Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 27 February 2006

Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive1 Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive2 Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive3 Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive4

Unprotected

...please don't edit war, and respect any consensus reached here. · Katefan0/poll 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the present text, which is the result of discussions elsewhere during the protection, respects the decisions made above. Septentrionalis 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, after the few modifications brought in the presentation, to better respect the NPOV rule (User 80.90.57.154 23:30, 25 February 2006)

Our anon really should read WP:Consensus; revert-warring for The Truth is not an acceptable, or an effective, way to settle these questions.Septentrionalis 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Pmanderson should read WP:NPOV, which is the WP method to settle disputes, and stop trying to impose a redaction scandalously favorising his own POV (with deletion of concurrent references, excessive weight given to one opinion, vicious presentation to let the WP ordinary reader believe that one POV is the best, etc.) (User 80.90.57.154 15:10, 26 February 2006).

Pmanderson's unacceptable biaised redaction

Abusively calling consensus his redaction because he has found the support of people who share his POV, Pmanderson is trying to impose a deeply biaised redaction not respecting the POV of others, making this WP article a mokery ! Here are a few axamples of his biaised redaction :

1. Concerning Y.Duhoux work : Y.Duhoux criticism of J.Faucounau's deciphering attempt is presented as complete -what it is not- with interdiction to say that Y.Duhoux did not deal with the evidence listed in Chapter 7. But when it comes to the datation, Y.Duhoux' work is presented as the view of a minority of scholars. Amongst the ones who would disagree, Pmanderson doesn't hesitate to mention Jeppesen who based his opinion on a false translation of the Italian sentence il disco poggiava al suolo di costa  !!!! (A well-known error, recognized by all specialists!).
2. Concerning Direction of printing/reading : Pmanderson has deleted the NPOV previous redaction and goes as far as saying about Evans 1909 that : There was no general argument that he was wrong , ommitting to mention that Evans himself had recognized his error a few years later !!! (Again a well-known fact, voluntarily ignored by Pmanderson).
3. Concerning the NPOV in general : [[Pmanderson censors the mention that J.Faucounau spent 25 years in gathering evidence. He deletes all mentions to the word evidence , when such published evidence (that one may find valid or not, this is not the question!) is the big difference between the Proto-Ionic Solution and all other attempts. (While giving a disproportionate comment to the confidential publication of a research by a Dutch group about Best's deciphering attempt).

No surprise if this deeply biaised redaction will lead to a new Editwar in the future... What seems to be the Pmanderson's and his supporters' aim.. I am calling all the readers who agree with me and want to stop this mokery, to fight with me in order to stop Mr Pmanderson (User 80.90.57.154, 11:00 26 February 2006)

For the record. In the same vein as the hereabove biaised redaction, I point out that on 26 February 2006 at 22H38, [[Kadmos}} has censored under the pretext of "a too long" text the words "reprinted in 1999 and 2001 after the author collected what he claims to be substantial evidence supporting his Proto-Ionic hypothesis". Several advantages in favour of Kadmos well-known POV : a)-the ordinary reader will not know about the reprints, 25 years later, and the reasons of these b)-the word evidence (a too dangerous word in Kadmos eyes, I guess !) is deleted. And to be complete, while those 20 words were deleted, 5 lignes were added about T.Timm's theory... Is that fairness and NPOV ? I don't think so... (User 80.90.57.154 17:30, 27 February 2006)

