![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I don't know what the issue is between Kadmos and 80.90.39.138, but "Suppression of propagandizing links" sounds itself like POV. -- Curtis Clark 05:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree with Curtis Clark. His position is sound, and has been (until "Kadmos" came in !) the existing one : the text says what is scientifically accepted at this day : Scholarly attempts at decipherment are thought to be unlikely to success until...etc.. Opinions for or against such or such possible track are mentioned in the Bibliography, and details on the deciphering attempts themselves are given in the links. I don't understand why ""Kadmos" want to modify this in favour of his own ideas !
And now my answers to "Kadmos" last remarks : a)- That no one is scientifically accepted is said in the text b)- as a consequence, there is no preference in Wilkipedia. The Wilkipedia article is perfectly neutral. Only the links are not, what is a normal thing ! c)- This is my opinion, and even if I consider it as a fact (there is in this paper not a single word about the most important chapter of the reviewed book), I didn't ask it to be mentioned as a comment after the reference to this AJAonline paper you put in the Bibliography, as I could have done it. But it can still be done, if you wish me to say why I consider this paper as superficial and biased ! (IP 80.90.57.154)
a)- The number of links is just translating the fact that many people believe in the Proto-Ionic Solution ! Like it or not !
b)- This is wrong : No, it's the truth ! Before "Kadmos" came in, peace had been established, because the followers of the Proto-Ionic Solution had no more asked that this solution be recognized as the good one. The text of the Wikipedia article was, then, just enunciating a fact : for the time being, no attempt has been universally accepted, but the Proto-Ionic Solution was considered by several people as the good one. This is what "Kadmos" has wanted to destroy for an obscure motive, trying to make people believe that Duhoux' criticisms had definitely destroyed the Proto-Ionic Solution, what is wrong. (IP 80.90.57.154)
The claim by "Kadmos" that the actual version would not be neutral is ridiculous : a)- the text of the Wikipedia article does not give any preference to one solution, and it just gives the opinion of the majority of the scholars. b)- Each searcher who disagrees and considers that the disk has been deciphered may give the reference of his solution (or ideas) in the links. Here again, this Wikipedia position is perfectly neutral (IP 80.90.57.154 - 09/19 at 15H.32).
Additional remark : and "Kadmos" knows that so well, that he has suppressed some of his interventions in the preceding paragraph NOPV-Editwars !.. Very significant ! (IP 80.90.57.154)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I don't know what the issue is between Kadmos and 80.90.39.138, but "Suppression of propagandizing links" sounds itself like POV. -- Curtis Clark 05:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I fully agree with Curtis Clark. His position is sound, and has been (until "Kadmos" came in !) the existing one : the text says what is scientifically accepted at this day : Scholarly attempts at decipherment are thought to be unlikely to success until...etc.. Opinions for or against such or such possible track are mentioned in the Bibliography, and details on the deciphering attempts themselves are given in the links. I don't understand why ""Kadmos" want to modify this in favour of his own ideas !
And now my answers to "Kadmos" last remarks : a)- That no one is scientifically accepted is said in the text b)- as a consequence, there is no preference in Wilkipedia. The Wilkipedia article is perfectly neutral. Only the links are not, what is a normal thing ! c)- This is my opinion, and even if I consider it as a fact (there is in this paper not a single word about the most important chapter of the reviewed book), I didn't ask it to be mentioned as a comment after the reference to this AJAonline paper you put in the Bibliography, as I could have done it. But it can still be done, if you wish me to say why I consider this paper as superficial and biased ! (IP 80.90.57.154)
a)- The number of links is just translating the fact that many people believe in the Proto-Ionic Solution ! Like it or not !
b)- This is wrong : No, it's the truth ! Before "Kadmos" came in, peace had been established, because the followers of the Proto-Ionic Solution had no more asked that this solution be recognized as the good one. The text of the Wikipedia article was, then, just enunciating a fact : for the time being, no attempt has been universally accepted, but the Proto-Ionic Solution was considered by several people as the good one. This is what "Kadmos" has wanted to destroy for an obscure motive, trying to make people believe that Duhoux' criticisms had definitely destroyed the Proto-Ionic Solution, what is wrong. (IP 80.90.57.154)
The claim by "Kadmos" that the actual version would not be neutral is ridiculous : a)- the text of the Wikipedia article does not give any preference to one solution, and it just gives the opinion of the majority of the scholars. b)- Each searcher who disagrees and considers that the disk has been deciphered may give the reference of his solution (or ideas) in the links. Here again, this Wikipedia position is perfectly neutral (IP 80.90.57.154 - 09/19 at 15H.32).
Additional remark : and "Kadmos" knows that so well, that he has suppressed some of his interventions in the preceding paragraph NOPV-Editwars !.. Very significant ! (IP 80.90.57.154)