godart, Duhoux, Faure, Timm etc. What you or I believe doesn't matter. For Wikipedia only the common sense in the scientific world is important! Kadmos 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

An astrolabium is a star map, a picture of the constellations. Making long suppressing lists in columns of one, assigning own phonetic values to the ideographs, very cunning.Compared with an proportioned article like the one about The keepers of the Easter Island, this one is corrupted. I shall suggest that it is brought back to its earlier form.

What are you talking about? Which star map? Which phonetic values? Which ideographs? Which Easter Island? Which earlier form? Kadmos 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've finished my consideration. This Wikipedia article about the Phaistos disc ought to be brought back to its original stage, as it was two months ago.

Language labels

Do these language tags serve any real purpose? Anyone who is not warned off an article with a clearly non-English title may not be warned by a tag eitherl and at least one of them was misplaced on Duhoux's article, which is of course in English, even though he's French. Septentrionalis 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the label are for external links, they should not be used in bibliographies. dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From the table of glyphs:

compared with AB 37, Linear B ti

What's AB mean? Septentrionalis 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the numbering scheme for Linear A/B glyphs? dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought; but better not to make the reader guess. Septentrionalis 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. A=Linear A B=Linear B. Kadmos 20:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the numbering is identical for glyphs that appear in both scripts (thank god). But maybe just "A 37" would be enough here. dab (ᛏ) 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rose-mary

There is clear consensus not to include more Faucounau in this article. If this editing against consensus continues, I propose to include less. Septentrionalis 19:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the WP rule n° 1 is equality of treatment. There is no consensus neither for Timm's theory (that the Disk's glyphs would be identical to Linear A signs) and for Best/Woudhuizen/Achterberg's Luwian theory, of which Cornelis Ruijgh said once that he "was not believing a single word of it". Why should these theories be developped in the WP article, but not the Aegean original Script theory, which has been also published in peer-reviewed journals and is considered by many searchers as interesting ?.. (80.90.39.72 20:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

"If the PD script is not any other, it follows that it began in the Aegean". No ! It may be a non-script, or the script of the Atlantes, as advocated by some !.. Moreover, why developping in the WP article only two solutions for the origin of the script ? Why not citing the comparisons with the Chinese signs, which has also been advocated ?.. In fact, there are only three reasonable theories, which have attracted the attention of the specialists : the Luwian theory (Best/Woudhuizen/Achterberg) -- the Cretan theory (Torsten Timm) -- the Aegean original theory (J.Faucounau). All the other theories (e.g. A. Cuny's) have been dismissed by specialists as "very unlikely"(80.90.39.72 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

the "Luwian" and "Cretan" theories are not mutually exclusive. The "Luwian" people allow for a connection of the hieroglyphs with Linear A, just not with the Linear B values in most cases. There is no rule of "equality of treatment" here. The rule is, rather, Wikipedia:Notability. Yes, the "Luwian" and "Linear A/B" theories are the most notable (this is relative, since mainstream scholars mostly refuse to discuss the Disc altogether). Faucounau gets some shrugging and eye-rolling from academia, so he is "in", but hardly taken seriously. All the other "decipherments" are, we agree, hardly notable (although I don't know about the Egyptian hypothesis, more on that, maybe?) None of these are "accepted", this should be made very clear. Not even the authenticity of the Disc is "accepted". Most people will say "maybe a clever fake, maybe a freak find, who knows, who cares, we don't know". If you can show that Faucounau has "attracted the attention of specialists [of what?]", then we might be talking. So far, Duhoux less-than-flattering review remains the only evidence "attention" produced. dab (ᛏ) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I love your sentence that "the Luwian and Cretan theories are not exclusive" !.. Pretty strange in my eyes, because if some scholars have supposed some common source of inspiration between the Luwian Hieroglyphs and the Cretan Hieroglyph (of which Linear A is obviously the direct descendent), Best/Woudhuizen have not linked the Linear A shapes to the Luwian Hieroglyphs/Phaistos Disk shapes... Their decipherment of the PD has used a comparison with the Luwian Hieroglyphs, but their decipherment of Linear A has used the comparison with the Linear B signs... A complete difference with Timm's ideas !

If you are trying to search for not exclusive theories, what about, then, the common points between Best/Woudhuizen and J.Faucounau's theories ? Both parties link the Phaistos Disk to the Anatolian coast (Lycia and Caria) and to the Philistines... A new difference, here, with Timm's theory, which considers the PD as essentially Minoan !.. (80.90.39.72 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

I would love to reply to that, Rose-mary, but you are not making any amount of sense here. dab (ᛏ) 09:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Atlantis

I think we can agree that if we have to pick the three most notable recent approaches, they would be (a) comparison with Linear A, (b) comparison with hiero. Luwian and (c) Faucounau's puzzle. So I am not completely opposed to present more detail on what exactly JF proposes. Look at Atlantis: Their article became so overburdened with mad hypotheses that they branched out Location hypotheses of Atlantis. If Wikipedia can have Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis#Finland, it can certainly also have Phaistos Disc decipherment claims#"Proto-Ionic", no problem. I would even like to see a comparative table of glyph assignments, and an evaluation of the quality of the Greek assembled by JF. So, Rose-mary, instead of vandalizing here, go ahead and edit Phaistos Disc decipherment claims. dab (ᛏ) 09:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What seems clear to me is that you want a WP article presenting the "Comparizon with other Scripts Method" as the only valid. In this aim in mind, you have deleted the § concerning the third approach, which is the hypothesis of an original Aegean writing (which has been advocated by several scholars, and not by J.F. only). I consider this deletion as a mokery in regard to the WP rules.

If you go on scandalously favouring the Best/Achterberg's theory, which is supported by their inventors only (a bunch of Dutch scholars), and still worse the Timm's theory, which has the support of nobody but you, Timm himself alias "Kadmos" and a few of his friends, a new Editwar seems to me unavoidable. That is probably what you want... (80.90.37.121 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

your "reply" is manifestly unrelated to anything I said above. I don't remember deleting any discussion of proposals of an "original Aegean script", you are most welcome to add references to such. The article still clearly states that JF suggests a solution "without direct comparison to a known script" so I am not sure which article you are talking about here, but it doesn't seem to be Phaistos Disc. dab (ᛏ) 14:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've restablished the paragraph concerning the Original Aegean Script. Let see what happens ... (80.90.37.121 14:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

3RR again

you are in blatant violation of 3RR again, Rose-mary, take a 24h break. Any edit from a 80.90.* IP for the next 24 hours should be rolled back; the IPs should just be blocked for a short period, however, since Rose-mary is known to redial on reconnect when banned, and we don't want to block half of Belgium. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I find very strange that 1)- you accept without any problem a 6 lines paragraph on the "Linear A hypothesis", in spite of what many scholars have written on the subject, for instance : "When we come to compare the figures in detail with those of the Minoan hieroglyphic signary, a very great discrepancy is observable"... ; " The human figures in their outline and costume are non-Minoan" ; "The representation of the ship also differs from all similar designs that occur either among the hieroglyphic or the linear documents of Crete" (A.Evans , Scripta Minoa, p.24 & 25). And in spite of the fact that Torsten Timm is *the only one* to have gone as far as identifying Linear A signs with PD signs, and that this hypothesis has not been supported by anybody to the best of my knowledge. Because even scholars, who have seen a link between Linear A and PD script, like Y. Duhoux in Minos 1983 and Orazio Monti in Kadmos XL, have mainly stated that "Statistics fits with Linear A" ; in other words that the *language* behing Linear A and the disk would be the same., not that the script would be identical.

but that 2)-you refuse to add the following similar paragraph concerning an "Aegean original script"

Aegean original script hypothesis

This thesis has been advocated by several scholars because the comparisons of the disk's glyphs with signs of other already known scripts are trite, unsignificant or farfetched. As these glyphs appear to belong to the Aegean area (cf Paul Muenzer, L.Godart, S.Dow., etc.), they see the disk's script as the original invention of an Aegean people. One of these scholars, J.Faucounau supposes this people to be a maritime one, the proto-Ionians, settled in the Cycladic Islands since c.2500BC, who borrowed the idea of a hieroglyphic acrophonic writing from Egypt during the VIth Dynasty.

