Talk:Phanes coins

Recent additions to this article

In January this year, Coinissuer made a series of edits adding a section to this article about the supposed religious/prophetic interpretation of the Artemision hoard. This was removed twice by IP users ([1], [2]) and twice by me ([3], [4], [5]); in three cases ([6], [7], [8]) Coinissuer silently reverted the change without explanation. The other time, the edit was reverted by an uninvolved user with the summary "Take it to the talk page before you remove four paragraphs of sourced content because you don't like it." ([9]) While I am sure that this was in good faith, the content was not sourced in any meaningful way. Though there were plenty of little numbers after the text making it look sourced at a glance, the various [failed verification] and [citation needed] tags which were already in place might have been a clue as to the problems with the text and its "sourcing"!

As it stands now, the section has been somewhat revised, but it's still full of original research, undue weight, and verification problems.

• The very first sentence (The coin is probably among the first coins and certainly the oldest inscribed one ever discovered. is certainly a "likely to be challenged" claim which needs a citation; I note that the lead makes the much more circumspect claim that the Artemision deposit as a whole is the oldest deposit of electrum coins ever discovered. An uncontroversial claim gets three citations, and then [buried] by the priests of the Mother Goddess Potnia Theron. As this was found in the temple of Artemis, the claim that the deposit was made by priests of an entirely different goddess surely needs citation.
• Ephesus is also considered as the death place of Virgin Mary: the inline citation given doesn't mention the deathplace of Mary. The note to the citation is a direct quote from the source cited, despite not being in quotation marks, which is at best flirting with breaking our plagiarism guideline. And at any rate: do any reliable sources on the Artemision hoard (buried c.600 BC) think that the legendary deathplace of Mary several hundred years later is at all relevant? This is undue weight.
• The statement ΦΑΕΝΟΣ ΕΜΙ ΣΕΜΑ "I am the sign/tomb[18] of light/Phanes[19]" The cite for the translation as "tomb" points to another Wikipedia article, which doesn't even discuss this inscription. If a reliable source translates σεμα as "tomb" in the context of this inscription, I haven't seen any evidence of it. The citation for "light" is to LSJ which is at least a reliable source - but again, if we're claiming that this inscription can be translated as "I am the tomb of the light", we should be able to find a reliable source which translates the inscription as such! Otherwise it's original research or improper synthesis. (where "light" could be either Virgin Mary who died in Ephesus or Jesus who was betrayed and died because of money)[citation needed] The tag here says it all. Citation is indeed sorely needed.

I've only picked out the most egregious problems from the first one and a half paragraphs. As best as I can tell, virtually every sentence violates wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

As this is currently looking uncomfortably like a slow-motion edit war, I'm not going to revert yet but give other editors a chance to weigh in, but I propose that (per my previous edits) we completely remove all of the "Religious interpretation - prophecy" section. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

When you read User:Caeciliusinhorto's comment, you realize that she starts lying from her first sentense. The "religious interperation-prophesy" section resides in the article since 2013 [10] and not since 2021 as she claims. Do I need to continue reading? Coinissuer (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if we're going to nitpick about the history of that section: I didn't claim that the section had never been in the article before January 2021, just that you added it. Which you did, in this diff. At any rate, who added the section isn't really the issue at stake here, the numerous problems with the section which I detailed in my original comment are the issue. Are you going to actually engage with those? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Artemis is Potnia Theron. Sema means tomb. Faenos means light. You have to be completely ignorant to question them, so there is no point in talking to you. Coinissuer (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Coinissuer, see wp:NPA: comment on content not contributors. You’ve just made several personal attacks and are likely to find yourself blocked or at ANI if you keep it up.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You are personal attacking me. Answer to my content. Is Artemis Potnia Theron or not? Does Sema means tomb or not? Does Faenos means light or not? Coinissuer (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Re. "Potnia Theron": yes, okay, Potnia Theron can be used to refer to Artemis, though this isn't it's only use and it can be confusing.

Re. σεμα and φαενος: the point isn't what the words mean individually, the point is that Wikipedia reports what high-quality reliable sources say. If no reliable source translates "φαενος εμι σεμα" as "the tomb of light" then it is original research for us to do so – and Wikipedia does not permit original research. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that say that the english quote "I am the tomb of light" really means "I am the tomb of light"? Whoever knows just a little bit of english knows what "I am" means, what "the tomb" means and what "light" means. Whoever knows just a little bit ancien greek, can easily understand what "φαενος" means, what "εμι" means, and what "σεμα" means. The conversation with you is meaningless Coinissuer (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is some massive level of disruption. I think a complete revert of all Coinissuer's edits is needed. Moreover, the way they have made sneaky reverts and interacted with other editors should be enough to get them reported and banned imo. T8612 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There are many lies, and only one truth. Coinissuer (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You are personal attacking me. Could you please answer to the content, as a self proclaimed "numismatic expert". Is Artemis named also Potnia Theron or not? Does Sema means tomb or not? Does Faenos means light or not? Coinissuer (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you also point to the sneaky reverts of mine you just mentioned? Accusing someone without providing the proof, is an extreme case of personal attack Coinissuer (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

History of the section "Religious interpretation - prophecy"

Article Created at 19:47, 8 June 2012

Section "Religius interpratation - prophecy" added at 14:49, 30 March 2013‎

Section deleted at 16:10, 12 July 2019

Revert war until 5 November 2019‎. The article was locked.

