Talk:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Add pp-protected

{{editprotected}} Please add

 {{pp-dispute}}

to the top of the page to inform users that the page is protected, especially since this is an indefinite protections. Thank you.—C45207 | Talk 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—C45207 | Talk 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

De Hoz quote

I am removing false biographical statements:

1-De Hoz comments dismissing Arnaiz-Villena work (in general )are not true:

He published a review of ONE BOOK "El origen de los vascos" [ISBN 84-89784-84-1],PUBLISHED IN 1998.ALL OTHER WORK WAS PUBLISHED LATER [ISBN 84-81784-66-3] in late 1999,[ISBN 0-306-46364-4] in 2000,[ISBN 84-7491-582-1] in 2001,[ISBN 84-7491-652-6] in 2001. See also [1] Then ,De Hoz criticism”to “Arnaiz-Villena”work has been removed because does not correspond to reality. --Virginal6 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"removed because does not correspond to reality": we are not here to promote the WP:Truth. Deleting ref'd material is considered akin to vandalism. kwami (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The source[2] refers to a "A. Apraiz" in a context which suggests it is referring to Arnaiz-Villena. The misspelling is not comforting.

Also, the criticisms in the article are primarily targeted at Jorge Alonso García, with Arnaiz-Villena only being a collaborating author of one of the four works reviewed. As a result, I think that more sources are needed, or the first part of that paragraph needs to be rewritten.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a typo for Arnaiz, Apraiz is a Basque surname and I assume it refers to the genetic research of someone else.

Arnaiz is not named personally in that article but it is a general critique of three books, one of whom he co-authored. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Apraiz is a typo, maybe only from the web version (I do not remember it when I read the original Journal, but my memory may fail).

I could suggest that De Hoz wanted to believe that the only responsible for the linguistic lunacy was Alonso and that the paper of Arnaiz was only the genetic and to make it to be published by the Complutense, but remember that the alleged Arnaiz has claimed that De Hoz article is a libel against him (A-V).

The problem with crackpot decipherments is that it is uncommon to be reviewed, and De Hoz (for example) only has space for a brief review in the journal. If we ask the reviews to answer every book and every page no criticism against any crackpot theory could be quoted. For instance: can you find any review against the decipherment of many ancient Mediterranean languages (via Basque) made by Alexandre Eleazar?. I could not. Means this that it is right?

Hence more emphasis should be done on the lack of followers of the theory. For example: Arnaiz claims that the good linguists are the long rangers, specially Ruhlen and Bengston (the rest of us are evil inquisitors). Then it is especially relevant the fact that even the long rangers do not even quote Arnaiz (or Arnaiz and Alonso) theories and etymologies.

As a matter of fact the most of the content of the first work signed by Arnaiz alone (the title and link to it were deleted by one of the virtual Arnaiz (Virginal6) himself when he deleted the list of his works that I have added to the article (why?) comes from the books written by both of them (Arnaiz and Alonso) as if he were the main contributor to this content. He has clearly endorsed the Usko-mediterranean pseudo-linguistics theories as his own, and the real thing is that he is known by the many books signed by him on the Usko-mediterranean theory.

As the U-M lunacy has not evolved but simply augmented the number of its victim languages any criticism against the theory is valid for all the books on it (and notice that their books use to have paragraphs and even chapters repeated).

Another theories signed by Arnaiz are interesting enough to be quoted: as that that linguistics is a science closed in his dogmas and do not want to learn anything new since before 1950 and that the academic translations of ancient languages are "science-fiction stories". If you want I can add the quotes to the article well referenced ;-). If he can write (or sign) such stupid radical theories, discrediting most linguists and most epigraphists, why hide to the world of such great discoveries? ;-). Yes, U-M theory is not only a silly theory but an insulting one. To hide this only because is too stupid is not NPV. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

VIOLATING LIVING PERSON BIOGRAPHIES WITH LIES

The statements written by Kwami are false and is violating a living person biographiy:

1. He is using ONE BOOK Critics FOR DISMISSING ALL ARNAIZ-VILLENA WORK ON THIS FIELD (see Discussion,just above, and ISBN numbers:most Arnaiz-Villena work is done after the critics)
2. In addition,according to Arnaiz-Villena himself thie is a defametory comment:

   dump of Arnaiz1 post removed; see #Libels or defamation in Wikipedia articles John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

IN SUMMARY,INFORMATION WRITTEN IS NOT TRUE AND VIOLATES WIKIPEDIA POLICY ABOUT LIVING PERSONS BIOGRAPhIES

--Virginal6 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone does research and the research is flawed to the extent that a word like bake is used as an "ancient Basque word" when the rest of the scientific world accepts this is an indubitable loan from Latin and therefore cannot have been in the language prior to Basque-Roman contact, one cannot complain if the scientific community picks up on such glaring errors. I would suggest better scientific methods to whoever carried out and published the research in the first place. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some notes:

