Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Phaistos Disc. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

article disappeared

A small question that leads to a bigger question: what happened to the article on the Phaistos Disk? I came across it by chance, linked to it from Archaeology, and the next time I looked it had completely disappeared. I know I've been spending a lot of time here recently, but I don't think I'm so far gone that I imagined it. Okay, maybe the content was plagiarised or just plain wrong, but I don't understand how it was possible to remove the article completely without leaving any trace of it. I've tried everything I can think of: Deletion log, Orphaned images, alternative spellings, and I'm flummoxed. Anyone else the wiser? Deb 10:20 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation (it is in Wikipedia:Deletion log) and the user admitted it on the Talk page, which still exists. See Talk:Phaistos Disk.--Eloquence 11:34 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Eloquence. I must have just missed it amongst all the other deletions. The content was very dodgy, anyway. I assume the image was copyright as well--that's a pity. Deb 17:16 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Speculation or fact ?

I find the following language to be both inaccurate and highly biased, to say the least:

It is now established (although still poorly recognized) that the interpretation of the Phaistos Disk glyphs attempted by Jean Faucounau is definitive. Indeed, statistical considerations, deep cultural knowledge, and internal evidence of the word instantiations occuring only once converge in a most difficult and most acceptable interpretation which is compelling, both occamian and esthetically pleasing.

In the last three weeks, the tone of the article has changed greatly. It now contains the most outlandish speculation presented as fact. --Jose Ramos 11:19, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More... There exist over four dozen possible interpretations of the disc. For example, this site: http://users.otenet.gr/~svoronan/phaistos.htm lists some 51 different interpretations. Scholars are not in agreement on any one. The main reason for this is that the text on the disc is very short, and unlike anything else -- there is not enough evidence to decipher it.

A short text in an unknown language or code can be deciphered in many different ways, and there is simply no way to tell which, if any, might be right without further evidence.

I don't think the article should claim that Faucounau's interpretation has been "established" as "definitive".

I propose a rewrite. --Jose Ramos 11:03, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am in accord with the above two posters. I work as a computational linguist, and while I claim no special expertise or interest in the Phaistos disc, the colleauges of mine who do are adamant that Faucounau's work is not "established" to be "definitive", and probably never will be due to the paucity of data. We have, after all, only one disc, plus a few etchings found nearby. Without a significantly larger corpus, or a Rosetta-stone-style bitext (actually tritext-bilingual, the Demotic text is just as informative(Egyptian)), it's impossible to say for certain what this tiny sample really says.

One must be wary of any overwhelmingly positive claim regarding Faucounau; there is an infamous crank named "grapheus" (who, from the similarity in writing styles, many believe to be Faucounau himself) who has been rabidly pushing the Faucounau theory whenever the Phaistos topic is brought up on Usenet. (See http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Agrapheus&btnG=Google+Search for details.)

I am concerned that Faucounau, grapheus, or someone who has been misled by their proselytizing added this rather strong and unsupported claim to this Wikipedia article. I would advise future contributors to this article to be on the lookout for an insidious reinsertion of this claim.

--Psychonaut, Mon Feb 2 13:45:56 CET 2004

Why talk grapheus before reading Faucounau ? Why put the cart before the bull ? Did you read the last three books by Faucounau ? I did. Now what do you want me to do, to read the Greek manual for you ? Sincerely irismeister 16:24, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC).

De-relativization

The fact that an interpretation is highly disputed does not mean that we should suspend our reasoning, gentlemen! There are critical points made by Faucounau. They deserve more than dilution of his reason into relativism by mentioning all fifty-something other attempts, most of which had been dismissed already. Sincerely, irismeister 15:15, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

A phrase such as this:

The most interesting and well documented current interpretation...

is simply an opinion and not a fact. --Jose Ramos 16:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but then the removal of the two sentences in lieu of adjusting the statement is censorship and dewikification. How about The most current interpretation - concedo - although it IS the most interesting, in case you read them all as I did : )

Sincerely, irismeister 16:16, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

This is back, because it contains information. We are simply having these data, these hypotheses, these interpretations, and these conclusions. In three words, good old science. Needs only scientific comments, not ranting about - what - extra Wiki material ? This is only an article about the disc, not about graphaeus, paphaeus, rapheus, uraeus, whoever. Let's talk disc first. Three books were summed up in two sentences, which I will always put back for their informational content and Wikified nature. Did you read those three books ? Do you want to discuss them? Then why do you keep talking about grapheus, whoever, without first talking ad rem ? Sincerely, irismeister 08:47, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

OK. Be as you wish ! Sincerely, irismeister 18:47, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Decipherment claims

I'm uneasy with the long lists of external links in section Decipherment claims. It seems everybody adds his (or his friend's) homepage to the list and hope to attract traffic. Whereas all these claims may be remotely interesting, I assume not all of them are of encyclopedic quality. Remember the Wikipedia:No original research policy. It's not a black and white case here, as simply linking to original research can be O.K.

Summing up, my proposal is only to keep those links in Decipheremnt claims, which attracted some citeable discussion. I'll do some Googling on this, but it would be easier, if those who added the links give some references.

Pjacobi 14:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From article

I removed the following remark from the article page, as it was written as an comment -- Pjacobi 12:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Phaestos Disk! As against existing decodings the text, safely I declare, that on - Phaestos Disk - the text - is not present !!!. What is -?. Rising of sea level - as a result of the begun warming a climate 16 000 years ago and the flooding which have created threat of a land in the unknown sizes , "has pushed" the author of a disk to leave memory of the world in which it lived and to write the letter to the future generations of people - with the description of a life of people of his period ! . And that it was clear to the future population of the ground, without dependence from a spoken language, by him has been thought up - "language": the semantic maintenance - a silhouette of the form - subjects, animal, plants and etc.. That is that "language" ("writing") which started to be fulfilled by the person in an extreme antiquity , since figures on rocks , in caves , etc. And charm of his letter consists that the author of a disk has managed not only to unit all existing ways "silhouette" letters for that period , but also has managed to find - the form of the letter - adequate to his purpose . Namely the form of a mollusc and his bowl - Nautiliusa Pompiliusa !!! . Having taken advantage : a silhouette of his bowl - silhouettes of the central sectors of the parties of a disk ; an internal structure of a bowl , with sectors - a spiral pattern with sectors - the parties of a disk ; a principle of a life of the mollusc - promotion from a bowl for a life and returning in a bowl for rest and etc.. Author Phaestos Disk managed to display a life of our planet , switching : the sky , the ground , the underwater world , etc. ... . With the account of that a disk ! - too a sign ; a line with points ! at the end of a spiral - too a sign , etc. ... . More detailed description - Secrets - Phaestos Disk : Web - http://www.Phaestosdisk.narod.ru Respect, Viktor Pravilov. 20:03 , 14 Dec 2004

Is this just a pretentious reference to the Thera explosion?

"The site apparently collapsed during the famous ca. 1628 BC event of the Minoan world and the Mediterranean basin at large. " I didn't know an exact year had been fixed. Or perhaps this famous event is something else... Wetman 20:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it's that event. And yes, rather pretentious. It's called the 'minoan eruption' elsewhere.

movable type

It was called 'made with movable type' by Bossert in 1931. See the printing press article. But who was Bossert? Prater 09:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Helmuth T. Bossert, I think. It's tiresome when they refer to "authorities" by last names, to tell us we're jerks if we don't know... --Wetman 09:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On 2005-02-10 I edited Phaistos Disc to correct a reference to "moveable type" which is a complete misconception. User Prater replied on my talk page. I have moved the discussion from my talk page to here, as follows:-

== Movable type ==

Hi, I saw you removed the remark on movable type from the Phaistos Disk article, but I can't say I agree. First of all, engraved punches are simply a kind of movable type, so your characterization doesn't conflict with mine. Secondly, it has been called 'made with movable type', and 'printed' so many times in the past already, why change now? This also happens in the Wikipedia article 'printing press', so will you be changing that one as well? Anyway, I welcome a mention of the engraved punches somewhere in the P.D. article. It is a better term than the 'pre-formed hieroglyphic "seals"' it speaks of now. Thx Prater 18:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I definitely intend to change the Printing press page. This ref to movable type seems seems like a perpetuated error. It is faulty, completely a-historical. Movable type is cast in quantity from matrices, which in turn are made from engraved punches. AFAIK there is no evidence for movable type before the 1400s. I suspect it originated as a misconception from engraved letter/ideogram punches - of which, indeed, the Phaistos disk is an early example. Unless you can advise me better, I think wikipedia should not connect the Phaistos disk with "movable type". --mervyn 22:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The famous John Chadwick has even called it a TYPEWRITTEN document, which I guess would be even more 'a-historical'. You're on your own with this I think. Prater 13:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A colleague who knew John Chadwick reported to me that he once said: "I loathe, I loathe, I LOATHE the Phaistos disk." Evertype 19:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly maintain that "movable type" is totally out of context with regard to the Phaistos Disc. Impressed symbols from seals or punches is not the same as movable type. As I said, Movable type is cast in quantity from matrices, which in turn are made from engraved punches. The PD exhibits only the latter. The ref to "typewritten document" is surely metaphorical. --mervyn 06:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Metaphorical? That looks like a last resort. It was put forward in a serious work by a great authority in the field. (J.Chadwick, Linear B and Related Scripts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) In fact, I have the book in front of me. It says: "[the script may not be Minoan because the disk] is in at least one respect unique. The disk has the distinction of being the world's first typewritten document. It was made by taking a stamp [etc.]". This can only mean what it says: the way it was made makes it "typewritten". Anyway, the funny thing is that a little further down he says "it remains some way from being an anticipation of printing", clearly a reference to Bossert's assessment. So it looks like I've found the ref I was asking you to provide earlier. And I do now intend to remove the reference to movable type from the article because it may cause unnecessary confusion. I'll change it to something like "it has been called the first typewritten document". Prater 23:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that is much more accurate. I was beginning to wonder how I could explain that the technique of impressing characters into clay from a seal or punch is not what is meant by the term "movable type". --mervyn 10:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. I said somewhere "it's movable and it's type", which may be true, but to speak of "movable type", like Bossert did, where no typesetting takes place before "printing", is deceptive. Prater 13:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Toponymical marks

I restored a half-sentence that I had removed earlier: "some ancillary but clearly stamped signs - in the likes of toponymical marks". Does anyone know what this refers to? Prater 10:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this is gibberish. there is no such thing as a "toponymical mark" remove, please. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the disc "Hieroglyphs"

I think in the furthering of understanding the "Mystery" of this "Phaistos Disc", it would be Interesting, for a list of the Phaistos hieroglyphs to be presented, with the ability of people to make comments on what Each Phaistos Hieroglyph -- Actual Real-(Phaistos)-World Reference", may be. The "vertical fish", and the "walking man", are simple enough, but in various settings, I am sure all types of variations for each sign are possible. I would love to see some of our suggestions: Start.

Here goes, my off the cuff "list", (Side B only Pic)(different pic in front of me)(slightly higher resolution)(Michael McAnnis).

"full Axehead,(short handle)"
"(not)-Boomerang-STICK"
"(not)-Beehive" ?
"Bird(side view)" from A:Gull ?
"(triangle)Breast? w/Nipple?"
"(pizza)Circle-(w/ 7 Star Pleides?)
"Club(vertical) w/Holes?"
"vertical Fish"
"(military) Head w/Feathers"
"Hide(vertical)" -?-
"Human-Standing"
" 5 LEAF-flower/branch"
" =Pleides Circle"
"Running Man"
"vertical Stick w/CUBIC (Mace)Head?"
"(Cult?)Woman-in Dress/Garb"

Not obvious types:

"vertical?-BOAT?"
"(triangle)Breast? w/Nipple?" Not the Crete Island? No. ?

"Club(vertical)-a Split Pair"(As Eqyptian Club?(=Priest)). Is this also two vertical Pair of Legs?
"Crown w/Feathers?"- for Head"
" =Flail,eqyptian ?" No.
"2-Legged /Rectangle?" ?

"(vertical) pair-Curved Lines/Sticks" Sticks w/ thickness?
"(Twin)-Mounds(on Side)"....as the Twin towers in Luwian language, ?
"? Octopus(small)/Upside down 3-legs ?"
"8-petal/Rosette"
" =(Circle type) Scimitar/Blade(vertical)?" No. What?
---= looks like (2nd row) with flowing straight lines, dark small top and bottom ??

"vertical-Semicircle(type)Weave?"
"vertical-Stalk(1 to 3(finger))"
"vertical-Stick(Curves/Pointed)"
"TRIANGLE-(basket)Weaved?"

and two or 3 more?

3 concentric circles of characters, plus ( 11 )

49, 35, 24, 11....Total 119 "stampings", for Side B.

A Better pic, for SIDE A shows these "corrections"

{pizza}Circle ==SHIELD(?)
always adjacent, behind military?/Head w/Feather Crest

vertical, OAR
usually adjacent, following vertical,BOAT

the vertical wavy stick is ? WORM/w/Unicorn Antler

(flying)BIRDw/Nest building branch (of Peace?)
there are two groupings, identical(2nd row):
- --- Military Head w/crest, then SHIELD, Bird w/Brance, then Worm w/Unicorn Antler

Military Head often followed by Shield, 3 in 1st row, 4 in others; ....for side B: Begins with Head plus Shield, then two other heads begin groups (Shield used only once more, stamping #20, in Group #5).

for side A, 123 stampings, 119+123 gives 142. Always recounting because of (Erasures). ///

I don't see the need of this : There are already excellent books on the question !.. To the Faucounau's and Godart's books mentioned in the Bibliography, one may add : Paul J. Muenzer, Die bildhaften Schriftzeichen des Diskos von Phaistos, München. 1999. (IP 80.90.57.154).

NPOV

I find pretty funny that Gbrunner considers as "a NPOV" (sic) to make believe the Wikipedia readers that only "enthousiastics" would say that the decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is theorically possible, and denies as a fact that all the scholars who have applied the Shannon's Formula to the Phaistos Disk agree about the value (c.225 signs) of the "Unicity Distance" !... Moreover, I wonder why he doesn't find neutral a redaction giving the opinion of both parties concerning the theorical possibility of deciphering the Disk : the today "intuitive" opinion of a (probable?) majority, and the one of some scholars, scientifically based upon Shannon's work. (80.90.39.25 14:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

Corsini's "decipherment"

Although this "decipherment" is obviously wrong (false reading direction), I believe it is fair to give its reference in the paragraph "Deciphering attempts", so anyone can make his own opinion. (User 80.90.57.154).

Strokes

The text proposed by Gbrunner is incomplete and biaised (there are a lot of other solutions concerning the meaning of the strokes), and moreover out of place, because the Wikipedia article on the Phaistos Disk is not the adequate place for discussing this very difficult problem. (User 80.90.57.154, Dec 11,2005).

I wonder why 80.90.57.154 doesn't find a neutral redaction giving the opinion of both parties concerning the strokes. Gbrunner 19:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were fully aware of the question, you wouldn't wonder why I find that your redaction is biaised :

1)- you wrote "15 glyphs marked with a stroke". Here are the figures given by several authors : Schertel 11 -- Reinach 14 -- Meyer 15-- Read, Ipsen, Schwarz 16 -- Evans, della Seta, Duhoux, Faucounau 17 -- Macalister, Jeppesen 18 -- Faure 19.

