Talk:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena/Archive 1

Comments

Dear Editors,

I see how effective you are. I would ask you please also to edit this. All the case is now over and some of the information on the first part is not accurate. Cavalli-Sforza only objected the Palestinian paper (which was removed from Internet), but never any other anthropology HLA paper from Arnaiz-Villena or other authors, i.e.: about Greeks. One locus results are not "one locus"(including the Palestinian paper),the HLA papers also include "quasi-specicic" allele frequencies, genetic distances, most frequent HLA haplotypes and the multidimensinal representation of one or two loci genetic distances representation. These papers "based on one locus" are continuously published (1),(2),(3)

(1)-Human Immunology Editor
(2)-Tissue Antigens Editor.
(3)-International Journal of Immunogenetics Editor.

I don't think what you say is true. Cavalli-Sforza objected to the Macdeonian/Greek paper, not the Palestine one.[1]. Paul B 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please,go to Nature,see Cavalli-Sforza note on Palestinian paper (2002) and you will see that this is true. Tor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.39.198 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-01T15:33:42

I have just now reading this oldish Cavalli-Sforza note in Nature (415:115,2002). He definetively refers to the Palestinian paper. He marginally mentions Greek and Japanese, questioning why long branches attract in dendrograms. This is a universal phenomenon and chapters of books are dedicated to it. However, a) There is an ongoing current discussion on "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe" in Wikipedia at present days, which you can consult. I am not interested in this topic. b) Dork et al, Am.J.Hum. Gen.63:656 (1998) find markers in Chromosome 7 shared only between Sub-Saharans and Greeks(among Europeans). HLA complex is placed in Chr 6. b) Hajjej et al, Eur Journal of Medical Genetics,49:43 (2006) find exactly the same relatednedss of Greeks and Sub-Saharans by using HLA markers. Tor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.39.198 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-01T16:54:51

Reversions

The article HLA Genes in Macedonians and the Sub-Saharan Orgins of the Greeks is accessible online. At no point does it refer to "Macedonian Slavs", only to Macedonians. OnlY once in the entire article is the word "Slav" mentioned, in this passage:

"Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived between northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans and were considered by the classical Greeks as "non-Greek barbarians" that could not participate in the Olympic games. Herodotus wrote that Macedonians were "Dorians" and were never admitted to the Greek community. They did not speak Greek but another language presently unknown and of which only proper names remain; nowadays they speak a Slavic language. Macedonians fought against the Greeks between 337-356BC under King Philip II"

Now, it's difficult to believe that the jaw-dropping confusions displayed in these sentences could ever have been published anywhere. The slightest slither of research might have revealed to the authors that Dorian is a dialect of Greek, spoken, most famously by the Spartans. The idea that the Macedonians spoke some unrelated language is fantasy. Macedonian was almost certainly closely related to the various dialects of Greek. The whole passage is a piece of shoddy dishonest nonsense designed to separate them from Greeks, for whatever political reason. Of course the genetics of the local population is a different matter. Paul B (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And a new information about the suposed subsaharan origin of the Greeks. Another study was conducted in 2004 in the University of Ss. Kiril and Metodij, Skopje, Macedonia and used High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 following the methodology of Arnaiz-Villena.

They did not reach to the same conclusion as Arnaiz-Villena but instead no sub-Saharan admixture was detected

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111%2Fj.1399-0039.2004.00273.x High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population

Seleukosa (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy's work is all over Wikipedia

These fringe theories are cited as proof of the "racial" makeups of several ethnic groups in wikipedia. His work is cited as authoritative in:

• HLA-DQ8
• Genetic origins of the Turkish people
• Kurdish language
• Origins of the Kurds
• Iberian-Guanche inscriptions
• and is the sole source for Usko-Mediterranean languages.

All this seems a bit suspect. T L Miles (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional articles are Hispanophone, History of the Kurdish people, HLA DR3-DQ2, CD3G, HLA-A69, HLA-E, HLA-G, HLA-A33, HLA A1-B8 haplotype (minor). kwami (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy

It appears that wikipedia has in this instance failed in its design. Perhaps in a few years this page will correctly reflect the fact that the journal article was retracted because it contradicted Jewish religious dogma, and that politically charged wording was the pretence for attacking it. The fist of ignorance shakes itself in the face of science again. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? It was retracted because of its political assertions, which were tacked onto genetics in the most inappropriate way. BTW, "Jewish religious dogma" holds that Arabs are descendents of Abraham via Hagar, so it actually asserts that Jews and Arabs are closely related. There are many other studies of local relatedness between Jews and Palestinians that caused no controversy at all [2], so your argument does not stand up. Paul B (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

notes about sources

[3] is found here: [4], and was printed in La Lettre de l'AARS. The author is "Werner Pichler", who is associated with Institutum Canarium, which might be a notable organisation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the Institutum Canarium does most of the academic research and publishing on Canarian inscriptions. Trigaranus (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Institutum Canarium ;-) And de:Institutum Canarium for a better article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:57, 12 June 2009

Chapeau! Trigaranus (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

reverted edits

Virginal6 (talk · contribs) has reverted some recently added content[5] and the references that go with it.[6] The reason given is "Possible libel and vandalism". I was asked to initiate a ANI thread about this, however after reviewed these edits, I think it will be more appropriate if Virginal6 is directed to discuss it here first. Those changes were definitely not vandalism. However as this article is a WP:BLP, hopefully the "libel" concerns can be discussed here. I have been trying to stay uninvolved, but I am now going to mediate as both sides have asked for my assistance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While wating for explanations by Virginal6, I would like to remember that when first deleted my edits, said nothing about vandalism and nothing about possible libel (these "accusations" were "invented" later). The first reasons given by User:Virginal6 where the following ones:

"All these arguments were used by Dumu Eduba et al to delete "Canarian-Iberian inscriptions".They should ask to undelete "Canarian-Guanche Inscriptions" or add counter-arguments here" [7]

and

"These additions were in the "Canarian-Iberian Inscriptions" page ,which was deleted (User talk:Iberomesornix).Plese,undelete these page.Otherwise,state all counter-arguments here."[8]

In the same sense goes what Virginal6 asked after delete my editions: here. Nothing about libel neither vandalism, but complaining that: "Now,they put most of their arguments for deleting the page,expanded,in a page dedicated to a short Biography(Arnaiz-Villena)" Mixing quotes to reliable sources with "arguments" (his article was delete after the whole process because there were many quotes by reputed experts stating that it was fringe science, while Virginal6 could not afford any against. He was told that the proper place to explain a fringe theory was the author's page).

Why this change of reasons?

Maybe user:Virginal6 believes that the reputed experts I quoted have no right to make a scientific review of Arnaiz fringe science researches? Is that what he calls libel?

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ARNAIZ-VILLENA OPINION

This is Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.I have been permitted a log in as Arnaiz1. I have been just advised of what is going on in this page. Let me read all caveats and reversions for a while and I will give my opinion.Thank you--Arnaiz1 (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have written this quite quickly,and lacking some references we can complete in the following days.

1-I think a Wikipedia article is not a discussion forum or a source of libels.

2-I am ready to receive and answer criticisms to my work either here or preferibly in User talk:Arnaiz1

3-I have published a FEW and not MANY books on Usko-Mediterranean hypóthesis.Just quoting the English summary of it (freely available from the web in http://chopo.pntic.mec./biolmol ,would be enough). One does not need to put all my references in a short Wikipedia article.

4-Some users asked Dumu Eduba to add some references:I think what they meant is to add something like “this hipótesis is strongly contested” and also add some references.

5-I have never accused anybody of scientific fraud:this may be a libel from Dumu Eduba.

6-There are several Basque writers and linguists who agree with our hypothesis:the appropriate references were brought about in the deleted page “Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions” discusión (I think still some of it in Iberomesornix talk page)

7-Yes,De Hoz wrote a libel against me without calling ,for instance,by phone to me, since we both are full professors at the same university.He expressed his opinions (not facts) without a minimun civilised respect for me.I doubt he read any of the work he criticised. However,I had a pleasant meeting with him in his office a few months ago.We barely tried to approach our positions. I am not prepared to proceed against him,at the moment.

8-We are not only the ones who wrote that Guanche was related to Basque (Federico Krutwig and the same Spanish peple who conqusted the Islands did).This again was said when the previous page was deleted.

9-Lakarra is simply writing another opinion or libel against me (I do not mind about work). He is also having feuds with

A-Elexpuru,a Spanish Basque linguist(http://euskalherria.indymedia.org/es/2009/05/60300.shtml )

B-Hector Iglesias,a french Basque linguist(http://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.fr/artxibo-00183791/en/)

10-I think an strong short caveat could be stated at “Arnaiz-Villena “ article ,with a few references,about Usko-Mediterranean theory.

11-We could follow discussion either here of with preference in the User talk:Arnaiz1. But I would ask Wikipedia not permit any libel or personal attack ,since I am working with my real name ,while others are not.

12-John Vandenberg,I vaguely respect Pichler opinión on our work (about LYBIC BERBER INSCRPTIONS), he refers to me as a clown,without any argument.This I do not respect.Yes,it is a libel for me. However,we should not be fooled by this opinión ,others do agree with the book,particularly old Basque writers and linguists. And what is worse, this opinión was used to fool us when closing the “Iberian-Guanche “ page. The discussion core for deletion WAS THAT THE LATIN INSCRIPTIONS FROM FUERTEVENTURA AND LANZAROTE ISLANDS were not writen in IBERIAN scripts,while they indeed were (Now you can compare both type of inscriptions

1-Numidic or Lybic-Berber and,2-Latin or Iberian ones, in User:Virginal6 page),and see that neither Pichler nor anyboby else were contradicting the LATIN or IBERIAN inscriptions, if you can consult Iberomesornix deleted page.

Because THE CORE OF THIS DISCUSIÓN IS THAT behind Dumu Eduba and Trigaranus might be the defenders by any means that Iberian has nothing to do with Basque (against Humboldt,Larramendi, and Hector Iglesias,see link above, the latter strongly attacked by Lakarra). See Wikipedia on Basque Iberism.They have monopolized discusión and this article together with Dene Caucasian and Iberian languages are Wikipedia biassed articles (see edits).Lakarra calls “Mother Tongue” magazine directed by John Bengston as “that fringe magazine” In fact,Prof Jurgen Untermann (Koln University), who has done most of the work in compiling many of the Ancient Iberian language findings,was converted to” Basque is related to Iberian”in 2002.However,this is silenced.

I hope I can help further.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Arnaiz1 but you seem to ignore many things and unable to quote pertinent data:

First: if you had taken the trouble to read the editions you would have find my note number 18 on a webpage of the FEGEL:

"| Descubrimiento de un gran fraude científico, al comprobarse que las traducciones actuales del egipcio, hitita, púnico, eblaíta, sumerio-babilonio, son enteramente falsas."

what I wrote is so true: "the only possible libel is when the webpage of the FEGEL accuses of "fraude científico" to the standard translations of many ancient languages" (Dumu Eduba dixit). FEGEL was founded and is presided by a Dr. named Arnaiz-Villena, isn't it? Do not try to deceive the readers, especially accusing of libel on it, when you know it is not.

Definitely you mixes scientific critic with libel. You use this word too freely, against De Hoz, against Lakarra. What a pity I do not have contact with Prof. De Hoz, because I would tell him about your penal accusation against him, but, of course, you know that you can't denounce him and that what you write is a bluff. But maybe Prof. De Hoz will get aware of this.

Please, as you do have contact, say to him that you have accused him publicly of libel, so we can know his opinion.

It is also false your comment on the silence on Iberian and Basque relation: read Iberian_language#Iberian_and_Basque. Is a deception to try to say that if Basque and Iberian are related then Arnaiz & Alonso translations are true (more than a deception a logical absurdum): why not Román del Cerro, Vallejo, Galera Isern or Carmody who translated much before using a Basque dictionary but with different results???

Do you have any quote of Bengtson or Ruhlen approving Arnaiz & Alonso translations?

The same applies to Iglesias and Elexpuru. They could be discussed the scientific merits of these alleged experts, but first : why in the links you afford there is no mention to your works or translations. Have you some valid reference or it is only a game? If you have any, it could be discussed and if found valid included. Since months ago I ask those alleged references to your "friends" Iberomesornix and Virginal6 but they keep silence.

Many mistakes. But the foremost is that you failed to explicit where the alleged libel lies.

If you keep capriciously launching libel accusations against any scientific criticism and not affording any clear and verifiable reference, maybe won't waste more time answering you. Won't be worth my time.

BTW: You still believe that Champollion did not deciphered Ancient Egyptian and that all the researchers in the world on Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Egyptian, Iberian, Etruscan, and etc. are wrong?

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree ,in general with Arnaiz-Villena.

However,I do not remember that Bengston and Ruhlen,compared Basque DIRECTLY with Iberian language.Although they compared Basque with many languages (Caucasians,Old Sumerian etc)and they include Basque within Dene Caucasian languages.He should look this up and correct it if he has done this in a rush,as he states.

He should better write “..defenders by any means that Basque is an isolate...."--Virginal6 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this was excatly the right surrounding where libel might ensue — a group of people passionate about the same issue, but with different ideas. So if we could leave the personal allegations aside even a little bit more consistently, and if we could leave the question of libel to those entitled to legal action, this discussion would benefit a lot. WP is certainly not a place to fight legal battles, and as long as none of the academic sources employed in compiling this encyclopedia has been ruled libel by a court of law, this does not enter into the issue here.

I appreciate the fact that Virginal6 and other users feel unjustly overruled by the opposition to their contributions they have encountered. However, I would like to remind them that those who overturned their edits did so out of a common concern for the academic validity of the content, not in pursuit of a hidden agenda. Neither have those epigraphers and academics who discredit Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's findings conspired to do so.

The issue at hand is not a question of libel but one of academic validity. Publication alone is not a guaranty for notability or quality. Academic peer reviewal is the deciding factor. To put it this way: if I as a linguist were to publish a genetic theory in a linguistic journal, I daresay it would be far from sound, and would be refuted by trained geneticists in the very blink of an eye. I doubt I would ever be seriously contended, much rather generally ignored or perhaps even openly belittled. Speaking as a linguist, I can confidently say that Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in postulating the Usko-Mediterranean language family appears (in the very blink of an eye) badly flawed — an impression confirmed on closer inspection, and little helped by the fact that his findings are diametrically opposed to the established view, which is the result of decades of academic contention. In other words: the fact that only few academic publications at all discuss (and refute) his theories does not make up for their lack of support among the linguistic community; by which I mean professors of diachronic linguistics and professors in epigraphy who endorse his findings in their own publications.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. N.b. the extraordinary claim at stake is not the existence of inscriptions in an Iberian syllabary on the Canary Islands (← please don't take this statement out of context), but the entire theory: a) the proposed transliterations, b) the emendations of these into modern Basque and the ensuing translations, c) the alternative translations of already deciphered Egyptian and other oriental inscriptions into Basque, and d) the proposed grouping of various well or sparsely attested ancient languages into the "Usko-Mediterranean" group. I would gladly read any publication by diachronic linguists endorsing such claims.