And this in spite of the fact that A.Evans, for instance, sees the Disk as made by "seafaring peoples who at a somewhat later date are found descending on the Delta", adding that "the indications at our disposal may be thought to point to the Western coastlands of Asia Minor "(Scripta Minoa, p. 27). Or that Gunther Ipsen wrotes : "Eine eingehende Untersuchung aller Bilder sichert so die agäische Herkunft des Diskus" (Indogermanische Forschungen 47, 1929, p. 4)

So, in your eyes, people who share your POV, like O.Monti or T.Timm, know better about the Aegean archaeology than Arthur Evans or G. Ipsen... An hypothesis condemned by A.Evans is worth a paragraph in the WP article, not the "Aegean original Script" hypothesis, which not only is in agreement with Evans' ideas, but also with other scholars ideas, like, for instance, B. Schwartz, who considers the Disk as Cretan, but not as Minoan : as a GREEK artifact !!!!

Yes, strange attitude indeed, contradicting the WP rules and spirit !... But never mind, it's only the 3RR rules which counts, right ? it's the way a pack of wolves has found to impose his POV. (80.90.39.45 12:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

For your remedies, see wikipedia:dispute resolution. Railing and threats will only get you ignored. Septentrionalis 23:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question to Mr Bachmann and other WP administrators : should Dr Lukas Pietsch be the arbitrator ?

This is now the second time that Dr Lukas Pietsch has deleted the paragraph I asked to add about the hypothesis that the PD script would be an "Aegean original script". What are Mr -sorry, Dr!- Pietsch's credentials to be an arbitrator in this field ? Dr Pietsch -the obscure author of a more obscure and confidential book on "Variable Grammars"-, is well-known in the Hamburg University for his extraordinary arrogance. Because he is the inventor of the German Extended Unicode Keyboard (a very minor achievement), he acts as if he was a universally recognized Professor-Doctor, giving HIS opinion on everything, NEVER discussing a matter (how could he do ? He generally is a perfect ignoramus in the fields he believes to be an expert), Such an incredible arrogance has led people on the NET to write PUBLIC APPRECIATIONS about him like the following one : (I quote) "Pietsch, you are just a little primitive hater of everything human and positive, a racist of the worst kind. Your letters are full of dirt. No regards" (Reference may be given on request). Personnally, I consider him as a liar and an ignoramus in the Phaistos Disk's matters. Should really this guy be the arbitrator in the Phaistos Disk's WP article ?... This seems to me the preliminary question for an honest discussion, able to keep the high reputation of the WP Encyclopedia (80.90.39.45 14:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

To Dr Lukas Pietsch : I am sick and tired about your threats and your unethical conduct. If you go on with this editwar and with your anti-WP spirit, I'll send some documents concerning you to the Hamburg University, and they will not be anonymous, this time. My advice : think about that before going on with your usual way to act on the WP encyclopedia. Like many others, I say : no regards to you, sir (80.90.39.45 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)}

you thoroughly misunderstand Wikipedia. You do not need to be an expert on your field with your nose in the air and your own dogmatic convictions. That will hinder more than help you work with people. You want to write an article on the Phaistos disk as you see it, and sign it with your name, you are free to do that on geocities or anywhere else. On wikipedia, you are the troublemaker, obsessed with a single topic, refusing to get an account, refusing to listen to other opinions and beat out a compromise, and repeatedly violating policy and getting youself banned. Whatever your reputation in academia, you have no, or a rather bad, reputation here, and you do nothing to improve it. It doesn't matter what you think of Mr. Pietsch. He is not ranting against consensus, he is engaging in intelligent debate on many articles, and is defending the consensus version. If you do not lighten up to how things are done here, you will achieve nothing here. zilch. rien. You can just as welll drop it now and open your own website, ranting about how unfairly you were treated by the cabal ("pack of wolves") on that crappy upstart site Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr Bachmann, I know as well as you do the WP rules, and the WP spirit. The aim of the WP encyclopedia is not to be the site of some unscientific theories, called consensus because a bunch of guys, knowing nothing to the problem but sharing the same POV about it, are threatening other editors, like Dr Pietsch did with this poor Rose-Mary, falsely accusing her of sockpupettry and other things to eliminate her (What, sadly, happened) (80.90.39.45 21:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

I am now reverting your paragraph, because you say, in Wikipedia's voice, "the comparisons of the disk's glyphs with signs of other already known scripts are trite, unsignificant or farfetched". What the hell? You are free to cite people's opinions. Preferably quote people other than Faucounau who are convinced that the script is "originally Aegaean". Some comparisons are farfetched. Others aren't. Faucounau's theories are extremely farfetched, why, he has to rewrite half the Bronze Age history to justify his solution. By all means, give precise citations (not just "Paul Muenzer, L.Godart, S.Dow., etc.", what's "etc."?) and we can have a "Agaean origin of the glyphs" section. But don't use Wikipedia's voice to give us more Faucounauisms. You are bright enough to know what you are doing, I estimate, so don't play stupid and play fair. If you don't, I won't waste 'verbose' explanations on you again, reverts are cheap. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr Bachmann, it seems to me that you have not read what I wrote in the preceding hereabove paragraph. What are you responding to my objection : an hypothesis, which has no scholarly support (Timm's theory) would be mentioned in the WP article, but not one which is a kind of synthesis between the opinions of diverse scholars (A.Evans : no Minoan, Anatolian coast origin -- Best/Woudhuizen : idem -- B. Schwartz, St. Fischer, M. Stawell, G. Hempl, etc. : a Greek language -- A.Evans, A.Reinach : a proto-Philistine people + scholars thinking that proto-Philistines were Greek-speakers -- etc. ) ? Waiting for your answer, Sir. (80.90.39.45 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Rose-mary has neglected to add Robert Graves. Septentrionalis 23:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What G. Ipsen actually said

User 80.90.39.45 has cited Ipsen, Schwartz and others in favour of his thesis about an "original invention of an Aegean people". But see yourself:

G. Ipsen: „Es liegt nahe, diesen Widerspruch dadurch zu beseitigen, daß man dem Diskus fremde Herkunft zuschreibt. [...] doch den Bereich der Ägäis darf man nicht verlassen. Dann aber wird der Widerspruch durch die Bestimmung der Herkunft nicht erledigt, denn die Linearschrift ist gemeinägäisch. Die Frage des Diskus muß also innerhalb der ägäischen Welt bereinigt werden“ [Ipsen 1929: 15].

„Der unvermittelte Zwiespalt zwischen dem Bildsinn und der Sprachbedeutung dieser Schrift beweist, daß ihre Ausbildung von anderen Schriften abhängt. Die Schrift des Diskus von Phaistos ist eine a b h ä n g i g e E r f i n d u n g, die Bekanntschaft mit fremden, bestehenden Schriften voraussetzt“ [Ipsen 1929: 11, Hervorhebung im Original].