2)- you wrote "they occur at the beginning of a word". This has been PROVED to be wrong : they occur at the end of some words.

3)- you quoted only two possibilities : there are, at least 5 more ! They may be "ordinary signs", "viramas", "cartouche-equivalent", "numbers", "marking a number written in full" , etc. Pratically, each "decipherment" corresponds to a different solution concerning the meaning of the strokes !!!

BTW, I wonder why you have several times tried to discretely CENSOR several interesting discussions and, in the article itself, the references to very well-known books on the Phaistos Disk, in total disrespect of the Wikipedia rules !.. (User 80.90.57.154, Dec.11,2005).

Ok. There is a new edition with your remarks concerned. Gbrunner 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

One may talk of "both opinions" for the direction of reading only (although one direction has been PROVED, not the other!). For the meaning of the strokes, there are a lot more than two opinions. As it's practically impossible to mention all the solutions suggested for this meaning of the strokes, it's better to say that "it's a matter of discussion".

On the other hand, there is no basis to your statement that "the most popular idea is that they are used to subdivide the text into paragraphs". This idea has been defended by one scholar (Yves Duhoux) only, and strongly criticized by others, who noticed that the stroke is generally not at the left end of the sign (as it should be the case if it were a punctuation) but often at its right end or in its middle. (User80.90.57.154, Dec.11, 2005)

For Shannons theory it was ok to name only Faucounau as example. But here Duhoux, Evans and Godart etc. are not enough to be mentioned. Gbrunner 21:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is another biaised statement of yours !.. Only Duhoux has defended the idea. Evans and Godart have hesitantly envisaged that it could be a kind of punctuation. But, as I said, this idea has also been strongly criticized from the position of the stroke, rarely, if ever, at the left end of the signs.

BTW, as you follow Duhoux, Evans and Godart, why are you talking about a "possible" reading from the center ?.. All these scholars are adamant on this point : the text has to be read from the exterior towards the center !..(User{{80.90.57.154]]).

I did not wrote about defending I wrote about the most popular idea! Ohlenroths decipherment has shown that the reading direction is from the center towards the exterior. BTW, he also defends the idea of the stroke as a kind of punctation. He explains the different positions of the stroke very well. But this doesnt matter. For wikipedia a neutral edition is needed! Gbrunner 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But yours is not neutral. It's biaised statements and censorship of what you don't like. (User 80.90.57.154).

I wonder why 80.90.57.154 is censoring my edition concerning the stroke instead of finding a neutral redaction giving the opinion of both parties. I believe it is fair to give references to diferent explanations, so anyone can make his own opinion. Gbrunner 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why Gbrunner goes on talking about "both parties" when these parties are about ten or more !.. But I may accept his last edition, completing it with a paragraph about the Direction of Reading (User 80.90.57.154, 23.30, Dec. 11, 205)

I wonder why 80.90.57.154 is talking abyout accepting my last edition if indeed he has changed it. Gbrunner 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't change it. I completed it by a paragraph about the Direction of reading because it was obvious that Gbrunner was wrongly starting from the hypothesis that the text was to be read from the center. See new paragraph hereafter. And saying that the solution you love is "the most popular idea" is based upon nothing but your own opinion.[[80.90.57.154)

It's unbelievable that you delete without any argument the most popular idea for the thorn, supported by Evans, Duhoux, Ohlenroth and others, and at the same time you wrote about "all the scholars who have closely examined the Disk" without naming a single one. Gbrunner 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That it is "the most popular idea" is only your opinion. They are at least as many scholars who have considered the strokes as "viramas" (Hempl, Cuny, Rowe, Best-Woudhuizen, etc.). As for the scholars who have closely examined the disk, I may cite Yves Duhoux and L. Godart, for instance. Both have had the opportunity to examine the Disk during hours in the Herakleion Museum. Both agree about the direction of reading (exterior towards center), based upon their examination. (User90.80.57.154, 20.15, Dec.12,2005).

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your statements are biased. If I cite Duhoux and Godart you will say that this is only my opinion, but if you cite Duhoux and Godart you will say that they have had the opportunity to examine the Disk during hours in the Herakleion Museum. Gbrunner 23:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is strange that you don't understand the difference between a simple hypothesis (about the role of the strokes) and an undeniable conclusion based upon undeniable facts (the direction of printing) !.. And therefore that you don't understand the difference when you follow Duhoux and Godart in the first case, but refuse their conclusion in the second case, and when I do the contrary ... (User 80.90.57.154, Dec.13, 2005)

To call the reading direction a undeniable conclusion from the fact that Duhoux and Godart have had the opportunity to examine the Disk during hours in the Herakleion Museum says all about your way of argumentation. For me it's a undeniable fact that the strokes are attached to the first or last sign of a "word", not how long somebody was looking for something! Gbrunner 16:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny !.. The undeniable conclusion came not from the examination of the Disk by itself, but from the epigraphical facts they saw. If I emphasized the fact that both spent hours examining the Disk, it's because many scholars and amateurs have made incorrect deductions from (more or less bad) photographies. For instance, I know a guy who wrote that the imprints were in relief, another one who talked about a disk of bronze, etc. That the strokes were attached to "the first" sign if one reads the text from the center is undeniable. But what is arguable is talking about "the first" sign, or to mention "the first or the last" sign, when one solution is definitely wrong. Nevertheless, I am not opposed to such a redaction, if you hold so much for it ! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:16, Dec.13, 2005)

The problem is the way you are arguing! The only "difference when you follow Duhoux and Godart for the reading direction, but refuse that their conclusion about the strokes is worth to be mentioned, and when I do the contrary" is your own opinion. It's still the same argument!

In the same way you are talking about "The overcuts of the signs with the spiral, the separators, and other signs, ..." without naming a single example and if I give a counter-example you say that it "is obvious the result of a correction". One time you say "Both opinions must be given, or none" and an other time you say "As it's practically impossible to mention all the solutions".

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. But this is not possible with you. For you your opinion is always "undeniable" and the opinion of others is always "definitely wrong". Instead of trying to convince me with arguments you are attacking me personally. Human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise. Gbrunner 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a caricature of my position, and a personal attack. I am attached to the basic Wilkipedia rule, which is NPOV. But this rule does not require that obviously false or meaningless arguments will be presented in the same way as the true ones, neither than simple opinions are put on the same level as established facts.

I told it already : I see no objection that extravagant theories be mentioned. This is the NPOV rule, that I respect. But this is not enough for you. You want that the redaction presents them as the truth, at the expense of suppressing the true ones. (User 80.90.57.154, 22,00 ,Dec.13, 2005)

You say, "that you are attached to the basic Wilkipedia rule, which is NPOV". More then 50% of my last answer are quotings from this page! Search for "The neutral point of view ... " and for "Human beings disagree ...". After that search for "meaningless arguments", "simple opinions", "dubious or meaningless arguments", "established facts", "extravagant theories" etc. on the NPOV page. Gbrunner 23:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Direction of reading

The argument of the "overcuts in A26" is without any value, because it is obvious that this overcut of the "prisoner" by the "shield" is due to a correction. Moreover, the careful examination of the other signs show that this correction has been done from right to left (deformation of the "crested head" by the "shield"). The "reconstruction of the movements of the scribe" is the decisive way to determine the direction of printing, and by the same token the direction of reading. None of the guys, scholars or amateurs, who have adopted a direction of reading from the center, has been able to present a reconstruction fitting all the epigraphical facts. If you want to defend it, please present your own reconstruction, and you will be more credible than using arguments without any value... (User 80.90.57.154 Dec.12, 2005).

It should be possible to find a shorter edition for the Direction of Reading paragraph:

From the epigraphical facts it can be shown that the text was written from the exterior to the center. The overcuts between signs show that the scribe was stamping the text from right to left. Kadmos 10:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK with me, with a short list of those epigraphical facts. So, I propose :

From the diverse epigraphical facts (overcuts, misorientation of some signs, angulous points of the spirals, corrections, etc.), it can be shown that the text has been written from the exterior to the center, spire after spire, the scribe having alternated tracing of the spiral and stamping of the signs in the track so created, obviously composing its text in proportion as he was printing it.

80.90.57.154, Dec 12,2005)

Keep it simple:

From the diverse epigraphical facts (overcuts, angulous points of the spirals, corrections, etc.), it can be shown that the text has been written from the exterior to the center. Kadmos 14:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is too succinct, because it concerns only the direction of printing, but doesn't settle the question of the direction of reading. For that, one has to notice that the text has been written by pieces, with short interrumptions of the printing by the scribe from time to time, with corrections mostly done "on the spot", etc., all things which show that the scribe was composing his text, and that therefore there is no way to dissociate "direction of printing" and "direction of reading". (User 80.90.57.154, 15.00 Dec. 12, 2005).

Answering to Gbrunner's arguments : 1)- the argument of the "walking direction" of the signs is without any value : if the Disk's script would be the same as the Old Egyptian Script, it would demonstrate the contrary !!! 2)-the argument concerning the oblique strokes (that they have been drawn from left to right would speak for a direction of reading from the center) is just preposterous ... 3)- As for the spirals, if they had been drawn from the center, why are their shapes so different ? 4)- As for the argument that it is easier to read the group "shield+crested head" in a reading from the center, it has nothing to do with epigraphy. I repeat what I wrote : Please present your own reconstruction of the scribe's movements in the direction you are advocating, and show that it fits with the epigraphical facts. I challenge you that you will fail (User 80.90.57.154, 19.50 , Dec.12, 2005).

to 1) it's obviously not the Old Egyptian Script 2) this is only your opinion 3) they fit very well with a drawing direction starting from the center 4) This does not mean that this agrument is wrong. Gbrunner 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1)- Get an education in Egyptian Hieroglyphs !.. They are drawn "to meet the reader", i.e. in the direction opposite to the reading direction 2)- It's not my opinion, but common sense : If I use a / , does this mean that I write from right to left ? 3)- you did not answer my question. Please give your own reconstruction ! , so anyone may judge... 4)- this argument has been made in total disregard of the epigraphical facts. You cannot say, as you did, that it is an epigraphical argument. (User80.90.57.154)

1) I have no doubt that this is right for Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but I have doubt that this is correct for the Phaistos Disc. 2) If you draw the / from left to right this has a meaning. 4) Why, it is still an argument. Gbrunner 21:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1)- You have no doubt now about the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but it was not the case before... It would be fairer if you had said :"OK, I was mistaken!".. And why should the rule be different for the Phaistos Disk ? Just because it's your opinion ???? 2)- ????? Please, make the same experiment as I did : take 10 persons, 8 Europeans (used to write from left to right) and 2 Israelians (used to write from right to left in their country) and ask them to draw an oblique stroke. The result has been : 8 / coming from the Europeans + 1 from an Israelian, educated in England -- one \ coming from the other Israelian living in Tel Aviv... 4)-It's untrue that there is still an argument about what you call the difficult problem of the direction of reading, because this problem is one which has been solved. I repeat what I already wrote twice : The decisive argument concerning the Direction of reading is the reconstruction of the movements of the scribe. Present your own reconstruction if you don't agree with the exterior-to-center direction, so anybody may judge. (User 80.90.57.154, 21.15, Dec.14, 2005)

J.Faucounau's books cannot be separated

Why is G.Brunner suppressing one of the J.Faucounau's quoted books, if not because he has never read any of them ? Because otherwise, he would know that the book Les Proto-Ioniens.. gives some details of the evidence just listed in the first book on "Le déchiffrement..." . One has therefore to quote both books in a Wikipedia article on the Phaistos Disk.

I can even add that some other complements can be found in the other, more recent book: Les Origines Grecques à l'Age de Bronze, but they are not as essential as the ones developped in Les Proto-Ioniens....(user 80.90.57.154 Jan.30,2005)

The article is about the Phaistos Disc and not about Proto-Ioniens. You have to write a new article about Proto-Ioniens. Gbrunner 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I wrote : one cannot separate both books, because both are about the Phaistos Disk. And I bet that you have never read them, and are judging of the content only from the title ! (user 80.90.57.154 19:14, Jan. 30,2006)

Even if Faucounau is naming the Phaistos Disk in all of his books, there is no reason to list all of them here. You have to write a new article about Faucounau. Gbrunner 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking to quote all the J.F.'s 40 papers and 4 books in which he mentions the Phaistos Disk. Only the two which are highly relevant to the subject.

Why Gbrunner didn't answer my implicit question : "Did he read the two cited books?" (User80.90.57.154, 21,30, Jan.30,2006)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Here only one question counts. Are you able to name an independent review saying that both books are highly relevant to the subject? Yes or no? Gbrunner 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you are not answering my question. Because my answer is yes. See the professional review REG (Books' Review n° 5758). I am now waiting for your answer to my question. (user80.90.57.154, 23:57, Jan.30, 2006).

To say 'REG' is nothing. A reference should look like:

Yves Duhoux, 2000: How Not to Decipher the Phaistos Disc. A Review. in: American Journal of Archaelogy. Vol. 104, No. 3, p. 597-600. This is a review saying that Faucounaus book "Le déchiffrement..." is just fiction.

The answer to your question was: Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. (This is not the place for orginal research. Your or my personal opinion about Faucounaus books doesnt count. You have to name a review!) Gbrunner 08:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yves Duhoux' paper doesn't say a single word about the Chapter 7 of the reviewed book. This is, as far as I know, the reason why J.Faucounau has given the detail of this Chapter in his second book Les Proto-Ioniens.

I said it for the third time, that the second J.F.'s book is as highly relevant to the Phaistos Disk than the first. There would have been no inconvenience to entitle both books Phaistos Disk . Volume 1" and Phaistos Disk. Volume 2.

(user80.90.57.154, 09,15,Jan.31,2006)

That you repeat only your personal opinion instead of giving a qualified reference of a review speaks for itself. Gbrunner 09:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer first my questions : 1)- Did you read the J.F.'s second book ? 2)- If yes, why are you denying the obvious ? I'll answer yours after. (user80.90.57.154 09:15, Jan.31,2006).

1) This doesn't matter. 2) To ask for a review denies nothing. Obviously you are unable to name a review. Gbrunner 10:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1)- It does to evaluate how serious your objections are. How could someone ask for censoring a reference, as you want, if he doesn't know the content of it ?

2)- I already gave the reference. That you don't know what REG is speaks for itself. (user[[80.90.57.154], 10:55, Jan.31,2006)

1) To ask for a review censors nothing. That you have added references for all four of Faucounaus books is enough to ask for a review.

2) Your Reg is not listed at wikipedia. This speaks for itself. Gbrunner 11:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1)- This is a lie. You have censored all the references to J.F.'s work, and replaced them by the reference of Y.Duhoux' paper, which is nothing but an opinion. BTW, I notice that you love Duhoux 'opinion in this case, but you dismissed it in other cases, like the Direction of Reading problem, for instance. I've nothing against quoting Y.Duhoux paper, but if other papers in favour of the J.F.'s work are also cited (And there are several !). Do you agree on this solution ? 2)- This peer-reviewed journal is sufficiently known by all the specialists to make that unimportant. 3)- I notice that you haven't still not answered my questions . (User 80.90.57.154, 11:35, Jan. 31, 2006)

1) Your personal attacks aren't helpful. 2) The review of Paul Faure in Revue des études grecques, 2002, Paris, Volume 15, p. 424-425 will be ok as reference. 3) That you did not understand what Wikipedia means is your problem. Gbrunner 12:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is improper to call personal attack an established fact : that since the beginning, you tried to censor the reference of an author you don't like. As for what Wikipedia means, your personal attack is meaningless : I know it as good as yourself. User 80.90.57.154 , January 31, 2006.