calm down grapheus. if you want to be taken seriously, follow Wikiquette: get an account, use edit summaries, and don't shout so much. You will have to accept that you don't own this article. I agree Duhoux did not review the solution in detail. I agree that JF gathered "evidence" (but we will not say it is "substantial", that's just JF's claim). The "References" section is for articles mentioned in the text and by MoS goes before the general "Literature" section. Finally, your English is ungrammatical, and you should not expect people to clear up your grammar after you. You should be glad Duhoux reviewed JF, that makes him borderline "academic". dab (ᛏ) 15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Why are you calling me "grapheus" ? Another of your unfounded preconceived ideas ? (But go on, I don't really care!). If this article was mine as you say, its redaction would be easy : There is only one proven attempt, the Proto-Ionic Solution, in spite of the efforts of several jealous people to present it as"fringy". You have to recognize that this is not the redaction I defend, because I respect the NPOV rule. But I would glad if anybody, including you, would do the same.
2. Like it or not, the evidence presented is substantial. But I would accept - again in respect of the NPOV rule - the words claimed as substantial, if it would make you happy !
3. Abusive motive : there is no reason to put first in the Bibliographical references the § concerning only the (highly hypothetical!) links of the script with Linear A. It has to be at the end, or integrated to the other references, in a NPOV presentation.
4. talking about border line academic for the J.Faucounau's work is a new slandering statement of yours towards all the peer-reviewed journals which have published his tens of papers. You should be ashamed of yourself...

I am not jealous of JF at all, I just think it his theory is worthless. Why, I am not even jealous of the people who have made suggestions I consider valuable. It is clear that you have a personal interest in promoting JF's views. It is inconsequential whether you are his nephew or his admirer, you are biased. I call you grapheus because you refuse to choose a username. Choose one, and you'll be known under that name. It is, of course, obvious that you are the same person appearing as "grapheus" on usenet, both from your English and from your attitude, and any attempt of sockpuppetry on your part (such as the Rose-mary stunt) is just an insult to people's intelligence. I don't understand your "abusive motive" point, the bibliography is alphabetical. JF's result may be true, but it may never be "conclusive", because of his claim that the script has no external comparandum. Without such a comparandum, it is possible to construct a reading in any language at all (although difficult. JF is a brilliant riddle solver, but there is no indication that his efforts have anything to do with the Disk at all). This article is not the place for discussion of JF's "Proto-Ionians". I ask you again to go and discuss Proto-Ionians at Proto-Ionians. The main evidence for such Proto-Ionians presented in the 2001 book seem to be (1) the Phaistos Disk (!), and (2) archaeoastronomy (!). That's it. This is about as classical a case of pseudoarchaeology as I can imagine. dab (ᛏ) 16:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

From your as usual verbose message, I'll retain that because I consider the Proto-Ionic Solution as "valuable", I am "biaised". But you, who consider it as "valueless", would not be biaised. This is maybe your way to understand Logics. It's not mine. Period (User 80.90.57.154, 17:30 26 February 2006)

no, you are biased because you know JF personally, and have spent several years defending the theory on usenet. You are also a single-topic editor on Misplaced Pages. Your only purpose of being online at all seems to be Faucounau. I am, on the other hand, involved in more than a 1,000 articles on Misplaced Pages and have no particular interest in the Phaistos Disk. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are lying saying that you have no interest in the Phaistos Disk ? You didn't stop trying to impose your POV about it !!! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:20, 26 February 2006)

"A side begins"

listings of the first few syllables, or even of the same few symbols on side A regardless of reading direction, is worthless. All it tells you that each suggestion is totally incompatible with every other. Each suggestion should be discussed on its own terms. I suggest that we do a subarticle where each suggestion receives its own section where the full text can be given if available. dab (ᛏ) 16:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fake of Vladikavkaz

This Disk's imitation was found during the demolition of a not very ancient house and brought to the Museum of the North Ossetian Republic by its owner, who had no idea of its value. The Disk was exhibited for a while in the Museum, where it attracted the attention of a few Russian scholars. The Director of the Museum made, then, a study of it, study which concluded that it was a fake and it was given back to his owner. (Unpublished information coming from a personal letter of Vladimir Kouznetzov. Therefore the adjective alledgedly). (User 80.90.57.154, 17:50 26 February 2006).

no problem, just name the museum before referring to "the museum's director". dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But I did it ! It's the Historical Museum of the North Ossetian Republic. Once again, you are talking without knowing the file ! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:22, 26 February 2006).