„Die Schriftgeschichte kennt eine vollkommene Parallele aus derselben Epoche, die hethitische Bilderschrift. Sie ist unter denselben Einflüssen ähnlich zustande gekommen: auch sie (wenigstens später) eine Silben Bilderschrift, von kleinasiatischer Erscheinung, im Aussehen den ägyptischen Hieroglyphen nachgebildet, im Silbenwert den Zeichen der Keilschrift folgend. Und wie die Bilderschrift des Diskus unvermittelt neben der Linearschrift steht, so die hethitischen Hieroglyphen neben der gleichzeitigen hethitischen Keilschrift“ [Ipsen 1929: 17].

In the same way B. Schwartz wrote: "It does mean that a genetic relationship exists between the writing of the disk and that of the linear scripts." [Schwartz 1956: 108].

To cite this scholars together with the Faucounau thesis that "the comparisons of the disk's glyphs with signs of other already known scripts to be too few" is against there true words.

To say things like "that the script would be identical." is only funny. It's obviously that both scripts are not identical. All I have done in my eyes is to demonstrate that the statistics of similar shaped signs in both scripts fits to good to deny a relation between both scripts.

Additionally there is no doubt that Crete is part of the Aegean Sea! There are only a few theses about an origin outside the Aegean Sea. A sentence that the Phaistos disc is at least of Aegean origin should be enough. Ttimm 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thank you, I half expected as much. Monsieur Faucounau, you are a riot, I draw my hat in the face of your intellectual swashbuckling, when I am 78, I can only hope I will still have your supply of verve. What about the Evans quote though, did Evans really say "The human figures in their outline and costume are non-Minoan... The representation of the ship also differs from all similar designs that occur either among the hieroglyphic or the linear documents of Crete"? That would at least be something. Yes, Crete is in the Aegean. Cretan and Luwian hieroglyphs as well as Linear A are all within the Aegean sphere, just Egyptian hieroglyphs would be 'out'. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this would contradict what I wrote :

1)- that G. Ipsen uses the word "Aegean" instead of "Minoan" or "Cretan" is significant. Still more is his comparison "Linear A/ Phaistos Disk's script" with "Hieroglyphic Hittite/ Keilschrift Hittite". In other words, he accepts, like Y.Duhoux 1983, that the LANGUAGE would be the same, but not the SCRIPTS linked. This is the essential difference with T. Timm's hypothesis !

2)- As for B. Schwartz, he certainly accepts "a genetic relationship" between the Linear Cretan scripts and the Phaistos Disk... but he considers the LANGUAGE of the Disk as GREEK. Another essential difference with T.Timm !

Just saying that these scholars consider the origin of the Disk to be Aegean is not enough : it is almost stating an obvious thing, put in doubt only by Atlantist or other fancy theories ! And it doesn't point out the differences in the position of the quoted scholars.

3)-as for the sentence "the comparisons of the disk's glyphs with signs of other already known scripts are too few", it is just recording a fact , as A.Evans did. But I understand that this does not please T.Timm... (80.90.39.79 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

I would love to reply to that, but you are not making any amount of sense here. For instance the same language is a link between two scripts etc. Ttimm 18:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's a link, but it doesn't mean that both scripts are "genetically related" as you concluded from the (statistically very dubious) data of the "structural analysis" of W. Nahm and Y.Duhoux. Does this sentence make sense to you ? (80.90.39.79 19:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

"genetically related" means that the genesis of script B was influenced by knowledge of script A. We are not talking of "genetics", say a glossenkeil humping an ankh glyph, fathering this bastard offspring. really, Jean. I think it is time you went and deciphered something else. dab (ᛏ) 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you make no difference between "influenced" and "genetically related", or, to take an example, between what G. Ipsen wrote about a possible influence of Hittite Cuneiform on Hieroglyphic Hittite on one hand, and between the genetical relationship between Linear A and Linear B ?.. I think your hatred against the J.F.'s work makes you blind or stupid... Sorry to have to say that ! (80.90.39.79 20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

let's say, exasperation with his online persona makes me extremely sarcastic, yes. dab (ᛏ) 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Threats and personal attacks

User 80.90.xxx: now you have really gone too far. Lukas Pietsch and other editors on this page have been extremely patient with your persistent POV-pushing.

By know, you should know the rules of WP well: in controversial areas, first establish consensus on the Talk page (which you have been unable to do); and only then add to the main page and do not engage in edit wars; especially in disputed or difficult areas, be careful to cite reputable authorities rather than to express your own opinions ("comparisons... are trite"); and, most fundamentally, behave respectfully and politely. Your failure to respect the first two rules is bad enough. But now you are attacking Lukas Pietsch, a serious and fair editor, in the most offensive terms. As for the usenet quote, I looked it up, and it is just as bizarre as your attack here; it is by a user (transam) with no particular reputation, and appears completely out of the blue. (Not to mention that it has some curious stylistic similarities to your writing.)

Anyway, Pietsch is in no way an "arbitrator" on this article, it is just that he has taken the brunt of maintaining WP quality standards in the face of your assaults on them. Threatening to write nasty letters to his University is contemptible (and arguably violates the spirit of WP rules against legal threats), though I must say I don't see that it would have any particular effect. As a graduate student, I was once asked to reply to crank correspondence and compose polite responses to it, so I can predict that his university will nicely reply: "We appreciate the time you have taken to write us. Thank you for your comments about Dr. Pietsch. Your comments will be given all due weight in our ongoing efforts to maintain the high standards for which our institution is known."

You should realize by now that several editors on WP understand your games and will not tolerate your continued abuse of our patience. --Macrakis 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation of POV-pushing is funny ! Who is the one who deleted without any attempt to reach a compromise and a NPOV editing, a sentence or a paragraph he didn't like ?

Also funny is your main reproach : I have expressed my own opinion, by saying that the comparisons of the PD hieroglyphs with the signs of another script are trite, therefore insignificant, or farfetched. This is not only an opinion. It's a fact that anybody may verify by himself. One may compare, of course, the "ram" of the Phaistos Disk with any "ram" represented in the Luwian or Egyptian or Sumerian Hieroglyphs. the "bird" of the PD with any other hieroglyph representing a bird. But do you seriously believe that such "comparisons" are really significant ? As for the farfetched comparisons, I would like to know why the PD sign n° 01 (and not the sign n° 39, which would be more logical) is linked by T.Timm to the Linear A/B sign RE, for instance, or why the PD sign 39 (the krokos, with a marked stalk)) is identified by Achterberg/Best/Woudhuizen as the "symbol of thunderbolt" (always represented without stalk)...