Wrong. Starting point was 00:13, 26 January, 09:58, 28 January and 19:16, 28 January where you have added all of Faucounaus Books. See into the page history. In the same way you have now added two additional links mentioning Faucounau: http://www.onirik.net/article.php3?id.article=134 and Yves Duhoux, How Not to Decipher the Phaistos Disc. A Review., American Journal of Archaelogy. Vol. 104, No. 3, p. 597-600. Gbrunner 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you are writing untrue statements!

1)- The January 26th addition has not been done by me, but by somebody else, an other admirer of J.F.'s work, I suppose. He added just two books, not all of Faucounau's books , as you wrote (by ignorance, I guess, because it was not the first time you acted in a similar manner. One has just to get a look to the previous discussions with you hereabove to verify that). That was not a great crime, even if it was not stricly necessary.

2)-Suppressing this reference should have been enough. but you took this addition as a pretext for censoring on January 27th the § concerning Claude Shannon's work and all the references to J.F.'s work. Such a thing is inacceptable, and contrary to the Wikipedia NPOV (User 80.90.57.154 , 14:50 , Jan 31, 2006).

Ok. I admit that I was wrong. I have not seen that the first addition was done by someone else. You should use an account of your own to prevent such misunderstandings. Gbrunner 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

review REG (Books' Review n° 5758)

Faure was writing: "d'ordre archéologique enfin, comme la représentation d'un bateau de type cycladique à la fois sur les « poêles à frire » de Syros et sur le Disque de Phaistos, « le seul document proto-ionien connu à ce jour » et découvert dans un contexte du Minoen Moyen par un des ouvriers Cretois de Luigi Pernier au soir du 3 juillet 1908"

and

"Sans vouloir entrer dans le problème du déchiffrement du Disque de Phaistos, dont Jean Faucounau a donné une savante démonstration dans un précédent ouvrage publié par L'Harmattan en avril 1999"

After that the Phaistos Disk was anly used under the assumption that it is of Proto-Ionic origin in Faucounaus book Les Proto-Ioniens.... Therefore I did not understand why this book is named additional to Faucounaus book Le déchiffrement.... Kadmos 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the book and you will find out that it gives the detail of the evidence in favour of the "Proto-Ionic Solution", evidence just listed in J.F.'s first book, so that Y. Duhous took this as a pretext, one may suppose, for not saying a single word about it, although it is almost the most important part. (User 80.90.57.154 20:20, Feb. 4,2006)

Sorry, but I did not found anything important over the Phaistos Disk given in the book. The idea of Greeks at Greek in ancient times is not new and totally independent from the Disk. Kadmos 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the situation that J.F. has described in his book... So that I doubt that you have ever read the said book... BTW , did you read it, or are you, once again, talking about a file that you don't know ? (And don't say it's a "personal attack". It's just a legitimate question !).

Let me explain : In 1974, by applying some statistical methods, J.F. found that the text of the Disk was written in a Ionic Greek dialect. This was considered as impossible by the "Risch-Chadwick Theory", which was at that time accepted by all the specialists. The book shows that the "Risch-Chadwick Theory" is in fact wrong (See a summary of this demonstration in the link <http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/v013.htm>). And this is by itself a verification of the Proto-Ionic decipherment, whether you like it or not. (User 80.90.57.154, 15;15, Feb. 5, 2006)

About Yves Duhoux' criticism of the Proto-Ionic Solution

Gbrunner has insisted to mention in the Bibliography a paper by Y.Duhoux, published in the A.J.A. and entitled How Not to Decipher the Phaistos Disc : A Review. Such a mention is in agreement with the Wikipedia Neutrality Rule. But, for the Wikipedia 's reader it is important to know, that although this article could at first sight be considered as a criticism of the Proto-Ionic Solution advocated by J. Faucounau, such a paper is far away from being decisive : 1)- its author mentions several other decipherments, having nothing to do with the Proto-Ionic Solution 2)- concerning this solution itself, the Chapter 7 of the J.F. first book is not examined. 3)- Y.Duhoux has never added any comment about the second J.F.'s book. 4)- dubious hypotheses are taken as granted by Y. Duhoux in his criticism, as: a)- the Phaistos Disk would be Cretan b)- its type of script would be the same as Linear B and Linear A. Etc.

On the other hand, the Duhoux ' paper is not the only one to criticize the diverse "decipherments" which have been proposed. If Gbrunner's proposal is accepted, I believe it is fair and consistant with the NPOV rule to create a new paragraph giving the Published criticisms of the deciphering attempts, open to all the papers which have been published about such or such solution (User 80.90.57.154, January 31, 2006).

1) This points are not part of the criticism of Faucounaus decipherment.

2) Duhoux has also examined Chapter 7. He was writing: "Like other decipherers, Faucounau thinks he has found the key to the enigma. He is convinced by his evidence: his grid of phonetic values is complete and definitive (his italics), with the exception of one sign; and his decipherment is supported by some 30 proofs, most of which, he says, are decisive by themselves. In fact, this study commits enough serious errors of all sorts to warrant a secure place in the anthology of misguided decipherments of the Phaistos disc."

3) After statements like the following this is obvioiusly not necessary: "Faucouanus syllabary also merits attention since it consists not only true syllabograms of the type V (vowel, a,e,i,...) or CV (consonant + vowel, ne,ni,...), but also some purely alphabetic consonants, such as s and r. A mix of this type is totally unknown in Aegean scripts actually deciphered,, and this renders Faucouanus's syllabary suspect".

4) This point is not part of the criticism of Faucounaus decipherment.

5) Faucounau himself has admitted that his publication is incomplete: "Explaining and discussing the mathematical part of the deciphering process would need me to write a totally different book. Maybe I will publish it some day. ... I would like to say to people who have written to me : "I don't understand why you gave THIS phonetic value to THIS sign" that I am sorry to answer that their lack of understanding is a normal thing. They'll have to wait for my calculations to be published !" See http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/v002.htm

Kadmos 19:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1)- Yes, but why presenting, then, as you do, using the title of the article, Y.Duhoux' criticism as a criticism of the sole "Proto-Ionic Solution" ?

2)-Do you consider this sentence as a serious examination (and refutation) of the said 30 proofs that it took J.F. 25 years to gather up?

3)-This is precisely the Y.Duhoux postulate : The Disk's type of script must be the same as the Aegean (i.e. Cretan) type of script.

4)-On the contrary ! It is the core of Y. Duhoux criticism ! See (3) hereabove.

5)-So what ? He has also explained that the method he has used being of probabilistic nature, the calculations would not be proof of validity. But the evidence listed in Chapter 7 is. (User 80.90.57.154 , 20:30, Feb. 4, 2006)

2) You forgot the serious errors given by Duhoux. 3) Aegean and Crete are not the same. 4) No. See (3). 5) By any means possible would include a check of the most important part. But until today the calculations are unpublished.

Each time there is a fact contradicting your theory, you will talk about a (not connected) fact in a other (unpublished) book or article, instead of asking yourself : "Wouldn't my theory be wrong?". In other words, you consider the favourable facts as proof that 'you are correct, and dismiss the unfavourable ones. By this way you are able to prove whatever you like. Kadmos 12:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

2)- Are you kidding ? What "serious errors" ? There is only one which is indisputable, but without any consequence : J.F. has written that a Linear A tablet was found north of the Disk, and this tablet was not north, but south-east. All the other alleged "errors" are in fact considered as such by Y.Duhoux because of some dubious postulates of his , like the Disk "must" be a Minoan artifact!..

3)-In Y.Duhoux criticism, YES ! He takes both words, "Aegean" and "Creto-Mycenaean", as synonyms.

4)- YES ! See (3)

5)- I've to repeat what you didn't read or understand : The method being of probabilistic nature, the calculations would not be proof of validy. But the evidence listed in Chapter 7 is.

6)- I don't accept lessons from you about fairness and openmindness. You have showed your biaised way to discuss by your attitude. Shall I give examples ?... (User 80.90.57.154, 15:30, Feb. 5, 2006)

Faucounau's theory may be proven correct in the end -- or not. But Wikipedia will not judge that; the community of scholars will. So far, I have not see any evidence at all that Faucounau's theory is taken seriously by any other scholars. We have the very negative Duhoux review -- published in a very reputable journal -- and nothing else. That is not enough to make it worth special mention in the WP. But we might as well continue to include it in the list of proposed decipherments. --Macrakis 00:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrakis(who is not an expert in Aegean matters and was until a few days totally ignorant of J.Faucounau's work) doesn't answer the very serious objections which have been made to the Yves Duhoux' AJA-paper. He considers this paper as representing the opinion of the community of scholars, although it represents only the opinion of a sole author. As for the special mentions of J.F.'s work, they just translate the fact that this work has been approved by several people, specialists and not-specialists. And when Macrakis says that he has not see any evidence that J.F.'s theory is taken seriously by any other scholars, he is just showing his ignorance. Pretty sad ! (User[[80.90.57.154, 17:00, February 14, 2006).

I don't claim to be an "expert on Aegean matters", and I don't know whether Faucounau is right or wrong. However, as I mentioned on Talk:Pelasgians, Wikipedia has a policy about what belongs here and what doesn't WP:NPOV:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So... can you "name prominent adherents"? --Macrakis 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia rules as good as you. It is clear that J.F.'s work has to be in Wikipedia, because it's a well-known theory, like it or not.
There is no lack of references for the J.F.'s work. On the contrary ! Opponents to J.F.'s "Proto-Ionian Theory" (like you) have criticized the too great number of references given ! You are the only one who is asking for reference texts !..
What do you call "proeminent people ?.. "Experts like yourself ??? (User 80.90.57.154, 18:00, February 14, 2005).

Incorrect redaction

Shannon's Unicity Distance shows that the Phaistos Disk can be deciphered if -a big IF!- one starts from the correct hypotheses. It shows also that, nevertheless, the text's length is not sufficient by itself to confirm that the correct hypotheses have been surely used, if a solution has been reached. So a verification is needed.

As a consequence, it is incorrect to write that "once the valid solution has been found, it would be necessary to prove it". A correct redaction is to write that "once there are reasons to think that the valid solution could have been found, it is necessary to verify". (user80.90.57.154, 18:15, February 4th, 2006)

... it is necessary to verify. What? That the correct hypotheses have been surely used? The solution itself? Only some consequences of the solution? Something else? Kadmos 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The suspected-to-be-valid solution, of course !.. By any possible means... Once this solution has been verified, one may assert that the correct hypotheses have been used. (User 80.90.57.154, 20:10, Feb. 4, 2006)

I really love the absurdity of the redaction imposed by Pmanderson, who has introduced a difference between a valid solution and a generally valid solution . I quote (emphasis is mine) :Once this valid solution has been found, it would be necessary to prove it was generally valid by applying it to another text. This is a total misunderstanding of Shannon's work. When Shannon talks about a valid decipherment, he means, of course, that the decipherer has found the clue of the cipher. Not for Pmanderson ! For him, a "valid decipherment" is a possible miscarried decipherment, a simple delusion !!! This is to be compare with the correct redaction, systematically vandalized by Pmanderson and others : Once there are some reasons to think that "the" valid decipherment has been reached, it remains necessary to verify it, (the length of the text being too close to the estimated value of the Unity Distance). One may wonder why such a correct redaction is systematically vandalized. Pmanderson's motive is obvious : he doesn't want to recognize that there are other ways to verify a suspected-to-be-valid decipherment than applying the grid to another text. In spite of everything which has been written on the subject in this Discussion. (User 80.90.57.154, 16:15, 17 February, 2006)

A few hours after I wrote about the absurdity of Pmanderson's redaction, Kadmos has discreetly made disappear the generally valid words from the article. A good move !.. But he has kept the POV that there is only one way to verify a suspected-to-be-valid decipherment : applying the grid to another text, what is untrue : checking that all the predictable consequences of a decipherment are verified by the facts is, of course, a second way to verify the suspected-to-be-valid solution. The value of this verification depends, of course, of the number and character of the said consequences. Like the value of applying the grid to another text depends of the length of this second text. But this is probably too subtile for the blind critics of the Proto-Ionic Solution... (User 80.90.57.154, 19:30, 17 February, 2006)

Please name another old script deciphered without a check by new material. Kadmos 09:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your question mixes two things : the decipherment and its verification. There is at least an example of a successful decipherment made from a unique text (and verified after by other texts), which is the decipherment of the Cypriot Syllabary by Smith (who wasn't an expert in Greek and worked only from the Idalion Inscription !). (User 80.90.57.154, 11:00 , 18 February, 2006)

As you wrote yourself it was "verified after by other texts". qed. (BTW: As you see a problem with the topic here, let me rephrase my question: Please name another decipherment of an old script accepted as verified without a check by new material.) Kadmos 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But where did you find that in the Deville 14:52, 15 February 2006 redaction, that I request to be reverted, there is any claim that the Proto-Ionian Solution has been verified ? What I demand is the following text to be restablished : ..., it would be necessary to prove it, generally by deciphering another text in the same script. As no second disc has been found, opinions may diverge concerning the value of the verification presented (when one does exist, what is practically the case for the sole Proto-Ionian Solution). This is respecting the NPOV : anybody may judge by himself whether the Proto-Ionian Solution has been verified or not. Too dangerous obviously for detractors, like you, of this solution, I guess... (User 80.90.57.154, 14:50, 18 February 2006)

Back to the facts. The change made by User:Deville 14:52, 15 February [1] is still part of the edition. Obviously you mean the change 10:09, 15 February 2006 made by yourself.

Your change is wrong because there is no diverge in the scholarly world concerning the value of the verification presented. You have to show otherwise. Additionally it would contradict with the sentence: It is generally thought that there isn't enough context available for meaningful analysis. And last but not least after P. Faure review (see next point "What Prof. Faure actually said") a linguistical thesis about Proto-Ionians is OT and against the undue-weight policy here. Kadmos 15:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the facts. Happy to hear that !
Both redactions are practically the same, but the Deville's one is the more recent. It has therefore to be the reference.
How can you say that there is no divergence of opinion when all the present discussion is on this problem ! There is no contradiction at all : you have, on one hand (non-mathematician) people saying the disk is too short to be deciphered , and on the other hand at least two mathematicians (plus all the scholars who have presented their solution!) who deny that. The NPOV is to give both opinions, with mention (as it has been done in the Deville redaction, and is the truth) that the first seems the opinion of the majority (all scholars cannot be mathematicians and have studied the Shannon's work !).
The Faure's review is perfectly in its place, as a counter-point of Duhoux' review in a NPOV approach. Because, like it or not, it is obvious that mentioning only the Duhoux' review just after the J.F.'s decipherment is an act of disparagement and creates a disparity with the other attempts : why, for instance, not citing Duhoux' sentence that (I quote) a decipherment based on a reading from the interior to the exterior is wrong , also just after the attempts of K.Aartun, D. Ohlenroth, M.Corsini, etc. ? Is it that your idea of what fairness and NPOV is ???? (User 80.90.57.154, 18:00, 18 February 2006)

your statment is empty
It is still your change. To talk about Devilles redaction is playing with words.
your statement is OT, this talk page is not the scholarly world
your statement is OT, the list of decipherments is not part of your change 10:09, 15 February 2006

Your permanent topic changes and trys to produce confusion demonstrate that all you want is attention to yourself. I didn't believe anymore that you are interested in Faucounau or the Phaistos disc. Kadmos 19:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My statements are reflecting the truth, and this is why you call them OT, without giving any motive. I repeat : Where is fairness and NPOV when a positive review is censored, but not a negative one ?. To this question, you have not answered. Moreover, you are not searching for any fair solution of this problem.
Think what you want about me (even stupidly accusing an anon to search attention to himself). I don't care. I just take notice for the record that you are not searching a fair solution to the dispute. You are just trying to impose your own POV upon others (User 80.90.57.154, 19:20, 18 February 2006)

What Prof. Faure actually said

One would think, from the anon's claims on this page, that Faure had endorsed the claimed decipherment of the Phaistos Disk. He did not; he declined to discuss it. (Sans vouloir entre dans le problème du déchriffrement du Disque de Phaistos...) He is instead complimentary to Fauconnau's linguistic claims; and describes his archaeological evidence for supposing the Sea Peoples to be proto-Ionians, which includes one of the images on the disk. Septentrionalis 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that the "Proto-Ionic Solution" had been endorsed by the scholarly world. What has been claimed is 1)- that it is the only one solution to be supported by more than 30 pieces of evidence 2)-that, as a consequence, almost all scholars consider it as very interesting, with the exception of one single Belgian specialist (User 80.90.57.154, 23:00, February 14, 2006).