wtf? the "file" is here. no mention of the museum. I concede I was much too verbose with you again, I resolve to adhere to WP:DNFT more. dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous answer, showing once again that you never take the time to be fully aware of a problem without giving your opinion about it ! Why don't you take your information from specialists, like Y.Duhoux and others, instead of blindly trusting insane persons like the one you recently quoted ? Please know that the existence of the Vladikavkaz Fake has been made known in 1992 to the scholarly world by a paper of Prof. Kouznetzov in a Russian archaeological journal. This paper has been translated in French in 2001 by Iaroslav Lebedynsky in "D'Ossétie et d'alentour". This is the way how the existence of this strange document has been made known to most specialists in Aegean Prehistory (including myself) in the Occidental countries. Little scholars reacted, except the Greek prehistorian Efi Polygianni, who published her analysis of this item in a booklet, published in 1996 in French at Athens, and completed by a paper in Greek in 1997 in Anthropos n°13. Like most of the other scholars who have seen the photos of this broken disk, Efi Polygianni was very hesitant to consider it as a genuine artifact. In the meanwhile, the Director of the Museum himself had concluded (following a personal information) to a fake and had given the artifact back to his owner. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:40, 27 February 2006).

you talked of a "Museum's Director" in the article without specifying a museum. I didn't disagree with anything you said, I just pointed out that you should specify the museum in question. You said "but I did". I said, "no you didn't", showing in a diff that indeed, you didn't. You call this a "ridiculous answer" and embark on some rant (watch that blood pressure, my friend). enough said. dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind reading again what I wrote on February 26, at 18H22 ? I repeat it hereafter :

But I did it ! It's the Historical Museum of the North Ossetian Republic. Once again, you are talking without knowing the file ! (User 80.90.57.154, 18:22, 26 February 2006).

What do you want more ? The Museum's address ? I don't have it at hand, but you should find it on Internet. (User 80.90.57.154 19:10, 27 February 2006).

Proto-Ionians

I have taken the liberty of (re-)creating Proto-Ionians now. All substantial evidence gathered by JF may now be detailed over there, hopefully relieving us of the need to talk about it here. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I will contribute to its redaction once we will arrive to a NPOV redaction of the Phaistos Disk article (User 80.90.57.154, 18:25, 26 February 2006);

don't feel obliged. just accept that here is not the place to discuss "Proto-Ionians". dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss here about Proto-Ionians. But they have to be mentioned when talking about the Proto-Ionic Solution. Like Linear A has to be mentioned when talking about Torsten Timm's solution. When will you understand what fairness and NPOV are ???? (User 80.90.57.154, 18:45, 26 February 2006)

when will you learn to read before ranting? I did mention the Proto-Ionians. Faucounau has sufficient representation as it is. All details go to the Proto-Ionian article. dab (ᛏ) 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the main point on which I disagree : since the beginning, you have tried to reduce the mentions to the Faucounau's work, when, at the same time, inflating those concerning Torsten Timm's ideas (helped in this by Torsten Timm himself). What I am asking is a NPOV traitement. No more, no less. 5User 80.90.57.154 ,11:20, 27 February 2006).

Direction of inscriptions

The anon insists on presenting Faucounau's conjectural reconstruction of the scribe's movements as decisive on this point. This reconstruction may well be correct, but it is not generally agreed upon by scholarship; neither of the reviews of Faucounau have even mentioned it. Septentrionalis 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are always using the same trick ! A fact doesn't need to be endorsed !.. Anybody may verify it by himself... (Anyway, I remember having read somewhere that J.F.'s demonstration had received the approuval of E.L.Bennett). (User 80.90.57.154 19:00 26 February 2006)

guys, everyone agrees on this. Outside-in it is. Duhoux even says that any center-to-rim reading may be discarded from the outset. So I don't see what 80 wants. Pmanderson's text is superior in terms of language and coherence and therefore to be preferred, but Faucounau's argument seems to be entirely acceptable. I suggest we cite Duhoux on this. dab (ᛏ) 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine; if Duhoux puts it that strongly, the present text can even be strengthened with , say, Duhoux says that any outward reading may be discarded; although a few decipherers are reading that way. Septentrionalis 19:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