Since Virginal6 and other users have nevertheless wished for these theories to be included on WP, the only place for them is in Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's personal article. If they are to be represented there, it must be in light of academic peer review, as required of an encyclopedia. And as long as the sources listed by Dumu Eduba have not been placed under an interdict by a court of law, those sources need to be included. I sympathise with Mr. Arnaiz-Villena, as I myself cannot stand uncivil people, but a lack of manners does not refute their arguments. Trigaranus (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes,Bengston and Ruhlen did not compare Basque and Iberian.They related Basque with Etruscan, Hurrian,Hatti,Sumerian...and included Basque within Dene Caucasian languages.

Basque was related to Iberian by Larramendi, Poza,Humboldt and many others in the last centuries. Michelena and Tovar established that this was not the case by the middle of 20th century.

At present,French Basque Hector Iglesias ,ourselves ,and some linguists from Valencia and Alicante (Spain) think that Humboldt and others were right , Old Iberian is related to Basque.

On the other hand ,I have nothing to do with Fegel.

I have directed 41 Ph.D students-

When I have finished the work with them,they are free to do what they wish,as in any other place.I start a new subject,more or less related.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is partly a matter of undue weight. We don't want the article to become a forum for debate on Usko-Med. However, we should have a summary and criticism. The section on the inscriptions should be merged with that on the theory itself. If Virginal really wants to include the theory, why does s/he keep deleting the section? BTW, in response to Arnaiz1 above, I have directed PhD students too - but since none of them were students of linguistics, that's really rather irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright then: So let's include a short summary and criticism of the theory. I think Dumu Eduba's work on the article was a good and valid approach (albeit maybe a little too detailed), and much of it should be re-inserted. And as for that matter, before Virginal6 proceeds to delete any such content, it would be greatly appreciated if they could make a consistent argument on this page first.

One caveat I would like to strongly emphasise beforehand is that only and exclusively such academic sources be quoted as actually refer to the Usko-Mediterranean theory, in order to steer clear of WP:Syn. I have not the slightest doubt that some of the less extensively attested languages in question have been theorised to be related (although in terms of highly conjectural superfamilies). However, this is irrelevant to the issue as long as the grouping as suggested by Mr. Arnaiz-Villena (which equates well-attested and understood languages such as Sumerian and Egyptian in disregard of established language relations such as Semitic and Afro-Asiatic) is not specifically addressed. Trigaranus (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a section on Usko-Mediterranean is called for, complete with references calling it buffoonery, to illustrate how ridiculous this "scholarship" is. It puts the argument about the inscriptions, which is more esoteric, into better perspective. kwami (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Present Problem Opinion

I have read now more about the concerted attack of Dumu Eduba and Trigaranus and others for deleting the Iberian Guanche page ;I have also read editions on Basque,Iberian and other Wikipedia articles.

I am focusing this opinion from a practical point of view:

1-A vetetran Wikipedia Administrator adds concise information related to linguistics in a SHORT Wikipedia article entitled “Arnaiz-Villena”.This article was not done by me as is part of Wikipadia projects,which have nothing to do with linguistics.

2-Dumu Eduba adds a considerable amount of linguistic information with a lot of not necessary references . The article loses the Wikipedia initial aims and get converted in a linguistic discussion forum with libels.

3-Virginal6 reverts this relatively big amount of information.I would have done the same and put the information in the “Discussion section” of a linguistic page or in a User Talk page .In fact the same arguments are already written in “Iberian Language”article Discussion.Section 5 , by Dumu Eduba himself “On the translations of Iberian......by A-G and Arnaiz-Villena”.

4-I think that Old Article editions ,in general,should be summarizaed,concise,and taking care of not changing the Article aims.

5-Paul B was asking for references:I already suggested to send readers to Internet where they can retrieve in ENGLISH,what is “Usko Mediterranean “ hypothesis,say that this hypothesis is strongly contested and add the appropriate references on contestation.This arised discussion on linguistics may go to the Discussion section of linguistic pages where the same arguments are already stated by Dumu Eduba or to my page Arnaiz1

Trigaranus,my personal page is Arnaiz1,not "Antonio Arnaiz-Villena",which is a page added by Wikipedia.Please,be reasonable and read below --Arnaiz1 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Libels or defamation in Wikipedia articles

They should be avoided.Regarding to this case I could say,

1-Libel definition:published false statement damaging to person’s reputation (Concise English Oxford Dictionary)

2-JAVIER DE HOZ (1999)references only a small part of my work on linguistics .We have published four books more in Spanish and one in English about the topic since then.It is an outdated reference. The methodology that we followed is carefully explained later(2000),particularly in the English book chapter ,which may be retrieved from Internet (http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/biolmol)

a)Title of Javier de Hoz commentary “Travel to nowhere througout the Mediterranean:languages that Iberians,Etruscans,and Cretans did not speak”He does not write about Cretans a single word and refers to a single one Iberian example to dismiss our whole work.

b)Statements written by Lahoz:

• 1-...sometimes this type (of books) are written by unscrupulous (“desaprensivo” in Spanish) people...,including people from the Academic World
• I consider this a false unbased accusation which damages my reputation.
• 2- ...(authors) do not know at all gramatical structure of Iberian and Etruscan...(This is the one single time he mentions Etruscan except in title).Grammars do exist only after Middle Ages and although some

Grammatical features ,not standardized and variable,must exist in the first times,it lacks standardization.Our hypothesis on this are as good as Lahoz one.

• 3-...(books authors) are a plain disaster (no further explanations).This is a libel or defamation.
• 4-...(books) are an a aberration in methods and results.No further explanation.This is a libel.
• 5-...Public money has been missused to pay the issue of a book with a scientific interest similar to that of using wax puppets and exorcism to cure cancer. This is a libel.
• 6-A crime has been perpetrated and there must be a responsable person to pay for it.(END) .(He referes to deviation ofpublic funds... or to the authors?).This book was unusually reprinted.This is a libel.

Thus ,Lahoz does not criticise the specific content of the book,but attacks thee authors ,without any base:he only does not agree with one example( 2 words in Iberian). I accept this.Although ,I believe we were right.He does not mention Etruscan or Cretan (as in title) : only to say that we do not know a word of Iberian or Etruscan grammars:our hypothesis on these are as valid as his.Grammars did not exist by then,and these languages are not firmly and finally translated.We have only hypothesis,including ours.

I have already (last year, 2008!) complained to Lahoz himself:we had a nice chat and I asked him to phone me up if he had any problem with our writings..

3-LAKARRA(in Protovasco,munda...in Ohienart 21,2006,229-322) He has feuds with some others ,as I gave refs.His references should not be included in Wikipedia regarding to Dene Caucasian or Basque; he states:

• a-Page 242:Ruhlen and other seditious Greenberg underlings....Ruhlen is a linguist with different ideas,not a militar.What is this?
• b-Page 243:He attacks senior linguist Theo Vennemann just because Theo V. thinks that Europe is full of old Basque toponyms,i.e.:Basque or related languages were the ancient European languages. According to Kakarra,Theo V. put forward this hypothesis ,because “eager of success at any cost”.What is this?
• c)-Page 245:he says that from 32 Basque words used by us ,8 are Lating leanings (we hypothezise the contrary) and 5 are invented “ad hoc” by us. Later,he acuses us of forgers.This is a libel

Now,I would ask you ,mediator Jvdb,please check what I have stated or ask me more specific information on this,check if my statements are correct and transfer this discussion to the Iberian Language article discussion,where Dumu Eduba had already repeated almoust the same arguments and references,which he tries to hang also here. Thank you all.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Arnaiz1, writing that an ancient language had "no grammar" ("only words", or what are we to conjecture?) is about as well-founded as writing that mammaliaformes had "no genes" ("only DNA"). Statements like these explain much of the exasperated reactions you have seen. It is buffoonery, not academic research. Trigaranus (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear WIkipedians, let's delete all reference on fringe science in the wikipedia, because it seems it's a libel on their authors. According to the peculiar ideas of Mr. Arnaiz1 there can be no bad book, and nobody can say that a book is a disaster because it is defamation.

Arnaiz1 distorts De Hoz words: he said it's a crime the waste of public funding in such a book whereas valuable scientific works remains without being published due to lack of funding. Even if this were a libel, it would be against public administration. This distortion saying that De Hoz accuses of deviation of public funds is "per se" a libel made by Arnaiz1.

The real problem with Arnaiz1 accusations of libel is that in order to be libel, the offending assert must to be false. But Arnaiz linguistics theories are really an unmitigated disaster. It would be interesting to see how could Mr. Arnaiz prove the opposite before a judge in order to condemn to De Hoz or Lakarra.

By the way, to change the names of persons (that's to say: call "Javier de Hoz" "Lahoz" or to "Joseba Lakarra" "Kakarra", let's remember that in Spanish Kaka is caca, "shit") is trolling. Pathetic.

When people invents words and meaning and present them as real material, it's a a deception to the reader. An as log as I remember Lakarra's words are "verging on clumsy falsification".

Arnaiz1 accuses other persons of criminal behavior, but he has not claimed it before a judge (De Hoz paper was published ten years ago, Lakarra eight year ago). He ask us to condemn people on opinions on his work, without the right to a trial.

I can add more published references rejecting Arnaiz theories as absurd.

Arnaiz1 could not provide any reference on any author supporting the Usko-Mediterranean theory.

On the absurdity of the Usko-Mediterranean languages more observations can be done:

the so claimed b y Arnaiz1 Bengtson do not used the researches of Arnaiz and Alonso. Even in his recent paper "Some features of Dene-Caucasian phonology (with special reference to Basque)" does not even mention Arnaiz and Alonso. How can this be explained.

the same can be said on Campbell a very famous critic of the long-range linguistics comparisons, he likes to "debunk" this kind of theories, and so he is interested in to mentioning them. In the article of the Elvesiers Encyclopedia of Linguistics he makes a list of long-range linguisitcs theories (many of them I have never heard about), not a word on the Usko-Mediterranean theories.

So, it is clear that no linguists in the world consider the Usko-Mediterranean theory worth any use. This is a fact.

I was accused of possible libel because Arnaiz alleged he never accused of "scientific fraud", but I have showed that he is the president of the web page in which in order to advertise the Usko-Mediterranean (to make money) the experts on ancient languages are accused of "fraude científico". This kind of asserts do can be a libel, and the legal responsible for what a foundation writes it is president.

The same happens with the asserts he has published many times on the [/Pennsylvania_Sumerian_Dictionary | Pennsylvania Dictionary of Sumerian project]. According to Arnaiz: "universidad de Philadelphia comenzó a elaborar un diccionario de cuneiforme, que tuvo que interrumpir despues de haber publicado unos pocos tomos por la incongruencia de lo que habia publicado con los miles de tablillas cuneiformes que iban apareciendo. (The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum.Ed AW Sjoberg.1992. A.Part 1 Vol1.) ". He attributes to them to be aware that they do not understand Sumerian. It's a clearly offensive comment. I don't believe a word of what Arnaiz claims. Anybody can confirm is this is true or a simple libel?

So he treats disrespectfully the experts linguist and epigraphists (not his fellow, as hi has no studies nor curriculum in any of these areas, he is an amateur), but he claims that criticizing his ideas is a libel!!

Finally three conclusions:

Arnaiz1 is trying to confound everybody answering always on the Basque-Iberian theory (with logical absurdities such as that if Iberian and Basque are related his publications are not a disaster), but his theory is on the Usko-Mediterranean languages and he keep significative silence on it (Sumerian, Hittite, Hurrian, Minoan, etc. etc.). Why this silence???. Is he ashamed of when talking but not when selling books? He even asserts falsehoods as that that there is people trying to silence Basque-Iberian ideas, he has even accused me of such a conspiracy in a shameless ad hominem attack, in spite of the fact that it was me who added the section on Basque-Iberian and in spite of the fact that in this section there are quoted several reputed expert who has been studying this theory. Arnaiz1 accuses that even Untermann's Basque-Iberian opinion has been silenced, but this is false (see the note 4 in Iberian Language). So his conspiracy theory is another falsehood.

Since to write a negative review is not a libel (and all what I quote was opinions and evaluations), the edition I added has no libel inside it.

If Arnaiz-Villena considers there is any kind of libel in the publications of De Hoz (not Lahoz) and Lakarra (not Kakarra) he must report it to police. Wikipedia is not a primary source, much less judicial. If someone add something like that a popular singer is a member of Al-Qaeda without any valid reference, this is a falsehood and a libel and so must be deleted, but if somebody adds references to music critics saying that his songs are a BS and that he has no idea of what music is, and it happens that all the experts in the world say the same then the statement: the music of this popular singer has been unanimously rejected usually in terms as "BS" is a reference, not a libel.

