Jump to content

Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

NPOV - Edit wars

I don't know what the issue is between Kadmos and 80.90.39.138, but "Suppression of propagandizing links" sounds itself like POV. --Curtis Clark 05:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is the number of links 80.90.XX.XX has added for J. Faucounaus decipherment:
Kadmos 16:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Additionally 80.90.XX.XX has added some text for Faucounau on the Phaistos-Page: "In the opinion of most scholars, this Phaistos Disc has yet to be deciphered. Nevertheless, one French specialist, J. Faucounau, pretends not only to have deciphered the text, but to have gathered c. 30 pieces of evidence, showing that his decipherment is correct. The disk would have been written by Proto-Ionian Greeks."
To make my point clear: It is just the number of links 80.90.XX.XX has added for Faucounau. That links to webpages for Faucounaus decipherment does exist is ok.
See also the argument between Irismeister and Psychonaut/Jose Ramos at this talk page.
Kadmos 09:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the issue is the censure by "Kadmos" of a mention that the reference he quoted is a superficial, incomplete and biased criticism of the Proto-Ionian Solution . So, I added some links to this Proto-Ionian Solution because "Kadmos" added himself a link to make the reader believe that there had been a criticism which was definitely condemning the Proto-Ionic Solution, what is untrue. I repeat it : Duhoux' criticism is superficial, incomplete (its author don't say a word of the most important chapter of the reviewed book!), and biased. For instance, with the exception of a lapsus calami, all his criticisms are based upon statistics supposing that the script of the Disk is of a Cretan type. This is a postulate which doesn't fit with what J.Faucounau has said : the Disk is not of Minoan, but of Proto-Ionian origin. To statistically compare a script writing the grec word <krokos> KRO-KO-S with another which writes KO-RO-KO-SE is meaningless, and so are Duhoux'conclusions...
All the links have been created by different people, not by the author himself : the first one comes from a peer-rewied archaeological e-journal and the second has been created by an universitarian. Only the third one has been created by an "amateur" ... And I could have added a few other, also coming from "amateurs"...
So, I added those links to make clear that, in spite of Duhoux' criticisms, the Proto-Ionian Solution has been accepted by many people, scholars and others... The fact that Y.Duhoux himself has given more importance to this solution than to the other he criticized in his cited paper, is significant. And is also significant the hatred of the Proto-Ionian Solution showed by "Kadmos"!!!! (IP 80.90.57.154)
You say that you have added the additional links because I have added a link to a criticism by Y. Duhoux.
The solution seems to be very easy. We delete the link to the criticism and to the additional links. Here is the list of the links to be deleted:
Kadmos 17:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
If you agree to suppress the Duhoux' link, I agree to keep only the link http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/v002.htm, and to suppress the link : http://www-personal.umich.edu/~artsfx/notes3.html . This is a 1 to 1 deal. Seems fair to me.(User 80.90.57.154).
First you wrote "I added some links to this Proto-Ionian Solution because "Kadmos" added himself a link to make the reader believe that there had been a criticism". The appropriate solution, which results from your own words, should be: "I will delete some links to this Proto-Ionian Solution if "Kadmos" will delete himself a link...". Kadmos 21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but by making this Editwar with me, you have given to me the opportunity to discover links I didn't know or that I had forgotten, and an excellent one amongst them, the e-paper in ANISTORITON. So much the worse for you if I consider fair, now, to keep it !..(User 80.90.57.154).
Fine, keep it. I also found this e-paper very informative.
Instead you can switch it with http://www.iris-ward.com/DISK/2014-DISK.htm or you can put the following two lines together:
for instance as:
  • Jean Faucounau, Le déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos & Les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié, L'Harmattan, Paris 1999 & 2001. [online summary]
BTW: I recommend to you the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and No original research pages.
Kadmos 22:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
OK for your second solution. (User 80.90.57.154) September 21 at 12H15 (CEST)
OK. The change is done. Kadmos 12:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Add to that that four books from the same author have been published by a French scientific editor, L'Harmattan...
Therefore my questions to the envious "Kadmos" :
a)- How many decipherments of the Phaistos Disk do you know, which have been so broadly accepted, both by scholars and by amateurs ?
b)- What is wrong in mentioning links, which are so different ?
And as "Kadmos" loves editwars, I have also a more vicious other question : c)- why did you quote, and give the link of, a very superficial paper (in particular, it does not talk about chapter 7, mentioning proofs), written by a professor at a Belgium semi-private school (a Catholic University) ? As far as I know, this guy is not a mathematician, although he loves so much to speak of the Calculus of Probabilities that he wrote in the past two contradictory papers on the probable language of the Phaistos Disk based upon the same calculation !!! (IP 80.90.57.154)
a) 2 or 3 websites didn't change the fact that until today there is no scientifically accepted decipherment.
b) To prefer one not scientifically accepted theory amongst others is against the Wikipedia Rules.
See Number 3 of Wikipedia Rules
"Neutral point of view (NPOV). Try to write from as neutral a point of view as possible. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us."
c) The fact that you call a paper in the American Journal of Archaeology (AJA) "superficially" is unbelievable.
Kadmos 21:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that in a controversial case such as this, NPOV is to include references to contested decipherments, and to categorize them thus: "So-and-so has offered a decipherment of such-and-such, but it is discounted by many in the scholarly community." Thus there is no suppression (which is POV), links remain to alternative theories, the reader is given a sense of the controversy (which wasn't even present in the talk page until Kadmos posted), and maybe then the parties can get over the edit wars. Personally, I don't care, having no stake in this other than improving Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