Then it should be possible to cite a published source that says so. Faure does not. Septentrionalis 04:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

With his elogious review, it is clear that Prof. Faure accepts the validity of the proofs presented in favour of the Proto-Ionic Solution, even if doesn't want to endorse the decipherment itself, probably for keeping a neutral attitude in the controversy between J.Faucounau and Y. Duhoux, that all specialists in the field are aware of.

Faure accepts, or at least considers both interesting and plausible, Fauconau's general theory about Bronze Age languages. That would be a legitimate citation for inserting Foucanau's views on the subject in an article on the history of Ancient Greek. That says nothing for the decipherment, which is (as Faure points out) isolated, even granting the proto-Ionic theory entirely.

On the other hand, anybody may verify by himself that the Proto-Ionic Solution is the only one to be supported by more than 30 pieces of evidence. There is no need to "cite a published source that say so". The fact that many serious journals have accepted to publish papers and/or interviews of his author is sufficient by itself (User 80.90.57.154, 10:30, February 15, 2006)

You have neither presented nor linked to any of this supposed evidence.
This establishes only that Fauconau claims to have a decipherment; we've said that. Wikipedia does requite citations, upon request. WP:CITE is policy. Septentrionalis 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

a)-The link is obvious for anyone who reads the cited references. Therefore my question : Have you read any of the J.F.'s books?

b)-Your interpretation of the WP rules is yours, not mine.

Is there consensus that further insertion of unsourced advertisements of this kind should be treated as vandalism? Septentrionalis 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are playing with the words unsourced . On one hand, you and others are suppressing all the favourable references. On the other hand, you are claiming that the claims are unsourced . (User 80.90.57.154, 21:10, February 15, 2006)

For the record; no, we are removing pretended citations of references which do not say what the anon claims they do. Septentrionalis 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Are you so afraid to let the readers judge by themselves and, maybe, reach another opinion than yours, that you prefer to suppress this quote? You are betraying the spirit of Wikipedia.(User 80.90.57.154, 22:00, February 15, 2006).

Why such actions full of hatred against the Proto-Ionic Solution ?

Since a few days, a pack of WP editors are acting like wolves and trying to censor the so-called Proto-Ionic Solution with the most dubious motives. If I take as an example the actions coming from Pmanderson, I notice :

a change in the redaction of the paragraph concerning the Shannon's work, leading to a new redaction which is close from absurdity. I quote (emphasis is mine) : Once the valid solution would be found, it would be necessary to prove it was generally valid . As if there were degrees in the validity of a solution !!!
a reintroduction of a (very superficial, but negative) criticism of the Proto-Ionic Solution, put just after this attempt, when this paper deals with several other decipherments, while at the same time are suppressed several other favourable references. Where is the NPOV rule in all that ?
the suppression of several interesting references to the Proto-Ionic Solution, with the motive that (I quote !) Wikipedia does require citations !!! Shall I Remind the Wikipedia rule concerning avoiding original research ? (It is) to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related. Are not the books and papers, published by the author in a scientific collections and/or reputable journals, not a reliable source ?

It is difficult for me not to conclude that these WP editors are biaised against the Proto-Ionic Solution, like some of them have "demonstrated" by demanding (with success) that an article about The Proto-Ionian Theory be deleted in Wikipedia. Personally, I don't care. There is a long time that I know what this theory is. But I find strange that these WP editors have deprived ordinary readers of an information on a question often evoked on the NET (A google search I made with the words Proto-Ionian Theory , limited to the Google.groups has shown me c.650 recent exchanges on this subject). (User 80.90.57.154, 19:00 February 15, 2006)

If we hated it, we would be removing it from the article entirely. Unless the anon drives us to this, I do not foresee it happening. Septentrionalis 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is what you (take this word, please, with its collective meaning) have done by removing the WP article on The Proto-Ionic Solution. With a motive showing that those who have demanded this deletion had not read a single book about the subject. BTW, have you read any of them ? Or is it indecent in your eyes to ask such a question : asking whether you know the file that you are judging? (User 80.90.57.154, 22:00, February 15, 2006)

The basic problem?

I think our anon has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here to determine The Truth; that would be presumptuous of us no matter what our qualifications. We are here to determine that much easier question: what is the scholarly consensus?

Now, Faucounau's solution is, by his own showing, 30 years old; it was widely published 5 years ago. If it were the scholarly consenus that he had deciphered the Disc, this would be obvious; his name would be as easy to find as Hrozný or Ventris or Champollion, and it isn't. If it were even accepted by a large section of the republic of letters, there would be a printed source that he didn't write that says so in clear and unmistakeable terms. No one has found one, including the anon; if anyone does, I will defend a larger mention, and I would expect a consensus of editors to do so. Likewise, if a significant number of other scholars supported the decipherment, one of them would have said so, in print, in a clear and unmistakeable manner.

The way to get him more space in WP is to attain more renown in the Universe at large; not the other way around.Septentrionalis 23:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for reminding to all the WP principles. But I don't believe that it is me who doesn't respect them.

You wrote : We are here to determine : what is the scholarly consensus. The redaction that I approve, which is the Deville 23:06,8 February, 2006, says in its header :Its purpose and meaning, and even its original geographical place of manufacture, remain disputed. Not, as some pretend : The Faucounau's solution is widely accepted by scholars, with some exceptions. Where is the non-respect by me of the WP- rules ?..
You wrote: Faucounau's solution is 30 years old; it was widely published 5 years ago. Well, don't you believe that this fact needs the short explanation I gave by putting in the § List of deciphering attempts : *J.Faucounau, 1975 (interpretation as a Greek dialect, syllabic script. Reprinted in 1999 and 2001 with the evidence in favour of the "Proto-Ionic Solution" ? This information has been suppressed. Why? . As for the answer to your question : Why a 30 years old solution (and more, as J.F. has rediscovered a solution presented in 1911 by Melian Stawell !) is still not accepted by a large number of scholars, the answer is easy : Because the Proto-Ionian Theory is revolutionary, and its last details have just been published in 2005. It is a normal thing if its recognition takes some time. In fact, and I challenge anybody to show the contrary, the majority of the scholars who have seriously examined the Proto-Ionian Solution (I don't talk about those who have not made the effort to read the original books and papers) or have been rather favourable (like P. Faure), or have chosen an attentist attitude. The only exception is Yves Duhoux, but this scholar has only reviewed one book, and has not said a single word about the most important part of it : the list of the evidence in favour of the theory. Is it respecting the NPOV rule in giving to this review a preponderant place, in order to be able to call fringy the said theory?

And now, for the record : As on February 15, 2006, Latinus has threatened to report against me for violating the 3RR-rule, I accuse Latinus, Macrakis,Pmanderson,Gbrunner and Kadmos , acting separately or jointly in alternance, to have repaetedly violated the NPOV rule, in order to impose their view that the Proto-Ionian Theory- which includes a deciphering attempt of the Phaistos Disk - would be a fringe theory. This accusation is based upon the modifications they brought to the Deville redaction of 23:06,8 February, 2006 (which had remained practically unchanged since December 2005). Here is the list of the charges :

modifying the redaction of the § Attempted decipherments in order to sustain the POV that there is no other way to verify a solution than applying the grid to another text, what is obviously a biaised view (See Discussion, § Incorrect Redaction and Archive 3. BTW, this archive had been arbitrarily deleted by Kadmos).
modifying the § List of Decipherment attempts in order to give to the reader the impression that this theory is fringy, by citing just after the J.F.'s attempt a negative review by Y. Duhoux (in spite of the fact that a)-this paper criticizes also other attempts b)-doesn't say a word about the presented evidence) and by suppressing all the other references, like the Faure's review in the REG.
suppressing in the Bibliography all the references concerning the two J.Faucounau's books which are directly related to the Phaistos Disk problem. The motives given for this suppression are disparaging and (voluntary or not) false, like for instance the ones given by Macrakis on 00:59, February 14, 2006, or Pmanderson on 20:50, February 15,2006, talking about an advertising for an Irismeister' site, not cited in the criticized redaction.

As a conclusion, I am asking for restablishing the Deville redaction, or for a mediation to put an end to this unjustified Edit-War. BTW : Why the recent discussion between Macrakis and me -in which I had apologized to have been "a bit rude" with this WP editor, but had given the reasons of my anger, i.e false statements by him- have been deleted by an unknown person ??? In order to restablish the facts, I repeat here from memory what I wrote : OK.I recognize I was a bit rude with Mr Macrakis and I apologize. But I was deeply shocked that 'a respectable Wikipedia editor' could suppress all the references concerning a theory without having read a single book or paper about it, as it was proved by the false motives he gave for this suppression ("no academic publications -- no academic references-- none of the books quoted at <scolar.google.com> are about the Proto-Ionian Theory, etc.") (User 80.90.57.154 10:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

New charges : In order to disparage the Proto-Ionic Solution, I accuse the the hereabove mentioned WP editors to have misused the WP.CITE rule, as the following shows :

Confusion between fact and opinion, in order to reverse the burden of the proof (WP:CITE rule). If any opinion has to be justified by a reference, there is no need to justify an established fact, with one exception : if somebody denies it. But then, the burden of the proof is on the accusation. The denial has to be justified first. This trick has been used for the statement that "No scholar having read the text in a counter-clockwise direction has presented a reconstruction of the scribe's movements coherent with his hypothesis and with the epigraphical facts". This is a fact. Neither K.Aartun, nor D. Ohlenroth, nor M. Corsini, to cite a few of them, have presented a reconstruction of the scribe's moves, justifying their reading-direction. Would this fact be denied, the accusation has to bring first the reference of this denial.
Confusion between source and endorsement. Following the WP rule, a source has to be 1)published, so it could be verified by anybody 2)-reliable. The WP.CITE says that the citing sources serves the three main purposes : a)-to ensure that the content of article is credible and can be checked by any reader, so to enhance the WP credibility b)-to show that the edit is not an original research c)-to provide more information or further reading. In the case of the Proto-Ionic Solution, the J.Faucounau's books and papers are sources by themselves because a)- they have been published by reputable editors or peer-reviewed journals, so 1)-anybody may verify their content 2)-they are not original research c)-they are credible by the fact that no one can deny that the editors and chief-editors who have accepted to publish them, were not indirectly supporting their content. There is no need therefore to demand for an endorsement, as it would be the case for a book published by some "Books on demand" editor or for a paper published by a not peer-reviewed journal. (User80.90.57.154, 10:30, 18 February 2006)

New charge against "Kadmos" for unethical conduct . Twice, the User Kadmos has manipulated the Discussion : once by archiving the most significant parts of the discussion, and after a while suppressing the archives (See § Archive hereabove) -- the second time by an arbitrary sorting of the entire discussion. (User 80.90.57.154, 11:50, 18 February 2006)

Citing Faucouneau

Faucouneau was cited with one single review, an adverse one. We would preferrably be even-handed and cite at Faure's review of his proto-Ionian theory. I made the necessary changes. David.Monniaux 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Faure is ostentatiously neutral on the decipherment. Duhoux does not contest the proto-Ionian theory; he denies Faucounau's claimed provenance for the Disc. This is not a conflict, and Faure is OT for this article. Whether Fauconau's linguistic theory should be somewhere in WP is another question; I can see why whatever article the anon wrote was deleted, but it may have been premature. Septentrionalis 14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it is not a question of Pro and Con, but a question of biaised presentation : putting the sole (very incomplete) Duhoux' paper, immediately accessible to the reader, just after the J.F.'s attempt is the way to denigrate this attempt, like it or not. (User[[80.90.57.154}}, 15;00, February 16, 2006)

If you will put down exactly what name this article on the proto-Ionian theory was written under, I will go and see if I can write a form of it which is less likely to be deleted. Septentrionalis 15:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. It is essential to understand that the Proto-Ionic Solution is the only solution which has been presented by its author with the evidence supporting it. Therefore, the Proto-Ionian Theory is tightly linked to the Proto-Ionic Solution : If one is wrong, the other has to be wrong, and reciprocally. So, both J.F.'s books (on the decipherment and on the Proto-Ionians) are dealing with different aspects of the same subject. Y. Duhoux criticism has been artificially limited to the sole decipherment without saying a single word about the evidence which supports it. P. Faure has, in a symetrical way, only dealt with the evidence, without supporting (as it would have been logical) the decipherment itself. Both reviews are incomplete, but in some way complementary. Anyway, what I am asking is the return to a presentation with a separation between a short mention of the reference to the decipherments themselves , and the criticisms concerning the diverse attempts (with possible addition of other published criticisms, concerning attempts different from the Proto-Ionic Solution). This would solve the dispute. (User 80.90.57.154, 16:10, February 16, 2006).

The two theories are not tightly linked. Right is, if the Proto-Ionian Theory is wrong it's impossible that the Phaistos disc was written by Proto-Ionians. Therefore the Proto-Ionian Theory maybe can be used as counter proof. But the other direction is obviously wrong. See Archive 3: The existence of the enemy(or: Proto-Ionians) can not be used as verification of the content of a note (the decipherment). Kadmos

You reasoning is not correct because you are reducing the Proto-Ionian Theory to the existence of the Proto-Ionians at the time of the Disk. There is a lot more than that, like the special characteristics of the language spoken by them -- their location at the time of the Disk -- surprising archaeological coïncidences making in evidence the link between the Disk and the Proto-Ionians -- etc. If you read the book Les Proto-Ioniens, this will clearly appear to you (Rose-mary 18:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

This is WP. You have to cite sources! Period.

(BTW: The suggested location of your Proto-Ionians is not tightly linked to the content of the decipherment and the argument concerning the special characteristics of the language is contradicting itself: If the special characteristics are known at the time of the decipherment there is nothing suprising and if they are not known it's impossible to use them for deciphering. Anyway, it's not really suprising to find surprising coincidences.) Kadmos 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you really read both books, le déchiffrement..; and Les Proto-Ioniens.." ? (Rose-mary 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Protection against or for vandalism ?