As for my opinion about Dr Pietsch, I am not the only one to have it. Maybe there is a reason, coming from Dr Pietsch's attitude, for the existence of such a consensus between so many diverse scholars, don't you think ? But you may tell to your friend that I am ready to change my own attitude if Dr Pietsch changes his own one. (80.90.39.45 20:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

My "main reproach" is not that particular questionable edit. It is your intemperate attitude and language. WP is a cooperative endeavor, and you are not cooperating. --Macrakis 21:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! I cooperated each time people didn't act as Mr Pietsch : deleting without any preliminary discussion, in order to find a NPOV edition . What I can stand is arrogance and unethical conduct, betraying the WP spirit. (80.90.39.45 21:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Dear Rose-mary: This conduct is uncivil, which is a violation of policy. Please stop now. If any of your accounts is blocked for a significant period of time, any other account reasonably concluded to be yours will be blockable on sight. There is consensus that no more Faucounau is needed in this article; for the implications of this see Wikipedia:Consensus. Septentrionalis 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

PD sign n° 01

80.90.39.45 wrote "I would like to know why the PD sign n° 01 (and not the sign n° 39, which would be more logical) is linked by T.Timm to the Linear A/B sign RE". Such a link is not given at my article or homepage. The only source is chapter 11 "Annäherung an die Bestimmung von Silbenwerten" in Timm 2005 where also the explantion can be found. But before you can start reading chapter 11 you have to read chapter 4, 8, 9 and 10. Chapter 11 is based on the results given there. And dont miss the sentence "Zusammenfassend sei betont, dass die Silbenzuordnungen für D 01 und D 08 als wenig gesicherte Hypothesen betrachtet werden müssen. Die zu den betreffenden Lautwerten führenden Überlegungen sind zwar in sich schlüssig, die Gesamtheit der ihnen zugrunde liegenden Hinweise erscheint für eine sichere Aussage jedoch als nicht ausreichend." [Timm 2005: 175]. Ttimm 18:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

Some portions of the following may be worth including on their merits:

This thesis has been advocated by several scholars because they consider the comparisons of the disk's glyphs with signs of other already known scripts to be too few, and the valid ones to be trite and therefore unsignificant. So, A.Evans wrote in Scripta Minoa (p.24/25) that "when one come to compare the figures in detail with those of the Minoan hieroglyphic signary, very great discrepancy is observable... Out of the forty-five separate signs on the Phaistos Disk, no more than ten more or less ressemble Cretan hieroglyphic forms... The human figures in their outline and costume are non-Minoan... The representation of the ship also differs from all similar designs that occur either among the hieroglyphic or the linear documents of Crete". In a similar way, C.J. Ruijgh once wrote to Woudhuizen (about his decipherment based upon comparisons with the Luwian Hieroglyphic script) : "I don't believe a word of it" (F.Woudhuizen, The Language of the Sea Peoples, Foreword p.xii)

Most of these scholars consider the glyphs to belong to the Aegean area (e.g. G.Ipsen wrote that "eine eingehende Untersuchung aller Bilder sichert die ägäische Herkunft des Diskus"), so they have to see the disk's script as the original invention of an Aegean people (living eventually in Crete or more probably in the vicinity of this island) who was, as A.Evans wrote "among the group of Seafaring peoples... who later ravaged the Delta" (op.cit.).

Septentrionalis 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I made the addition. But I wonder about the reasons behind the hatred you have, you guys, to mention J.Faucounau's work... Seems pretty strange to me... (80.90.39.79 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

the text is better now. Your behaviour is getting worse. Speaking for myself, I don't feel any 'hatred' at all, but you should consider the possibility that you are obsessed with Faucounau's work. Possibly because you are Jean Faucounau, or at least, as you admit yourself, a close friend of his. There is no conspiracy. Faucounau's work isn't ignored becase of irrational hatred against his person, but rather because it is not very impressive. That's the simple and unexciting truth about the matter. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not obsessed by J.F.'s work. Contrary to you, I find it impressive, because 1)- it is the way to give a logical explanation of the "mystery", in agreement with all the most secure data established by a lot of other scholars : "The disk cannot be Minoan" (A.Evans) -- "It is probably a script" (Y.Duhoux)" -- "It has been written by an Aegean people, in close relationship with Crete" (G. Ipsen, L.Godart) -- "a people linked to the Anatolian coast" (A.Evans, J.Best & F. Woudhuizen) -- "a people who was the ancestor of the Philistines" (A.Evans, A.Reinach) -- "a Greek language seems to be the most suitable" (Y.Duhoux 1979, St. Fischer. Moreover there is a great majority of attempts in this direction, what seems to be significant. Not to mention the "Attic character" of several signs, as demonstrated by J.F.) 2)-it is supported by impressive evidence (even if it is not your opinion !) (for instance, a logical explanation of almost all the epigraphical facts, i.e. why the scribe crowded the signs in A29 but not in A31) (80.90.39.79 13:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Yup. That's how it is. Less paranoia, less foam-at-the-mouth, less personal attacks, a bit more yielding-to-consensus and a dash more adhering-to-academia, and things would be fine here. Alexander 007 11:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the proto_Ionian theory is something alright. It puts a pep in your step, and a zip in your hip. Sort of like Ginger ale soda. We should all go out and buy a copy of J.F., don't you think? An old college try? 70.237.79.127 14:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, J.F. is my hero! He made me understand the Aegaean Early Bronze Age. I have am a happy owner of his collected works, and reading and re-reading turns me on every time. It's alright to be a little bit obsessed with such a tremendous man of genius! 213.3.117.137 14:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jean Marie Faucounau's legal team hunting down the few remaining detractors of the Proto-Ionic truth, by now forced to hide out in remote corners of the globe

[Also: Dejeuner sur l'Herbe, with caption: Jean Faucounau's Proto-Ionian Decipherment is stirring a revolution in intellectual circles everywhere. Here, young Parisians in a park just outside Paris gather to discuss the latest developments. Image removed under fair use.]

sign comparison

without sign comparison, there can be "decipherments" in any language at all. This comparison may either be with a known glyph, or with a word in the target language by the acrophonic principle. So to compare the merits of comparative appui of our three best-documented attempts:

Timm has 20 (44%) Linear A comparisons, resulting in 16 Linear B values, but they do not yet form an understandable text.
Best &al. have 27 (60%) claimed comparisons with Luwian glyphs (plus the "no. 46" glyph (the stroke) not recognized as a glyph by others); of these I consider some 20-22 (46%) to be plausible.
Faucounau has 11 (24%) valeurs semblent acrophoniques (2001:129)

dab (ᛏ) 09:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Timm's and Best&al.'s approaches are thus grounded with similar firmness in comparison with known contemporary literacy. Best&al. have of course the advantage of giving a coherent text, but I would not consider this decipherment verified until and unless it opens the road to further decipherment of Linear A or Cretan hieroglyphic inscriptions, or at least a sensible reading of the Arkalochori Axe (on which the authors remain conspicuously silent). Faucounau's reading is founded on comparative evidence only about half as good, and furthermore comparison with Iron Age Homeric Greek. It is completely in the air. I am sure that a good puzzle solver could give an English or French reading (phonologically mangled by the syllabic nature of the script, as in Faucounau's text) with 11 acrophonical values if they set their mind to it. The statistical claim of a "billions to one" chance discussed above is completely void, because there are billions of billions of billions of combinatorial possibilities. dab (ᛏ) 09:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is a biaised way to describe J.F.'s work. He wrote that a)- he first used a statistical method to determine the language (= proto-Ionic) and the type of script (syllabic with complex values like KRO or PTE). b)- from the conclusions of this statistical study, he was able to determine by a statistical calculations only the "probable phonetic value " of eleven signs. c)-'only then, he noticed that these eleven "probable values" seemed to be acrophonic. He could, then, using acrophony, complete his decipherment.