So I ask the wikipedia editors to carefully analyze any assert made by Arnaiz1 and his friends, because use to be plenty of inaccuracies, absurd conspiracy theories and convenient mistakes and oblivions (and yes, even libels: offending comments that happen to be based falsehoods as that of the deviation of funds); that besides of unproven criminal accusations that has not even been reported to the police, but he writes here publicly. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dumu Eduba,I have read carefully:FEGEL is a company;I do not find Arnaiz-Villena in this company.Arnaiz-Villena web page is [9] as he stated above . --Virginal6 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dumu Eduba,also all public accusations or defamations about a work must be based ON OBJECTIVE EVIDENCES.A song you may like or not;linguistics approaches are not songs.We have to work in a constructive way out for this.--Virginal6 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic approaches are not songs, exactly. And linguistics as an academic field are not a stage for clowns. I'm sorry to put it this bluntly. The constructive way out is the encyclopedic one, i.e. add a short summary plus the criticism, including the pertinent references. If one of those reference pages were ruled libel by a judge (not by Mr. Arnaiz-Villena), it ought to be removed, but otherwise such a request is groundless. Trigaranus (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Trigaranus.Also with Kwami (but Tifinagh is used now by South Sahara Berbers and have some similarities with Old Numidic or Old Lybic Berber script as collected by Chabot).I am preparing and even shorter statement (only looking for more aseptic references that seriously contradict this A-V hypothesis) and I will write in this Discussion,just to see if it is acceptable,for further modifications--Virginal6 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is A-V seriously proposing that Basque, Hittite, and Phoenician form a family that excludes Hebrew and Greek? I find that hard to believe, but he lists the first as UM langs and the latter as not. Or is UM supposed to be some kind of Vasconic-like substrate, not an actual language family? The latter is bad enough, but if he's proposing UM as a language family, then I think we're justified in using the words "crackpot" and "fraud" in the article. Or "buffoonery" as suggested above. If he's merely suggesting some sort of substrate recoverable through coincidental lookalikes, then he simply belongs in the long line of ignoramuses who can't tell the difference. Either way, calling him an "amateur" gives him too much credibility: There are plenty of good amateur academics. kwami (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's much better than that: Not only does he claim that they belong to one and the same family (and yes, Phoenician and Ugaritic for all I know, but not the rest of the Semitic languages), but also that they had "no grammar" (because grammar was only invented later) and that they can be translated using modern Basque without any intermediate sound shifts (and without grammar, naturally). He also claims to be able to find the "real" etymology of what he believes to be Egyptian theonyms by translating them into Basque (apparently in blissful ignorance of the fact that the "Egyptian" names he used were the Greek versions, not the original ones). Linguistically, that is equivalent to signing a document titled "Why I am a clown". Trigaranus (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Some more references in case anybody else likes to see by himself:

• two books by Arnaiz and Alonso (the great forgotten one by Arnaiz1 and friends) can be snippet in Googlebooks:

"Egipcios, bereberes, guanches y vascos and Caucásicos, turcos, mesopotámicos y vascos. As you can see, my edition was rather brief in the abstract of their theories.

• another "review" on the researches: by Núñez Astraín in El euskera arcaico] pp. 124-125.
• A minor review was published by a Philology Doctor (Ignacio Reyes García) precisely on the Canarian inscriptions, it can be seen in ''Acercamiento a las antiguas hablas isleñas'. Some quotes:

"El glosario comparativo que exponen, huérfano de los más elementales controles y requerimientos metodológicos, recolecta semejanzas formales sin la menor profundidad histórica, amparado en una deriva fonética y semántica tan insoslayable como desprovista de pautas diacrónicas e interdialectales."

I dislike to mention unpublished comments but this author is more clear when asked in a forum: "No hay nada concreto, salvo en el terreno de la fantasía, que permita relacionar el amazighe insular y el vasco. Las aportaciones del libro en esa dirección constituyen lo que la ciencia denomina simples cantinfladas" (from the "clown" Cantinflas, the word is commented even in the article)...."Si existiera alguna relación entre el amazighe insular y el vasco, le aseguro que en ese libro no se encontrarán ni los datos ni los argumentos ni los análisis para fundar esa teoría."[[10]]

Note to Virginal6: did you try clicking in the link you afforded in the second link called "Foundation for Genetic and Linguistic Studies" (aka FEGEL)? And maybe the singer analogy is better explained as a singer who sings out of tune, sings false notes, forgets the lyrics and benchs while singing --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. A negative reference. I has found four articles written by the author that the own Arnaiz1 has quoted as a reference supporting his researches, Héctor Iglesias. The four deal with Iberian language and, in spite of being clearly too "imaginatives" and unreliable, it's easy to see that in the bibliography of these articles lacks any reference to Arnaiz or to Alonso (A propósito..., L'inscription iberique..., Notas sobre...., Observations...). Where are the alleged positive references?--Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kwami,Dumu Eduba and Trigaranus.I notice that you have concerted to destroy “the positive way out”.I wonder if blunt concertation should also be tagged ,as sock puppetry is.

Even in the most extremist blogs this type of direct (or blunt) insults are rapidly erased,eved if put in somebody else’s mouth. This strategy gave good results for you when by fooling people (who cannot distinguish between Numidic (Old Lybic-Bereber inscriptions) and Latin or Iberian Inscriptions,you three managed to delete Iberian Guanche inscriptions page.You are trying this strategy again:Kwami ,I told you yesterday Tifinagh writing is not exactly Old Lybic- Berber Inscriptions ..

-For Kwami:Hebrew and Greek were never studied or mentioned by A A-V and Alonso Garcia.They are NOT LISTED like non- Usko Mediterranean languages.Please,do not make a case about this mistaken information stated by you with words like fraud,crackpot or buffonery.This damages Wiukipedia.

Kwami wrote: "Is A-V seriously proposing that Basque, Hittite, and Phoenician form a family that excludes Hebrew and Greek?" In other words he is saying that they are NOT LISTED. He is ridiculing the inclusion of Phoenician and Hittite while excluding Hebrew and Greek. The reason should be obvious. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

-For Trigaranus:Libel is a law term;defamation is more appropriate.No blog permits defamation or personal attacks.Dead language grammars are very doubtful:many hypothses may be done until languages had standardized grammars after Middle Ages.I would not use the word CLOWN,this also damages Wikipedia.

Academic criticism is not libel. Calling someone's arguments nonsense maybe ungenerous but is not libel. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For Dumu Eduba: 1-Luis Nuñez Astrain: he is a general journalist who was one of the main Editors of Egunkaria newspaper closed down by the Spanish Judges ,scn:Euskal_Herria His writings on linguistics may be a good journalist work,who copies what linguists say,without being able to scientifically critic anything. 2-Unknown PhD doctor Ignacio Reyes has writen (according to your link) all his work in local Canarian general newspapers.How do you know he was a doctorated student?No credits are found anywhere. He call “clowns “again to people.Perhaps,he has to do it to pass his PhD examination.In any case,it is better not to use these words referring to authors who do not agree with you,even putting them in somebody else’s mouth.

All these matters were already discussed when you three concerted to close “Iberian Guanche “ page. References of previous and present time supporters of Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso hypotheses were given, including Humboldt,Federico Krutwig and others User_talk:Iberomesornix#Iberian-Guanche_inscriptions_Talk User_talk:Iberomesornix#I_AM_A_LINGUIST_AND_HAVE_THE_RIGHT_TO_DISMISS_DISSENTERS_.28WHO_ALSO_ARE_LINGUISTS.29--Virginal6 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created Luis Núñez Astrain and Egin (newspaper). Sorry I haven't been very active in this discussion. I am busy trying to catch up now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Complete Waste of Time

Dear Virginal6, it seems you are primarily concerned with the Canarian epigraphic element of the work, which is also the one part which is least absurd. Some readings are indeed subject to scholarly debate, as you will surely know from the research performed by the Institutum Canarium, the most important platform for academic peer review on the issue. I do respect your interest in that subject matter, and I absolutely understand (and share) the fascination with it.

However, Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's "reading" of those inscriptions form part of the basis for his wider theories, which are severely and irredeemably flawed by 1. his (mis-)identification of the alphabets used 2. his haphazard transcriptions 3. his identifications of the supposed transcriptions with random shreds of (modern) Basque, and 4. his very bold (and staggeringly unqualified) move to take it further and to dismiss more or less all scholarship on Sumerian, Egyptian and many other languages in favour of his own, comical attempts at translation.

If you are honestly interested in ancient epigraphy, even if you don't see the error in one of those four steps, the remaining three should set you off reconsidering.

The wording "clown" in that connection may have been a bit inappropriate. Clowns are funny. This is complete and utter BS, and anyone with an idea of linguistics can confirm this. And if you believe that a language does not have grammar until the first grammar book is written, as Mr. Arnaiz-Villena does, then you can seriously consider yourself out of your depth when it comes to linguistics. Arnaiz-Villena's theories are pseudoscience, and WP is not a platform for that.

This discussion page is quite out of proportion with the article's content, and in fact, even more so with its notability. This is my final attempt at pointing out the reasons why this "theory" has already received much more attention and userspace than it deserves. Trigaranus (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

References! please

Dear Virginal6. I think it is better to continue in another section.

You quoted past supporters of Arnaiz theories, who according to your idea supported him before he write any book (or even before he was born). This is an absurd logical phalacy, the fact that some author once upon a time think that Iberian and Basque were related do not convert them in followers of Arnaiz.

Think that the quote on Untermann stating Iberian and Basque are related dates from 1996. It's before the first book of Alonso and the first of Arnaiz. But Untermann is not a supporter of Arnaiz theories.

You put forward Pichler as non amateur positive reference, but as a matter of fact explicitly Pichler rejected his theories. Arnaiz1 resorted to Iglesias, but Iglesias do not even mention Arnaiz's ideas in papers on Iberian. So even Iglesias consider that Arnaiz ideas are not useful. Are the both of you mocking? So, stop giving false data!

You need to read better. According to my link [11] it is false your assert that "all his work in local Canarian general newspapers". Besides his SEVEN books, evidence: Antiquités africaines, ISSN 0066-4871, Nº 40-41, 2004‑2005; Revista de filología de la Universidad de La Laguna, ISSN 0212-4130, Nº 21, 2003; Anuario de estudios atlánticos, ISSN 0570-4065, Nº. 48, 2002; Revista de filología de la Universidad de La Laguna, ISSN 0212-4130, Nº 19, 2001; Philologica canariensia: Revista de filología de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, ISSN 1136-3169, Nº 6-7. Arnaiz-Villena couldn't get published any article in any philology journal. SO, Virginal6, please stop asserting falsehoods in your vain attempt to discredit sources you do not agree with.

Another of your distorts is to present him as "doctorated student" I said Doctor of Philology (and BTW he has also a degree in History)[12]. Núñez Astraín according to a newspaper has a degree of Linguistics by the Sorbonne, besides other studies [13]. You can call all these link liars, but after your factual "mistakes" it could sound ironic.

Any real author who mentions and approve Arnaiz and Alonso theories??. Any precise and documented quote?? Something that really exist and is verifiable.

PS. Remember that Alexandre Eleazar ("Los Bere" 1985) "discovered" many years before that Etruscan, Minoan, and Egyptian are Basque (his linguistic family was Bere), but that does not make him a Arnaiz follower, nor supporter; only just one more maker of crackpot stuff (at least this one was funny and honestly clearly warned his readers in the prologue that his "history" was somewhat different and not academic). BTW: Remember that you was told that the idea of Iberian inscriptions in the Canary Island was not accepted. So please delete yourself all these references that you have been adding again in several pages. Behave. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dumu Eduba,

Yes, you are right about Reyes references.You gave two:I only could reach before the link to the newspapers.Now,I can go to Dialnet and can see ha has written some titles.But the joking references you give against AAV an JA by him ,do belong to the articles or to the newspapers? I do not think this type of mocking commentaries are allowed in a peer reviewed magazine.

Most references you are quoting against Iberian-Guanche inscriptions or Usko-Mediterranean hypothesis are from non-peer reviewed magazines. These do not permit mocking commentaries about authors.

They are from newspapers,short bulletins or non-peer reviewed books. My references are given above.And I have redirected to the "Iberian-Guanche" deleted talk page.Plenty of references.I have read nothing about Bere.--Virginal6 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember that I was in these discussion pages? If those alleged references (you never gave quotes) are the best you can afford, you has nothing. (And then I spare you the comment that I think that in the second edition of his book amateur engineer Pellón he changed his mind and forget about those "wonderful" discoveries).

BTW: I added sources who are reputed experts (soon I will add a bibliographical article on De Hoz who deserves much more than you know who).

But as you talk about peered. Why Arnaiz nor Alonso can publish an article in a peered and reputed journal of linguistics? Most (or all) their publications are self-published or not peered by any language expert.

They have many reputed journal to choice to send they discoveries. Did not got any published.

And you forget a great evidence of the discredit of A& A theories: the lack of quote even by mavericks researchers as Bengtson. Nobody minds Arnaiz and Alonso ideas, the Usko languages do not appear in Ruhlen treatises. Nobody believes a word. Even Campbell do not bother to critizise. Remember: silence is the harshest criticism.

Yes, Trigaranus is right that this is a complete waste of time.

Maybe you should pray to St. Anselm (remember that of "credo quia absurdum"). He is the kind of expert that would believe Arnaiz and Alonso ideas .

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to edit this page further.There are some errors (I did not study some languages Hebrew,Latin,Greek etc)

I wanted to put this direct link to the true work we did.[14] This should be after Sumerian(I never worked on Dravidian either).--Arnaiz1 (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That link was also in the plenty of references edition that I add and Virginal6 (fan of Arnaiz's ideas) deleted it, so the comment on the "true work".... is superfluous and deceptive, suggesting that somebody has talk on non-true work. I added two more links with "true" work (authored by Arnaiz) and refences as that of Múgika and to six books by Arnaiz and Alonso on the Usko-Mediterranean. In my edition the list of languages studies was fully correct and with references, as stated the absurd anti-Champollion critics, the "imaginative" ideas on the Story of the Battle of Kadesh, the Rosseta Stone and the Epic of Gilgamesh to which tose books devote full chapters, etc etc etc etc and many more questions, data and bibliography censored by Virginal6. Anybody too ashamed of the real content of the books? --Dumu Eduba (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please,do not convert this page in a linguistics page.Please,go back to Kwami redaction ,without repetitions and good English.Please,add my own slight corrections of errors to Kwami redaction.Thank you--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Trigaranus and Dumu Eduba want to bring about more colateral linguistic questions and and make this page unreadable.Jay,you could transfer this discussions to Iberian or Basque language discussion page.--Virginal6 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This cannot go on those pages because the argument is not sufficiently notable for those pages. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've reinserted my additions. They are solely taken from Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's own publications, and I think they are essential to uninformed readers for assessing their content and their value. Trigaranus (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER

Then,redirect discussion to Iruna-Veleia page.Many different opinions are being given these days on that findings ,including those dismissing liuists ling Gorrotxategui and Lakarra who that are forgeries [15].This is a new topic ,which has its own section on Wikipedia--Virginal6 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's epigraphic and linguistic work is centred on his reading of ancient inscriptions with the help of Basque morphemes. The three kinds of inscriptions mentioned by me feature very importantly and prominently in his publications and are a relevant component thereof. And for Wikipedia's position on Iruña-Veleia — as an encyclopedia —, we have to abide by the academic findings of the official investigation. (Please do not try to foist a claim to the contrary on Lakarra and others; it was not a rogue dismissal by one or two linguists.) Trigaranus (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this article is on Mr. Arnaiz-Villena's published work, no exceptions granted. We are in fact concerned with the entire breadth of his publications. If he didn't suggest that the Usko-Mediterranean languages were to be identified in various inscriptions along the Mediterranean and the Canaries and all lended themselves to Basque translations, how could he propose translating those inscriptions? But obviously, we are in need of mediation. Trigaranus (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Linguistic topics do not make the page unreadable, unless one is completely ignorant of linguitics. But the research is about linguistics. It's also important to show that Arnaiz-Villena is a complete nut case. I tried reading his publications, and I would have laughed if I had not started getting ill. Phoenician, Basque, and Hittite form an "Usko-Mediterranean" language family? Please tell me that Arnaiz-Villena does not mean to say what his published words are saying, because I find it hard to believe anyone could be that ridiculous. kwami (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK,lets go on discussing here Iruna-Veleia.