I find strange that Pmanderson is using the semi-protection of the Phaistos Disc article to freely make vandalism, instead of searching to put en end to an Edit-War, of which he is responsible for a great part (User 80.90.57.154 16:40, February 16, 2006)

Pmanderson has also used the semi-protection to add a comment of his own just after the reference of the deciphering attempt of Melian Stawell. The story of this modification is instructive : It had first been mentioned that Ionic was the language that Miss Stawell had used for her attempt. This was an approximation, because Miss Stawell had taken some liberties with the vowels, as she acknowledged it herself. Then, some editor changed Ionic in Homeric, which was an improvement, Miss Stawell having made herself the link between her decipherment and the Homeric Greek. So far, so good... But then Pmanderson came in, adding the comment : Not Ionic , an opinion that few people share. Because it is generally accepted that the Homeric works are written in a literary dialect, called Homeric Greek, which consists largely of Old Ionic, with some borrowings from Aeolic. Pmanderson is, of course, free to think that Homeric Greek is not a Ionic, but an Aeolic dialect (See the Discussion § hereafter). But searching to impose his POV in the Phaistos Disc article is a new violation by him of the WP rules (User80.90.57.154, 18:00, 17 February, 2006).

The nature and history of the artificial Epic "dialect" is infinitely debateable, and I do not propose to do so here. Suffice it to say that the comparisons to Homer and to Aeolic are both Miss Stawell's; it is not unlikely that she subscribes to the "Aeolic substrate" theory of Homer. More to the point, her decipherment flatly lacks, and is inconsistent with, the eta-ization of Attic/Ionic.

All these tirades and displays of (somewhat dubious) erudition are less valuable than a citation of a single source, not written by Faucounau, which endorses his decipherment. Septentrionalis 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My erudition is maybe "dubious", but I could not find the word Aeolic in Miss Stawell's paper. As you are so fond of references, could you please give the reference of the page where you found this word ? In advance, thank you (User 80.90.57.154, 20:15, 17 February, 2006).

p.37, first note, which is on segment B 30. If you are somehow using a search engine, it's spelt Æolic. Septentrionalis 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found it. I must say I was thinking about the text, not about the Notes on the Reading, in which Miss Stawell tried to explain the best she could the incoherences of her "decipherment"... Anyway, adding the comment you made, i.e "Not Ionic" was, at the least, exagerated, if not biaised.

As for the writing for Aeolic, it's easier for me to write it with A+E than with the diphtongue sign. Anyway, orthography is a matter of convention, and the writing AE has never provoked any problem, except with you ! Strange, don't you think ? (User 80.90.57.154, 22:00,17 February, 2006)

Place of the Duhoux review

Suggestion: What is, if the review will cited under Selected bibliography. (BTW: User 80.90.57.154, all you need is an used account to edit the page now. I recommend you to use an account for further postings. This is the easiest way to get the right for editing semi-protected pages.) Kadmos 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to solve the Edit-War. Your suggestion is OK for me, with the following modifications:

Suppressing all the criticisms just following a decipherment attempt (i.e.the remark concerning Melian Stawell and the Duhoux Review).
transferring them to a third section of the Bibliography. So, there would be three sections : General, Attempted Decipherments, and Comments on some attempts.
Adding to the J.Faucounau's Bibliography the book Les Proto-Ioniens, which cannot be separated from Le déchiffrement... (User 80.90.57.154, 20:00, 16 February, 2006)

The comment on Miss Stawell's attempt is not a criticism but a clarfication - she compares the language she finds to Aeolic. I see no reason to transfer them. I have no particular objection to adding Les Proto-Ioniens to the biblography, although it may be fairer to give each aspirant one bite at the apple. Septentrionalis 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not understand why it should be necessary to add a book for moving an article. Anyway, I agree with Septentrionalis. It will be against the undue weight-policy to add more content only for one aspirant. Kadmos 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1)- Strange that for keeping the comment about Miss Stawell, no source is demanded, this time !.. The more as I strongly suspect this Aeolic connexion to be yours, and therefore violating the WP rule : No original research. What I found in Miss Stawell's paper is : on page 24 It will be noticed with interest how many of the words are Homeric and old Indo-European, and on page 28 : I have allowed a certain amount of vowel variation, but no more than we often find in Attic Greek. 2)- I thank you to restablish, finally, the reference Les Proto-Ioniens..;, that anybody who has read it can state that it is closely linked to the Phaistos Disk 3)- Strange also that Undue weight Policy (translate : equality of citations) applies when two Faucounau's books are cited, but not when Y.duhoux is cited twice !.. In fact, it is difficult to apply your equality in the number of quotes when one has to deal on one hand with a theory which has attracted a large attention and needed several books to be developped, and on the other hand a unique paper (or even url) known only by his author. (User 80.90.57.154, 21:50, 16 February 2006)

3) The Review from Duhoux is about Faucounau's book. Therefore this review also counts for F. For F. 3 sources are available: the link at the list, the review from D. and his book about the PD. On the other hand for D. only two sources are available: his review and his book about the PD. Period. Kadmos 09:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Amusing ! So, a negative review counts for F., in order to enhance the number of references to 3, what is now a motive to suppress any favourable reference !.. This is Kadmos fairness concept and NPOV !!!!!! (User 80.90.57.154, 11:20, 18 February, 2006)

Where did you read about such a motive. Fact is, that after P. Faure (see point "What Prof. Faure actually said") a book about a linguistical thesis about Proto-Ionians is OT here. And last but not least, there is still more material given for Faucounau as for every other attempt. Kadmos 15:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you read about such a motive? . Why deleting, then, the P.Faure's paper? You state that it is OT in an article about the Phaistos Disk. But, as I already wrote, both J.F.'s books are tightly linked, and nobody who has read both books can deny that. In fact, we are here in front of two incomplete reviews : Duhoux paper (superficially) criticizes the decipherment itself, but not the evidence supporting it, as it would be logical. On the other hand, Faure accepts the evidence, but refuses to take position concerning the decipherment itself (another illogical attitude, which has probably to be explained by his refusal to be party in the dispute). If the NPOV is respected, both reviews have to be mentioned.
There is still more material given for Faucounau than for any other attempt. Yes. But it is nobody's fault is this attempt has attracted a lot more attention than the others. To the point that Y.Duhoux, who doesn't like it because he believes the Disk to be Minoan (This is his opinion, and I respect it, but it is nothing but an opinion !) has criticized this one (and passim a few others, like Georgiev's , Pomerance's and Ohlenroth's), not the ones presented by K. Aartun in 1992 or St. Fisher in 1988, for instance... A very significant attitude, don't you think ?.. ((User 80.90.57.154]], 17:05, 18 February, 2006).

Unfortunately Faucounau himself has denied that they are tightly linked: "The EXTERNAL proofs are by far the most decisive. They are totally independent from the Disk." (see [2])
No. There are reviews for Pomerance [3], Ohlenroth [4] and Aartun [5]. The review for Pomerance was also written by Duhoux. Ohlenroth has 2 and Aartun 3 reviews. That Faucounaus attempt has attracted more attention is simply wrong. Kadmos 18:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous remark, showing once again that you have not read the original work ! You want to be the judge, but without opening the file ! What is dealt upon, in the book Les Proto-Ioniens, if not upon those EXTERNAL proofs ?!
Are you suggesting to give the references of those links, just after the reference to their decipherments ? And to do the same for all the attempts which have been reviewed ? If yes, you have my agreement. I already opened this eventuality in my suggestion to put all this reviews in a special Bibliography paragraph, entitled Comments on some decipherments attempts, a proposal which has been vandalized by Pmanderson, if I remember corrrectly.
Your way to evaluate the attention attracted by a decipherment is biaised, because it doesn't take in account the publication date. One may translate : Pomerance : 1 review in 30 years -- Ohlenroth : 2 reviews in 10 years --Aartun : 3 reviews in 14 years -- J.Faucounau : 0 review since the publication date of Les Proto-Ioniens , i.e in 5 years -- Torsten Timm : 0 review in 1 year.

In spite of your "calculations", I maintain that the Proto-Ionian Solution has attracted a large attention. To the point (please, don't kill yourself in desperation !) that there are rumours of a documentary film !.. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:00, February 18, 2006)

What did the sentence "They are totally independent from the Disk." say in your opinion, if not that the EXTERNAL proofs given in Les Proto-Ioniens are independent from the Disk?
I have no particular objection about adding reviews. But the reviewed book does not have to be totally independent from the Disk.
For Pomerance there are 6 more reviews listed at [6]. Search with Date/Volume=1976 & Title=Phaistos. Now we get this list: Pomerance 7 reviews in 30 years (6 reviews from 1976) -- Aartun 3 reviews in 14 years (2 reviews from 1995) -- Ohlenroth 2 reviews in 10 years (1 review from 1996) -- Faucounau 1 review since the publication date of Le déchiffrement in 5 years -- Timm : 0 reviews in 1 year. Seems that the scholary world gets tired of writing reviews about trys to decipher the disk. (BTW: I did not have any solution.) Kadmos 00:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your question just shows that you didn't read the book Les Proto-Ioniens and have not understood what the evidence is! When someone applies the grid to a second text for a verification, is not this second text totally independent from the first ?
The problem is : should the reviews be listed just after an attempt, or a part in a special § ? For the rest of your remark, it's the same motto you are singing again. See hereabove. Strange that you don't protest in the same way when Pmanderson adds totally irrelevant comments concerning Hittite to the G.Hempl's bibliography !!!!
Yes. The scholarly work has been tired to write reviews about unproven deciphering attempts. This makes remarkable the Y.Duhoux' review of the Proto-Ionic Solution. But why this author didn't deal with the proofs, which, for once, did exist for this particular decipherment ? (User 80.90.57.154,12:00, February 20, 2006)

Wrong. Both texts are using the same script. Concerning the decipherment of a script this is the closest thinkable connection.
see my last answer. period.
There is no need for any review for Faucounaus try. F. himself says: "I would like to say to people who have written to me: 'I don't understand why you gave THIS phonetic value to THIS sign' that I am sorry to answer that their lack of understanding is a normal thing. They'll have to wait for my calculations to be published ! Then, they will know why I could not for statistical reasons give a NA-value to Sign 25 or a KE-value to Sign 26 !.." (see [7]) With other words we have to wait until F. is opening the whole file. Kadmos 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to understand what verifying a grid is, and that there are two ways to do it : a)- applying it to a second text in the same script b)- verifying that all the consequences of the deciphered text are veried by the facts. In both cases, what counts is the possibility of eliminating coïncidences. For instance, if the second text is really too short, the verification of type (a) will not be decisive. This is why, with a verification of type (b), there may still be a doubt. To take again my (stupid) example, if the decipherment says : Ennemi will attack tomorrow, if tomorrow there is an attack, it may be a coïncidence. But if several predictions of this kind are verified, the possibility of coïncidences is made almost impossible.
That only a negative review is mentioned (without any comment) is the way to say this decipherment has no value. I know that you are very pleased by that, because it's your goal and POV. Nevertheless, this is very unfair and contrary to NPOV spirit, because if specialists know that the Y.Duhoux' review has no value, the WP reader will not.
Well, why not, then, deleting the Y.Duhoux' AJA paper ? (User 80.90.57.154 12:40, 21 February 2006)

Towards a solution ? : DUHOUX against DUHOUX !

As Pmanderson considers Faure's review of the book Les Proto-Ioniens... as OT, I've a suggestion to present, in order to establish the NPOV, destroyed by the sole reference to the Duhoux' AJA 2000 paper : to cite two other Duhoux papers :

Y.Duhoux, L'écriture et le texte du disque de Phaestos in Actes du quatrième Colloque International d'Etudes Crétoises, 1976, Iraklion
-"- , La langue du disque de Phaestos: essai de typologie, in Colloquium Mycenaeum, Neuchâtel 1979, p. 373-386.

In those papers, Y.Duhoux, using the same statistical method than in his AJA paper, comes to the conclusion that the language must be Indoeuropean and possibly Greek. A remarkable years-in-advance-approuval of the Proto-Ionic Solution of the Phaistos Disk enigma !.. By the same token, the reader will be able to compare this conclusion with the 1983 and 2000 studies of Y. Duhoux, which have lead him to conclude that the Disc's language cannot be Indoeuropean, and ask to himself the question : When is Duhoux wrong ? In 1979 or in 1983 ? (User 80.90.57.154, 13:00, February 17, 2006)

I find this proposal to quote what Duhoux believed 25 years ago against what he now believes to be ingenious, but quite literally preposterous. Then again, I do know that I also believed things 25 years ago that I don't think now. Septentrionalis 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you so sure that Duhoux is correct now, and was not 25 years ago ? Just the fact that now he shares your own ideas ? (User 80.90.57.154, 18:20, 18 February 2006)

Overloading the boat

In order to disparage the Proto-Ionian Solution, Pmanderson has found a new trick : overloading the boat ! His aim is clear : to multiply the useless comments concerning the tens of deciphering attempts which have been published, to confuse the reader, and at the same time to let this reader unaware that the Proto-Ionic Solution is the only one to be supported by substantial evidence. So, he has added a perfectly OT remark concerning George Hempl's ideas about Hittite, given not so useful details on the same decipherment which has always been considered as a failure, etc. With the tacit agreement of Kadmos and others...(See the § The Basic Problem? hereabove) (User 80.90.57.154 21:10, February 19, 2006)

To help Pmanderson in his disparaging work, I suggest him to add the following references to G. Hempl's deciphering attempt :

Review by Anonymus in Vossische Zeitung 24, (1911)
Review by P.Goessler in Wochenschrift für klasssische Philologie 28 (1911)
Review by W.N.Bates in AJA 15, 1911, p.234
Review by A.Cuny in REA 14, 1912, p.95/96

He may also add to the translation of the Hiitite texts of the Tell el Amarna Letters, the following references :

G.Hempl, The Old Doric of the Tell-el-Amarna texts in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 44, 1913

Review by P.Kretschmer in Glotta 8, 1917, p.253

If he does not, it will be my pleasure to do it as soon as the Semi-Protection for free vandalism will be left off. (User 80.90.57.154, 21:20, February 19, 2006)

Thank you, but that would be disproportionate. I am however grateful to the anon for citing Hempl's TAPA article, since it was one source for Hempl's version of Hittite; there is also a piece in the 9 Sept 1915 issue of The Nation.

So Cuny dissed Hempl too, did he? How these decipherers love one another! Septentrionalis 23:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So, adding the (false, or at least partisan : Not' Ionic) comment and your other not so useful comments is not disproportionate in your eyes. But the redaction :

J. Faucounau [[1974}] (interpretation as a Greek dialect, syllabic script), reprinted in 1999 and 2001 after gathering substantial evidence in favour of this Proto-Ionic solution [1] (http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/v002.htm)

is "disproportionate" !.. Strange idea of yours about what fairness and NPOV is ! What you don't say clearly that 1)- you have never read the J.F.'s books 2)-that you have a prejudicial idea about them because some unknown reason ? (Maybe because you have proposed yourself some concurrent solution, like Kadmos did ? Or maybe because you are Kadmos ? ) (User 80.90.57.154, 23:30, 19 February 2006)

J. Faucounau

Such online exploits are not the hallmark of an academic dispute. To the best of my knowledge, Faucounau is ignored by philologists and Indo-Europeanists. It would simply appear that grapheus has discovered WP as his new haunt. dab (ᛏ) 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I found outrageous and slanderous that Dbachman cited the diffamatory assertions of a notorious kook called Franz Gnaedinger, which has already been condemned for slander by a Swiss Court. Be careful not to repeat such slanders, or I will inform myself people who may be concerned (Rose-mary 11:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

alright, we used to have an article on the theory, but it was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ionian theory. It was speedied as created by banned user Irismeister (talk · contribs), but it was Afd'd as OR. Here's the text deleted:

The Proto-Ionian Theory is a theory advocted for on usenet by a person with the account name "grapheus". It is claimed by him to have been written about by someone named "Jean Fauconeau", in a journal called "Actualité de l'Histoire".