The long paragraph added to this section signed by user Arnaiz1 ^{[now removed John Vandenberg (chat) 23:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)]} has been added here by Virginal6 (I tell this in order that future readers will notice. This paragraph includes disrespectful changes of the names of real person and even insulting changes such as to call to prof. Lakarra as Kakarra (kaka in Spanish = "shit"). I pointed this but user Arnaiz1 (allegedly Dr. Arnaiz-Villena as he claims) has not apologized not changed the text, showing that it is a real insult and a complete lack of civiity.

The user that writes as Arnaiz1, Virginal6 and Iberomesornix (this with his aka such as Tintagel67) has been shown many times why the content is right, even with an enormous patience. Even so, this page is being vandalised once and again. The page was unprotected on september the 27th, five days after has been vandalised again.

Let me explain the obvious. Why I am sure that all those users that are the only who have launched editions spaming the books of Arnaiz-Villena are the same person. See the history of their contributions. How many editors do you know clumsy enough to add the signing tag ( two -- followed by four ~) also in the "Edit summary"? . Once Virginal6 missunderstood the people who explained how should sign and after this th same mistake has been followed by Arnaiz1 and Iberomesornix/Tintagel67. I know that aftertelling this it would be more difficult to follow the prints of their sockpuppets, but the time has come for every reader to know the truth (of course there are other clear prints as his use of the capital letters). By the way I found the explanation on why Virginal6 was so insistent on the autenticity of the Veleia graffiti, when I saw a lecture made by Arnaiz on those inscriptions weeks after th insistent editions of Virginal6!

There is no difference between the methodology (simply stupid) and the translations of the first works by Alonso alone and those of the books signed by both (Alonso and Arnaiz) and the lectures made by Arnaiz. To repeat the same absurdity years after, does not invalidate the previous reviews. What Jacobsen wrote on the first Alonso's works is valid as the following books repeat exactly the same mistakes.

The very same titles that use to use those alleged many users, as that of this section, are a lie and a lack of civility in a spaming pityful way.

The spaming vandalism must be stopped. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall we add a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations? Or does this fail the 'quacks like a duck' rule, in which case we simply block Virginal6? (I haven't been following this for a while). kwami (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not well enough the wikipedia system in this cases, but I consider it to be sockpuppetry and a kind of spam/vandalism: one person impersonating three main users (Iberomesornix/Tintagel67, Arnaiz1 and Virginal6) trying to spread Arnaiz ideas, to delete any criticism again his theories and to discredit the persons who have criticised him (even with criminal accusations never presented before any judge or inventing ficticious prosecutions by the police as made the user Iberomesornix). It is a clumsy attempt of manipulation of the Wikipedia for propaganda. Shameless spam of the worst kind. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over a bit, I see that the other accounts are all inactive. Switching accounts is not sockpuppetry, even if doing so without notice is frowned upon. If we're to act against Virginal, it needs to be based on his actions using that account: deleting sourced info and the like. kwami (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course that switching accounts is not sockpuppetry, but you can easily find that it has not been the case. In the contribs history of this page you can see that the alias Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 have been coordinated and at the same time; and Virginal6 and Iberomesornix/Tintagel67 have been editing a the same time in the pages on the alleged Iberian-Guanche inscriptions and related. These users have being editing only on Arnaiz related stuff (not only on his pseudo-linguistics works but also on Biology). This is not neither a case of a person using and alias for some kind of pages and another for other kind, nor a case of a user who has changed of name (notice that this is the case of Iberomesornix/Tintagel and that that is the reason that I call this user so). And there is still the question that these three users have been writing uncivil accusations and offending comments.These three virtual users have being using wikipedia as a platform for writing against other persons with discrediting comments, insulting changes of their names, etc. This is not what the Wikipedia is for. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But that was back in July. We should have done s.t. then. Virginal6 is explicit that he is the same user as Arnaiz1, so the only question is whether Virginal/Arnaiz is the same as Iberomesornix/Tintagel. As it is, all other accounts are inactive; if this happens again, we can deal with it then. kwami (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess that Virginal6 was explicit on he to be Arnaiz1 by private mail (else, please, show the link), in the wikipedia Virginal6 wrote on Arnaiz1 as a third person and even wrote advices to him. SO it is clear that the Virginal6 user that launched so many accusations of personal hidden interest, censorship and other conspiracies theories against any user who considered wrong his editions was Arnaiz1 writing spam on his theories and discrediting any other contributor. This is also not fair, just to tell an euphemism.