Therefore, there are not 24% of the phonetic values which "seems" to be acrophonic, as you falsely state, but 100% of the values he proposed which are acrophonic. Moreover they are acrophonic with a much lesser dubious interpretation of the signs than the other attempts based upon acrophony. This is established by the following calculation : "What percentage of identifications have been already accepted by other scholars ?" The result is (from memory) : J.F.'s solution : 80% -- other solutions (based on acrophony) : c. 30%. If this is not significant, what will be... (80.90.39.149 10:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

You are here showing a biaised attitude towards Timm's attempt ! As far as I know, Timm's attempt has not been supported by any specialist, and his book (although interesting) has not even been printed in a scholarly collection, but at author's cost. The Best/Woudhuizen attempt has been, at least, supported by a few Dutch scholars and published by Brill, a "serious editor". As for your assertion about Faucounau's decipherment, see the preceding paragraph hereabove. You are confusing a mixed Statistical/Acrophonic method with a puremly acrophonic one ! Moreover, the problem is not about the method. It's about the coherence and the proofs' (80.90.39.149 10:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Timm has been printed in Indogermanische Forschungen, which admittedly isn't saying much, but at least it's a peer-reviewed linguistic journal. I would actually be interested if they would accept an article by you, so please do submit an article there. It may be useful in spreading your gospel in academic circles more than possible on Usenet or Wikipedia. I am afraid that the method and process used by Faucounau is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if king Minos had chanted the hymn to him in a dream. What counts is the coherence of the solution once it's on the table. And as it happens, 11 signs allegedly have straightforward acrophonic values. Of course it is then possible to force the remaining values into some sort of acrophony, especially with the more abstract glyphs which may really depict anything at all. dab (ᛏ) 12:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't know that J.Faucounau has had tens of his papers (not necessarily on the Phaistos Disk) printed in peer-reviewed journals. So much for the comparison about notoriety. (I also heard that he has received laudative personal letters from well-known archaeologists for his Proto-Ionian Theory).

You are repeating the same error ! The phonetic values of the eleven first signs have been found by statistical methods. Unexpectedly, they were acrophonic. So, J.F. deduced that he was on the right track (the probability of this happening by chance is very low). Then, he went on, combining statistics and acrophony, so that 100% of his phonetic values are acrophonic. Only you are saying that he forced the remaining values. This is totally untrue : 80% of the identifications corresponding to the phonetic values 'have been proposed by others'

Why should the opinion of a Non-Minoan origin be suppressed ?

To Latinus : why should the opinion, which is the one of several eminent specialists like A.Evans for instance, be suppressed ? Just because it has been also supported by an author (J.F.) that several guys hate ???? Is this the WP spirit and respect of the WP rules ? Waiting for your answer, Sir. PS : And please, don't call me Rose-mary or anything else. This poor Rose-mary has been disgusted (her own words) by the way she has been attacked by a pack of wolves when she gave her opinion. (80.90.39.149 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Have you read the proviso of the NPOV policy regarding being weary of dubious unscientific fringe theories? --Latinus 12:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you say, Mr Latinus, that the Proto-Ionic Theory, edited in a scientific collection, published by several journals, and that several specialists have thought necessary to comment (whatever their opinion, good or bad, it doesn't matter), would be more dubious and fringy than T.Timm's theory, for instance ???? (80.90.39.149 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Well, Monsieur Faucounau, Grapheus, Rose-mary or whatever your name is, your typical Google test gives us the following figures to play with:

124 results for "Proto-Ionic theory" OR "Proto-Ionian theory" Phaistos -Wikipedia [1]
200 results for Timm Phaistos -Wikipedia [2]

Therefore, it is more notable and less of a fringe theory. Look, the theories which you support (and Timm's) are mentioned. How much limelight do you want them to have? I'm sorry, but if you want to elaborate on the widely discredited unscientific fringes, that's what Geocities is for (and Irismeister's website of course). --Latinus 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your answer to my question is preposterous !.. Your statistics are 1)-biaised : One cannot compare Timm Phaistos with Proto-Ionian Theory Phaistos. If you want to make a fair comparison, you should have compared : -or Timm Phaistos with Faucounau Phaistos, of which the result is : Timm 200 - Faucounau 600 -or Linear A Phaistos with Proto-Ionian Phaistos, of which the result is also in favour of the Proto-Ionian Theory. 2)-meaningless. Applying your "statistical method", one will find that the Rjabchikov's attempt, which is supported by nobody but his inventor, is a lot more notable (your words) than the Achterberg's one, which has the support of many Deutch scholars.

I therefore repeat my question : What makes you say, Sir, that the 'Proto-Ionian Theory is a fringy one ? (User 80.90.57.154. 24 March , 9:10).

What Evans actually said

A. Evans: "That there is a general parallelism in appeareance between the signs on the Disk and those on the Cretan seal-stones is evident. So too they divide themselves into much the same categories, such as human and animal figures or their parts, arms and implements, domestic utensils and vegetable signs. But when we come to compare the figures in detail with those of the Minoan hieroglyhic signary a very great discrepancy is observable." Scripta Minoa p. 24

A. Evans: "The humean figures in their outline and costume are non-Minoan. We miss the pinched-in waist, and the female figure especially is marked by an extraordinary breadth of body." Scripta Minoa p. 25

A. Evans: "Still more divergent from all known examples of Minoan dress is that of the woman. It differs not only in its general broad outline, already noticed, but in almost every detail." Scripta Minoa p. 25

A. Evans: "The represantation of the ship also differs from all similar designs that occur either among the hieroglyphic or the linear documents of Crete." Scripta Minoa p. 25

A. Evans: "According to this view the Disk should rather be regarded as a record of a peaceful connection between the Minoan lords of Phaestos and some neighbouring race enjoying a parallel form of civilisation than as an evidence of hostile occupation. As to the direction in which this race is to be sought, the indications at our disposal may be thought to point to the Western coastlands of Asia Minor." Scripta Minoa p. 27 Kadmos 09:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Kadmos for these quotes. I greet our honesty, and apologize for having included you in the pack of wolves, with Latinus and the 80.237.152.53 anon. (User 80.90.57.154 O9: 35, 24 March)

Out of Topic Problems

Spell-check for future reference: wary. Alexander 007 12:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Latinus 12:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

no, no, weary is pretty much the term we are looking for here :/ dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a Freudian slip ;-) --Latinus 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

we are giving Evans' assumption of non-Minoan origin. Just because you can't have it in your exact words doesn't mean it isn't there. And why don't you just drop all this Rose-mary-Grapheus-80.90 nonsense, Mister Faucounau, it makes you look childish. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Too late for him to admit it now, after the circus he created here. J.F. might as well go for broke and concoct an entire cast of fervent Faucounau supporters, each one sketched out & given a persona for consistency. Alexander 007 12:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

especially after the circus on Usenet. I think this Gnaedinger guy would be very tempted to retaliate. what a mess. If he intensifies his sock circus, he would have to discover the concept of open proxies first, so we won't have to look at the tired old Luxemburgh ISP all the time :) dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to put an end to the lies of Latinius and others, who are trusting the foolish hypotheses, first launched by an insane person, I categorically state that J.Faucounau, Rose-mary and myself are different persons, although we are all members (with some other scholars) of a Luxemburgischer Group (similar to the Dutch Alverna Group), created in the memory of Pierre Hamer, novelist and specialist of Crete. (User 80.90.57.154, 11:00, 24 March)

That's a lie - the IP check revealed that *you* are rose-mary. Given that you lied about that, what else explains your zeal for promoting the widely discredited fringe theories of JF? --Latinus 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a fool and an ignoramus in matter of IP !.. You should shut up and stop spreading around lies and false information ! (User 80.90.57.154 15:06 24 March 2006).