This is a current hot topic of Spanish media discussion:Reputed archeologists have been accused of masssive forgery by linguists and other archeologists (who,surprisingly, have been given the Iruna-Veleiaarcheological site for them to study). All linguists criticisms have already been neutralyzed by others [16] term by term.Archeologists are a accused of forgering hundreds of pottery pieces and writing simple Basque names on them which belong to 3rd Century AD.

The accusers say that this is not possible since the first Basque writing was found about 10th Century AD. However,Basque has found to be mixed with Latin in western Spain (“Ibarra”)from a 1st century AD piece.

Linguists,archeologists and other people are now given different and contradictory opinions in blogs and newspapers.Judges will give also his verdict, if they accept that there was crime signs (still not accepted as being a trial case).Linguistic accusing arguments are now destroyed;but we have to wait and see Judges research and further studies,particularly physical based dates--Virginal6 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Per his pubs, Basque and Berber are the only living UM ("related-to-Basque") languages. That means that Greek, Romance, Arabic and Hebrew are not UM. But Spanish and Italian are UM languages modified by Latin! I'm not sure how they can be UM but are not included in the tally of living UM languages. Phoenician & Ugaritic (both Semitic), plus Egyptian (related to Semitic) and Hittite (Indo-European), are all UM, but Semitic and Indo-European are not UM. And Afro-Asiatic is evidently not a valid family, because some branches are UM (Berber, Egyptian, some extinct Semitic), but others are not (all living Semitic). Come on, this is just stupidity, and we need to be clear about that in the article. kwami (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, Latin,Hebrew or Greek are not quoted anywhere.Show me where please.It is not known whether these languages have a UM substratum or not.You said before that Dravidian was studied;this was also not correct and deleted.

To mi knowledge the most complete English compilation is in [17] Basque,Berber,and all in the map of the reference were studied and found to be UM.All other conclusions are yours --Virginal6 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Per his pubs, Basque and Berber are the only living UM ("related-to-Basque") languages. That means that Greek, Romance, Arabic and Hebrew are not UM. But Spanish and Italian are UM languages modified by Latin! I'm not sure how they can be UM but are not included in the tally of living UM languages. Phoenician & Ugaritic (both Semitic), plus Egyptian (related to Semitic) and Hittite (Indo-European), are all UM, but Semitic and Indo-European are not UM. And Afro-Asiatic is evidently not a valid family, because some branches are UM (Berber, Egyptian, some extinct Semitic), but others are not (all living Semitic). Come on, this is just stupidity, and we need to be clear about that in the article.

Okay, another bit of idiocy. In Caucásicos, turcos, mesopotámicos y vascos, he and Alonso-García say that the Hittites, Hurrians, and Sumerians spoke languages that were "identical or very similar" (p xi), that they belong to the Usko-Med family (a subgroup of Dene-Caucasian), and that they can be deciphered using Old Basque. In one of his articles, AV says that a Basque bishop was posted to the Canary Ils. because "he could speak their language", with the implication being that Guanche was not just UM, but actually Basque. (The whole point of the ref. was to show that Guanche was related to Basque, not that the bishop had learned Guanche.) He appears to be suggesting in the Spanish book that Phoenician is also UM and decipherable with Basque. He also appears to think that Navajo and Athabascan are two different language families.

p 4 in the Spanish volume: the UM languages are Basque, Iberian-Tartessian (evidently the same thing), Guanche, Berber, Phoenician, Etruscan, Minoan, Egyptian, Hittite, Eblaic, Ugaritic, Sumerian, Hurrian, Elamite, and Caucasian, including Georgian; even the name of Georgia, Sakartvelo, is a Basque word. Hittite, Sumerian, and Hurrian "without doubt" form part of the Mediterranean Dene-Caucasian "language" (that's not bad English: even his Spanish is incoherent). This is pseudo-science. kwami (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL what a nutter. Where to start... Proto-Basque had no m, hence mer cannot be a Basque word of antiquity. It doesn't mean land anyway. Zar is an old disyllable, zahar, bit of a headache. Word order, morphology... none of that. "EKA has been identified with Sanskrit ONE by Basque scholars" - oh really? Amusingly, KAI is cited as meaning riverbank AND cemetary. Nice one. NO does not mean where in Basque, neither as an interrogative nor an ending.

And the translations, what a scream. I haven't laughed this much in days. How did they ever graduate him from any university in any subject? In a word - nutcase. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these” non-sense” comparisons had already been done by others

[[18]]--Virginal6 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was missing you.You and the other three concerted ones have taken up Iberian,Dene-Caucasian,Basque...You do not let coming in anybody else`s work.You should learn to wash your tongue,also.This is a surprise--Virginal6 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginal, you obviously have a personal stake in this, and so perhaps should not be editing this article. However, though you keep using the word "we" to refer to yourself plus AV, you are apparently completely unfamiliar with his work. He says multiple times that the Usko-Med languages were displaced by Indo-European and "Asian" languages. Ergo, Indo-European is not Usko-Med, except for Hittite, because every linguist for the last century has misidentified Hittite, and only AV is intelligent enough to have found the error. Come on, the guy is a nut case, and if you don't see that, perhaps you need to take a step back and actually read the gibberish that he's written. kwami (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A LYNCHING?

I believe now that every word should remain in the oresent page (removing article errors). This page is also tagged by Wikipedia as part of a Palestimian. I still remember (8 years ago) what happened to me,when innocently we wrote one paper which free-lancers erased from literature for the first time in this Century,as far as I know. We have never been politically involvedcolleagues from Israel have come to our lab in the last years and could support this. Present case:

1. They went against Iberian in two of the the Canary Islands.
2. When this was “arranged”,they started aginst Usko-Mediterranean hypothesis .
3. When this seemed to be arranged (I even approved” violation” as a word referring to me). (This had been already discussed by the same people when they closed “Iberian-Guanche page [19],[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iberomesornix#The_page_is_all_true_and_undisputed.2C_except_by_Trigaranus_and_.28Dumu_Eduba.3F.29]
4. They started to write errors in the article:we never said a word about Dravidian,Latin,Greek Or Hebrew.We do not kmow about them.
5. Then they went to start with a current topic Iruna-Veleia which is these days hotly debated in Spain by many scholars interested on Basque language.
6. Thy are using strong words not appropriate for academic documents ,like Wikipedia is,at least in this case

I am convinced that once settled these points,they will go on with something else.I ‘d wish to be mistaken--Arnaiz1 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)--79.155.151.3 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed violating to contradicting. Please try to avoid the suggestion that you are being persecuted. Most contributors to the recent thread are simply linguists, who as far as I can see show no interest in the Palestinian and Greek/Macedonian race research. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Lynching"? Please, accept the fact that as an encyclopedia, WP cannot be a platform for self-proclaimed scholarship beneath academic standards. Your genetic research does not enter into this section; I have read the paper you mentioned (I doubt many libraries decided to "erase it from literature", it is still very much available and accessible in Switzerland) and did not find reason in it to have it removed. Let me respond to your last few remarks one by one:

1. Please differentiate between Iberian language, Basque language and Iberian script. The reason "they went against" them is because you tend not to differentiate between them. For serious scholarship on the Canary inscriptions, please refer to the Institutum Canarium (whose dedicated research you completely seem to ignore).
2. Nothing was "arranged", the article was deleted according to WP policy, which can only be done by WP:administrators. And if you look carefully, you will find that the article on the "Usko-Mediterranean" languages was nominated for deletion at the same time. It was due to your tendency to "translate" various kinds of inscriptions into what you perceive to be Basque that the article on the inscriptions raised suspicions in the first place. The only reason why the issue has been raised again in this article here is that Virginal6 was so very passionate about them.
3. (?)
4. If you really say that your research into the "Usko-Mediterranean" languages did not involve looking at the languages in question, how on earth did you decide it was the right moment to publish? (And please refer back to your own writings, the matter is not quite so clear.) Your grouping renders various established language families redundant, which presents you with an enormous burden of proof to justify your new grouping. Failure to address this issue is, quite simply, sloppy.
5. Don't pretend your references to Iruña-Veleia are irrelevant here. They feature very (!) prominently in your writings, but again you just chose to ignore every evidence to their being (rather clumsy) forgeries.
6. And lastly, as far as the tone is concerned: In case you haven't noticed, talk pages are not articles. The encyclopedia is made up of article entries, which are kept in a more formal tone than the talk page. This here is a talk page, and thereby a rather casual setting. If something seems ludicrous due to various reasons, I may choose to call it buffoonery, which unfortunately it is from a linguistic perspective.

In closing, all I can say is Cobbler, stick to thy last. You are clearly out of your depth. Or, alternatively: "I have known linguists. And you, sir, are not a linguist." Trigaranus (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to better reflect the scope of situation: not just a dispute over interpreting difficult and (to many) esoteric inscriptions in the Canaries, but the remarkable claim that every epigrapher and linguist of the ancient Med and Near East for the past century has been wrong. I doubt serious linguists or epigraphers are going to bother with him, and still less waste space publishing rebuttals. However, if anyone knows of published comments by reputable epigraphers or linguists, that would be worth adding as a ref. kwami (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have one concern about the title:"pseudoscience" that affects all other work of the authors.

Arnaiz-Villena et al work is accepted and valued in Population Genetics and Immunology .I cannot think now of another word,because I am in a hurry.

But ,I would ask you to change it to something more aseptic ,like “Basque is missused as a linguistic tool” or something similar.Otherwise,you crucify Antonio Arnaiz-Villena ,not only in linguistics,and also the many people who have been working with him and now have important posts in Science in Spain or outside Spain.--Virginal6 (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena's work in Immunology may well be of uncontested value, but his contributions to population genetics are highly constested. In fact it is only because he has made these controversial publications that he is notable for Wikipedia. Without the controversies there would be no article. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the problem as well: normally, you would find a category "pseudoscience" or rather "pseudoscholarship" under an article dealing with publications such as these. The reason why I did not include this label at the bottom of the page is the one you have just pointed out: I personally cannot say anything bad about his work in his own field of expertise, and I doubt his publications there conflict with the scientific method. However, his linguistic work is nothing short of pseudoscholarship and should be termed accordingly. That his unqualified publications on linguistics might come back to taint his reputation as a scientist in general is his own responsability, not ours. Trigaranus (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to tell readers it's pseudoscience. If it is properly contextualised readers can make their own minds. Paul B (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Na I don't buy that, call a spade a spade. Otherwise we'd be talking about "the 1939-1945 period in European history" and listing the number of dead people involved and leave people to make up their mind if it was a war, conflict or spat. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A bizarre analogy if ever there was one. "pseudoscience" is a judgement. War is a description. No-one disputes there was a war. These things become an issue when simple descriptive terms like World War II are replaced by judgemental labels (e.g. War of Liberation Against Fascist Evil). Paul B (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is when you disregard the most basic principles of a field of academic research, as has been done. Barry Fell's or Devaneya Pavanar's works are not called respected cultural studies, either. Trigaranus (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what pseudoscience is and I don't doubt that A-V's work in this area constitutes pseudoscience. I am saying that we don't need to label. It's unnecessary. If a source has used the label that's a different matter. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done some corrections

1-Title is now less defamatory.However,I would like to find an aseptic title,soon. 2-Iberian was forgotten and now is added. 2-I have directed people to what we really say in English with a easily obtainable reference.Otherwise,readers cannot follow the article. 3-Last phrase was mistaken,I have rephrased it.You may find a better way.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More data and less "adjectives" (and less victimism tall stories)

Hello, I am a bit worried because much on the discussion is being on if Arnaiz that or that or that. The question is the linguistics theories which have been published with his firm (so accepting any responsability).

I write under a new title as I dislike the title "A LYNCH?" , and as the accusations that are written in it are uncivil (in the Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 language would say "defamatory").

There is a clumsy try to explain any criticism as a personal attack and this is simply unacceptable, even more: contradictory. There has been an attempt to discredit Lakarra saying that allegedly he has many feuds (in reality that he is brave enough to comment the mistakes he sees), so it is surprising when Arnaiz1 presents his own feuds and discussions on "races" as a positive proof that all critic against him is a lynch. Outstanding contradiction! (BTW, if he really believes that to review his linguistics theories is a persecution and a lynch....)

I think that the Usko-mediterranean theory is utterly stupid, but the title seems bad focused (IMHO). Maybe the first phrase on the paragraph may assert that they have claimed that Basque is useful to translate almost every ancient dead language; but I still believe that the title should be something like "the usko-mediterranean languages theory".

BTW I almost began my deleted edition with "it is a fringe science theory". Maybe it is not a bad idea, but the title should be more neutral (this is not a criticism as I fully understand that after all that silly victimism, accusations and trolling by A1 and V6 anybody would be tempted to be more explicit)

The Iruña-Veleia graffiti and so much insistence by Virginal6 on March seem to be only important because of Arnaiz conference in May (yes all those editions smell to me like spam and that this is why they prefer to keep silence on the Usko-Mediterranean question which was unilaterally deleted by Virginal6; the same who accused the rest of censorship after a long process of deletion of his article).

Much more important in their publications are their considerations on famous inscriptions (Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite). And yes as a person who have worked with cuneiform (and who knows something on Egyptian inscriptions, though as a humble "dumu eduba") I know that their hypothesis are a pure non-sense and that can be refuted in many ways (really in many and very spectacularly), but of course I wrote none of these refutations as they would be a kind of "original research".

On the epigraphic level: epigraphist are Javier de Hoz (a reputed expert on Iberian writing) and Werner Pichler, while Reyes is an expert on ancient languages of the Canary Islands. The rest are mainly experts on Basque, but I think that Lakarra's work is very explicit on the shortcomings of the whole theory as he shows a statistics on their mistakes: non-existent Basque words; changed meanings of Basque words; non-original Basque words but loanwords. I found especially interesting his references to the use of Basque words who are known to be neologisms invented in the XIXth century. And I must remember one more time that there is also the article by Múgika, whom even Arnaiz1 has not made any claim of his very idiosyncratic claims of libel.

In the redaction there is another question I think it is a mistake. The Usko-Mediterranean languages theory is not related with the Dene-Caucasian theory (only in the dreams of its authors, I am afraid). You can compare the Basque vocabulary made by Bengtson and the comparisons he proposes: very different to the Usko-Mediterranean alleged comparison chart. Note especially that Bengtson reconstruction can be discussed, but that he uses real dictionaries of the languages he deals with, he does not invent whole languages. So the relation with the Dene-Caucasian theory may be deceptive to the reader and should be deleted.