I afforded the evidence already on Virginal6 being both Arnaiz1 and Iberomesornix/Tintagel, evidence as that used in forensic linguistic. Have you any opinion on the bad manners, bad taste jokes, denigrating and offending comments and invented accusations written by those users? --Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

They could also be friends or colleagues who have taught each other how to use Wikipedia, which would explain why they edit in a similar style.

However it does not matter if they are the same person unless they edit war together, or we have a vote and they all vote. If they edit war together, they should be given short blocks; if they vote together, we can ignore the extra votes.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The friends theory is most improbable: two persons learning the same silly mistake? Only Virginal6 was adviced on his bad use of the signing, then make the mistake.... and then Iberomesornix who have had time editing learns the same mistake?. In any case, Virginal6 was already a suspected sockpuppet of Iberomesornix (who also has a section on his sockpuppets). In any case it should be stated in their user pages that Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 are the same person as they have being editing this page pretending to be two different persons at the same time and (self)-supporting their (mutual) arguments.

Once again, I see that the offending comments and jokes and discrediting comments (as also the uncivil behaviour and usual false accusations of lie) made by these users do not matter to anybody. I am very disappointed with the wikipedia. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be ONLY concerned if what you are doing in this page is stating trues or distorting reality and damaging Wikipedia.

First of all what are your identities? Are you concerted?.

This does not matter if you are stating wrong information and damaging living persons reputation--Virginal6 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Virginal, rather than choosing ever more bombastic Edit Summaries, if this upsets you this much, perhaps you should try and find some third party sources that say Arnaiz's research is not bollocks? And could you please stop writing comments with formatting that is all over the place? They look like you used copy and paste from Word. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why I seriously doubt we're speaking with Arnaiz. More likely a secondary-school student. kwami (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it fits with what Arnaiz was doing but either way, I agree that for now things are reasonably well under control on all affected pages without having to go to blocks. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is that I doubt user Arnaiz is actually Arnaiz. No-one with such behavior could hold a teaching post. kwami (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, did you ever hear the phrase "Spain is different" or the work of Ortega y Gasset "Todo es posible en España" (Everything is possible in Spain) ? (the expresion "Todo es posible en España" is found 804.000 times in Google). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that's not true. It would mean Spain has a pathetic excuse for an educational system. I mean, it would be one thing if it were at Pat Robertson University, but Complutense is one of the most respected universities in Spain. I prefer to think that our WP editors are just hacks who believe Arnaiz because they read him somewhere. kwami (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to be so optimistic. But, alas!, look at the origin of some of their IPs, not only all from Madrid, but sometimes from computers belonging to the Public Health System of Madrid (somebody writing from the work-office, I am afraid). Wish I were wrong :-( :'-(.That said, the everything is possible in Spain sometimes is positive (the classical example is Ramon y Cajal of course, an a priori most improbable oasis). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PALESTINIANS AND JEWS

Original paper is here [3] --Tinpa (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I've never read this in full before. I can't judge the genetics, but the rest is hilarious. It's a compendium of A-V's pet obsessions. Choice moments:

"Palestinians named their leaders or princes as “seren” (Basque, Zar = old man, en = the most important). The study of this and other words suggests that they spoke a Dene-Caucasian language like other Mediterranean populations."

"Alexander the Great surrendered Gaza after a long siege about 333 BC."

"In fact, the Palestinians are nowadays thought to come from the Egyptian garrisons that were abandoned to their own fate on the Canaan land by 1200 years BC."

"the most ancient Greek Pelasgian substratum would come from a Negroid stock. A more likely explanation is that at an undetermined time during Egyptian pharaonic times a Black dynasty with their followers were expelled and went towards Greece where they settled."