If there is a group---presumably with nothing to hide---it would be better if you all just revealed your identities, so you may be contacted for verification. Otherwise, these anonymous posts just seem like they emanate from J.F., no matter how much the anonymous posters may deny it. Alexander 007 14:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And why you don't give your name and your address yourself, Alexan,der ?.. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:09, 24 March 2006

Because I am not claiming to be part of a Luxemburgischer Group. Do they have a website? an email? Alexander 007 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wolves are back !

The pack of wolves which hate the Proto-Ionic Solution is back ! Little piece by little piece, they are deleting important information about this solution. A sentence like : J.Faucounau has presented a reconstrucion of the movements of the scribe is, in their full of hatred eyes too dangerous to be kept : a good-faith reader could be interested by the matter ! What an horror ! -- a sentence like J.F. considers the disk's syllabic and acrophonic script to be a non-Minoan, Aegean invention, possibly inspired by the Egyptian hieroglyphs has to be deleted : it would be in accordance with Ipsen's justified remarks : the script cannot be Minoan, but cannot neither have been born from nothing. -- etc. So, I ask the question : why is the arbitrator, Mr D. Bachmann not reacting ? Is he so impressed by the ferocity of this pack of wolves that he has forgotten the WP spirit and its rule n° 1 : the respect of NPOV , so he applies only the 3RR rule to the lonely anon, what is again a betrayal of the WP spirit, because it favours a particular POV ? Curious to know your answers, Mr Bachmann... (User 80.90.57.154, 24 March 9:35

You know what, unregistered user? I'm new to this discussion, and you've convinced me that your POV should have nothing to do with this article. Grow up. Stop vandalizing this interesting article promoting Fauconneau, or as someone else said above, we should have even LESS of it. Evertype 11:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything, except sometimes in retaliation, to make my point understood. They are a bunch of ignorant people, who have never read a single line of J.F.'s work, who are systematically vandalizing any reference to the Proto-Ionic Solution because it destroy their POV. Allow me to give you an advice : read the J.F.'s books if you can understand French. Make 'your own opinion' about the Proto-Ionian Theory, instead of trusting biaised hearsays. In advance, thank you (User[[80.90.57.154,15:17, 24 March 2006).

Vandalism "in retaliation" is that rare thing, a genuine violation of WP:POINT. Please don't do it again. At least two of us have read Faucounau's books, and are underwhelmed by his arguments. Septentrionalis 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So, as you have not been convinced by J.F.'s arguments -what is your absolute right-, you will hinder others to make their own opinion by deleting, deleting, deleting any mention of any argument favourable to the Proto-Ionic Theory, right ? If this is your contribution to the WP Enclyclopedia, you should read again the basic rules ! (User 80.90.57.154, 16:27, March 24, 2006)

For the record, when Rose-mary stops attempting to push her PoV against consensus, I would support mentioning the reconstruction again. I also doubt that Rose-mary is Faucounau. While his knowledge of IE linguistics is dubious, hers is even more so. (I should add that Wikipedia cannot mention this alleged statistical derivation of glyph interpretations unless it had been published in a reliable secondary source; this is a pity: I'd be interested in it.) Septentrionalis 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Faucounau lost his calculations when he moved from USA to europe some fifteen years ago. See [3]. The only thing he is able to tell us: he would need to write a 300 page book to explain them ;-) 80.237.152.53

Thank you. A 300-page book on "concepts not generally teached [sic] at universities" does not sound promising. (Both generalized Markov chains and Bayesian statistics are so taught, btw.) Septentrionalis 16:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Markov chains are quite precisely defined. There are several obvious generalizations. Septentrionalis 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a mathematician, but I am not sure about generalized Markov Chains (whatever the meaning of this word is). But maybe I am wrong... (User 80.90.57.154, 16:30, March 24, 2006)

I am not an "arbitrator" here, I am involved in this article as co-author, and I do have an opinion on the 'dispute'. I do not know what you have against the wolf, imho a very nice animal, but if all the world seems against you, there are usually two possibilities: (a) the world has lost it, and (b) you have lost it.
Where Faucounau's opinion are just in line with the mainstream (syllabic script, inward reading), he does not need to be mentioned, he is just another guy accepting mainstream opinion
Faucounau has his own section now, at Phaistos_Disc_decipherment_claims#"Proto-Ionic". To ask that he is represented here any more is out of proportion. I encourage you to add citation to his other articles, in REG or wherever, so far they have only been hinted at but not cited. If these papers are relevant to his solution, they may be added to the bibliography of the "decipherment claims" article.
I am sure it would be good fun to look through JF's calculations, but as it is, they are a red herring. Unpublished means non-existent for our purposes, and his "solution" has to stand on its own merits. Pmanderson, I am also confused by grapheus apparent cluelessness compared to JF's reasonable knowledge on the matter, but I do think that this is partly due to language difficulties. Grapheus after long sarcastic rants suddenly turns out to be very well informed. His choleric temper is also in line with the polemic tone of JF's books (JF is not so much presenting his theory but ranting against the stupidity of academia for much of his books). Finally, they are acting in concert. JF has sued Gnaedinger following the threats issued by grapheus, which means he endorses the latter's online exploits. If grapheus is really JF's niece or something, that just makes him his 'meatpuppet', same difference.
I endorse sprotection of this article for now. This may at least tempt grapheus to open an account. I do think the article is shaping up well, and we may be pushing for FAC soon.

dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He can pick the name "grapheus" here as well - it has not been taken [4]. --Latinus 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange, Mr Bachmann that you are so misinformed, in spite of the fact you are so involved in this WP article !

What I asked from the beginning on, is not favouring the JF's theory, but just presenting it in a fair manner. What is so shocking, for instance, in adding that J.F. has presented a reconstruction of the movements of the scribe, leading to a definite conclusion concerning the direction of reading, as J.F. is the only one to have taken care of this problem : How 'exactly' did the scribe print the disk? and has reached a conclusion in accordance with the general scolarly consensus ?
Where did you find that there was a polemic tone in J.F.'s books ? I read them several times and didn't find anything like that...
JF has not sued Gnaedinger following the threats issued by grapheus, but because Gnaedinger, stupidly confusing grapheus and this old scholar, had issued (unacceptable in J.F.'s eyes) slanders against him. Would have Gnaedinger not wrongly supposed that grapheus was J.F., nothing would have happened, I guess. (User 80.90.57.154 16:17, March 24, 2006)

Do you know JF personally - how do you know that that's why he did what he did? --Latinus 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because he told me the whole story, and his shock when his Swiss lawyer told him who Mr Gnaedinger really was (He wrongly had thought that this troll was a Swiss scholar from the University of Zürich) (User 80.90.57.154 , 16:40, March 24, 2006)

This story is getting unbelievable! --Latinus 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Unbelievable, but true ! It's probably due to the fact that J.F. , being in his 80ies, is not familiar with Usenet and its trolls roaming all around. A Google Search on Gnaedinger would have alerted him... (User 80.90.57.154 16:56, March 24, 2006)