/ I don't agree. Faucounau's argument about the reconstruction of the scribe's moves is a lot stronger than Y.Duhoux' arguments (even if they are very close). I insist for the previous redaction (User 80.90.57.154 19:20, 26 February 2006)

This is not discussion; this is insistence. The anon has produced a redaction which states that Faucounau's argument is incontrovertible, in Misplaced Pages's voice, which is unacceptable. Septentrionalis 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

it's not even "Faucounau's argument". Achterberg has:

Now most researchers are convinced that the text has to be read from the outside to the inside and from right to left. This is made clear by the overlap of several signs as well as the lines of the spirals. Duhoux (1977) has investigated the signs that had been stamped on top of one another ... and the ones that had been stamped so close to one another that one deformed the other ... He ascertained 19 of these overlaps and/or deformations of which 14 suggested a writing direction from right to left and from the outside to the inside, and 5 the other way around. All these latter 5 instances, however, consisted of corrections in A.IV and A.V, of which A. della Seta (1908) already ascertained that these were done in the contra direction because of lack of space. The conclusion for the writing direction is clear: from right to left and from the outside to the inside.

if you want to claim Faucounau is the original author of this argument, quote his 1975 publication. Achterberg attributes it to Duhoux (1977). Maybe I do not understand what Faucounau means by "scribe's moves". If he means something different than Duhoux, we are again in "Faucounau only" territory. dab (ᛏ) 19:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is Faucounau-only territory. Le décipmherment, pp.23-35, presents an elaborate reconstruction of the scribe's movements, including exactly when he turned the disk to work on a new quadrant. There is even something of the anon's all others are wrong tone. It is this that the anon wants to assert as consensus. Septentrionalis 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Duhoux' result is good enough for establishing reading direction, and what's more it is generally accepted. Under "direction" we should note that outside-in is communis opinio as a result of Duhoux' 1977 publication. That's it. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what you, guys, find wrong (if not that the arguments have been developped by J.F. in his 1999 book, what hurts your full of hatred mind!) with the previous redaction that I repeat here :

Direction of printing and direction of reading These can be determined by reconstructing the movements of the scribe. It can be shown from various epigraphical facts (overcuts, angular points on the spiral, corrections, etc.) that the text was written, spire by spire, alternating tracing of the spiral and printing of the signs, from exterior to the center. Moreover, these epigraphical facts (for instance the fact that most of the corrections were done on the spot by the scribe himself) show that the scribe was "composing" the text as he was printing it. There is therefore no way to dissociate the direction of reading from the direction of printing. All the scholars who have read the text in a counter-wise direction have been unable to present a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, coherent both with their hypothesis and with the epigraphical facts.

I don't see the improvement that would be your text, not saying that Evans himself changed his mind concerning his first opinion, only citing some of the epigraphical arguments (like that the centers of the spirals are not at the center of the disk), but not all, not dealing with the vicious objection : why the direction of reading would be the same as the direction of printing ?, etc. Yes, where is the improvement ? and what is wrong in your eyes with the previous redaction ? (User 80.90.57.154 20:30, 26 February 2006)

• it's longer.
• It's worse English, including the archaic use of spire for turn of a spiral.
• It's hopelessly vague
• Most important, it claims as consensus an argument that only Faucounau and our anon have ever made.
• And we don't like it. Septentrionalis 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The reconstruction of the scribe's movements was done by

• Bradshaw, Arnold, 1976: The imprinting of the Phaistos disc. In: Kadmos, Volume XV, Nr. 1, pp. 1-17.
• -, 1977: The overcuts on the Phaistos disc. In: Kadmos, Volume XVI, Nr. 2, pp. 99-110.