Paul B (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Never mind that zar is a contraction of disyllabic zahar. And I must call my old history teacher... I was erroneously taught he TOOK Gaza roundabout then. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Very brilliant. What will be the next? Who has delivered this idea?. I do not think this paper has anything to do with the present discussion. Is it the original paper?--Virginal6 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He wrote it. Live with it. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dumu:Kakarra seems to me more a writing mistake.Many of us do mistakes :bothat English grammar and spelling.--Virginal6 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late. I complained for this and other bad manners months ago and nobody apologized (neither its virtual user author Arnaiz1). And to call Lahoz ("the sickle") to De Hoz should have been some kind of magic typo ;-), and I am still waiting for any kind of proof of the criminal accusations wrote by other of your virtual users (Iberomesornix) as I asked him (or it?) to do. The fact is that your virtual users are using the Wikipedia as a propaganda launchpad of the works of Arnaiz, and to launch discredit comments and insinuations against any researched who has reviewed the Alonso and Arnaiz crackpot works. This is why I think that all your users should be blocked. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul B I think this paper (if it is the genuine) was removed and destroyed.None of the authors seems to have promoted the paper,even at least 2 of them having own blogs. Or some of then have died?Are you suggesting punishing all authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginal6 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be talking gibberish. The link to the paper was posted by Tinpa, a new editor who has appeared out of nowhere and whose motives are known only to him/her. However, it is certainly the most famous of all A-V's publications and is therefore highly notable for this article. The fact that it makes laughable assertions about history is no-one's fault but the authors, and A-V is clearly the principal. Whether the authors have 'promoted' it or not is irrelevant. They did not withdraw it. It was withdrawn against their will. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. And Virginal, if you're going to use the language argument, perhaps you should reduce your English level from 4 to 3 in your Babelbox - because at the moment it states you have near-native abilities. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Arnaiz-Villena et al were and are anti-Jewish .They wrote a paper and were invited to give a seminar to Jerusalem

See below:

Tissue Antigens. 1996 Jan;47(1):63-71.

HLA DR and DQ polymorphism in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews: comparison with other Mediterraneans. Martinez-Laso J, Gazit E, Gomez-Casado E, Morales P, Martinez-Quiles N, Alvarez M, Martin-Villa JM, Fernandez V, Arnaiz-Villena A.

Department of Immunology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

HLA-DR and DQ alleles have been detected by DNA typing in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews from Israel. Allele frequencies, characteristic DR/DQ linkage disequilibria, population distances and their corresponding dendrogram by using the Neighbor-Joining method were used to study relatedness between Jewish and other Mediterranean and non Mediterranean populations. Closest relatedness is observed between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews, and, in decreasing order, also with Algerians, Spaniards (including Spanish-Basques), French and Italians. Also, particular characteristic Central European alleles are observed in Ashkenazi Jews and Mediterranean/African alleles in non-Ashkenazi Jews. This is consistent with historical data, Jews being an ancient Mediterranean population, who have had a certain degree of admixture with their 2000-3000 years old neighbors in spite of cultural and religious traditions which have preserved identity outside Israel.

PMID 8929714 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

This paper was not critisized but acknowledged.Methodology is exactly the same one than that used in the Palestinian paper--Virginal6 (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, there is nothing at all on this talk page or in the article about anti-semitism. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest and biased editions of user Virginal6

I have reverted the deletion of my edition made by Virginal6 who claims that "Editor over -interprete quotation", but clumsily deletes also the quote of the opinion of Prof. Lakarra, which is this:

• ""De ello se deduce que el 85% de las formas vascas (supuestos cognados) son inservibles a efectos comparativos cuando no rozan la falsificación más burda; y no se piense que al menos las comparaciones basadas en el 15% restante son oro de auténtica ley"..."habría seguramente mucho que decir"

Also literal is Lakarra' conclusion on: "voces fantasma inventadas ex nihilo" and "variantes inexistentes inventadas ad hoc".

It is obvious that my abstract is faithful to Lakarra's opinion; as it is obvious that Virginal6 deletes the literal quote to hide this truth.

On the other side I have showed many times that Virginal6 is in fact the same user that claimed to be Arnáiz-Villena, that this (and other virtual users of the same person) have been launching pitiful personal attacks against the reputed professors and experts that have reviewed Arnaiz linguistic publications (of course all the expert reviews are very very very negatives), including offending comments, trolling changing their names (as Kakarra instead of Lakarra), bad taste insinuations and even explicit penal accusations (that's to say real libels against these professors) and have tried to delete the references to these reviews in a clear attempt of censorship and to achieve a favorably biased text. That besides the spaming of Arnaiz lectures (as the question of the alleged Iberian-Guanche inscriptions or even the Veleia false inscriptions just a few weeks before Arnaiz's lecture with his "translations").

Abuses, distortions and uncivil actions by Virginal6 (and his virtual alias and puppets) must come to an end.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So, do we protect the article against all but admins, or do we block Virginal? Because this is getting silly. kwami (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Independently of the solution, I believe that Virginal6 and his puppets have made merits enough to be blocked, but this is another question as he probably will pre-fabricate more "editors". They have being getting tolerance resorting to claiming to be victimized (accusations of libel, censorship, conspiracies, etc. etc.).

I suspect that there have been more biased editions in this article (curious anonymous editions with none or non verifiable references which contradicts easily verifiable sources), but again that is another question that sometime some administrator should review. I prefer to believe that it is a problem of bad editions and bad selection of sources instead a deliberate fake of the biography. By the style of the editions I suspect that Virginal6 knows what editions I am talking on without further details.