Details of the theory include: it is a linguistic theory (with repercussions on archaeology), aimed at replacing the Risch-Chadwick Theory proposed in the 1950s by the Swiss linguist Ernst Risch and mainly defended by John Chadwick, a scholar who participated in the decipherment of the Linear B script.

The Risch-Chadwick Theory supposes that at the Middle Bronze Age Period, the Greek dialects split into two main groups : the Western (or Northern) Group (or Proto-Doric) and the Eastern (or Southern) Group (all the other dialects). It concludes therefore that, inside the Eastern Group, the split between Ionic-Attic and the other dialects happened only after 1200 BC.

The Proto-Ionian Theory comes back to the old Paul Kretschmer's Theory of the three Greek waves, supposing a split of the Greek dialects as early as 3000 BC into three groups : Proto-Ionic-Attic ; Proto-Achean ; Proto-Doric.

The main difference between both theories concerns therefore the existence, in the second one, of "Proto-Ionians" during the whole Bronze Age Period. Moreover, it is stated that these Proto-Ionians came by sea to the Aegean through the Bosphorus, and settled at Troy, in the Cycladic Islands, Euboea and Attica, during the Early Bronze Age (c.2900 to 2200 BC).

In the light of all this, I am now rather convinced that this is Bogdanov style kookery, and that Faucounau's book should be listed like any other attempt at deciphering. dab (ᛏ) 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

well, Rose-mary, it's what google turns up if you search for Faucounau. I agree we don't absolutely need the quotes repeated here, but if we're going to discuss Faucounau-related controversies, the links are definitely on-topic. So, for the record, this was my comment, and these were the links [8] [9] [10]. Now, I have three questions for you: (1) do you have a reference to your claim that Gnaedinger was convicted by a Swiss court? Were you in any way involved in the sci.archaeology flamewar? Are you identical to the person editing from 80.90.57.154 above? Just to be in the clear about possible identities from the outset. dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

All I know is coming from Franz Gnaedinger and "Grapheus". It's Mr Gnaedinger himself who said there was a suit against him, and he never said he had won it. On the other hand, "Grapheus" said that he lost it, what I find more credible, because if would Mr Gnaedinger have won, he would have said it all around !!! On the other hand, I find very unwise from you not to have made first a Google search on Franz Gneadinger , in order to check his credibility, before citing his assertions. (Rose-mary 13:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

I did. I did not mean to endorse either side of this flamewar. I just thought it was remarkable to note the sort of dispute (Usenet flamewarring degenerating into lawsuits) M. Faucounau appears to be involved in. This is likely very offtopic on this page. dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather form the forum archives, [11] Faucounau had a lawyer (Marcel Rochaix of Eberle Kämpfen Bösiger Theiler http://www.ekbt-law.ch ) threaten him with a lawsuit in November 2004. ~~I found no evidence that anyone actually went to court.~~ here is evidence that Gnaedinger was indeed summoned to court on 24 Nov 04 [12]. Rose-mary, regarding your advice "Be careful not to repeat such slanders, or I will inform myself people who may be concerned", I will overlook it for now, but please be aware of Wikipedia:No legal threats. dab (ᛏ) 12:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Dispute is over for me with your last statement . Just for your information, here are two links I found in a Goodgle search about your source Franz Gnaedinger < see minilien.com/?F06UiboHFL> and <hminilien.com/?EV65zMwqQl> (Rose-mary 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

I am not going to defend Gnaedinger -- I have no idea who he is. For all I know this could be a story of two kooks suing each other into oblivion for calling each other "kook". Point at hand, Faucounau in 2004 appears to have sued someone for calling him "kook" on Usenet in 2001. I do not know if there was any conviction. dab (ᛏ) 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is the true story. From what I heard, there had been a flamewar between two kooks, Franz Gnaedinger and Grapheus on sci.archaeology. As Franz Gnaedinger was confusing Grapheus with J.Faucounau, a decent old scholar (which I have personally met), Grapheus put the libel under the eyes of J.Faucounau, who reacted by suing the slanderer. (Rose-mary 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

Ionic dialect

Our anon has decried the description of Miss Stawell's decipherment as non-Ionic as partisan. She herself

remarks on an infinitive in -tai, not -sai
finds four consecutive long alphas.
describes the language she finds as resembling Æolic or Cyprian.
disputes Hempl's Ionic interpretation.

What does our anon suppose the name "Ionic Greek" signifies?

Can he find any source, including Faucounau, calling a text with the first two features Ionic? Septentrionalis 18:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Pmanderson is using again a false accusation for trying to impose his POV, by reversing the burden of proof. Where did he found that I called "Ionic" the Stawell's attempt ?

Miss Stawell said herself that one could not expect that all the words would actually be found in historical Greek, but that it will be noticed with interest how many of the words are Homeric. The character of "Homeric language" is matter of discussion. Pmanderson wants to impose his idea that "Homeric" is Aeolic. It is obvious that, as Miss Stawell's decipherment is not totally coherent, most of the words she proposed cannot be Ionic. But saying that all her decipherment is not Ionic is the Pmanderson 's own theory. This can be argued, the more as scholars don't agree about the definition of Aeolic. And anyway, would be Pmanderson right or wrong, this not the place to discuss it in WP( No Original Research rule)

As for the examples given by Pmanderson :

n° 1 can be Doric, as well as Aeolic ;

n°2 : the long alpha doesn't mean nothing, as Miss Stawell talks about "Old Ionic" ;

n°3 : Miss Stawell describes the language indeed as resembling to Cyprian, but Cyprian is an Arcadian dialect, not an Aeolic one (except if one considers Arcado-Cypriot as "Aeolic" , what is a "not generally accepted" theory ;

n°4 She disputes Hempl's "Ionic interpretation" on many points, but not on all. And as I mentioned hereabove, the fact that she replace the Hempl's êta by a long alpha has not meaning concerning the dialect. (User 80.90.57.154, 21:10, 20 February 2006)

80.90.57.154 (vodsl-5018.vo.lu), are you, or are you not Jean Faucounau? Are you, or are you not, grapheus? Are you, or are you not, Rose-mary? If you are going to throw your academic weight around on Wikipedia, in my humble opinion playing sockpuppets or identity games is rather childish. Cards on the table. dab (ᛏ) 22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An anon has not to tell who he is. The only thing I can say is that I am not Jean Faucounau. Period. (User 80.90.57.154 ,23:00 20 February 2006).

Well. that much seems clear. Faucounau does know what Ionic is; his decipherment uses Νικηι and η Ασιονη and τετειχισμην. Septentrionalis 03:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

oy oy oy

what are you lads on about, is there an answer to what it says or isn't there?

Of course. It gives directions to the nearest pederastic brothel, which served salami and crackers on the side... Alexander 007 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is an answer to this question, given by the Proto-Ionic decipherment : the text would be a mortuary elogy, chanted during the funeral of a dead petty Greek king. The problem is : Is this decipherment correct or false? . The answers to this question differ : a)-there are people, who are defending another solution, like Kadmos (who is defending the Torsten Timm's reading for a good reason : he is Torsten Timm), who say NO -- b)-there are other people, like Pmanderson -who has never read the J.Faucounau's arguments- who wants to maintain the official position of the Esttabhisment since 1950, that no decipherment can be proved, because the Proto-Ionic Solution obliges to abandon the Risch-Chadwick Theory -- c)- there are, at least, a few people, but whose number is growing, who have read the J.Faucounau's work and have been convinced, like myself. (User 80.90.57.154, 12:30, 21 February 2006)

80.90.57.154, you may sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~; you may also tell Rose-mary if you see her :) I would again recommend using an account, you will be even more anonymous using one (for example, if you did, we wouldn't know you are in Luxembourg). I don't know about Kadmos, but I am not Timm, but still his reading (not "decipherment") to me seems the most sensible I have seen so far. Comparison with Linear A is really the null hypothesis, and the Arkalochori axe is extremely important; if it wasn't for the axe, I would consider the disk a likely forgery. It seems clear that we have a much better chance of deciphering Linear A at the moment, and I do think that if we have a working decipherment of Linear A, there will be a much better chance of deciphering the Disk. I have no preconceived idea whether Minoan is Anatolian or a language isolate; we would hope it is Anatolian because we would stand very little chance of decipherment if it was isolate. Greek is not impossible but rather unlikely. Faucounau's insistence on "Proto-Ionic" to me seems entirely without merit. We are hard pressed to make out Greek at all without making assertions about vowel qualities. I daresay I see no evidence that a "growing number" of people accept Faucounau's reading, and I am not any more eager to read (let alone buy) his book than Hempl's; Duhoux's review, downloadable free of charge, tells me all I want to know. dab (ᛏ) 13:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To Mr Bachmann. Yes, I post from Luxembourg, and, like Rose-Mary, I've met J.Faucounau, who lives in this country, that is not a secret. (PS : I regret that I've still never met Mrs or Miss Rose-Mary). So what ? You live also in Zürich, like the "pathological slanderer" (so he is called in sci.archaeology) Franz Gnaedinger, and you reproduced here the libels against a very decent old scholar that this obviously insane person published (If you are not convinced he is insane, just read some of the several thousands posts he published), without checking the credibility of your source.

This is your problem, Mr Bachman : to pass judgment or to jump to conclusions without a sufficient knowledge of the file, and you have again demonstrated that, saying that you are not anymore eager to read the J.F.'s book than Hempl's. As long as you will not know the arguments in favour of the Proto-Ionic Solution, any discussion with you will be useless. We have not the same knowledge of the file. The day you will accept to read, at least, both books Le déchiffrement..; and Les Proto-Ioniens.. (I am sure they do exist in a Zürich Universitarian Library, so you will not have to spent some 35/40 US dollars), a scientific, in the WP spirit exchange will be made possible. Until then, it's a loss of time for all of us. (User 80.90.57.154 15:40, 21 February 2006).

no offense: Why should I read it? I cannot read every scrap published on the Phaistos Disc. I read Duhoux's review, I know Duhoux as a serious linguist, and I'm not interested to read more. I accept that the book exists, and I agree that it should be listed here. I've skimmed Timm's suggestions, and they more or less correspond to how I would approach the problem. I'm not a Phaistosologist, nor do I intend to become one. I am an Indo-Europeanist, and all I can say is that in this field, nobody will for a second take seriously a 3000-BC-"Proto-Ionian" theory that names among its evidence a reading of the Phaistos Disc. Maybe Faucounau is right, who knows. If he is, as Duhoux says, he may rest assured that his solution will be recognized as the truth sooner or later. The same goes for any other decipherer. This is not the Jean Faucounau article, and beyond acknowledging that he exists, we are under no obligation to cover his works until they become notable in academia. You know, I might take out his book from Zurich library just for fun. The flaws enumerated by Duhoux are severe enough, however, that I am almost certainly not going to give any credence whatsoever to his "solution". But you know, if I was to read the whole book cover to cover and would then tell you I remain unconvinced, you would just tell me that I didn't understand the argument. What would this gain us? You happen to be infatuated with the JF solution. Therefore it is a "waste of times" to have editors here who have not read JF? What if you were an Aartun or Georgiev or Hagen supporter? Would it then be outrageous not to have read these works? JF is just one in a string of people who came up with (mutually incompatible) Greek readings. There is no evidence that his reading is any more accepted than any other. You should either just live with this, or begin citing favourable expert reviews. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From your verbose answer, Mr Bachmann, I will just hold two points :

Nobody will, for a second, take seriously a 3000-BC "Proto-Ionian Theory" that names amongst the evidence a reading of the Phaistos Disk. Once again, Mr Bachmann, you talk without knowing the file, therefore your mistakes! Who told you that the "Proto-Ionic Theory" was supported by the Disk decipherment ? It is rigourously the contrary ! But, as you have never read the book on Les Proto-Ioniens, you ignore that !
The flaws enumerated by Duhoux are severe enough. Well, personally, I found only one which is unquestionable : The Linear A tablet was not lying north of the Disk (I've found also two other ones, not mentioned by Y.Duhoux, but they are unimportant). All the other so-called flaws come from the Duhoux' postulate that the Script of the Disk would be of the same type than the Cretan Scripts group (User 80.90.57.154, 18:0, February 21, 2006).

sure, it's the reviewer's opinion, which I happen to share. Who do you want to convince? We agree that JF may be mentioned in our list here. We need not debate about anything further. You are free to believe JF is correct. YD is free to believe he isn't. Problem solved. If you want to press the point that JF's reading was in any way well-received, cite other reviews (see below). dab (ᛏ) 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

An now using an old trick, Mr Bachmann : to distort the claims of your opponents. What I claim is a more neutral presentation than yours, a presentation not leading the uninformed reader to believe that Y.Duhoux 'criticism has "definitely killed" the Proto-Ionic Solution ! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:20, 21 February 2006)

no, I quite agree, Duhoux does not positively claim it is not "Proto-Ionic", since Duhoux does not pretend to have deciphered the Disk. Duhoux is just saying that Faucounau has done nothing to inspire in him a tendency to believe that it should be "Proto-Ionic" in particular, and rather than, say, Luwian, Mycenaean or Akkadian. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Easy for Duhoux to say that, when skipping over the whole arguments listed in Chapter 7 and developped in the book on Les Proto-Ioniens ! (User 80.90.57.154, 20 :30, 21 February 2006).