The argument of the overcuts as argument for the reading direction was first published by

• Della Seta, Alessandro, 1909: Il disco di Phaistos. In: Rendiconti Accademia Lincei, Volume XVIII, pp. 297-367.

The proof for the overcuts as argument for the reading direction was first published by

• Grumach, Ernst, 1962: Die Korrekturen des Diskus von Phaistos. In: Kadmos, Volume I, Nr. 1, pp. 14-26.

Ttimm 20:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, these papers cannot be said the reconstruction of the scribe's moves. They are just partial considerations trying to justify a left to right direction (which moreover have been strongly criticized). A true reconstruction must describe all the movements of the scribe since the beginning. None, coherent with the right to left direction has been presented. Why, if you believe this possible, you don't publish yours ? Afraid to make a fool of yourself ??? (User 80.90.57.154, 21:30, 26 February 2006)

Well, I've accepted all the suggestions here that I feel I can; if someone else wants to change it, other than to a celebration of Faucounau's genius, feel free, Septentrionalis 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't ask a celebration of Faucounau's genius, but a fair and impartial tratement of his work. No more, no less. 5User 80.90.57.154 11:25, 27 February 2006)

Order of the Faces

The claim that Face B would have printed first comes solely from Torsten Timm's argumentation, In fact, this argumentation comes itself mainly from a Messerschmidt's paper on the Clay tablets from Mesopotamia, which are convex on one side and flat on the other. There is no such thing with the Phaistod Disk. Both Faces are approximately flat, with a small bulge in the center of the A side. And it's obvious that this bulge has been flattened after completion when the disk was turned up to write the other side (i.e. side B). Timm's argumentation has, therefore, no value. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:30, 26 February 2006)

Then source them to him. It is, however, false to assert that everyone agrees that A-side comes first; Stawell doesn't. Septentrionalis 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If a source has to be cited, it's Y.Duhoux Le Disque de Pheastos p.40-41 (User 80.90.57.154 19:45, 26 February 2006)

Citations for Face B as start page:

1. Evans, Arthur J., 1909: Scripta Minoa – the written documents of Minoan Crete, with special reference to archives of Knossos. Volume 1. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. p. 287f.
2. Ferguson, Herbert, 1978: An experiment in making an inscribed clay disc like that of Phaistos. In: Kadmos, Volume XVII, Nr. 2, pp. 170-172.
3. Sornig, Karl, 1997: Wohlgemuthe Bemerkungen zum Umgang mit einem nach wie vor unlesbaren Text. In: Grazer linguistische Studien, Volume 48, pp. 69-104. p. 98. as PDF
4. Kuschnereit, Alfred G., 1997: Zum Diskos von Phaistos: Beweis, daß Seite „B“ zuerst gestempelt wurde. In: Kadmos, Volume XXXVI, Nr. 2, p. 176.
5. The argumentation of Duhoux is discussed by Timm 2005 pp. 58-60. Ttimm 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Then, the redaction should be : Opinions about the order of the Faces differ amongst scholars. Period. No need to talk about fancy "technical arguments" and to give PRO and CON-arguments which will lead to no sure conclusion anyway. (User 80.90.57.154 21:10, 26 February 2006)

Protected. Again.

Obviously needs to be more discussion, or else someone filing some 3RR reports. · Katefan0/poll 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon reverted three times immediately after the unprotection, and three times just now; but to different texts. 3RR has been known to forgive that sort of thing, so I was not going to invoke them yet. If the anon is prepared to discuss the matter, I see no need to invoke them at all. Septentrionalis 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to issue 3RR warnings or blocks rather than reprotecting. There was a flurry of edits, but few plain reverts. That said, the article made some progress today, and I don't mind it being stable for a few days now. dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to mr Katefanö for forcing } and Mr Bachmann to discuss instead trying to impose their POV by force (User 80.90.57.154, 20:00 26 February 2006).