Maybe the best should be to let under control of administrators only (at least in this way I won't be able to edit ;-), but I ask some common sense as sometimes they have agreed to Virginal (and aliases) requests with IMHO dubious arguments. They should be aware that these virtual users are only trying to get a favorable article, not a faithful and impartial one.

And of course this is not getting silly, Virginal6 (and etc) is trying to get this silly with his continuous interested interferences, and this is why these interferences must be stopped.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this article since the protection was lifted. I'd have far more respect for Virginal if he had anything productive to contribute to WP in general, yet all he is harping on about is this article. I'd actually welcome a block on his account, as this is getting really tiresome. The edits certainly are biased and disruptive (let alone badly executed, and terribly tedious), but is this sufficient grounds for a block? I'm sure if he has nothing to hide he would agree to have Check-user run? Trigaranus (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What I showed here is a proof by itself, without needing further check-user (see the legal use of the forensic linguistics. Then add all the uncivilities, insults and dephamations written by those users.... --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if a user claims to be the subject of the article, then we can assume that they are for the purposes of enforcing autobiographical COI. I'll give a warning. kwami (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The long review of Arnáiz & Alonso book "Egipcios, bereberes, guanches y vascos" by Prof. Luis María Mujika Urdangarin

I mentioned it before, but has been forgotten by the editors.

There is a long review on the book "Egipcios, bereberes, guanches y vascos" published by Prof. Mújika (whose 1982's doctoral dissertation deals with the origin of Basque lexicon) (see a biographical article [here]). Review that was published in Spanish (after a first version in Basque) in the Real Sociedad Bascongada de los amigos del País. Boletín LIX - 2003-2.

This review should be added to the article as adds many data on the use of modern Basque words who are late Latin and Romance loanwords to translate ancient inscriptions. Other interesting mistakes showed by Prof. Mújika are, for instance, the use of a word invented in the XIXth by Sabino Arana ("aba", one of his many neologisms), an absurd mistake repeated many times in the writings of Alonso and of Arnáiz; the claim that the Biblical Satan is a Basque word (allegedly "Su-atan") or that Zoroaster is also a Basque word (from 'su' "fire" 'ur' "water). I can't help to say that, although charitabily Mújika does not mention it, Zoroaster (Zoroastro which is the Spanish word that Alonso and Arnáiz use) is an Greek version different from original Zarathushtra (see Zoroaster ) and a clear Iranian meaning; as also there is a clear Semitic explanation of the name Satan (the adversary).

This review can be read (in Spanish, but it is not so difficult) in this [link], and an abstract should be added.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mujika is a very nice person who is ready to rectify (almoust a unique case in this field).

He has claimed THAT BASQUE LANGUAGE LEXIS IS CONSTRUCTED BASICALLY FROM LATIN LOANS.

Many linguists,now (all supporting the Dene Caucasian hypotheses,including Vennemann), do think that Basque (or Basconic) language has given more loans to Latin than the opposite. Basque-type languages are older and Basconic toponimics and hydronimics can be found all over Europe.

Mujika is just making a mistake;that is all.Present day Basque has a majority of its own initial lexis.--Virginal6 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with this page though? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah get it. Virginal, you're approach to formatting is a mess, will you *please* think before you hit the Save page button? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Akerbeltz,this is the problem that people creates by saying that Mujika is against “Egipcios,Bereberes,Guanches and Basques” without getting a universal reference that everybody can follow(in English).

Mujika critics to this work is just based on that most analized lexis in it, are Latin loans and ,thus, most of the work is not valid--Virginal6 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Virginal6, your original research bongo-bongo theories are no Wikipedia matter. By the way, read Caro Baroja and Koldo Mitxelena books on the real scope of Latin loanwords in Basque. Mujika is a reputed expert on Basque language, he has published in regular journals, and hence his article is a reliable source.

And of course no proponent of the Dene-Caucasian theory, nor Vennemann has supported Arnaiz-Villena ideas. And also of course your assert that "Many linguists,now (all supporting the Dene Caucasian hypotheses,including Vennemann), do think that Basque (or Basconic) language has given more loans to Latin than the opposite" is just a not true fancy idea. Please, spare the Wikipedia of your spam (especially since you have a clear COI) --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Vasconic substrate hypothesis

I have removed the link to the vasconic substrate hypothesis from the See also section, because I don't see a connection between it and this article. It is not mentioned anywhere else in this article, and neither is Antonio Arnaiz-Villena in the article on the hypothesis. --Schuetzm (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It was there because of topicality I guess - AV uses "Basque" and "Basque substrates" to support many of his ideas and the Vasconic SH falls into the same category. I think we should restore the link but perhaps make it clear somehow that that's the link. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Virginal6 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena attackers are not linguists