Protected

Work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring, please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Katefanö. I thank you very much for your effort for bringing WP editors like Gbachmann and Pmanderson to solve the difference of opinion they may have with others in the WP way : talking first instead of edit-warring. In order to launch the debate, I repeat here the main points I'm asking :

- to maintain the book Les Proto-Ioniens in the references, because anyone who has read it, can see that it is not OT, but develops, on the contrary, the evidence just listed in the Chapter 7 of the book on Le déchiffrement...
- to avoid, by a biaised presentation, to present the Y.Duhoux AJA paper as definitely condemning the Proto-Ionic Solution, what is not true. To the point that, in the end, Y. Duhoux himself has added : (emphasis is mine) I would like, however, to conclude with an hopeful message : ... If the decipherment is correct, it will triumph in the end over all competitors and critics. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:40, 21 February 2006)

I fully agree with what 80.90.57.154 wrote Rose-mary 15:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

I don't see any language definitely condemning the Faucounau approach based on Duhoux. Duhoux is simply listed as one review. If there are others (in reputable journals of course), they should be listed too, whether they are favorable or unfavorable. None of us has found others; have you? --Macrakis 18:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

your first point, if it makes you happy, I will not object to citing Les Proto-Ioniens. Your second point is itself a misrepresentation. I have just read Duhoux's review. If you read the whole paragraph, Duhoux is musing on the waste of time of bothering to refute every Phaistos decipherment people come up with and that it is wiser to leave these authors in their respective beliefs, since, if they are right, they will triumph in the end. He states this as a general truth, unrelated to JF in particular. Whatever happens, at most one single decipherer may be right. JF is just one of them. YD is saying, JF is no worse than any other of the flawed attempts, so let him be; if he is right after all, his name will shine in giant letters as The Decipherer at some point. Nobody (well, except 80.*) believes he is right, but we are all mortals after all. dab (ᛏ) 16:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already said it : it is not a question of content, but of presentation. Every specialist knows that Y.Duhoux' paper is not a definite condemnation of the Proto-Ionic solution. But this is what a biaised presentation may let the WP uninformed reader believe. (User [[80.90.57.154) 14:00 22 February 2006)

Rose-mary, if you continue to pretend to be a different person than 80.*, I will have to ask for a sockpuppet check. dab (ᛏ) 16:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see evidence at User talk:Rose-mary#Sockpuppetry. --Macrakis 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More evidence. 80.x deleted the sockpuppet evidence on User talk:Rose-mary: [13]. --Macrakis 19:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is at least a point of agreement.
If Y.Duhoux criticizes several attempts - what is the truth- why, then, refusing the proposal I made from the beginning : opening a special § with the list of all the published reviews ? I would, then, abandon my demand to restablish fairness and PNPOV by citing Faure's review.
Why are you trying to freighten this poor Rose-Mary ? Another of your tricks to force your opponents to shut their mouth, Mr Bachmann ???? (User 80.90.57.154, 18:00, 21 February 2006)

ok, 80, so here's a deal: cite one review of Faucounau's in a peer-reviewed linguistic journal that doesn't dismiss his reading as flawed or inconsequential, and we will mention the merits the reviewer finds with JF. So far, Duhoux is the only review we have seen, and Duhoux is clearly rolling his eyes. If you dig us up a more sympathetic review, we can certainly take points from there. I am sure you will agree that Wikipedia should not be the first to give a sympathetic account of JF. I have btw found JF's reading here and will look at it for a while now. dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You still have always the same problem, Mr Bachmannn : Always trusting hearsay, never going straight to the source ! This is probably your own concept of what a Scientific approach is! Are you sure you should stay as a WP editor/administrator, Mr Bachmann? Here are a few another links, supporting the Proto-Ionic Solution : [<http://www-personal.umich.edu/~artsfx/notes3.html>] ; [14] ; [<http://www.onirik.net/article.php3?id.article=134>] ; etc.

What a pity for you that so many people have got confidence in the validity of the Proto-Ionic Solution, Mr Bachmann ! ( User [[80.90.57.154}}, 18:10, 21 February 2006)

Language like this above really is out of line. Are there any peer reviewed sources that are sympathetic to this viewpoint? Please answer the question. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my ironical remark. As for your question, the answer is easy : all the Chief-Redactors and Redaction-Boards who have accepted to print some J.Faucounau's papers exposing an aspect or the whole of the "Proto-Ionian Theory" must have considered this theory with sympathy and interest. This is the rule in peer-reviewed journals and scientific editors like L'Harmattan. As I already wrote, this is the big difference with edition-houses like Books on demand, who may publish anything at the author's cost. The fact that two J.F's books have been reviewed by similar peer-rewied journals is also significant. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know any such review for O. Hagen's, P. Aleff or M. Corsini, to cite a few. (User 80.90.57.154 19:20, 21 February 2006).

Such touching idealism about publishers! but then my own view is closer to Lord Byron's. Septentrionalis 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

JF as quoted on onirik.net says it himself:Q:Quel accueil la communauté archéologique «conventionnelle», au sens professionnelle, a réservé à vos théories ? — JF : un accueil réservé, et on comprend pourquoi : on n’accepte pas d’emblée une révolution dans les idées... Mais le nombre de mes partisans croît au fur et à mesure qu’ils veulent bien lire mes livres et articles.... This is just too similar to grapheus' (80's) vein. Grapheus is clearly one such partisan, and JF's thinking in terms of his partisans, combined with his suing people for an imagined damage to his books' sales, puts me, personally off reading his stuff before I see a favourable review in a reputable journal. I have too much to read to go after books that were dismissed with a shrug in academia. I'm sorry, but to every misunderstood genuine genius there are 999 genuine cranks. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

now let us leave my person out of this. If I did go straight to the source and gave you my opinion, it would just be OR anyway. An encyclopedia is all about "hearsay". This is not the "scientific" approach, it is the "encyclopedic" approach, since (gasp) Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. I didn't ask for Internet links about the theory. We already know that User:Irismeister likes it, and I am sure you are able to put up any number of homepages about it. That's irrelevant. I asked for peer-reviews. Duhoux is the only one we have so far. It is not "a pity for me" that it was negative, it is unfortunate for you. If you produce more favourable reviews, I will be only too glad to accept them into the article: I do not have an axe to grind with JF. For all I know, he is unnotable (Proto-Ionian theory was AfD'd as unnotable), but if you show evidence to the contrary, that's perfectly all right with me. I will not be convinced that he is notable in the scholarly community by reading his book, even if I should be convinced by his argument, I would just become another Irismeister or another grapheus. What counts are published, printed, peer-reviewed opinions on the matter. dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The only peer-reviewed reviews of Faucounau appear to be the two cited in the article:

Duhoux, who now thinks any IE (much less Greek) source of the Disc unlikely, and who contests Faucounau's provenance for it.
Faure, who favorably receives the idea that there was a proto-Ionian people, but who declines to discuss the decipherment.

The only other mentions I can find of any of Faucounau's papers, on any subject, are neutral mentions in survey articles of the year's work on this or that topic. Septentrionalis 19:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

and one mention of his work on Carian, in Egypt, in very late Dynastic times. Septentrionalis 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hm, Faure doesn't appear to be mentioned here. Maybe we should, after all, have an article on Proto-Ionians (or Proto-Ionic), or make those redirects to either Ionic Greek or Proto-Greek or Greek dialects where the idea may be mentioned. As grapheus says himself, the idea that Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian may be two independent dialects has nothing to do with the Phaistos disk, nor does it prejudice in favour of a 3000 BC immigration. It's a purely linguistic statement. dab (ᛏ) 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added it, here; I support the restoration of this text. I agree that the proto-Ionian theory should, as such, be added to an article on Greek dialects; although Faucounau does hold that they were in Greece, as a maritime people, long before the Achaeans. Septentrionalis 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

sure, nothing to say against that addition. I have no opinion on Proto-Ionian (I think that a tree model is unwise anyway in closely related dialects. "Northern Greek" (Doric) and "Southern Greek" were divided for a millennium, so we can draw a tree for that, but I have no opinion on the genetic relation of Attic-Ionic with Mycenaean/Arcadocypriot, they were in contact all along anyway). For 'Indo-Europeanistic' reasons I am rather opposed to immigration as early as 3000 BC, although I daresay it's in the realm of the possible; if we can settle for 2700 BC I might actually warm up to the idea :) . I suggest, therefore, that we make Proto-Ionian a redirect to Greek dialect and mention the Kretschmer/Faucounau idea there. dab (ᛏ) 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe we are progressing towards a solution concerning this article. As for restoring a separate paper about The Proto-Ionic Thory as a concurrent one to the "Risch-Chadwick Theory", there is no problem with me. If I didn't asked for it, it is because knowing perfectly the said theory (which is a return to P. Kretschmer's Thre waves Theory with some modifications), I didn't care and was considering that it was WP problem, not mine. A last advice to the Indoeuropeanist Dbachmann : read the J.Faucounau's book : Les origines grecques à l'Age de Bronze. If you are disappointed with this reading, I will reimbourse you the 19 Euros cost of it ! And finally, a precision on about what Pmanderson wrote : Faucounau hold that they were in Greece, as a Maritime people, long before the Achaeans. Not exactly. It depends of what you mean by Greece. J.F. says that they settled in the Cycladic Islands, in Euboea and in Attica. They did not settled, for instance, in Boeotia before the Achaeans. You should also read Les Origines grecques à l'Age du Bronze... (User 80.90.57.154, 20:15, 21 February 2006)

Even if I prefer a short bibliography it will be ok for me if Faures review will be addedd. But only together with the remark "but declines to discuss the decipherment" as given in diff. Additional I support the idea of an new article for Jean Faucounau and/or Proto-Ionians. Kadmos 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I consider Athens, Chalcis and Delos as being in Greece; who denies it? Septentrionalis

Compromise proposal

But this looks like consensus (at least in the sense of Wikipedia:Consensus, which does not require unanimity) to

add back in the full sentence in the diff on Faure's review
otherwise leave the text (in the List of decipherments and related bibliography) on the three expanded Greek decipherments alone
- Hempl, Stawell and Faucounau
not expand the discussion of any decipherment much beyond the present scale without evidence of scholarly acceptance beyond the others
- There is also consensus that no such evidence has yet been presented.
add a sentence on the proto-Ionian theory to Greek dialects or some closely related article.
- Since none of them seem to discuss the conventional wisdom (that Ionic diverged some time around 1000 BC) at all clearly, this may take a while, but it will be done. Septentrionalis 06:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

well, it would be nice to have a coherent account of the decipherment attempts. Just listing them chronologically does not give a clear image of their likenesses and differences. For example, we could have a paragraph discussing the various Greek decipherments together, compare reading direction and script type assumed etc., much like in the first part of Duhoux' article. If this should get over-long, we could even have Phaistos Disc decipherment attempts where each attempt would get a brief section. I am not opposed to discussing Faucounau's ideas in principle, what irked me was statements like "substantial evidence" and "growing support". Whatever we agree on now, it should not preclude the possibility of later expansions. dab (ᛏ) 07:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Pmanderson proposal, with a single restriction : As the comment but declines to discuss the decipherment is added to Faure's paper, then I ask to also add to Y.duhoux' review : but declines to discuss arguments listed in Chapter 7.

I strongly disagree with Dbachmannn to discuss about the diverse decipherments, and to regroup the Greek solutions. I consider this as totally useless and I predict that this discussion would led to a new Editwar. Why, for instance, comparing the Greek solutions, when it is sure that only one can be correct ? What will be the criteria used in this discussion ? The linguistical coherence ? All present some linguistical difficulties ! So it's a question of judgment. The evidence given ? Then the Proto-Ionic Solution has a huge advantage ! This will not please to Pmanderson and others !.. None, so there will just be a listing, not a true discussion ? Then, the Proto-Ionic Solution would be lost in a bunch of other solutions, of which several are surely false, so false that in some cases, even their author had recognized the fact ! This would be unfair for the only proved solution by more than 4O pieces of evidence ! Dbachmann says that it is irritated by the words substantial evidence . Well, how can he judge that this would be an exageration or even a lie ? He has never made the effort to know the file ! We go back to square one...

As a conclusion, I found Dbachmann's proposal as an obstacle to a compromise which is at hand. (User 80.90.57.154 8:30, 22 February 2006)

I have looked at the JF text now and I must say I am not thrilled. I will take JF's book from the library now and look at his precious chapter 7. In the meantime, you could cut down the redlinks and the boldface. I agree with your compromise. All I am saying is that this article will continue to grow, including discussion of JF. My suggestion is to allow room to compare commonalities and differences between readings. Such as, how many people agree on individual syllable signs, or on individual determinatives. Obviously, most solutions are "surely false", since only a single one can be correct. I see no evidence that JF's stands a particularly high chance of being right. He certainly falls rather short of Occam's razor. The huge "advantage" of JF is that he appears to have berserk iridologists and Usenet warriors in his service, otherwise we would not even be discussing him. In conclusion, I remind you that Wikipedia is not Usenet. I am not here because I like to dispute with you, I am here for the article. If you don't stop your personal asides, and if you do not get an account, I will not continue to consider you an editor in good standing with which it is possible to have a debate. Maybe you would be more at home going back to join the fray on sci.archaeology. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From your verbose post, I'll retain :

that you agree with the proposed compromise
that you are going on saying I don't know the entire file, just bits of it and hearsay, but I am sure there is no evidence that JF's decipherment has the highest chance to be right. An inacceptable attitude in my eyes, which makes all discussion with you a mokery. This is the only point on we agree : there is therefore no possibility to have a serious debate.
that you are going on with your idea to transfer to the WP article a totally useless and hopeless discussion about the merits of each deciphering attempt. I say hopeless because of the text on which we all have agreed : The Disk's purpose and meaning remain disputed and as no second disc has been found, no verification can lead to absolute certainty. So what do you want to "demonstrate" ? That the Proto-Ionic Solution is on the same level concerning its credibility than the other attempts ? This is not true, like it or not, and it cannot be accepted by people like myself who have a different opinion than yours on this subject. I'm not trying to impose my POV on you. Don't try to impose yours on me and others ! (User 80.90.57.154, 10:45, 22 February 2006)

WP is not a debating club. There are fairly clear criteria for including a position, and how much weight to give it, based on its acceptance in the professional literature. Substantive arguments are not useful here. --Macrakis 14:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the record I notice that User Macrakis started this stupid Edit-war on February 14, 00:59 by arbitrarily deleting all the references to J.F's work, that he abusively called fringe material. By his action, he destroyed NPOV consensus and redaction which had suffered very little changes since months, in spite of the ultra-sensitivity of some editors on this highly controversial question. Now, he is trying to sabotage an agreement which was at hand. (User 80.90.57.154, 15:50, 22 February 2006)

I cannot agree to the anon's amendment, for the simple reason that it does not describe Duhoux's paper. Faure actually wrote: Sans vouloir entre dans le problème du déchriffrement du Disque de Phaistos.... I see no corresponding phrase in Duhoux; I write subject to correction, of course. I am glad, however, that we are down to disagreeing over a single clause. Septentrionalis 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That Y.Duhoux has not discussed the arguments of Chapter 7 is a fact. It is true that the mention I proposed, i.e. who has declined to discuss arguments of Chapter 7 is incorrect and has to be replaced by who does not discuss ...etc. But, moreover, one could also mention that Y.Duhoux based his main criticisms on the hypothesis that the disc's script has to be of the same type than the Linear B and the Cypriot Syllabary (This is what this author wrote, calling suspect any attempt supposing another type of script).

I remind that these problems would be avoided (no need to add additional comments to Faure's and Duhoux papers) if the solution that I advocated from beginning was accepted : to put all the published reviews on the deciphering attempts in a separate paragraph. Then, I would not insist so adamantly for adding the disputed sentence (Duhoux who does not discuss the arguments of Chapter 7), which could be replaced by Y. Duhoux based his main criticisms on the hypothesis...etc. (User 80.90.57.154, 17/30, 22 February 2006).

apart from the anon's (verbose) interspersals (again, get an account please. User:Grapheus appears available), I think we are in the clear. I see no reason to keep the article protected. Needless to say, my proposal is not to compare subjective 'merits' of the individual attempts, but objective properties. Such as, "most decipherers agree on a syllabary", "most decipherers agree to read outside-to-inside", "estimates for the number total of characters in the script are between 60 and 90 (or whatever)". Chapter 7 of JF's book can be discussed at leisure on Jean Faucounau. Go ahead, create that article and see if it is AfD'd (I won't bother to AfD it). I remind everybody that criticism of reviews by WP editors is just as OR as criticism of primary publications. Duhoux' position is that it's not worth his time to debunk in detail yet another decipherment. We can certainly say that he does not debunk it in detail. There is, then, no detailed reaction to JF's work published anywhere, which makes it even less notable. dab (ᛏ) 17:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to Mr Bachmann's proposal. The objective properties have been mentioned in the comments related to each deciphering attempt. They may be completed by mention like clock-wise reading for instance, if necessary. But I refuse any sentences like most decipherers agree on a syllabary, proposed by Mr Bachmann, because this has no value. It's not because most decipherers estimate the total number of the characters in the script to be 55, for instance that this is the faintest reason to believe that 55 is the correct number !.. What I suspect Mr Bachmann to do is just trying to light up more flamewars .