Section revived at 14:30, 20 January 2021‎.

Section deleted at 04:59, 6 April 2021‎

Restored at 11:44, 7 April 2021

Section deleted at 21:04, 25 August 2021‎

Restored at 21:07, 25 August 2021‎

Section deleted at 15:22, 6 October 2021‎

Restored at 14:34, 20 October 2021‎

You can see the history in the below graph, to have a clear image of what happened.

Let the readers judge who is sneaky reverting the article. 87.203.84.11 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The above misses some details.

Section "Religius interpretation - prophecy" added at 14:49, 30 March 2013‎ by Religio, blocked as sock of Tounom

Section deleted at 16:10, 12 July 2019 by Ian.thomson

October-Nov 2019: Restored by Tounom's socks Phanes612, Ertobari, Artobali and Bastpoli, reverted by Ian.thomson and C.Fred, who protected the article.on 5 November 2019‎.

Restored and expanded by Coinissuer 20 January 2021‎.

87.203.84.11, did you forget to log in with your account when you posted? NebY (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to NebY and User:87.203.84.11 we bring more light. On what it converns the credibility of Ian.thomson, let me point that he named Religio as a sockpuppet of Tounom in 2019. Have a look at the contributions of Religio (Special:Contributions/Religio) that ended 2013, and judge by yourself how credible Ian.thomson is. Coinissuer (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also very strange that the contributions of Tounom have been deleted and obviously have nothing to do with this article. Have a look by yourself Special:Contributions/Tounom, and judge again the credibility of Ian.thomson. Coinissuer (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand Artobali's contributions Special:Contributions/Artobali are related to this article, and this user present a similar argument to the argument of User:87.203.84.11 regarding how long this section stands. 87.203.84.11 are you Artobali? Coinissuer (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

87.203.84.11, artobali and the rest. No matter how long something appears or something it is hidden, the truth remains one and the same. So having a lie standing for many years, it is not an argument for this lie to keep standing. Your graph means nothing to me. Coinissuer (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you suggesting that the section "religious interpretation - prophecy" is a lie which should be removed? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that. The lies should be removed, no matter how long they appear. The truth should be revealed, no matter how long it is hidden. A graph pointing how many years something appears, it is not a indication of truth or lie. So the graph of 87.203.84.11 is meaningless. Lets examine and judge weither there is a possible religious intepretation . I think that there is a possible religious interpretation, so the section should remain. Coinissuer (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think there is a possible religious interpretation. Do you have any reliable sources that think there is a possible religious interpretation? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See Babelon, Traité, ii. I, 62. Coinissuer (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide a fuller citation than that. What kind of source is it? If it's a religious source it is not a WP:reliable source for this claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I pointed to you a reliable source. Go search for it. Not all reliable sources are online. Do you have any reliable sources that think that a religious interpretation is 100% impossible ? Because this is what you claim , when you delete the section. Coinissuer (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's apparently this, but unless I'm missing something it doesn't mention Jesus or prophecy or tombs at all. It would be helpful if you quoted the relevant passage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"Je suis le symbole de la brillante, c est a dire de l Artemis". This is a religious interpretation of the inscription. Coinissuer (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to prove the claim, not on us to disprove it. So far it does appear not that it supports your assertions. That sentence doesn't mention Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I have just written ? There are more than one quotes in Babelon, Traité, ii. I, 62 that clearly refuse the "wealthy merchant" interpretation, and suggest religious interpretations. Do you have any reliable sources that think that a religious interpretation is 100% impossible ? Coinissuer (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources saying that the coin is a prophecy of the holy trinity and related to Jesus? No. Then you're changing the subject and the section, which is obvious nonsense, does not belong in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reliable sources that associate this coin to Phanes, and reliable sources that associate Phanes with holy trinity Coinissuer (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