There's no need to use honorifics, but if you must, it's Ms. · Katefan0/poll 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The way to start a discussion is to discuss, as you have begun to do. Misplaced Pages is, however, designed to prevent one user from imposing his version on multiple editors who disagree. If you feel the disagreement is unjust, your remedy is Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution. Septentrionalis 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"don't feed the trolls." we did. At unprotection, we should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked into repetitive bickering, but we should revert substandard edits as a matter of course and report 3RRvios. dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Report is done. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Kadmos 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the anon under 3RR, so will unprotect. William M. Connolley 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

"Comparison" section

I arranged the additions of Bubus into a new section. As the article grows, we need to disambiguate between typological comparisons with other scripts, and actual decipherment claims. Timm's suggestion consequently now features in the "comparison" section, since it is not a full-fledged claim of decipherment. So far there is no discussion of attempts of comparison with Egyptian hieroglyphs or Semitic abjads, these may be added (is there any serious suggestion of comparison with Proto-Canaanite, or is this lunatic fringe?) dab (ᛏ) 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at Corsone; but Italian is not my best language.Septentrionalis 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideographic

Why are ideographic interpretrations lumped with non-linguistic? I could see four divisions: alphabetic/syllabic/ideographic/other (or non-linguistic); or two lumping the first three all together, but the present division seems strange. Septentrionalis 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking over, I do see:

A purely ideographical reading is not linguistic in the strict sense, since even a successful decipherment would yield no information about the underlying language.

If we do keep the present two-fold division, this should be moved down to the list of attempts (and shouldn't it read "very little information"? Use of the same ideograph or the same syntax would be informative.) Septentrionalis 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, a purely ideographic script could reveal some properties of syntax, but it would likely be impossible to identify the language. Maybe we could have three divisions. Afaics, there is only one single alphabetic interpretation, while most syllabic ones are partly ideographic. I would list alphabetic and (partly) syllabic together, because they are open to linguistic criticism. Purely ideographic decipherments are just as unamenable to linguistic criticism as "game board" "math theorem" or "calendar" ones. dab (ᛏ) 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Mr Bachmann. (User 80.90.57.154, 19:15, 27 February 2006)

Does Pmanderson want to start another editwar ?

When, -after, in a spirit of conciliation, I gave up a stronger redaction about the fact that the Direction of reading problem can be solved by the study of the scribe's movements- I proposed the redaction : "J.F. has proposed a reconstruction of the scribe's movements, which concludes to an inescapable inward direction". Then, Pmanderson came in, trying to impose the following (incorrect) redaction : replacing the words "concludes" by the words "would also require". This redaction is incorrect, because it is not the proposed reconstruction which requires, but the epigraphical facts that Pmanderson had previously deleted ! What does Pmanderson want ? Starting a new ridiculous Editwar with me and others who share my views ? (User 80.90.57.154 , 19:40, 27 February 2006)

you are referring to Rose-mary I take it :) the point is that there is near universal consensus on inward reading without resorting to JF's "movements". We are being conciliatory to mention him at all, so keep back with claims of "unescapable". dab (ᛏ) 19:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I may accept the suppression of inescapable, if this is really the last obstacle !.. But this is not accepting the truth from your part... (User 80.90.57.154 , 20:20, 27 February 2006).

Rose-mary, anon, Irismeister (oops!) or whatever your name is, please read Wikipedias policies regarding fringe theories and also Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Extreme claims cannot be presented as statements of fact. --Latinus 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about fringe theories because you don't know at all the J.F.'s file, Mr Latinus !.. When a scholars has been published in many peer-reviewed journals and by many scientific editors, one has not the right to talk about a fringe theory., even it has not been endorsed by the scholarly world as a whole. Who are you, Mr Latinus, to play the judge in such matters ? What are your references? How many papers did you publish in peer-reviewed journals ?.. And what have you read of the tens of papers and four books published under J.Faucounau's signature ? None, I gues, but one or two urls.. Discuss seriously, in the WP way, if you want to be credible... and stop threatening this poor Rose-Mary and talking about Irismeisted !.. (User 80.90.57.154, 20:15, 27 February 2006).