This last June 9th 2010 libel needs to be removed because: 1-Source is a sensationalistic newspaper which was working against Arnaiz-V. A previous WP editor who was previously taking care of this page (van den Berg) forbid newspapers as a source for this page. 2-The Judge real sentence was cancelled by Supreme Court in 2004 .It does not exist.It is a crime to widespread its false content by any media,including Wikipedia.In this case ,its content is distorted in the newspaper,in addition.. 3-Arnaiz-Villena was never punished by anything.All acusations were shown not to be true . 4-Dumu Eduba ,an apparent linguist who is concerned with specific linguistic topics whith which do not agree with Arnaiz-V,as come out as interested in distorted and not extant Law Arnaiz-V matters.Dumu-E goes against Arnaiz-V by itself:he would seem more an Inquisition executioner and ,language disagreements were only excuses.Virginal6 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Virginal6 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Virginal6 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you, for once, come up with evidence for your claims? You'd be a LOT more believable. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am getting a bit tired of the usual personal attacks and stupid nonsenses written by the tandem Arnaiz1/Virginal6 (and his aliases Iberomesornix etc.). So I did some research for rewarding his (their) campaign.

Let's remember the edition who added that all accusatons were invalid: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena&diff=127375876&oldid=125162936. This was an edition made by an anonymous user (IP from Madrid!) who wrote:

However, Prof Antonio Arnaiz-Villena from Universidad Complutense-Madrid(and a group of close and reputed collaborators Prof J.Martinez-Laso and Prof M. Martin Villa) were falsely accused of a variety of unproper conducts. Arnaiz-Villena was suspended in the hospital and continued his work at the University.One year later he was reinstated in hospital because "his basic and Constitutional Human Rights had been broken" according to a three body Court(1).All accusations were declared invalid (Sentence 184,TSJ Madrid,February 19th 2003).Another,three body Court Sentence again declarared invalid all the accusations (Sentence TSJ,Madrid,January 10th 2004)(1).Arnaiz-Villena was in practice never punihsed because,belongs only to University staff (Full Professor) and not to the Hospital one.The Public Prosecutor in an unusual 13 type-written sheets concluded the the accusations were not proved and that some of Arnaiz-Villena collaborators were forced to declare against him.Lasttly,The Royal College of Physicians of Madrid carried out an extensive investigation at Arnaiz-Villena instances and concluded that none of the accusations were based and were done following interests (probably because they were offered a permanent Civil Servant post in Administration)(Reference 11/02-CM22/02-CD)(2)

According to the anonymous from Madrid "All accusations were declared invalid (Sentence 184, TSJ Madrid February 19th 2003)" but as the reference I put clearly states this is false, as there was a sentence in November 2003.

They (he) claims against rthe El Pais as sensationalist which is also a falsehood, but the new is also in the Diario Médico date 12th november 2003 (quote of the title and header: "Arnáiz Villena, suspendido de empleo y sueldo. Una sentencia del Juzgado de lo Contencioso-administrativo número 8 de Madrid ha confirmado los 33 meses de suspensión de empleo y sueldo que fueron impuestos a Arnáiz Villena en vía administrativa.").

Neither in EL PAis, nor in Diario Medico could I find any reference to the absolutory sentence of 2004. If anyone can find it, please publish the reference.

Other visible information links who delas with the question are 1)Febr. 19th 2002 wherw Arnaiz accuses "the Jewish Lobby" of conspirate against him); 2) March 17th 2003 , 3) March 6th 2002.

As a matter of fact there is info on the sentence 184, which according to the anonymous invalidated all accusations, and it turns out that this info is a lie. According to DIario Médico (signed by Diego Carrasco, section Normativa, 12/March/2003) (on sentence by TSJ Madrid Febr. 19th: Por su parte, el TSJ de Madrid señala que las infracciones administrativas eran "el presunto trato vejatorio hacia dos facultativos adscritos al servicio y también las presuntas irregularidades en la recepción y uso de reactivos para la realización de pruebas asistenciales en Inmunología". Los magistrados, que acogen los argumentos de Miguel Angel Santalices, abogado del médico, aclaran que "aun cuando las razones esgrimidas por la Administración al adoptar la suspensión justifican sobradamente tal decisión, la indeterminación acerca de su duración hace que se trate de una medida carente de proporcionalidad y vulneradora de los derechos fundamentales". The sentence deals only with formal questions of the administrative sanction. Did not invalidated the charges.(As a matter of fact, the complete text of the sentence can be read in vlex).

It looks like quoting some sentences is a crime, but to lie on te content of other is valid.