Another point which is missed is that of the impact zero of the theory and his absence in any reputed publication. They have not published even in 'Mother Tongue, and are not quoted even by the long-range comparisons much fervent defenders. Even Campbell does not mention it in his exhaustive list of long-range theories, who he likes so much to "debunk". They have had also an impact zero among the experts of Etruscan, Egyptian, Sumerian, Hittite, etc. etc. This is a fact.

Offtopic: Finally, I want to beg pardon to the wikipedia editors for my bad English, it looks like my 'subconscious mind' does not want to waste neuronal work with this silly question. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All of this have already been discussed before here and there [[20]]--Arnaiz1 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the U-M term has been dropped, so I've restored it. The claim that he has "translated" almost all ancient languages seems OTT, especially as many of them don't need to be translated. Surely it's the grouping of languages and the alternative readings that's important. Does the U-K theory link to the Soviet version of Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr's Japhetic theory I wonder? It seems to have a similar quasi-Marxist aspect. Anyway I've also attempted an NPOV title to the section that still emphasises the, shall we say, non-mainstream aspect of the theory. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy, they were dropped when user:Virginal6 unilaterally | deleted my whole paragraph on the Usko-Mediterranean languages, saying that the Iberian-Guanche page should be undeleted. You can see how it was before that deletion, as there are more question that have been dropped. (As an example, I have enlarge the language list; and still lack the American and Oceanic inscriptions....)

As for Arnaiz1 peculiar "idea" of repetition, anybody can see that it is not true. At least he can see arguments, not just peculiar "ideas" such as that any source who claims that the Usko-Mediterranean theory is stupid or ridiculous is a libel and so must be deleted; that ancient languages had no grammar , and so on.....

BTW Arnaiz1 did you know that there are books on grammar written some centuries before Christ?. Surely not. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to answer to the Japhetic question. According to what I know it is totally unrelated. In the first half of the XXth century there were some "orthodox" tries to link the Basque language with a Chamitic substratum that allegedly was the responsible for some oddities (alleged oddities) of the Celtic languages (works as those by Schuchardt for instance; but I believe that even in the second half there was published some studies on the idea on a Chamitic Atlantic substratum; he was called Wagner, I believe, and that there is some question in the works of Hubschmid). The idea of a relation between Caucasian languages and Basque was also very spread (for example by Trombetti).

Of course advances on linguistics have shown that most of the alleged clues has no relevance (typological coincidences or too irregular phonetic relations that never could get arranged), while there have only any credibility some phenomena of substractum under the Celtic languages, although scarcely decisive.

So the Japhetic theory had some sense in the context of the date in which it was elaborated, but has nothing to do with the U-M, as the Japhetic th. was based on real languages. The real difference in the U-M theory is that it changes the languages it studies prior to "discover" the relation between them (even Basque; whereas as long as I known the Caucasian languages are only mentioned as part of the family, not studied). That besides the linguistic nonsense of postulating the existence of languages without grammar (Chomsky would raise his eyebrows!!; I suspect than even Chimpsky will do ;-) --Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a more precise source for your claim that they reinterpret the Hammurabi Code? You gave a date which corresponds to three of his books. kwami (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, I can" ;-): in google books this link searching Hammurabi, especially chapter 4d pp. 256 (Caucásicos, turcos, mesopotámicos y vascos 256-265; as you can see too few pages). I quote: "no hay asomo de leyes en el llamado código. La temática es también funeraria y religiosa. Hammurabi se transcribe en vasco AMA-UR-API ("tumba en las aguas de la madre")" (besides some "minor" changes it looks like the H like in Spanish is mute :-D ).... "reglamentos religiosos funerarios de la Puerta". Note the changes at will: instead of 'martum' **MARRUATAN,instead of 'suketum' **SUKOATAN, so that from only one letter T he found his beloved "door" (BTW in Basque 'door is "ate" and the locative "atean"; much more similar to "gate" ;-).

Only one caveat: most usko publications have been written by both authors, in your editions some times you quote only to Arnaiz for references (like Egyptian decipherment) signed by both of them. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. As I was somewhat confusing with the reference of the quote (sorry, my fault) I have corrected it in the text. The chapter begins in p. 253, the literal quote comes from page 178. Sorry again. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a linching

1-This is not the place to discusss phrase by phrase all the books contents.Have you seen two different Sumerian scholars trannslating the same accepted transcripted text? I ahve not seen scientific fraud word in any Arnaiz-Villena publication.

2-FEGEL is a publishing company :Arnaiz-Villena has nothing to do with it.Read it carefully.

3-The Easter Island language the Mohenjo.Darro and Maya languages were never mentioned in any A A-V in publications.

4-Hoz wild assertions based on nothing,just an impression ,not a serious critic have been removed from the article.

5-Lakarra wild and subjective assertions on percentages ,by using about 50 words, out of all the thousands published by A A-V et al are not valid.They have been removed.

6-Pichler assertion in two lines of a bulletin has been renoved as unbased,he has not read any AA-V publication.

6-Iruña Veleia Basque inscriptions were declared false by some authors but one month ago this was rebuted by other linguists.My opinion is that this is an ongoing argument of Spanish media at present and is prenmature to mention in Wikipedia.[ http://www.scribd.com/doc/15461983/Comentarios-y-objeciones-a-los-informes-de-los-profesores-Gorrochategui-y-Lakarra-sobre-los-grafitos-en-euskera-de-IrunaVeleia]

7-You forget the initial question:”Latin or Iberian-Guanche inscriptions”.This should be added [21]

We should put in the Wikipedia article a short summary.We should also avoid defamation or statements which are not true.

This reference contains in English language methodology and ALL STUDIED LANGUAGES (never mayan,Hebrew,Arab,.Dravidians or others that some of the editors want to put on a Wikipedia article [ http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/~biolmol/publicaciones/Usko.pdf];it should be put first for people see that no other languages were mentioned.

Now the language paragraph dedicated to this page is bigger that other more interesting topics and most important , that are objective facts and not linguistic subjective opinions..I have dede it shorted;all information is there. --Virginal6 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am having real problñems at editing this page--Virginal6 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginal, if you do not stop blanking the article, I will ask to have you blocked. The only charitable explanation I can think of for why you would argue that even the most basic descriptions of his work are "untrue statements" is that you are completely ignorant of his claims. kwami (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again the incivility of Virginal6. Even if Virginal6 does not like it, the page of "Ediciones Fegel" is a valid source. Even in the very improbable case that the president of the Fegel had nothing to do with its own publishing house you can not deny that Alonso García is very involved and that he is the co-author of the Usko-Mediterranean theory, an that Mr. Arnaiz publishes his books in this publishing house. Do not forget the moral resposibility of selling books thanks to advertising that the rest of the world commit a scientific fraud. According to the web for Ediciones Fegel his aim is "[enseñanza y la difusión de las investigaciones de Jorge Alonso García y Antonio Arnáiz Villena, llevadas a cabo en diversas ramas de la ciencia]". And in that web while telling the story of Arnaiz, Alonso and the researches made by the FEGEL another quote: ""poner de manifiesto los fraudes lingüísticos que una filología extraviada, que ha llenado de datos apócrifos toda nuestra cultura" (note that in the section of the web in which this is said is talking as "Fundación FEGEL" not as its publishing house.

Again Virginal6 usual deceptions: Pichler quotes much more than two lines and comments some inscriptions affording the Arnaiz and Alonso's transcriptions and "translations".Any reader of this page should be aware that Virginal6 uses to assert data that happen not to be true.

Also the reports on the fake of the Veleia inscriptions were not made only by Gorrochategi and Lakarra, many others experts in different areas show many more proofs (beginning with the quote of Descartes among the Greek philosophers in the graffiti). In fact there is a judicial process open [22] [23] [24] and especially what the archaeologists say: «los grafitos se detectaron en el lavado, nunca al salir de la tierra» that no inscription was seen while digging. It's also false that there is any debate in the Spanish media on this question. So, no, it is not a lynching, it is anti-spam and anti-manipulation. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it also Iruna Veleia behind?

All comparisons done between Basque and Mediterranean languages by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena had been done before by others.I do not see here the need of doing a thorough revision of the books written by me.In addition, curious and spurious statements attributed to me are repeatedly being added:this is a mistake. 1-All European languages have a Basque base according to linguist Venemann.´ Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and South Caucasian and Berber languages all Have been compared (see review in book “Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100,ISBN:9027236348)

2-Egyptian language is also related to to East African and Berber languages by Gardiner In “Egyptian Grammar”,Oxford University Press,1969, [25]

3-Uhlenbeck,Bouda,Lafon,Marr,Dumeznil,Schuchardt,Reinesch,Pokorny and Trombetti have found relationships between Basque and Hamitic languages (Middle East and North African languages ,including Phoenician,Berber etc)

4-Bengston and Ruhlen have treated relationships of Basque and Hurrian,Hatti and many other World northern and southern Hemisphere languages (see book”On the origin of languages “ by Merritt Ruhlen,Stanford University Press,1994,chapter “Global Ethymology” by Bengston and Ruhlen,pags 277-336; ISBN-0847-2321-4)

5-Iberian language found in Canary Islands is not mentioned.This was the starting point. It needs to be mentioned.

6-Hittite has also been studied in relation to Basque (By Imanol Aguirre in “Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited by”La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca”,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)

7- Hundreds of pottery Basque graffiti from 3rd Century AD from Iruna Veleia Have been declared forged,based on linguistic arguments done by Lakarra and Gorrochategui.Respected senior archeologists have been sent to trial and removed from their posts.There are other linguists who have analiysed graffiti and find them correct[26]. This is an ongoing scandal in Spanish media.

8-The fight to dead of some non-identified editors of this Encyclopedia to discredit me by any means must be because they have something personal against me or are afraid of the Judges now investigating the Iruna Veleia affaire.Or both motivations are true.

9-I dislike, under my name, unusual wording for an Encyclopedia :”claim” or even worse,or phrases taken from an unsigned and not identified web page whith which I HAVE NOTHING TO DO.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not the president of FEGEL (I have no idea of what is it.Is it your work,Dumu Eduba? ) Do you have anything to do with me or with Iruna Veleia? Many linguists have done the same type of comparisons and you are after this page.I do not understand.

As you are Spanish,in the case you have not fabricated this FEGEL page,you can easily ask to the National Company Registry whether it exists or not.If it exists you will have the correct answer. In any case,I have never published in FEGEL,whatever it is.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are repetitions on the article section "Fringe...",I do not dare to edit further.I have removed thinking and writing attributed to me,which I never thought of;also ,remarks about Mayan and other languages I never studied.Inductive thinking on Semitic languages on which I never said a word has been removed.Defamations also have been removed I had already answered to them:Hoz does not say a word about Minoan or Etruscan in the defamatory comentary (crimes,...etc).Lakarra takes about 50 words out of thousands and say that some have been invented by us on porpose ,some others are Latin and not Basque and insults.This is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles World,even more under a page with my name,which is better known by another scientific ,more objective research.

It is necessary adding 3 or 4 words about Iberian in the Canary Islands --Arnaiz1 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop signing the article! It should not have the signatures of anybody in it.

Are you saying that you have nothing to do with FEGEL, and that they are misrepresenting your work? Have you and Alonso-Garcia not used Basque or Usko-Med to translate Elamite, Dravidian, or the scripts of Polynesia or Mesoamerica? Are you saying that your publisher is illegitimate?

You obviously know nothing of linguistics, since you are unable to distinguish solid research from garbage in the references you just gave. This is also abundantly clear in your books.

Wikipedia is not an autobiography. Generally, you are not permitted to write or edit an article about yourself. Your primary edits here have primarily been to remove valid criticism of your work. This is not acceptable. If you continue, I will ask to have you blocked.

Sorry, this is nothing personal. If you were to write that little green men from space visit you, we would add that to the article too. That wouldn't mean we are on a vendetta against you, only that you are responsible for the quality of your own writing. kwami (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Arnaiz1 is trying to deceive us, documentary evidence of his falsehoods

Mr. Arnaiz1; stop inventing accusations you know are not true.

First point, an image of one book written by Antonio Arnaiz Villena and edited by FEGEL as stated here (besides the use of the same logo of the FEGEL. If they are publishing falsifying your name, you should report it to the police. Will you?

Or why according your own domain , that of the Departamento de Inmunología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense of which you are the head it is also true???: "MINOICOS, CRETENSES Y VASCOS, un estudio genético y lingüístico. by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and Jorge Alonso-García Ed. Fundación Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos-Complutense" (a book of ten years ago!)

The same, if you really thought that the FEGEL webpage were a fake, you won't be so busy spreading accusations of libel against everybody, except against that "company" FEGEL.

You have said that (begin of quote) "I am not the president of FEGEL (I have no idea of what is it.Is it your work,Dumu Eduba? )" (end of quote).

But you can see that the FEGEL is the publishing house that publishes your books, and as you can see in the page La Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos (Fegel) nació con la vocación de profundizar en los descubrimientos de Jorge Alonso García y Antonio Arnáiz Villena].

I quoted that from your own personal page we arrive to this page, but you have not enough and prefer launching accusations.

you may think that I am silly with your accusations because it is very easy to find the official documentation of the FEGEL, in the Spanish "Boletín Oficial del Estado" [nº 158, July 3rd 1998 p. 22125 1nº 15835]: "Visto el expediente de inscripción en el Registro de Fundaciones Culturales de Competencia Estatal de la denominada «Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos», instituida y domiciliada en Madrid, Inmunología, Hospital «12 de Octubre», Universidad Complutense de Madrid, carretera de Andalucía.".... "Presidente: Don Antonio Arnaiz Villena. Secretario: ..... Tesorero ....., todos los cuales han aceptado expresamente sus cargos."

But you say that you are Antonio Arnaiz Villena and that you do not know what the FEGEL is.

Kwamikagami, this is a clear proof that user:Arnaiz1 who claims to be Arnaiz-Villena is writing lies. He must be considered a troll.

And of course the FEGEL is the official fundation for spreding the Usko-Mediterranean theory --Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Trigaranus (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos is an official government foundation(go to Arnaiz-Villena page).It has nothing to do with Fegel;

If this publishing company (made up or real),uses a logo which damages the government Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos,should report it. However,this is a peripheral problem. I have no a sentence or a book published by Arnaiz-Villena,talking about scientific frauds,Mayans or exotic languages, except some (not all as you say) Mediterranean languages. Just scan it and put it up here ,if you find it. I agree with A A-V ,have you yourself made up this anonymous unsigned Internet page? I have never had in my hands one of the books with thr logo Fegel.If they have copied an Iberian script Is it ailegal?If it is they should be reported.