As for creating an article Jean Faucounau, I don't see the need of it. An article on the Proto-Ionian Theory would be more interesting for the ordinary WP reader, but it's the fault of those who deleted it (with false motives), if it is now impossible to improve its redaction (User 80.90.57.154, 18:00, 22 February 2006)

JHC, you don't even pay attention, do you? Luckily, you don't need to. This article will be doing fine with or without your contribution, cheers. dab (ᛏ) 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any progress?

I agree to dab. There is no reason to keep the article protected. There is little hope that user 80.90.xx.xx will invent some new arguments:

@"User Macrakis started this stupid Edit-war on February 14" : I'm sorry to say that this honor was already given to me. See Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive2.
@"Chapter 7" : See About_Yves_Duhoux_criticism_of_the_Proto-Ionic_Solution´or search for "the evidence concerning the Proto-Ionic language" at anistor (BTW: At Phaistos Disc this link is broken.)
@"4O pieces of evidence" : Search for "I would like to say to people" at this page or anistor. (Strange that at anistor F. speaks about "20 pieces of evidence all together".)
@"text on which we all have agreed" : The contrary is true. See Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive1, Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive3 and Incorrect_redaction.
@"Therefore my question : Have you read any of the J.F.'s books?" : WP:CITE Kadmos 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with you was several months ago and had been solved with a compromise. I was talking, of course, about the present, February discussion.
I maintain that the absence of examination (I don't even say : refutation) of the Chapter 7 arguments makes unefficient Duhoux criticism. One has not the right, when reviewing a book, to ignore the PRO-arguments, if he wants to make a serious work. Strange that you seem not to agree on this point !
Well, the number of pieces of evidence may vary, because there are several possibilities of grouping them. This explains the discrepancy.
Once again, I was talking about statements like "Its purpose and meaning... remain disputed", "no verification can be absolutely sure", the need to cite two J.F.'s books (not 1 or 3 or 4), etc.
This question is essential in the present case, if one wants a fair and scientific discussion. Otherwise, there is a dispute between two guys, one who knows the file, and another who doesn't know it. Do you really think this is a good method for a discussion about the said file ???? (User 80.90.57.154 20:40, 22 February 2006)

The answer is already given here [15]. Period. Kadmos 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this you way to answer to a compromise proposal ? Repeating what you already said, so nobody knows whether you agree or not on the two solutions which have been evoked :

Solution a)- Let the § Deciphering attempts as a simple List , and put all the Reviews and other published Comments in the Selected Bibliography.
Solution b)- Put the Reviews just after each decipherment, but adding, then, the Duhoux AJA 2000 review with the mention does not examine the Chapter 7 arguments" + the reference to Faure's review.

In both cases, both J.F.'s books Le déchiffrement.. and Les Proto-Ioniens should be mentioned in the Bibliography, as they cannot be separated, the second being the development of the Chapter 7 of the first. (User 80.90.57.154, 8:45, 23 February 2006)

What Chapter 7 actually says

The famous Chapter 7 of Faucounau's Décipherment is a lengthy argument of the form:

Some people say that this decipherment is impossible, because the Ionian dialect did not yet exist in the Middle Bronze Age
But it did exist, and we can tell this for several reasons [which I will not go into now]:

As far as the decipherment is concerned, this is a purely defensive argument, good only against those critics who believe both that a Greek decipherment is possible, and that an Ionian decipherment is impossible. Duhoux had no reason to address it, since he is arguing that the language, whatever it is, is not any form of Greek, nor any purely IE language. This page does not (and probably should not) make the argument that Ionian is impossible, and therefore need not make the counterargument either.

If I were concerned to defend Faucounau (which I am not), I would keep Les proto-Ioniens out of the article altogether. The "development" involved is mostly padding, and the addition of very weak claims indeed: for example, the Ionians, having already been identified with the Philistines and the Sea Peoples (and Ovenden's hypothetical Constellation-makers of 2800 BC, which he thinks Minoan), are now also proclaimed the Pelasgians (on the basis of a weak etymology), the Mysians, and the Hallstatt culture Celts!

I do observe the dedication to Stawell, as first Ionic decipherer, which may explain our anon's vehemence on the subject. If it is any comfort, this is a fully understandable error on Faucounau's part. He cannot have seen Stawell's article, which immediately refers to Hempl's earlier Ionic decipherment. It must have been very difficult to obtain before it was webbed, especially on the Continent; and whatever source mentioned it at second hand may well have distorted things slightly.

For what it is worth, I agree with Faure that the proto-Ionian theory, as such, is worth consideration, and mention on Wikipedia; but not here, unless the criticism that there were no Ionians enters the text, which it has not. Septentrionalis 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And here, you opponents of the Proto-Ionic Solution, you go again !.. Ten times, if not more, I've repeated that for knowing the file, it was necessary to have read at least the both books : Le déchiffrement..; and Les Proto-Ioniens... Because in the Chapter 7 of the first, the arguments are just listed, when they are developped in the second book. And now, Pmanderson, having read only the Chapter 7 , triumphantly talks about the Ovenden's hypothetical Constellation-makers and other very weak claims !!!!! When will Pmanderson and Dbachmann stop judging the content of a book from a title or a Summary ??? When will they understand that you cannot pass a judgment without opening the file ???? (An indignant User 80.90.57.154, 21:00 23 February 2006).

On the contrary, I have read Les proto-Ioniens; that's why I express such disappointment with it. Septentrionalis 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah !.. And what, for instance, makes you call hypothetical the Astronomical evidence, decribed at long in the Chapter 3 of this book ? Are you yourself a known astronomer to contradict the conclusions of three of them ? (User 80.90.57.154 13:50, 24 February 2006)

Ovenden's arguments depend on two hypotheses: that the shape of the constellations are the result of them being devised when the sky was different, and that Aratus accurately and completely represents ancient lore. I doubt he would disagree; I believe he uses the word. Hypothetical does not mean false, or even implausible; it means assumed by hypothesis. I think Ovenden created an interesting and plausible theory; I don't see that chapter 3 adds anything about the proto-Ionians to the corresponding section of Le décipherment. Septentrionalis 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder : you wrote that you have read the book Les Proto-Ioniens, but you are talking only about the Ovenden's arguments and method... when the Chapter 3 of the said book describes the three different methods which have been employed !.

Strange, indeed... (User 80.90.57.154 17:45, 24 February 2006).

This entire off-topic conversation arose from the phrase "Ovenden's hypothetical Constellation-makers". The anon objected to hypothetical, which they remain. I do not propose to discuss Faucounau's entire exercise in padding; it is not relevant here. I presented a fair sample, for those fortunate enough not to have read Les proto-Ioniens. Let me turn this around: What claims does that book make about its ostensible subject which are not in chapter 7 of its predecessor, and are (unlike the silly and evidence-free assertions about Hallstatt) worth reading? Septentrionalis 18:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I point out that when asked to give an answer to a precise question, Pmanderson tries to escape by turning the question around. This is this way for him to seriously discuss about the motives of his disparaging statements against a solution he doesn't like. (User 80.90.57.154 19:00, 24 February 2006).

"For the record," I repeat my answer to a post which contained no question marks: I discussed Ovenden because this entire OT conversation arose from the phrase "Ovenden's hypothetical Constellation-makers".
I have no opinion about Faucounau's decipherment other than this: no reviewer in a scholarly publication has ever supported it.
I do not intend to discuss the proto-Ionian theory in detail here; this is not the place for it.
Is the anon's answer to my question an implicit agreement that Les proto-Ioniens presents no actual evidence about its nominal subject beyond that contained in chapter 7 of Le décipherment?
Septentrionalis 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this OT dispute started from the adjective hypothetical, that appeared to me as a new attempt to disparage the Proto-Ionian Theory. This adjective would have not be a problem if it had not followed a long list of disparaging attempts (mainly made by others than Pmanderson, I recognize it), beginning with the inacceptable deletion of all the references to the J.F.'s work with fallacious pretexts.

I thank you for saying today that you have no opinion about it. It's a lot more acceptable than having preconceived ideas against it.

But I have to consider your question as a new (although small) disparaging attempt : because it means that a simple list (or a title) would have, in your eyes, the same value as a book developping the listed items, just because both deal with the same stuff. Sorry, but in the present context, this is shocking. (User 80.90.57.154 22:15, 24 February 2006)

You are quite welcome. I also agree that the book covering the material should have more value than the chapter (which does have more than a bare list). That's why I'm disappointed it does not. Septentrionalis 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter to Nestor

I have now taken JF's 2001 book from the library. And I must say, I did not expect the merits of his theories to be quite so evident. After actually looking at a JF publication, I must say that I have lost any interest whatsoever in discussing him. We may even have a section dedicated to JF here if it will buy us peace, for all I care, it is simply not worth my time to discuss this stuff. At the same time, I have taken out Achterberg et al (2004). This is a comprehensive study by a team of experts, and while not I'm not fully convinced, they have some extremely interesting points. I don't understand why we are not mentioning the study so far. This may not be the final word on the matter, but their "philological look and feel" is very good, and it really seems to catch the 'state of the art' of Disk scholarship. They at least do not set off kookery-alarms on every other page by ignoring their theory's weak points or by asserting over and over how their decipherment is the watertight result of seven years' calculation or deploring the arrogance of academia; instead, they know their Luwian and their Bronze Age archaeology, and they do consider the merits of alternative approaches.

Achterberg, Winfried; Best, Jan; Enzler, Kees; Rietveld, Lia; Woudhuizen, Fred, The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter to Nestor, Publications of the Henry Frankfort Foundation vol XIII , Dutch Archeological and Historical Society, Amsterdam 2004. [16]

dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have, of course, no objection to add the Achterberg's reference to the Best-Woudhuizen Solution, seing in the Disk a Luwian text. As J.Faucounau, these authors (I mean : Best, Woudhuizen and now Achterberg) have started with a deciphering attempt, published by a "scientific editor" (Brill in this case) in 1988 (Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus), then have developped their theory in several succeeding books (Lost Languages from the Mediterranean in 1989 and The Phaistos Disk : A Luwian Letter to Nestor in 2004. The similarities with the J.Faucounau's steps is striking. Mr Bacchmann has, of course, the right to prefer the Luwian Solution instead of the Proto-Ionic one. But he should spare us with his unfounded disparaging words (like I have lost any interest...etc.) which add nothing to the problem. The more as I could also denigrate myself, 'with more or less valid arguments, the Luwian Solution which is far from having attracted a large scholarly consensus outside some Hollandese circles. (User 80.90.57.154 16:25, 23 February 2006)

Indeed it is worth to have a look at Achterberg, Best and others. The attempt is not based upon acrophony. The details are published. And last but not least there was no need to invent Proto-Hittits. Without naming this theory there would be a gap. Kadmos 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

as I said, I have no objection to seeing JF's claims discussed, so let's bury that hatchet. The Luwian reading is attractive, but I can see it has its weaknesses (such as, why is the stroke +ti rather than +r?). The only people capable of reviewing this would be specialists of Hieroglyphic Luwian (of which there is barely a handful, worldwide). I don't know if there has been a review from this corner, but if there hasn't, well, the book is only a year old. Peaceful coexistece, ok? You document JF (labelling claims as claims, e.g. claims of "substantial evidence" does not amount to actual "substantial evidence"), and I will document the Dutchmen (labelling claims as claims). dab (ᛏ) 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me impossible to talk about the Proto-Ionian Solution without explaining the gap between the first succinct publication in 1975 and the 1999 to 2005 publications (of which only two are really relevant to the Phaistos Disk decipherment). This gap has been explained by the author as the search for evidence (and this is confirmed by his small publications between 1975 and 1999). So, what I propose is dropping the word substantial, if you wish, but the word "evidence" has to be mentioned (User 80.90.57.154 18:00 , 23 February 2006

well yes, he has been collecting evidence between 1975 and 1999, no problem (or, calculating evidence; damn, that calculation will make the CERN processor load seem puny, I wonder about his algorithm, churning away at statistical calculations on a 240 character corpus for all these years :p ) dab (ᛏ) 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

An here commes another vicious, but ridiculous remark of yours ! Between 1975 and 1999, J.F has not modified his decipherment (Not like Jan Best !). He has just searched for evidence, not churning statistical calculations. (User 80.90.57.154 , 21:05 23 February 2006).

yes, yes, I am referring to the analyse statistique extrêmement poussée qui nécessita plusieurs années (JF 2001, p. 25). I was just expressing my appreciation of just how extremely poussée the analysis must have been :) dab (ᛏ) 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But J.F. has written in one of his papers (I don't remember in which one) that those calculations were done before 1975. As for their length, I've no idea about it, but I may guess that when a mathematician writes that he would need to write a whole book to explain them, and when another mathematician says that the length of the Disk is at the border of the minimum required, those calculations have a good chance of not being so simple... But you and Mr Bachmann are probably too smart for thinking in such a naïve way ? Aren't you, if I judge by the fact that you are able to pass a judgment without opening the file ? A real performance ! (User 80.90.57.154 22:20, 23 February 2006)

well, I have the "file" here in front of me. But don't let me goad you, you are free to discuss JF as long as the article does not seem to endorse his views. Yes, I think these calculations are naive. If you have any experience with the crazy field of Bronze Age philology, you will be well aware that this is no exact science. But I recognize that our respective opinions do not matter here, so I suggest we avoid further tangents and unprotect. dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unprotect. Unfortunate that Acterberg's international discrtibution appears to be quite limited. Septentrionalis 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. Enough talk. Every point was discussed at least twice. Please unprotect. Kadmos 08:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another view

I created an article about the Disc at Uncyclopedia.--Curtis Clark 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it got deleted. enochlau (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, they're a tough crowd. I'll se if I can find it in my cache.--Curtis Clark 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to ask a WP-administrator to find who is the intolerant culprit ! ((User 80.90.57.154, 22:10, 23 February 2006)

it's not WP, it's Uncyclopedia. The article was deleted with a laconic "No." by User:Flammable KUN, you could leave him a note if you like. dab (ᛏ) 11:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And was it at your request, as I guess?.. (This being said, I did not found even funny the said Unencyclopedia paper, and will not cry for its disappearence !) (User 80.90.57.154, 13:45 24 February 2006)

No, you wouldn't, because it poked fun at the fact that the Wikipedia article on the disk has ten times as many words as the disk itself (and of course if the glyphs are letters, the ratio is much higher), but that this talk page has more than twelve times as many words as the article. I postulated that the disk was the earliest known example of viral marketing, and that if talk pages could themselves have talk pages, there would already be more words written about the disk than there are elementary particles in the universe. I also speculated that the disk was a promotional coaster given out by a Minoan wine shop (it could as easily be a Proto-Ionian wine shop, I suppose).

Alas that Shannon never looked into the entropy changes inherent in the generation of Wikipedia talk pages.--Curtis Clark 15:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

pity it was deleted, can you repost it? Grapheus, are you absolutely humour-proof? Why would I try to "request" deletion of an uncyclopedia article? 130.60.142.65 09:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)