So I do not know anything on the sentence of January 2004, but there are clear biased (very biased) mistakes pro Arnaiz in the text, and this is very suspicious. A thing is to assume good faith, another once the bias (and falsehood) is stated. If Arnaiz1 (or his aliases so kind of launching libel accusations) want do accuse somone I suggest to begin reclaming to EL Pais and Diario Médico, journals which published many data and articles on the questions (even when the sentences were favourable to Arnaiz) but no comment on the sentence of January 2004.

I did not want to be so harsh but the new censorship campaing by the Arnaiz1-tandem make me have to say that I am very sceptical on that sentence.

Again, if someone can find any reference to that 2004 sentence, please let us to see it, I searched and could not find it.

BTW. Some time ago I afforded evidence that users Arnaiz / Virginal6 / Iberomesornix and others were the same person, in the modern edition they are still adding the sign tag to the resum of the edition. And of cvourse neither Arnaiz nor any alias of the tandem are linguist nor have any idea on the matter :-). Now, let Arnaiz1 and his many aliases/puppets to insult me (again).

Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Arnaiz and his collaborators should not work on this article per WP:COI. If there is a defamatory statement (a statement which cannot be corroborated), then it can be removed per WP:Living. But Arnaiz should go to that page and request that it be removed. Meanwhile, all edits by Arnaiz and collaborators should be reverted. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, Many people is manipulating this page including yourself.Your interests are linguistics,only apparently. I have touched it,quicly, sometimes. I have gathered that the sentence was given by TSJ (Madrid)(equivalent in this case to Supreme Court,as you know,because there is no possible appealing)-Section 7-Sentence ,No 104- Jury composed of 5 people,not only 3) and being the “ponente”(one who proposes), Judge Carmen Alvarez Theureer. I am fascinated for your interest as linguist on Judge sentences. They will send to you if you ask it ,or not: they will only give to “interested” people.Were you? We have not yet discovered ALL who participated in the Arnaiz-V hunt.Most of them are now pin-pointed. I am reverting the change again because what you want to write is more or less written 4 lines above.Virginal6 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Virginal, you have an apparent conflict of interest here. Therefore I will revert you, not because I disagree with you, but because of that conflict, and because your edit war has gone on ridiculously long. Please take any complaints to WP:Living or WP:ANI. If someone there restores your edit, I will not revert them. If you go that route, I don't think anyone here will revert it, and if they do, I will revert them! So please, take it through proper channels so that this can finally be resolved. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Virginal 6, do you refer to a sentence number or to an Appeal number? Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

There's obviously a big complicated issue here, and OTRS 2009092710040187 has raised some issues and complaints. As such, I've removed the contentious section completely; it's posted at /Draft. Discuss your edits on the talk page, come to a conclusion and a version that you agree on, then request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's easier said than done as User:Virginal6 rarely comes up with an argument backed by anything including common sense. I'm not sure if the removal is justified as it's just a single persistent edit warrer who insists on POV pushing. Naive question therefore, how do you suggest we agree a version if everyone but Virginal6 was agreed on the one you removed? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PS How does one view that ticket? Or is that admin view only because none of my Wiki logins work there. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need at least a summary of the ticket if we're to address it. — kwami (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is in practice impossible to "reach agreement" with all the parties, since there is an obvious POV warrior in the ring. So the terms of this request potentially amount to censorship. Originally this section reported on the charges that had been brought, charges that were reported in several English language sources. I was the creator and sole editor of the article up to that point. [4] In May 2007, a week after the creation of the article, an IP added a passage asserting that the charges had been dismissed. [5] This was cited to "Tribunal Superior de Justicia -Madrid-Tel: +34 913971662*" and some document reference numbers. Short of phoning the number there was no way of verifying this, so I took the IP at his/her word and wikified the passage and toned down the comments about how "collaborators were forced to declare against him" etc [6]. Since 2007 the IP's inaccessible source has been accepted on his/her word. This is hardly bias against Arnaiz-Villena, but rather in favour of him. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are more things to be taken into account. First of all is that, as Paul Barlow states if there is a bias it is in favour of Arnaiz-Villena, as favourable (and very biased) version written by an anonymous has been accepted in despite of being no verifiable and in spite of reliable sources proving that anonymous added false data in favour of A-V.

Second is the history of editions of the tandem Arnaiz1/Virginal6/Iberomesormix etc. full of edit warrings, puppets, spam of the works of Arnaiz, paranoid accusations urbi et orbe, and even defamation (see [7] where Iberomesornix claim that an author which critizised Arnaiz can not be quoted because of the delirious assert that "the author is being searched by the Spanish police to be taken to Court"). I asked for any proof of this libel and got no answer. And this one was only the most extreme of the numerous personal attacks launched by the tandem against anyone who had criticized A-V.