And Dumu Eduba ,just refute whichever A A-V has written IN ARTICLES OR BOOKS about the attributions of false translations or interpretations that are only in Kwamikagami and your minds. I advise you do not accuse of falsehood to anybody with a name using a nickname.This tells all about you. --Virginal6 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"However, this is a peripheral problem" all of a sudden? This smells rather a bit like a case for WP:Checkuser to me. Trigaranus (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence 1: I afforded a webpage that clearly says that FEGEL is the "Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos" and claims to be that Fundación (that, BTW it is not an official government foundation, stop lying Virginal6, but a private foundation inscribed in a public registry).

Evidence 2: Arnaiz1 (whoever he is, as we have only his assert on his identity) does not say that tat web is usurpating the name of the "Fundación" he says that he does not know what the Fegel is (in spite of the fact that he has books published but "Ediciones Fegel", and in spite of the fact that that web says FEGEL is his foundation). He says he has no idea. He even dares to accuse me of faking the web (any more absurd and shameless idea?, the web is running at least for months and the domain has more than three years).

Logical: if what Arnaiz1 says was true his reaction should has been against the web, not against me!! BTW: This is evidence number three.

The only "charitable" explanation would be that Arnaiz1 is faking to be Arnaiz Villena (even if I do not think so). In any case he is trying to deceive us.

If Arnáiz VIllena has any complain against that webpage, easy: they have a contact page and a visible head, his collaborator Alonso García who is one of the author of the books on the Usko-Mediterranean theory and so a reliable source on its claims. But after so many contradictions, I am afraid that any assert made by Arnaiz1 or Virgina6 (probably it is the same one as Iberomesornix) made without reliable references lacks any credibility. Even their alleged real identities. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

IRUNA VELEIA IS BEHIND

Please,let the linguist reference who has dismissed the Iruna Veleia falsehood of Basque graffiti. Do not remove it once again (Elexpuru against Lakarra and Gorrochategui)[27]--Virginal6 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm not the best critique I've ever read. He mostly goes "I don't think so..." but offers few conclusive arguments. Not saying that Lakarra and Gorrotxategi are necessarily gospel but, on balance, I'd trust their arguments more than those of a writer/translator, however well read. In any case, it should be listed as a counter-argument, but not as ultimate proof that Lakarra et al are wrong. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the links and discussions on the fakes on Iruña-Veleia must be discussed in its own page. Especially since Virginal6 is distorting the report who have many more experts than Gorrochategui and Lakarra (another 24), obviously as part of his personal feud. There is much more documentation in the es.wiki article [28]. The simple fact that no inscription was seen while digging in the site, but after (while washing) would be possible for a few inscriptions, but for so many inscription is simply absurd.

So Virginal6 should discuss the Veleia findings in its page and not here. So, if he really minds the Veleia findings. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While I was putting the Elexpuru objection in a note, I wandered if his "article" is a self-published one. What a pity that his report have some serious data mistakes. But what upsets me the most is the oblivion of so many data pointing to fake, clear in many inscriptions. Is like someone saying "well in this roll of bills there are ten with the same serial number, two with the face of Micky Mouse, one with the word 'wan doller' but the rest is absolutely genuine and valid. If the draw is blurred is because someone washed. Take the money" --Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Fegel Publishing Co identifies a publishing company (by the way with another logo than the one shown,in fact they have two trees?) with Fundacion de Estudios geneticos (a government body [29].This should be reported.

The one name that appears is Jorge Alonso in a corner of the page.

Being well known that Arnaiz-Villena does not collaborate anymore with Jorge Alonso,A A-V should clarify your curiosity. Books written by Arnaiz-Villena have on fronf page “Editorial Complutense” or “Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos” [30] [31],never Fegel.

This seems a Jorge Alonso “factory “unrelated to Arnaiz-Villena.

We started with Iberian in the Canary Islands,followed by accusing Arnaiz-Villena for studying relationships that many others have studied (Basque and other languages).

Then ,Iruna Veleia graffiti started. Arnaiz-Villena has dedicated more to other publications ;he said he has directed more than 40 PhD students,which go and are free to do what they want.Was he referring to this case? Now,about the spureous relationship between Arnaiz-V and Fegel.

After this,please come back something of Iberian in the Canary Islands.

And if so many people have related Basque and all the Usko-Mediterranean languages put forward by A A-V,why do you go after him?I am curious. Next night we will end up with talking about A A-V sex partner (wife,mistress,?,if he has any at present). Please come back to languages.--Virginal6 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Urk, please watch your formatting a bit, it makes your comments really hard to read. You are right, many people have tried to link Basque to another language (family). But virtually all I have come across have only tried to link Basque to a *single* other language (except perhaps the Caucasian stuff, but if you look closely, most authors who have done so treat Caucausian languages as on large family). So those are your average crackpots which have been dealt with in the literature. In a way, we're all used to them, and the fact that every now and then some other nutter comes up stating that Basque is the key to reading Rongorongo or understanding space harmonics. AV stands out because he attempts to decipher just about every language around the mediterranean sea using Basque. That, combined with his "methods" which are even less scientific that those of his forbears, makes him a master crackpot. So no surprise he gets extra stick. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To Virginal6: ::What a pity this version on the Fegel was not the first one, so it sounds like an invent: you keep changing versions.

Another problem. As a mater of fact we do not know who you are (the both of you Arnaiz1 and Virginal6, and once the lie is proven all your asserts are dubious). You say that Arnaiz and Alonso are not a team anymore, but it is only your word and last year they published a book together. If this had been your first version probably I would have believed it, but you clearly have demonstrated that you know (or say to know) much more that what you claimed. If Arnaiz1 knows that Alonso is making his own things, why he was pretending not to know what the Fegel is and accusing me of faking the web. Too much incongruous!

But the real problem is that it is not enough with your word. You may be two children pretending to speak in the name of Arnaiz and your changing versions are a clear proof that you are lying and remember that even your last version implies that Arnaiz1 has insinuate accusations against me knowing they were not true. You have no credibility.

BTW there are no Iberian inscriptions in the Canary Islands, this issue was discussed and voted. The conclusion was that reliable sources denied this absurd idea. And BTW when I analyzed its many shortcomings you were unable to answer. Then you were launching accusations to and fro (as that utterly stupid accusation accusing Trigaranus of willing to steal Arnaiz's discoveries). You lack civility. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dumu, did you remove the following because you do not believe that Fegel is a valid reference for AV? :

Basque can even be used to translate the Indus script of Pakistan, Rongorongo of Easter Island, and the Mayan glyphs of Mesoamerica, showing that "Usko-Mediterannean technology and religion diffused across the planet."

kwami (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, it was deleted by Virginal6 [32] who has a very personal stake at the question and should not do it.

Maybe the paragraph should be rephrasing more centered in the U-M theory when quoting the data of the web as claims made by the creator of the theory, so as if some day A-V wants to publish a paper with his own different theory (if what Virginal6 is true, which according to the principle of Peter and the wolf, I doubt it very much), then we will have a reliable source about the alleged existence of two different U-M theories. For me it is no problem to distinguish in the wording between what published in books and what claimed when advertising them. What is sure is that that webpage is not a fake (even that his domain was created at the beginning of 2007) and that in Arnaiz University page Alonso has not been "expelled" appears as secretary of the Fundación... and also his curriculum.

Another question is that Etruscan inscriptions can be understood in great part; can be considered translated even if not fully.It is not a mystery anymore. (See for example in the it:wiki --Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some clarifications: 1-FEGEL publishing company:Alonso and myself stop collaboration about 4-5 years ago;this is normal with my students who have not remained closet o me as staff members.Last conjoint Alonso and myself publication appeared in 2008,a late date due to several problems (published by official Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos Linguistidos).Only our latter 2 books have been published by the Official Fundation.All other books were published by Editorial Complutense or by Kluwer-Plenum. 2-FEGEL is a publishing company apparently set up by Alonso.I have nothing against,but they have been told not to mix the Official Fundation with this company and clarify the web page as soon as possible.However,they have not mixed my name with a company I have nothing to do. 3-Critics to our linguistic work:it should be enough to state that Hoz critisized our first book (“Origen de los Vascos”,the other books had not come out in 1999) and send readers to a link with his criticism;Lakarra should be quoted as opposed to our work and send ,again,readers to a link to read his 10 lines critic of about 40 words out of thousands.. 4-Wikipedia page under my name is labelled as Spain and Palestine projects.I would not like to have inaccuracies (Mayan,proto-Indoeuropean…)or defamatory or bad words Or having the article converted in a linguistic one:we are more interesetd in other topics.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Fegel company.

I have never studied Mayan,or Easter Island languages.I have never accused anybody of scientific fraud. I have said nothing about proto Indoeuropean The remarks about a criticism by Hoz were before we published all but one book. I am going to reduce the linguistic part to a minimun ,and if there are lies ,which cannot be shown (Kwamikagami and Dumu Eduba:put up here an scan of where I have written this). Why do I maintain about Hittite and should not maintain about Mayan?These are all lies. I am going to edit heavily the criticisms of Hoz (before my books except one come out),and you are putting more text than Lakarra about 50 words out of thousands (he mentions us in a footnote)--Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnaiz1 curious mistakes on his own books (aka his never ending trolling)

Arnaiz1, who claims to be Arnaiz-Villena, deletes references as that of Champollion. Let's see what is in his book "Egipcios, bereberes, guanches y vascos":

• chapter title p. 309: "¿Se consiguió descifrar la lengua egipcia?"
• p. 313: “tenemos serias dudas sobre la correcta traducción”
• p. 327: "“La iniciación de la egiptología moderna es atribuida al investigador Champollion, por el hallazgo de las claves para traducir los jeroglíficos en 1822.”.... “No estamos de acuerdo con esa afirmación, pues tenemos fuertes dudas de que las inscripciones jeroglíficas hayan sido descifradas.”

After this they afforf new translatons of the book of the deaths, the battle of Kadesh, the Rosseta Stone and one papyrus. Translation suggested as right. If Champollion was wrong and Arnaiz right, what is the conclusion? This manipulation by Arnaiz1 must end.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

protected

This article is now protected. I've been watching this spiral out of control, and not been able to keep up. Please can everyone be more calm in your comments, and only use reliable sources here on the talk page.

No more talking about what Antonio Arnaiz-Villena has written, or what is written on some webpage.

If it isnt mentioned in a journal article, reputable newspaper, or book written by someone other than Arnaiz-Villena, dont mention it here.

Also, I would like to give Arnaiz1 the floor for a few days so that he can explain his concerns here in a way that neutral people can understand them. The article wont be altered during this time, so nobody else needs to be concerned that they need to respond quickly. If you don't like someone Arnaiz1 says, ignore it, and go work on another article, such as "Human Immunology". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have put a note on Arnaiz1's talk page explaining our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Dougweller (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will write concerns in the following days.Identity:go to Google,get my page (Antonio Arnaiz Villena).See also University directory.You may call or E mail me.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My web page ( Antonio Arnaiz-Villena,University Complutense,Madrid) has been destroyed (http://chopo.pntic.mec/biolmol) . Please go toUser : Arnaiz1 where most relevant work has temporaly been posted. Tel :+34913941632;E-mail:aarnaiz@med.ucm.es —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaiz1 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/biolmol/ has not been destroyed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Last Friday,Saturday and most Sunday was out of order.We have moved in again and updated files--Arnaiz1 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarks and proposal

I would not like to be crucified by months in this page “while we discuss calmly”(Dumu Eduba). Obvious mistakes could be removed as soon as possible.If we write in detail all other article paragraphs, we would fill all Wikipedia.I think that we should size this linguistic section on article.

1-I would like to remove soon languages which I have not even mentioned in my writings and “an invented accusation of scientific fraud stated by me”.The reference is a web page whith which I have nothing to do and my name is not in it. (EDITION A).Scripts names to be removed:Mayan,Rongorongo,Akkadian,Babylonian,Dravidian, Indus Valley, (Harappa,Mohenjo Darro),Proto-Indo-European,Greek,Latin,Semitic languages....If they still state that I have written a word on these languages,they should scan my false writing and show it here.

2-I have nothing to do with Fegel Company,I have contacted them and asked them to remove all quotations to Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos.I expect they remove it.

3-If Iruña-Veleia is to be mentioned, then mention supporters and non-supporters(EDITION B).

4-“Few scholars have found it worth their time to refute Arnaiz-Villena”:this a defamatory opinion.I think that they rather cannot refute (EDITION C).

5-DE HOZ CRITICISM: (1999)references only a small part of my work :the first of 7 books on linguistics .

a)Title of Javier de Hoz commentary “Travel to nowhere througout the Mediterranean:languages that Iberians,Etruscans,and Cretans did not speak”He does not write about Cretans a single word and refers to a single Iberian example to dismiss our whole work.

b)Statements written by Lahoz:

• 1-...sometimes this type (of books) are written by unscrupulous (“desaprensivo” in Spanish) people...,including people from the Academic World.He is stating I am unscroupolous

I consider this a false unbased accusation which damages my reputation.

• 2- ...(authors) do not know at all gramatical structure of Iberian and Etruscan...(This is the one single time he mentions Etruscan except in title).Grammars do exist as such only after Middle Ages and although some

Grammatical features ,not standardized and variable,must exist in the first times, but it lacks standardization.Our hypotheses on this topic are as good as Lahoz ones.

• 3-...(books authors) are a plain disaster (no further explanations).This is an un based defamation.
• 4-...(books) are an a aberration in methods and results.No further explanation.This is an unbased defamation.
• 5-...Public money has been missused to pay the issue of a book with a scientific interest similar to that of using wax puppets and exorcism to cure cancer. This is tasteless joke and a defamation..
• 6-A crime has been perpetrated and there must be a responsable person to pay for it.(END) .(He referes to deviation ofpublic funds... or to the authors?).This book was unusually reprinted.This is a defamation;Hoz is not a Judge..

Thus ,Lahoz does not criticise the specific content of the ONE SINGLE book which was out,but attacks the authors ,without any base:he only does not agree with one example( 2 words in Iberian). I accept this.Although ,I believe we were right.He does not mention Etruscan or Cretan (only in title) : only to say that we do not know a word of Iberian or Etruscan grammars:our hypothesis on these are as valid as his.Grammars did not exist by then,and these languages are not firmly and finally translated.Historic linguistic reconstructoins for ancient languages are hypotheses only ,including ours.

I have already (last year, 2008!) complained to De Hoz himself:we had a nice chat and I asked him to phone me up if he had any problem with our writings.We are full professors at the same university.