You have WP:SYNTH, then. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that think that a religious interpretation is impossible ? If not, then you are a vandal Coinissuer (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read wikipedia's policy on verifiability, in particular this section. If you want to include a claim in the article, it is your job to provide reliable sources that directly support it. (You may also be interested in our policy on vandalism, which has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia; challenging the inclusion of material not supported by reliable sources is not vandalism, and calling me a vandal because of it is arguably a personal attack.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets start from the basics. There are many interpretations of who this Phanes may be, read the reliable sources. You deleted all the rest interpretations, and you insist of preserving only the wealthy merchant one. You are clearly a vandal. Coinissuer (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OR To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.. The WP:BURDEN is on you. This encyclopedia is not a repository for anything that anyone can imagine, and it is not our responsibility to prove WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims "impossible". NebY (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is that the only interpretation of the inscription is that it refers to a wealthy merchant. I proved by providing reliable sources that this is wrong. Bring your reliable sources. Coinissuer (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Posting it loud, don't make it right. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to include alternative hypotheses in the article which have been discussed in high quality reliable sources, everyone in this discussion would be only to happy to see that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The article has been attacked by [redacted]

Obviously the members who are reverting the article belong to the same (Personal attack removed). Objective wikipedia administrators should take care of it. Coinissuer (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Objective Wikipedia administrators stand ready to enforce WP:No personal attacks if discussion here continues in the vein of the above. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I second that.--Berig (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The page in its shorter state

Today, if I diagnose correctly, the material under dispute above isn't in the article. Taking it that this is so, I notice that the first paragraph offers two explanations for "phaenos emi sema (?)", one being "I am the sign of light" and the other being "I am the mark/seal of Phanes". It has three footnote references. One was a dead link, but thanks to Google I have replaced it with a live link to what seems evidently to be the same text. The other two references, which are highly reliable though a little bit dated, live on. None of the three supports the translation "I am the sign of light". Two of them would admit a suggestion such as "I am the sign/seal/mark of the light-bringer", i.e. Artemis. All three concur with the alternative "I am the mark/seal of Phanes" (which in turn, luckily, supports the name of this page!)

Having glanced at the dispute above, I was wondering what Greek word meaning "light" could be represented by a genitive form "phaenos (?)". Having then looked at the page itself and at these three references, I'm still wondering. I think the translation "I am the sign of light" in the first paragraph needs revising to correspond with what the sources say. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good spot. I've changed the text to "of the bright one", which is how Newton renders it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good! I was fretting that I hadn't seen "of light" in an RS and ought to tackle it. Should we change the previous sentence too (currently "The shorter legend is "Phaneōs" (ΦΑΝΕΩΣ) ("of Phanes" or "of light")"?

Thanks too to Andrew and Njd-de for sorting out the citations I'd left in such a state. NebY (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Andrew can weigh in on the Greek, but I can't find a description of the "ΦΑΝΕΩΣ" inscription in any of the citations for the paragraph which mentions it – indeed, the only one of the citations on the page which mentions that second coin is the Israel Museum page, which gives the inscription as "of Phanes". I may be missing something though – all the numismatics is making my eyes glaze over, especially in French! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Likewise - painstaking nineteenth-century numismatics at that! I've copy-edited a workaround instead, and footnoted a quote on the similarity to a seal's text. NebY (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Could Someone check the original Greek and transliteration given in the sources? They do not match at present (ΦΑΕΗΟΣ ΕΜΙ ΣΕΜΑ should be “Phaenos emi sema”), and the now blocked user has shown themselves to be quite destructive of Greek at Sappho.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked one of the sources - the Greek we were showing was "corrected" from the inscription (although, oddly enough, not in the obviously wrong spelling of the name "Phaenos", which ought to be Phaneōs [Φανεως) in "correct" Greek. I've changed it to match the actual inscription.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Much better! NebY (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're right, it's damaged and doesn't match any of Babelon's several possibilities. Head shows something I can't paste, approximately ΦΑΕΝΟΣΕΜΙΣHΜΑ reversed, which he transliterates as φηνοσεμισημα, noting that "Unfortunately it is unique, and the third letter of the first word is obscure." Newton thinks it's ΦAENOR ΕΜΙ ΣHΜΑ. Gardner disagrees with the attempts to distinguish a third letter and has ΦΑΝΟΣ ΕΜΙ ΣHΜΑ. I haven't tried to find when our article acquired ΣΕΜΑ. NebY (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"Sema" (ΣEΜΑ) is in the "uncorrected" state in Newton. He says it is ΣHΜΑ though.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is a section on the deciphering of the inscription instead of putting it in the lead, as there are various possibilities.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing Newton as showing the archaic form of eta, , at the start of the article.

A decipherment section might be sensible. I keep looking at the article title. From what I've seen, it's more plausible that Phanes is the name of the coin issuer, but would something like "Phanes coinage" be better? NebY (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be a better title yes. The blocked guy wasn’t entirely wrong when he said that the article only followed one interpretation.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I hesitated and found our sources used "coins" rather than "coinage"; it's a subtle distinction but does seem better. The ΣEΜΑ spelling and "tomb" translation are now being insisted on at Coin![11] I've notified C.Fred and added to the SPI. NebY (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Move looks good. Our old friend's edits (also at Electrum) don't. I've reverted, but if they revert back I'll just wait for the socks to be blocked before restoring the correct version. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)