Jump to content

Talk:Gradeshnitsa tablets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.73.123.59 (talk) at 15:26, 11 February 2024 (→Gradeshnitsa Tablets Evidence: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

What's the source for this hoax? I can not find any articles stating Dr. Guide's works are a hoax!

There's a link in the bottom of the article: http://www.standartnews.com/archive/2006/03/30/english/arts/index.htm Martijn Faassen 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the website of the Institute of Transcendent Analysis doesn't give me the impression it's a very serious or scientific outfit: http://www.itai.com/ Martijn Faassen 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also this http://www.institutet-science.com/index.htm which has a better website layout, but seems to be filled with new age-style double talk. Martijn Faassen 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Standart is quite a respectable newspaper. Still, it is of course questionable if this stunt should even be mentioned. The "transcendent" decipherment is bogus, and it isn't even bogus in interesting ways, it's just pathetic. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gradeshnitsa Tablets Evidence

Of utmost importance are the opinions of respected personas who exemplify expertise in related fields, and who have shared their works and academic opinions regarding the said tablets. Please read: The Gradeshitsa Tablets examination by Marco Merlini (General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project (Roma, Italy) and Director of the Institute of Archaeomythology (Sebastopol, USA)), who has come to the conclusion that the Gradeshnitsa Tablets do indeed represent an early form of writing.[1] Monshuai (talk • contribs)

Here are all the Bibliographical References that Marco Merlini uses to support his findings. This is all from the link above:

list of references copied from other page removed Martijn Faassen 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

posted by:Monshuai (talk • contribs)

I have removed this list of references. See the Bulgaria talk page for my reasons. Martijn Faassen 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that you have used the Standart News of Bulgaria, which is considered by many to be a sensationalist newspaper. In fact you have used this newspaper more than once in order to try and prove your point, while I use academic sources to show that the Gradeshnitsa Tablets have been proven to be a writing system that is as of yet undeciphered.

Who is this "you" you are talking about? I did not come up with the reference to this paper, and have in fact adjusted the article to make it more neutral to the Stephan Guide translation claim, even though I myself consider it quite bogus by just looking at it. Please consult the edit history of this article - I removed the word "hoax" and made the language more neutral. Martijn Faassen 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already take measures regarding your transgressions and inappropriate and unwarranted editing and I have saved the entire history of what has tanspired herein and in the Bulgaria section. All of this has alreay been sent to the proper authorities and furthermore I will be showing this in my class tomorrow in order to point out the bias and denial that exists when a small nation that is insignificant in today's global dynamics showcases its contributions to times of a by-gone era.

"transgressions"? "measures"? You use very strong wording! I am not sure what to say about this. Can we not just work together instead? Martijn Faassen 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also written to the editors at Standart, Novinite and other newspapers in Bulgaria and ask that they look at what you and others have done to the Bulgaria section, forcefully taking away academic information, in order to misguide and re-direct what you feel should be written about a country you know little about.