We should only refer to his opposition he only dismiss work and authors without specific critics,just a general dismissal. .EDITION D.

-6-LAKARRA CRITICISMS: -LAKARRA(in Protovasco,munda...in Ohienart 21,2006,229-322) He has feuds with some others ..His references should not be included in Wikipedia regarding to Dene Caucasian or Basque or in this page.He reflect extreme views.; he states:

• a-Page 242:Ruhlen and other seditious Greenberg underlings....Ruhlen is a linguist with different ideas,not a militar.Merritt Ruhlen is a linguistics professor at Stanford University and co-Director of a big project at the Santa Fe Institute of Languages.
• b-Page 243:He attacks senior linguist Theo Vennemann [33] just because Theo V. thinks that Europe is full of old Basque toponyms, i.e.:Basque or related languages were the ancient European languages. According to Lakarra,Theo V. put forward this hypothesis ,because “eager of success at any cost”.This is an extemist view
• c)-Page 245 (footnote):he says that from 32 Basque words used by us ,8 are Lating leanings (we hypothezise the contrary) and 5 are invented “ad hoc” by us[34]. Later,he acuses us of forgers.This is an extreme view and also he uses picaresque :he studies 32 out of thousands of words we have researched.Then,he transforms his “ 32 word study ” in percentages and ALL our work becomes 85% wrong.I do not think this is a serious critic.I would edit it(EDITION D).This reference should be removed.

7-WERNER PICHLER-He (?) writes in a Bulletin without adscription, editorship or peer-review “La Lettre D’AARS”.He dismisses “amateurs and specialists”:3 or 4 authors ,including us.We have studied Lybic –Berber Canarian Rock Inscriptions (from page 214 -243 ,about 200 Lybic Berber words) ,he does not critisize any of them and then comes to a clear secretariat Erratum ,which is corrected in any scientific magazine,issues later.There are several hypotheses.1)He has written the criticisms: he,who does not know neither Iberian nor Basque languages,did not notice about the Iberian Guanche inscriptions (he does not mention them).He might be upset abut that.This remark about us and about others would not have been admited in a regular magazine.2)He has not written the criticisms(he is quite old by now)I would remove this unknown Bulletin reference. (EDITION D)[]

8-JACOBSEN-He does not refer to me because its publication was before my first liguistics book was out. He specifically referers to a preliminar Alonso work (see his references),when I and my colleagues did not yet colaborate with Alonso.This paragraph is also very long and reflects only a point of view,about Basque language evolution which does not coincide with Alonso work (EDITION D)[]

-9-HIEROGLYPGHS-No universal claims of discovering were done or pretended by us. This is an editor opinion. Champoillon decipherment is not universal. Not a single Egyptologist translate the same hieroglyphic paragraph in the same way.There are no Egyptian Chairs at Universities:only Seminars. Many more Egyptian scripts has come out since Champoillon and a revision is needed . EDITION E

-10-OTHER SCHOLARS HAD DONE BEFORE THE SAME COMPARISONS THAN ARNAIZ-VILLENA,BETWEEN BASQUE AND OTHER LANGUAGES.

There is no cause for raging ,unless a lynching is going on.

1- All comparisons done between Basque and Mediterranean languages by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena had been done before by others.I do not see here the need of doing a thorough revision of the books written by me (at least in the article page).In addition, curious and spurious statements attributed to me are repeatedly being added:this is a mistake.

2-All European languages have a Basque base according to linguist Venemann.´ Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and South Caucasian and Berber languages all Have been compared (see review in book “Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.

3-Egyptian language is also related to to East African and Berber languages by Gardiner,accepted by almoust all scholars In “Egyptian Grammar”,Oxford University Press,1969, [35]

4-Uhlenbeck,Bouda,Lafon,Marr,Dumeznil,Schuchardt,Reinesch,Pokorny and Trombetti have found relationships between Basque and Hamitic languages (Middle East and North African languages ,including Phoenician,Berber etc);Hamitic languages concept might overlap with Usko-Mediterranean languages concept.

4-Bengston and Ruhlen have treated relationships of Basque and Hurrian, Hatti and many other World northern and southern Hemisphere languages,not only Usko-Mediterraneans (see book”On the origin of languages “ by Merritt Ruhlen,Stanford University Press,1994,chapter “Global Ethymology” by Bengston and Ruhlen,pags 277-336;(ISBN 0847-2321-4) [36]

5-Hittite has also been studied in relation to Basque (By Imanol Agirre es:Imanol_Agirre in “Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)

6-I have also removed references:1) to Iruña-Veleia from newspapers and recent web pages,following guidelines.2)to a web page on Egyptian-Bsque,following guidelines.

7-I have added “The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Linguistics” for contradicting our studies.

Please,read the text if see if it is suitable for a Wikipedia section of article.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Three questions:

1)which are the methodological or conclusions differences between Iberian translations and use of Basque words made by Alonso and yours?

2) Would you be so kind to spare us your personal attacks against the experts who have reviewed your books and to stop distorting their writings? If you really think there is defamation, go to the judge. On the distortions, I showed some of them and you repeat them here again. Is it a bad taste joke?

3)How do you explain that in Mother Tongue your works are ignored? How do you explain that neither Bengtson nor Ruhlen quote your discoveries?

And remember: to quote other authors with other theories (very different to Alonso or yours) relating Basque with other languages as a support is a logical fallacy, and so a nonsense. Spare us of these absurd fallacies also.

I disagree with prof. De Hoz in one aspect: as a matter of fact voodoo is more useful to cure cancer than your researches to Basque, remember the placebo effect. And everybody can see that the references to Champollion are not an "editor opinion" but the main text of your books. And of course your assert that "Not a single Egyptologist translate the same hieroglyphic paragraph in the same way" is a falsehood. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER

1-I have very superficial knowledge of Alonso methodology before he came to collaborate with us.Our metodology is based on : a-Multilingual cognate comparison of Ruhlen-Geeenberg:The same as used in Ref [37] by Bengston and Ruhlen,Chapter 14,”Global Etymologies”. b-My group senior staff corrections,as acknowledged in Books Introduction. c-Also,funeral and religious terms were taken into account. This metohodology is detailed in [38],pages 208-211.

2-I have not sent to Mother Tongue part of the linguistic work because,unfortunately, I have other compromises to do first,see [39]. However, Merritt Ruhlen wrote for one book edited by me “The Basque is included in the Dene Caucasian Languages family” [40] (Chapter 8).

3-Egyptian:scholars do not even agree in the meaning of “ka” [41].In addition, they NOW dismiss completely to E.A.Wallis-Budge,whith whom I agree in many parts of his writings: Important Note: the old grammars & dictionaries of E. A. Wallis Budge have long been considered obsolete by Egyptologists, even though these books are still available for purchase Egyptian_language .In addition they are many ongoing controversies,like Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers, [42] .--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mate, you have the craziest approach to wiki formatting ever. But never mind that. I've read the "methodology", here's a few thoughts for you:

1) Intuitive vs Non-Intuitive; you cite Modern Albanian vs Hittie as an analogous example. When making claims like that in a publication, it's a good idea to quote your source. I'm not familiar with Albanology to the extent I can put my hand on whoever tried to compare Hittie with modern Albanian. But whoever did so, well, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else is using - very elaborately formulated - guesswork out there should be a warning example, not encouragement to copy because I seriously doubt that whatever came out of it is considered mainstream.

2) Venetic, Lydian etc. Yes, of course those classification stand on shaky ground and if someone one day digs up a 500 page novel in Lydian written on lead tablets we may well have to reclassify the language. The thing is, there isn't any more material to analyse and in the absence of that, making an educated guess based on existing material and tentatively classifying is hardly unscientific. It's like tentatively classifying a fossil from half a leg. But until that day no-one can go claim it's a scientific certainty.

3) Your quoting your own work as evidence for formulating your methodology. That's perhaps not be best idea. The "shared Mediterranean religion" is presumably based on analyses based on the linguistic methodology you're re-proposing (unless I've missed something). That's like lumping the ostrich, cassowary and emu together based on their outer characteristics, then establishing a southern hemisphere "ostracine superfamily" and then claiming it is the key to classifying the nandu... It's a circular argument.

Perhaps you might want to reconsider? If a genetics student presented you with arguments like that for a PhD, what would you tell them? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Black he-goat (Akerbeltz in Basque),this is only a few of the linguistic works, which explains a methodology.

Most works write pages and pages trying to reconstruct a language: “Proto-Language” who nobody spoke.This is only a mental exercise which leads to nowhere (last hundred years). Cretan Linear B was deciphered by an architect (not acknowlegded as classical scholar,by then) Michael Ventris by a methodology completely different to the one that most linguists follow(statistical-combinatorial ). The same happened with an English lawyer,Sir William Jones in Calcutta:he related Sanskrit to Greek and Latin,by an altogether different methodology William_Jones_(philologist) Parables (about Australian birds for an Australian Judge?) are useless for these analyses that we are doing here.They mostly want objective evidences (even in linguistics) for Wikipedia.

Black-he-goat:please,put up your writings in this page;also your true name .I will scrutiny them,and some others will possibly do,also.You will see the outcome.

I should advise Arnaiz-Villena not to say anymore under his own name:others are not playing fair.They will mob you in a never-ending story:one day saying something against,the next something new and unexpected etc.You are too old and have too many writings,they have an easy work;if you like to be mobbed ,go on then.--Virginal6 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop being such a passive-aggressive wuss, Virginal. Implying nonfactual deductions and calling somebody an ancient portable keyboard instrument do not combine into forming an argument. As opposed to the present case, Jones and Ventris did in fact have some talent for linguistics; and as for your rather corny plea, their "writings" and their "true names" are on Wikipedia, and nobody is ganging up to have their findings removed. Before you get carried away too much by the spirit of martyrdom, please remember that this is not about mobbing, but about WP policy: "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first." Trigaranus (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Err... it's Arnaiz's choice to reveal his identity. Figuring out mine is easy with a modicum of web-searching skills but that, and the translation of my handle, is totally beside the point. Keep to the topic?

No one ever made the argument in this discussion that you have to have 2 PhDs in linguistics before your views count. So bringing in the amateur linguists of the olden days is irrelavant. Besides, Sir William Jones et al lived at a time when this science was in its infancy and they got lucky with some easy matches, any child can spot the similarities in the core stuff like the numbers between Sanskrit and modern European languages. Unfortunately, linguists have been at this now for a while and all the easy cases are gone and Iberian definitely isn't one of them. Sorry.

So, this is not about qualifications. No Wiki editor needs those (though I occasionally doubt the wisdom of that...). This is about collecting information verified by outside sources. Anything that can't be verified by bona fide sources is *always* vulnerable to being challenged. It says so every time you edit a page if you haven't noticed.

And you really both need to get over this victim thing. "Usko-Mediterranean" is by no means the only page/theory/stuff that are being questioned hard. You need to look around more, there are more hot debates going on that you can shake a stick at. It just so happens that this is the one that seems close to your heart. Sorry. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1rts: answer to the answer to Arnaiz1:

a) it's incredible that you say you do not know which was Alonso methodology. If you pretend to be an expert in so many languages (and explain the alleged real state of the art in Sumerian and Egyptian) this is a nonsense. Alonso (and yours) methodology is not the same that that of the long-rangers: as they are based on existing dictionaries and languages, whereas in your (of both of you) books there are proposed complete different new meanings and words. It's a castle in the air and guilty of the circular argument logical fallacy. This is a clear and very serious mistake, unproper of any serious scientist. As a matter of fact there is no difference neither in methodology, nor in proposals between the first books by Alonso on Iberian and yours (of Alonso and Arnaiz), and the criticism made by Jacobsen is relevant, as it debunks the Basque methodology you use.

b) The fact is that you (both again) are not quoted as a references even by the long rangers. It is a clear evidence that even they do not give a penny for the validity of your "researches". Let's remember one more time that to say that Basque is related to Caucasian or to say that it is related to Iberian do not make good any other proposal with the same ideas (in such a case it will "confirm" Bergua, Eleazar, Messeguer or Román del Cerro decipherments of the Iberian using Basque words, all of them very different to yours). Why do not refute them first in an article, if you can?

c) I perfectly know that Budge books are obsolete, but modern egyptologists only discuss on minor details (such as grammatical terminology of the verbs). It would be interesting to give the same papyus to you and to Alonso (separately) and to compare both "translations" (BTW this kind of experiments were done in the XIXth century especially with cuneiform). The knowledge of Egyptian is so advanced that there are phonetic regular tables of conversion with other Afroasiatic languages (such as Chadic) and with Semitic languages. That besides grammar and morphology, even for dialects. You may ask opinions in the discussion page of Egyptian language on your claims. If you only read English you should read the books of Allen, and Loprieno (in German there are also some very interesting books).

In any case what do is a clear assert (or claim) in Alonso and Arnaiz books is that Champollion did not deciphered Egyptian and also nobody before Alonso and Arnaiz (as they claim everybody to be wrong).

Note: on Virginal6's claim/accusation, I will suppose it means that he and alleged Iberomesornix are not playing fair (anybody must accept the verdict of his (or her) own rules ;-) ). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, friend: 1-It might be that you and/or other opponents have mistaken your enemy;A A-V is a relatively old person (as it has been written) ,who has already survived lobbies,mobbing and many other disturbances. Your enemies may be Wikipedia and Google.Please,fight against them. Wikipedia is spreading knowledge througout all Planet most hidden corners. Google is scanning and showing up many books and documents ,which many people woul not have liked to see even in the corner shop,because anybody can now judge (i.e.: Ruhlen ,Bengston and others’ books), Times are changing rapidly and they are overwhelming us.

2-All about Hittite/Albanian critics,Venetic,Lydian etc may be found in Ruhlen books.(most of them now scanned by Google)

3-About my methodology:you have not understood properly or it is very bad writtten.We did put forward several hypotheses that seemed to work.Whether they have become theses or not,time will show.