"Gnaedinger called JF a 'kook' on Usenet. JF is unfamiliar with Usenet, but upon the report of his old friend and English teacher grapheus, he sues him anyway, believing he is suing a 'scholar of Zurich university'. After paying his fees, JF is told by his lawyers that he has no case. Grapheus has a good time abusing Gnaedinger on Usenet for *not* being a scholar of Zurich university." I can only assume JF has run out of things to decipher. I am sure I wouldn't want to waste my 80ies with such nonsense. No shit man, I am tempted to start a Jean Marie Faucounau article with this stuff, Wikipedia articles have survived AfDs on less notability. JF's may not be the most notable decipherment of the Phaistos Disc, but it sure as hell seems to be the most notorious. dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your information is almost the same as the one I have, with nevertheless an not negligible difference : J.F's Swiss lawyer won the case and the slander was recognized as established by a judge at the Zürich Court. But Gnaedinger being broke and living thanks to the help of a caritative association, no compensation for damage was demanded, so Gnaedinger didn't pay a cent for his recognized slander. (User 80.90.57.154, 18:00, March 24, 2006). BTW, do you know Franz Gnaedinger ? I've been told he is a well known character in Zürich, writing to lots of people to ask for money or just to give his opinion on Swiss politics... There must be fun in Zürich with such a guy !

lol, what absolute nonsense. No Swiss court would convict anyone for saying "kook" on Usenet. Also, you are never "convicted without paying a cent", the court fees alone would land you in sizeable debt if you were destitute to begin with, and if unable to pay, you'd go to prison. If people were convicted for telling lies online, you would be knee-deep in lawsuits, Mr. Faucounau. For the record, I do not know FG, I only started to look into this hilarious piece of Usenet crankery in the course of this present discussion. dab (ᛏ) 19:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is nonsense is that you talk about a file, Mr Bachmann, that you pretend not to know directly or have been involved in. Personally, I don't know the file in detail neither, but what I've been told is that 1)- the J.F.'s lawyer has won the case 2)- the judge has issued an official document recognizing the slander 3)- but, taking into account that Gnaedinger was practically on wellfare, J.F.'s lawyer has dropped a 5000 Swiss francs claim of compensation for the damage, so Gnaedinger's condemnation has been only symbolic. I don't know whether they are Court's fees in Switzerland when the suit doesn't go further than what you, Swiss, call (in French) the "comparution contradictoire devant le juge de paix pour établir la matérialité des faits". Maybe you know better than I do, but I can tell you that everything I mention is true. (If you wish, I can try to find the reference of the judgment, officially recognizing the slander and allowing the plaintiff to ask for compensation before another court). As for the motives of the slander, I don't believe they were only "calling kook" the plaintiff. As for your denial of not knowing Franz Gnaedinger, I wonder : he seems to be a well known character in Zürich, where you live, and on the other hand, you seem to be well aware of his hilarious suit with J.F. Third surprising indication, you are calling me Mr Faucounau, the same name as Franz Gnaedinger was calling "Grapheus". So, I really have very strong doubt about your denial... But I would understand pretty well that you would be embarrassed to have Franz Gnaedinger among your acquintances or friends, because he would kill your credibility... ( User 80.90.57.154, 20:06, March 24, 2006).

I think it is killing my credibility much more to keep feeding the troll here. I am actually tempted to contact FG and ask him for details, but I've already taken JF's books from the library on your recommendation, and it turned out that you live in total denial concerning their qualities. I have no doubt that the same applies to this case. dab (ᛏ) 21:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr Bachmann, but you began this off-topic discussion. You were the first to mention Franz Gnaedinger and the J.F.'s suit against him, suit which was an obvious error committed by an old respectable scholar, due to his ignorance of Gnaedinger's personality. I agree with you that stopping this exchange and going back to the Phaistos Disk's enigma would be the best thing to do. Personnally, I'll not post anything on Franz Gnaedinger anymore, except if somebody puts this ridiculous problem again on the table. I hope you will agree. User 80.90.57.154, 21:47, March 24, 2006)

Can somebody please clean up and archive most of the crap discussion on this Talk page? It's ugly. It almost puts one off this lovely and mysterious artifact. Evertype 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos in Unicode?

I'm curious to know whether you think a case can be made for formally encoding Phaistos in Unicode. Be specific yea or nay. Thanks Evertype 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

yea, I am sure a case can be made, unless they have an explicit policy against incorporating undeciphered writing systems. It's a clear set of 47 symbols (45 glyphs, the stroke and the "word" separator. 48 with Best's name marker). It is clearly notable (there are dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles dedicated to it). If such a proposal is made, however, it would be practical to submit it as part of a proposal to encode Cretan hieroglyphs. With the 1996 CHIC (see article), there is a clearly numbered glyph inventory of some 150 glyphs. If the Phaistos glyphs are included in the proposal as extra signs, it would amount to some 200 glyphs, all documented and numbered in academic literature, so that it would seem sensible to propose a 8-bit block of "Cretan hieroglyphics". Is there any proposal to include Luwian hieroglyphs btw? That's after all a deciphered script with a rather larger corpus than the Cretan stuff. dab (ᛏ) 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have information on the other Cretan materials, but in view of its status, I think keeping Phaistos Disc characters on their own is the only way to get it through. I'm interested in building the case. Evertype 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to the motives of the last editwar

In order to progress in the search of a solution, I believe it is important to come back to the motive which has lead lastly to an editwar and to the blocking of the article. The dispute began on March 23, at 04H40, when Pmanderson took as a pretext a small modification for deleting at the same time a sentence, existting in the paragraph "Original invention or derivation". Here is the said sentence :

J.Faucounau favours a non-Cretan, Aegean, acrophonic writing, which would be an original invention, but possibly inspired by the Egyptian Hieroglyphic script..

One may wonder : what is so shocking in this sentence to justify a deletion, if not to favour the adverse POV, i.e. that the Disk's script could not be the original invention of an Aegean, but not Minoan people, and therefore that it has to be Minoan (or possibly Luwian). It's to be noticed that Dbachmann has accepted the first part of the sentence, but deleted "possibly inspired by the Egyptian Hieroglyphic script". This is equivalent to disparage the said solution, making it appear "as coming from nothing", what is obviously absurd. Because, as G.Ipsen remarked, such an evoluted script cannot have been invented out of nothing.

The only motive given for this deletion is that the J.F.'s name would be sufficiently mentioned in the article. Well, I would be glad if another author could have been quoted, concerning the attribution of the Disk's script to a non-Minoan, Cycladic people, in close relationship with Crete and Anatolia. Unhappily, there is none but Faure, but in his review of J.F.'s book, what brings us back to square one. This is why the motive given for the deletion cannot be accepted in my opinion, and why the deletion appears as just a pretext to favour one POV at the detriment of another. This is not respecting the WP spirit and NPOV rule. I hope to be followed by a majority on this point.

Another motive of the warring has been the deletion of the following sentence :

Jean Faucounau has proposed a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, which would also require an inward direction.