Which academic information have I "forcefully removed"? I removed a (copyrighted) list of references from this page and the Bulgaria talk page - is this the academic information you are referring to? Please note that I am just one of a number of people who have removed information from the Bulgaria article that you would like to be there - please consult the edit history of the Bulgaria article for more details. Martijn Faassen 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you remove reliable information? - What is your motivation? 62.73.123.59 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further still, according to European Law, anyone who defaces the image of a EU country is liable to penalties under the premiliminary agreements in the European Parliament. I have asked my mentor, Professor Kiril Ivanov to write a letterto the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and in turn have them take the necessary action regarding this ufortunate sequence of events. BTW, is your real name Martijn Faassen? --Monshuai 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my real name. I will be happy to talk to your mentor, to the Bulgarian Academy of sciences, the Standart, Novinite, and the European Parliament about this matter. I am fairly convinced they will find me faultless in this matter. What is your real name, by the way? Martijn Faassen 01:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Martin Krumov. What country are you from Martijn Faassen?--Monshuai 02:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am from the Netherlands (which has a much less rich ancient history than Bulgaria). Martijn Faassen 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands has a wonderful history and many high-reaching achievements over the last 400 years of its history. Bulgaria is different! We have suffered much in our modern history, yet our nation (a composite one) has achieved much in its ancient past. Unfortunately this reality, whereby our international prestige has declined over the centuries, has marred the image of the country in the modern world. Thus very few people know anything of importance about our contributions to the world, especially because most of them did not happen in the post-Westphalian world that we now live in today. So you see why many of us are unhappy when people remove those facets of our history that are of utmost importance to us from both scientific and socio-cultural perspectives.--Monshuai 02:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion is about the very ancient pre-history of Bulgaria, which goes back so far in time that the connections with present-day Bulgaria (or the Netherlands) are tenuous at best. I think the introduction to the Bulgaria article does a good job in expressing the history of the country in ancient and medieval times. There is no need to strengthen this by claims of it being a cradle of civilisation on par with Egypt or China, or the place where writing originated. Such claims should only be made so prominently by a very strong backing up of scientific consensus on the matter. Bulgaria *is* an important area of medieval eastern european civilisation (Cyrrilic alphabet, etc), which is already reflected in the article. I believe the prominent pre-history claims actually weaken the impression of cultural achievement - we shouldn't have to go back more than 6000 years to show how Bulgaria has influenced the world. Note that if you had a pre-history or history of Bulgaria article, you would of course start at the earliest, and referencing to evidence of ancient writing systems would of course be appropriate. The Bulgaria article is a general one, however. Martijn Faassen 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn, other country setions such as the one about China do include in their introduction the six millenia history of China. All countries that have this long of an ancient history have the right and the obligation to place it in their introduction. The point is that every country is different, and we Bulgarians have very much in common with our Thracian heritage. To this day we practice the Martenitza, Kukeri, etc... traditions of our Thracian ancestors. We have carried these traditions for more than five millenia and there is evidence that the Kukeri dates even further back in time. So you see, we are very much connected to our pre-histric past and it is a solidified element in our national consciousness. To be told that this has nothing to do with us can not only arouse negative emotions, it can also make those who judge us without learning from us seem very prejudiced. Other Bulgarians agree with me and thus the Bulgaria section as it is backed by varied academic studies will remain as is. I will get the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences to lend me some of its Bulgarian-English translated materials for further additions. Finally, and I say this in a kind manner, :) your views do not apply objectively to this discussion, because many other countries have always had statements about their pre-historic/ancient heritage. It is not up to you to decide how Bulgaria presents its past to the world, it is up to educated Bulgarians to do so, because they more than anyone else are rooted in the trans-generational reality of the nation. And if Bulgaria were not to include its 6 millenia old history in the intro neither should any other nation do so. Also, please remember that no one country is like any other. Some have a long history and others a short one. That does not mean that the one with a long history should have to only talk about itself in the modern world in its intro just because the one with the shorter history has no other choice. Have a good day and I hope you will sit down and read more about Bulgaria's pre-historic past.--Monshuai 05:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am glad to see you take less confrontational tone. Let's continue this discussion on the Bulgaria talk page and not here. I have left a comment there. Martijn Faassen 13:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edit by Monshuai

Monshuai, I am not sure what the purpose of your latest edit was. Your edit resulted in the collapsing of various paragraphs and the duplication of the beginning of the article. In addition, I did a bit of work converting the references to citations, and this effort has now been reversed. I also understand that you objected against the uncritical acceptance of the article in Standart that described Mr Guide's work as a "hoax". I actually had already adjusted the article to be more neutral in its description of the cause, but you have now reversed this and article yet again is quite biased against Mr Guide's interpretation.

(Note I am personally also biased against Stephen Guide's claims of translation, but if we're going to mention it at all we should present this a bit more neutrally. I do suspect this episode may not actually be notable enough to mention, as there appears very little information online that I can find about this work.)

My proposal is to revert your edit to my latest version, and work from there a bit more carefully. What do you think? Martijn Faassen 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed the revert today. Monshuai, if you have text to add to this, please add it there. You will note all the original references are still in this version, and the description of the Guide controversy is made in a more neutral tone, instead of calling him an outright hoaxer. I personally believe he's more likely a pseudo-historian who believes his own claims, instead of a deliberate hoaxer. Martijn Faassen 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE SIGNS ON THE FACE OF GRADESHNITSA TABLET SHOW SIMILARITIES WITH LETTERS OF PROTO-SINAITIC/PROTO-CANAANITE ALPHABETS

It seems that the writer used many times a sign like proto-sinaitic http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/protosinaitic.gif/proto-canaanite http://www.crystalinks.com/canaanitealph.gif sign of letter beth. Or if you want, egyptian heth http://www.seansgallery.com/images/egyptian_1c.gif (like in heth-Hor=Hathor). Possible the writer wanted to express the notion of shelter/house.Also we can see there signs simylar to proto-sinaitic gimmel.We can have also some proto-sinaitic lamedh and zayin and/or heth (the latter Z and H are those paralel lines).Note that is possible that the writer wanted to evidence or underline the beth signs with double line/contour. So the writer possible wanted to express GEB: "earth"/"egyptian earth-God Geb or Seb"/"pit,trench" or even GeB-aL wich is the same town with BaB-eL:"God-gate" = greek ByBLos. On the reverse side of the tablet, possible we have something related to a fertility ritual (of the field/house/shelter).From neolithic time, the purpose of the dots inside a geometric figure was like sowing with seeds, so fertilityRau Eugen 19:09 1December 2012(UTC)

Alternatively 'certain basic or easily written signs and symbols' are common to most (early) scripts. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 3,4,5

References 3 and 4 aren't relevant to the last sentence. Reference 5 goes to a general page, not to any specific article. No real surprise, given the look of the site. ( not sure how to sign off using mobile - Rudestar) -rudyard (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gradeshnitsa_tablets&oldid=1206227248"