4-Linguistics has “advanced” since Ventris and Jones in some respects ,but not in others.It is yet too dogmatic and subjective.These two relative outsiders changed standard methodologies and got something out of it.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe linguistic theories

Arnaiz-Villena and his collaborator Jorge Alonso-Garcia have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are believed by scholars not related to Basque, including Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Ugaritic, EDITION A Elamite, and Phoenician.EDITION A .Arnaiz-Villena's Egyptian translations, for example, include the cartouche of the bilingual Rosseta Stone in which Champollion identified the name of Ptolemy, which in his version does not include that name .EDITION E.The Code of Hammurabi contains "no hint of laws" but is a Basque funeral text; They also have put forward to read poorly attested languages such as Etruscan, Iberian, Tartessian, Guanche, and Minoan, which nobody else has been able to decipher with any certainty. They posit that these are all part of a "Usko-Mediterranean" branch of the speculative Dene-Caucasian language family, which they extend to include the Berber languages of North Africa, EDITION A This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, EDITION A scholarship. Phoenician, EDITION A, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are clearly Semitic languagesEDITION A; Egyptian along with Berber and Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and some linguists have been unable to find a connection with Basque,but not others :Federico Krutwig related Guanche and Basque and other authors related Basque with Iberian,Etruscan,Minoan,Sumerian,North and 8 South Caucasian ,Berber,Egyptian and Hittite ..EDITION A,EDITION F [43] ,[ Towards a history of Basque language” edited by Hualde et al;John Benjanmins Publishing Co,1995,in chapter written by Larry Trask,pags 65-100),ISBN:9027236348.],[ Vinculos de la lengua vasca con las lenguas de todo el mundo”.Edited La Gran Enciclopedia Vasca,1980,Bilbao,Spain (ISBN:842480501)]. EDITION C De Hoz,1999 ,Werner Pichler-EDITION D (2005) and Joseba Lakarra strongly oppose these linguistic comparisons .Arnaiz-Villena hypotheses also contradict other established theories .[44]---Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

relationship with organisations

A lot of this discussion is confused about about which organisations are associated with Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (AAV), with concerns raised that other websites are being associated with AAV improperly, and saying things which AAV does not approve of. So before we go any further, I would like AAV to clarify his involvement with these organisations.

Here are four organisations mentioned on the talk page, where the exact relationship is not mentioned on the biography:

1. Departamento de Inmunología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, with the webpage here, and the staff list here
2. Foundation for Genetic and Linguistic Studies, with the webpages here
3. Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos (Fegel)
4. Ediciones Fegel, and the website http://edicionesfegel.com/, which states one of their aims is to disseminate the teaching and research of Jorge Alonso García and Arnáiz Antonio Villena.

This is my understanding of the relationships:

No. 1 is a department of Universidad Complutense, and Antonio Arnaiz-Villena is the head of the department.

No. 2 and No. 3 appear to be the same organisation, and that Antonio Arnaiz-Villena is president of that organisation.

No. 4 (Ediciones Fegel) is operated by Jorge Alonso-Garcia, and Antonio Arnaiz-Villena asserts that he has no current involvement in that organisation, and no current editorial control over their website. AAV disclaims involvement in #Remarks and proposal (point 2)

However as Ediciones Fegel appears to promote AAV's books, and prominently mentions FEGEL, the relationship was probably more complicated in the past, but we have no reliable sources that connect "Ediciones Fegel" with Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.

Is that correct?

Please keep your answer very brief. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with organizations-John van den Berg questions

1-I have nothing to do with a bussines company (acronymous Fegel or FEGEL).

2-I have not or will have anything to do with bussines companies in my life ,for earning money.

3-None of my scanty books benefits have come to me.

4-Please remove Fegel or FEGEL from anything releted to me;it has nothing to do with “Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos”.

5-FEGEL or Fegel IS NOT MENTIONED IN MY PERSONAL PAGE.I new about this name some weeks ago from your information.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are they publishing your books, if you have *nothing* to do with them? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arnaiz1, can you confirm that you are the head of Departamento de Inmunología? And can you confirm that you are the president of the Foundation for Genetic and Linguistic Studies? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Akerbeltz,my last two linguistics books were published by Fundacion de Estudios Geneticos y Linguisticos. Nothing to do with Fegel or FEGEL. Other books were published by other editorials. Next time call or E mail me; I will not be here. And only if you want to discuss what I have written in books or magazines--Arnaiz1 (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also left a message answering Vandenberg in his `page. I will not be here anymore for personal or private questions--Arnaiz1 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just silly. The Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos *is* Fegel.[45] And it exists solely to promote the ideas of Jorge Alonso y Antonio Arnáiz.[46] As they put it, "La Fundación de Estudios Genéticos y Lingüísticos (Fegel) nació con la vocación de profundizar en los descubrimientos de Jorge Alonso García y Antonio Arnáiz Villena, en disciplinas tan distintas como la ingüística [sic] y la genética." kwami (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the confusion is that Arnaiz1 is referring to "Ediciones Fegel" when he says that he has Nothing to do with Fegel or FEGEL". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They certainly imply that they are the publishing arm of Fegel. If not, that would seem to constitute fraud, as if "Cambridge University Press" sold books published by Cambridge University but were unconnected to it—so why has nothing been done? kwami (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think the same that Kwamikagami, especially contrasting the aggressive words of Arnaiz1 against De Hoz (even threatening with denouncing him) or accusing me of having faked the Ediciones Fegel web (as a whole invent of my own.... just too much time or money), but when it is proved that at least it is work of "his" secretary (the secretary of the Fundación.... as it still claims Arnaiz's web) there are only soft comments. But if Alonso had usurped the name of the Fundación, Arnaiz name and the authorship of his books (sold as by Ediciones Fegel), one may expect another kind of reaction.

On the other side, Arnaiz1 could have been more careful in the distinction between the Fundación and the Ediciones. In the web of Ediciones it is very clear that it is calling Fegel to the Fundación (explain: Fundación de Estudios GEnéticos y Lingüísticos). But he preferred to be confusing. That is why I am sick of his changing versions, and suspicious incomplete explanations; that and the fact that I am now over the 95% certainty that Virginal6 = Iberomesornix/Tintagel67 = Arnaiz1, many users, but just one person behind (just compare their contribs. it is too easy to see the peculiarities). Sorry, but I am as sick of this pitiful mockery, as I am of the offending comments of Arnaiz against De Hoz and Lakarra (who also deserve respect).

That said, the phrasing should be careful adding the sources, and very precise. But should include also the absurd claims published by Arnaiz on Egyptian and etc, as the article must be impartial. The page of Ediciones Fegel is secondary evidence. The critics to the method of use of Basque language should be added (so Jacobsen, who is very clear and concise). In any case we can spare the reader the comments that Arnaiz has written in his articles against Linguistics and linguists and academics (just the kind of comments he call libel when deal with him, even with some dubious words, such as "inquisidores"). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am Tintagel67 (AND NOT VIRGINAL OR AAV). I am not going to participate in this discussion.Also,there are some Spaniards here:they could consult what is Fegel Editions and who belongs to it by phone or E mail to the National registry.Also,it is a good joke you wish to blame AAV even of criticisms not directed to him but to somebody else by Jacobsen(?). As far as I know,multilateral languages comparison methodology (Greenberg and Ruhlen,also used by AAV) is unknown for Jacobsen.--Tintagel67 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

scientific fraud

This section is follows from the previous one. I am posting this now, but would like clear answers to the previous section before we discussion this "scientific fraud" sentence.

In #ARNAIZ-VILLENA OPINION (point 5) and #Remarks and proposal (point 1), AAV expresses that he is unhappy with the term "scientific fraud" in the following sentence:

“ Arnaiz-Villena and his collaborator Jorge Alonso-Garcia claim to have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are known to be unrelated to Basque..., all of which they claim have been misidentified and mistranslated by the world's linguists and epigraphers for a century; indeed, they claim that the past century of work across many nations has been a "scientific fraud". ”

The source for this is http://edicionesfegel.com/descubrimientos-ciencia-genomica.html, which is a website that AAV appears to disclaim any involvement with. If he isnt currently involved with Ediciones Fegel, this sentence should be removed. Either way, a better source is required because we could only use that webpage as a source to say that "Ediciones Fegel has said ...", because it does not assert who wrote that webpage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the quote to ediciones fegel may be deleted or at least re-worded. When I added the material I focused in the Usko-Mediterranean theory and write clearly "they" not he, after changing the focus (IMHO wrongly as all the "linguistics" works signed by Arnaiz are on the Usko-Mediterranean theory) it has less sense.

Even so, do not forget that even in the web of Arnaiz department (updated three days ago) it is still claimed a relation between Arnaiz and Alonso in the Fegel (the first as president, the second as secretary [47], and that that web speaks in the name of the FEGEL [48].--Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scierntific fraud-John van den Berg question-

This is a phrase written by someone who must be full of hate or faulty. I fully disagree with this attack to somebody and I would have never written or even thought of it.I am only concentrated in my much work.Courts deal with scientific frauds,not researchers. I do not know why I have to apologize about this;it reminds me the chase I suffered some years ago and it is (and was)clear I have nothing to do with it . Google is also scanning my books :I do not think they are promoting them.An anonymous page with one of my past students name (I have had about 41 students by now) should not affect me.--Arnaiz1 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The links between the two organisations are probably complicated, however we don't have any reliable sources about these two organisations yet. As a result, I think should remove edicionesfegel.com from the references, and remove the last part of the sentence:

indeed, they claim that the past century of work across many nations has been a "scientific fraud".

Any objections or other recommendations? As this is a WP:BLP, we should move quickly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the explanations given by Arnaiz1 are suspicious, as I have told at least twice, I see no problem deleting data from Ediciones Fegel (maybe only as a further reference link on the "Usko-Mediterranean methodology".

That said, if Arnaiz Villena do not deny to be the author (in this case the only author) of Lectura de la lengua ibérica we may add his criticisms:

• againstlinguistics ("una rama de la ciencia encerrada en su dogma y en si misma muy poco acostumbrada a las criticas"),
• against the comparative method ("Esta tendencia, aun seguida por muchos hoy, está abocada al fracaso.",
• against the reconstruted proto-language ("error metodológico es evidente y la mejor prueba de ello es la falta de resultados después de grandes volúmenes escritos"),
• against Indo-Europeanists ("La reconstrucción del proto-indoeuropeo es aun la obsesión de muchos de nuestros lingüistas, sin tener en cuenta que la palabra indo-europeo, puede ser vacua al incluir varios estratos lingüísticos de diferente antigüedad y varias lenguas que no pertenecen a esta familia (claramente el armenio y el hitita)",
• and against linguists ("Por qué llega ahora la era del fanatismo y de los inquisidores de las Academias de Lengua, que en un tema tan poco objetivable, como es la lengua quieren que no se estudie e investigue mas allá de lo que sus componentes han propuesto?");
• that besides his asserts on history of language: "Por ello no tiene sentido hablar de GRAMATICA HACE 2000 años, cada grupo de gente, tendría la suya y habría una mínima estructura común del lenguaje, le necesaria para entenderse entre los grupos humanos geográficamente cercanos o continuos.. ".

Those are the funny opinions on linguists and linguistics written by Arnaiz, the man who claims that to say that his publications on "linguistics" are a nonsense is a libel. (most of them repeated word by word in "Relación del Euskara con las lenguas Caucásicas y de las Américas " --Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editrequested}} Please remove 'indeed, they claim that the past century of work across many nations has been a "scientific fraud".' John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandenberg mediation does not want web pages as references. There is a web page from Fegel Editions which has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena.”Scientific fraud” has been removed because it was taken from this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginal6 (talk • contribs) 2009-07-11T17:35:05

Other statements sourced to Fegel Editions

Vandenberg mediation does not want web pages as references. There is a web page from Fegel Editions which has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena.”Scientific fraud” has been removed because it was taken from this page. In addition the following phrase should also be deleted:

“and advertises that Basque can even be used to translate the Indus script of Pakistan,[24] Rongorongo of Easter Island, and the Mayan glyphs of Mesoamerica,[25] showing that "Usko-Mediterannean technology and religion diffused across the planet."[26”

This should also be removed because: 1-Its only reference comes from the same page. 2-Arnaiz-Villena has never writteen anything about Indus script,Mayan Glyphs or Easter Island Rongorongo language.

This is an information which is wrong and misleads Wikipedia readers. THIS SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED.

--Virginal6 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is about references 24-26, which are all using http://edicionesfegel.com/descubrimientos-ciencia-genomica.html as a source.

Is there a better source for this text? If there is not, then this text should also be removed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the content supported by references 24-26. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked you were an admin. Is there a reason why you are asking someone else to do this? Otherwise, it would probably be better if someone familiar with the article did it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page after I was "involved" as an editor and also mediator, so I dont want to edit through the protection; there are also other admins who are heavily involved in this discussion, and I dont want it to escalate further. See also the {{editrequested}} done above. Thanks, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

John,after having frozen a page with proved false information and breaking rules according to you (unacceptable references),my opinion is that you should mend the situation.I agree with Martin.This false information is not a matter of voting:if it is false and cannot be proved true and comes from sources not permitted by you,you could disentangle this falsehood--Virginal6 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

KEEPING PROVED FALSE INFORMATION IN WIKIPEDIA

I do not understand all these technicisms.

I only unerstand that there are FALSE informations in this page ,referring to me(Antonio Arnaiz-Villena).. Please,tell me who name and E mail) is able to remove these false information in Wikipedia. I have already explained many times that I never studied Rongorongo,Maya or other languages.You are taking references from uncertain pàges. Why do you want to have false information on Wikipedia? --Arnaiz1 (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is false information in the page .JVDB editor asked removal.Author(disclosed) says that he never wrote about Maya ,Rongorongo etc.Why is this not removed?

See:#Other statements sourced to Fegel Editions

This is difficultly understandable----Virginal6 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi 88.9.50.72 of Madrid. How do you know that information is false?. According to Jorge Alonso García's web what it is said there are the discoveries made by he and Arnáiz-Villena [49], [50]. According to Arnáiz's personal (very recently updated) web, Alonso García is the secretary of the private foundation he himself (Arnáiz) presides [51], and according to Iberomesornix Arnáiz and Alonso where joined enough to send him a mail signed by both of them a few months ago [52].

If all that data is false, why so much effort against the wikipedia and so little against the web of Arnáiz's secretary Jorge Alonso García?.

Of course I am not saying that Jorge Alonso says the truth, but if he is lying the coherent attitude should be another, not to blame the wikipedia. Any comment on Alonso García? Because after insulting reputed professors as De Hoz and Lakarra, it is a bit odd so much circumspection on Alonso, while you are claiming that Alonso's version is an offending falsehood. So at least you should behave more politely.

BTW I suppose you are the same Virginal6. Did you forget to sign or are you in disguise ;-) ? (a few minutes after your return another IP of Madrid... , come on.... !! But your many sockpuppets do not deceive anybody. You know. And your continuous shouts in the titles, theatrical complains and accusations is just rude or even coarse.

Do you really thing that to change the title of the section on whicn Kwami, Martin, C45207 and Vandenberg for that of KEEPING PROVED FALSE INFORMATION IN WIKIPEDIA is polite?. No, it isn't, so please delete that faked distorting title. Learn to behave, please. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before:rules are clear John Vandenberg has asked this dubious web page references to be deleted.--Virginal6 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending material. The link was to something by Alonso, not AV, and this would breach our BLP guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)