Here again, what is so shocking with this sentence ? The mention of the J.F.'s name, I suppose. But here again, J.F. has been the only one to care about such a reconstruction of the scribe's moves taking into account all the epigraphical facts. It's not my fault if the other scholars have almost totally neglected this way to reach the truth concerning the Reading Direction... For very good reasons : the would-be decipherers who wanted to read the text left-to-right have surely noticed that there was no possible reconstruction of the scribe's moves in accordance with their hypothesis. As for the others, why caring about such a problem, when they were following the general consensus ? So, the fact is that J.F. has been the only one to examine the problem. Find somebody else who has dealt with the scribe's moves problem, and I'll not object putting his name in place of J.F.'s. one. But I strongly object deleting a useful information to the WP reader. This is against the WP spirit. (User 80.90.57.154, 16:22, March 25, 2006)

"J.Faucounau favours a non-Cretan, Aegean, acrophonic writing, which would be an original invention, but possibly inspired by the Egyptian Hieroglyphic script." This sentence deserves deletion because it is about J. Faucounau, not about the Phaistos Disc. Furthermore, for this to be interesting, there would need to be information as to why we should know that it is "acrophonic" and how there should be any relationship to Egyptian. Since there is no information about either of those things, it seems clear that this sentence is about J. Faucounau, and not about the Phaistos Disc, and that isn't very interesting. Evertype 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You blaspheme in the name of JF - I admire your courage ;-) --Latinus 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Evertype, your objections would be valid if they were not resulting from your misappreciation of the "Proto-Ionic" file. a)- The J.F.'s sentence is obviously about the Phaistos Disk's script. It didn't come out of nothing, but from a 25 years study of the problem. You ask : "Why should we know that the script is acrophonic?". Well, anyone may make his own opinion about that, because J.F. has presented a complete and coherent translation of the text, in which all the signs (and not only eleven of them, as D.Bachmann misunderstood !) have received a Greek (proto-Ionic) acrophonic value. You will probably object that other attempts (Miss Stawell's, G. Knutzen) are also Greek acrophonic, and that they are different, and you will be right. But the question is then : "Which of these Greek-acrophonic solutions, if any, seems to be beyond a killing criticism ?" And the answer is : the Proto-Ionic one, because in spite of his efforts, Y.Duhoux has not killed this solution (please, look at Archive 4,16 & 21), and in particular because no identification has been forced, like this is the case with the other Greek-acrophonic solutions. To take just one example, Sign 30 is obviously "a ram" (<krios> in Greek). Well, it's supposed to be "a stag" by Knutzen ! Please, compare the different acrophonic solutions which have been published, as I did, and I'm sure that you will be convinced... Maybe not that the true solution has been found. But at least, that the Proto-Ionic solution is possibly the true one. Is this not worth to be mentioned in a half-sentence, in concurrence with the other, different ideas, to respect the NPOV rule ?.. 2)- As for the second member of the sentence, it supposes of course that a relationship did exist between the people who printed the Disk and Egypt. Well, the arguments in favour of this hypothesis have been given p. 101 to 115 in the book Les Proto-Ioniens. Maybe, once again, you will not be fully convinced by these arguments. But even if this is the case, think that there are other scholars, like myself, who have been convinced. So, the NPOV rule doesn't allow you to suppress this half-sentence: possibly inspired by the Egyptian Hieroglyphic script. Thank you for opening this discussion. (User 80.90.57.154 , 21:06, 25 March 2006)

In short, Rose-mary proposes to bore us further with speculations about our discreditable motives for not making this article into special pleading for Faucounau.

In so doing, she violates policy: WP:AGF.
She demands we violate policy: not giving undue weight to Faucounau is WP:NPOV.
I suggest that this section be archived, by anyone who feels like doing it. Septentrionalis 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The hereabove claims are ridiculous and only motivated by your hatred of the Proto-Ionic Solution. a)- There is no further speculation. See my answer to Evertype hereabove); b)- by deleting one theory (an original creation, but inspired by an existing script), you violate the NPOV rule. c)- As for the undue weight given to Faucounau, I have already answered. It's not my fault if he has been the first to think and to care about important things neglected by others ! d)- your proposal to put this discussion in archives shows how you are afraid that WP readers may judge by themselves. And it would be a first step before total disparition, I guess, so no WP reader will be able in the future to form his own opinion by himself ? (There is already, thanks to you, a problem finding a previous discussion in Archives which have not always the List of what they contain)...(User 80.90.57.154 11:30, 25 March 2006.

Archived

If any other material needs to be retrieved from archive, please do so. Septentrionalis 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Those interested in knowing the motives of the last edit-war have to know that the corresponding discussion, although concerning the present time, can be found in Archive 6, where some editors, afraid that WP readers could make their own opinion by themselves, have relegated it. (User 80.90.57.154, 22:16, March 25, 2006)

Please assume good faith. --Latinus 22:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to do so. But why archiving a still present discussion , and not the older and apparently ended ones ? Got an answer ? Mr Bachmann says that he doesn't think anything new will come for a still living discussion. How does he know ? Does he read in a crystal ball ? (User 80.90.57.154, 22:28, 25 March 2006)

It is done in order to keep irrelevant rants that have no place on the talk page off the talk page - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Latinus 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, you are, guys, the sole judges who will decide what has no place.

Well, what a surprise ! It's the discussion concerning the POV you don't like which is relegated in the Archive ! How ethical it is from you to relegate what could hurt the POV you like !.. Think about that : what would happen if some WP readers were convinced that your POV is wrong and the concurrent right ? What an horror !!! (User 80.90.57.154 ,23:01, 25 March 2006).

"Please do not feed the troll"

Well, Don't fee the trolls, but use any trick possible to eliminate the POV of others. This is the new WP policy, following a well-known pack of wolves. If you cannot frighten or banish your opponents, like the pack of wolves did when they attacked Irismeister and this poor and innocent Rose-Mary, use the last trick invented by Pmanderson alias Septentrionalis : Archive any discussion which could embarrass you or the POV you defend ! And above all : Forget about NPOV ! (User 80.90.57.154, 14:22, March 26, 2006°)

Back to square one

Thanks to Latinus , the WP reader will not know that there is a theory; developped by a scholar X... (name censored for avoiding any accusation of publicity in his favour) in c. 40 papers and books, which defends the hypothesis that the Disk has been written by an Aegean, but non-Minoan people. What an horror for Mr Latinus if the WP reader knew that the Minoan Origin has a concurrent ! This is the NPOV concept, revised by Mr Latinus. (User 80.90.57.154 , 13:00 March 28, 2006

I'm sorry, grapheus, but this edit (and the revert) are definitely WP:POINT violations. Who is X - if you want to troll a website, websites which are capable of fulfiling your needs are available. --Latinus 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Troll

What I understand pretty well, Mr Latinus is that you are now calling your friends to your help (Hectorian now , Khoikhoi and others soon) to impose your POV. Because I am still waiting for your answer, Sir : What is so wrong, informing the WP reader that J.F. , following Ipsen and Evans, has proposed the theory that the Phaistos Disk is the work of a non-Minoan, but Aegean and Cycladic people ? Where is the trolling, if not coming from you, an obscure member of the Toulouse Unisersity ?.. This thory has been printed in serious journals, and been criticized (positively by Faure, negatively by Duhoux) by serious scholars. But you, an obvious ignoramus in the matter, you pretend to censure this information, without any motive !. Like Mr Lukas Pietsch, you are a disgrace to the WP- spirit. (User 80.90.57.154 ,

Just for the record:noone told me to revert this article.i did it myself. --Hectorian 14:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe, as it was the first time that you came in, to the best of my knowledge... But if you say so... it's OK. What I would like to know is : Why did you delete the disputed sentence ? Because there was an ironical X instead of the scholar's name ?.. OK, you were right. I will change that. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:22, March 28, 2006)

To Psaltis : "consensus" cannot be only the POV of a bunch of wolves, full of hatred against a theory going against their ideas. There is no consensus as long as the NPOV rule is not respected. What is the case here : following Latinus (and his friends or sockpuppets), one scientific and published theory should no be mentioned in the WP Encyclopedia, (even with the name of its inventor not given) This is a betrayal of the WP spirit. (User 80.90.57.154, 16:40, March 28, 2006)

Categories: Talk archives