I fully agree with Curtis Clark. His position is sound, and has been (until "Kadmos" came in !) the existing one : the text says what is scientifically accepted at this day : Scholarly attempts at decipherment are thought to be unlikely to success until...etc.. Opinions for or against such or such possible track are mentioned in the Bibliography, and details on the deciphering attempts themselves are given in the links. I don't understand why ""Kadmos" want to modify this in favour of his own ideas !

And now my answers to "Kadmos" last remarks : a)- That no one is scientifically accepted is said in the text b)- as a consequence, there is no preference in Wilkipedia. The Wilkipedia article is perfectly neutral. Only the links are not, what is a normal thing ! c)- This is my opinion, and even if I consider it as a fact (there is in this paper not a single word about the most important chapter of the reviewed book), I didn't ask it to be mentioned as a comment after the reference to this AJAonline paper you put in the Bibliography, as I could have done it. But it can still be done, if you wish me to say why I consider this paper as superficial and biased ! (IP 80.90.57.154)

a)- The number of links is just translating the fact that many people believe in the Proto-Ionic Solution ! Like it or not !

b)- This is wrong : No, it's the truth ! Before "Kadmos" came in, peace had been established, because the followers of the Proto-Ionic Solution had no more asked that this solution be recognized as the good one. The text of the Wikipedia article was, then, just enunciating a fact : for the time being, no attempt has been universally accepted, but the Proto-Ionic Solution was considered by several people as the good one. This is what "Kadmos" has wanted to destroy for an obscure motive, trying to make people believe that Duhoux' criticisms had definitely destroyed the Proto-Ionic Solution, what is wrong. (IP 80.90.57.154)

Neutrality

The claim by "Kadmos" that the actual version would not be neutral is ridiculous : a)- the text of the Wikipedia article does not give any preference to one solution, and it just gives the opinion of the majority of the scholars. b)- Each searcher who disagrees and considers that the disk has been deciphered may give the reference of his solution (or ideas) in the links. Here again, this Wikipedia position is perfectly neutral (IP 80.90.57.154 - 09/19 at 15H.32).

Additional remark : and "Kadmos" knows that so well, that he has suppressed some of his interventions in the preceding paragraph NOPV-Editwars !.. Very significant ! (IP 80.90.57.154)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phaistos_Disc/Archive_2&oldid=96088755"