Above I asked more information on the alleged sentence and, again, got no answer.

There are databases on the sentences of the TSJ of Madrid. So I suggest to ask any reputed wikipedia editor with access to those bases and do a search.

I did such a kind of search an found. The sentence 184 of 2003 is exactly as explained by El Pais, but very different to the story told by the anonymous edition. I found a sentence of TSJ, Madrid, January 10th 2004, with an appeal number 1/04 , section 7, with president Dª. Camino Vázquez Castellanos; Magistrates: Dª Mercedes Moradas Blanco, D. José Luis Aulet Barros, D. Santiago de Andrés Fuentes, Dª. Carmen Álvarez Theurer. It is a sentence indeed on a case of the IMSALUD against a Doctor, but the name of the doctor is not Carlos Antonio (they publish only the personal names) as was in 184/2003 but a name beginning by G (may be they shortened a list of names, I doubt but....). Most important, this sentence does not invalidated any charges, but it stops the administrative sanctions (against Dr. G) until the parallel penal case is being resolved according to the principle of "non bis in idem". I could not find any other sentence of that they (BTW it was saturday) which could explain anything more. Maybe it was lost in the database or in the searcher? But to find a 1/04 on a case of the IMSALUD against a Dr seems too much for a coincidence.

As I have been many times insulted or accused by the tandem you may not believe me, but it is not so difficult to ask a legal expert to access to the online databases and to make a search.

Anyway, what does has been proven is that there has been added false/wrong info in favour of A-V. Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You won't be able to access the ticket unless you're an OTRS volunteer answering emails for Wikimedia. I can't say a lot about it (privacy etc), but it's from someone rather high up the Spanish education system, who contacted us concerned about creating a "parallel trial" with "apparent “linguists” who disagree with Mr Anaiz-Villena". They also mention libel and possibly taking us to court. I'll unlock the page, but I'm concerned about libel etc - if there's nothing libellous, could you let me know, and I can unlock it, and let the emailer know that they can follow the dispute resolution process if they want to fix things. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give a more considered response when I get back home but my gut says that the person edit warring and the person raising this ticket are the same. Virginal6 everz 10th word has been libel from the year dot but you obviously have to follow procedures yourself. Calm down DumuEduba, it's not ChaseMe's fault ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We have newspaper reports of the charges; reporting those is not libel. If the charges have been dismissed, then it's up to whoever wrote the ticket to provide that information. Otherwise all we have to go on is what's been reported in the press, and any uncorroborated denial of those charges short be removed. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a problem of sources. There are verifiable sources that someone want to call libel (from two reputed newspapers "El País" and "Diario Médico"). Whereas other odd sources, which claim a complete retreat of the charges have not been deleted since an IP wrote that claim. But when the newspaper data is quoted (without, I must insist, deleting the final anonymous absolution claim), then it is a libel? Very odd indeed.

As for the taking into court I still remember when Arnaiz1 in this pages tried to convince that the criticism of prof De Hoz (Universidad Complutense) was not valid because he (Arnaiz1) was studing to take him into court accusing De Hoz of libel by his criticism to the fringe pseudo-linguistic theories of Arnaiz (Specially since I was aware that his libel case was impossible for obvious legal reasons, and so it was only a bluff).

Sorry if I am not calmed enough (I know it is not ChaseMe's fault), but all my attempts to confirm the data have failed, and the odd claims of libel and the finding of "wrong" data only raise suspicions. Dumu Eduba (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we need to remove any unverified claims. That means the claim that the charges have been dismissed. If Arnaiz wishes to sue, he needs to sue the papers which libeled him. If he wins such a suit, we will certainly need to at least rewrite the section. If he can provide sources for the charges being dismissed, then we will go with that. But s.o. merely screaming "libel" does not mean we need to censor ourselves. WP:living allows us to say all sorts of nasty things about people, just that we'd better make damn sure they're verifiable, and are pertinent in both content and extent to the article. If s.o. comes along and says, hey! this is libel!, we should of course remove it long enough to give them time to prove it. Arnaiz has had more than enough time.

Paul and Dumu, could you edit the draft to remove any unverified claims?

Chase me, could you supply any RS's supplied by the ticket?

Let's give it a couple days for any new sources, then have the section restored with whatever we've got. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to give a couple of days. As it would be difficult to be 100% neutral in the wording after seeing the legal threats and the continuous wrong/false data "afforded" by one of the sides it would be nice that some expert editor in biographies take a look and give advice. It seems clear that someone has tried to manipulate the content of the article with unverifiable and biased data (some of which have been shown "wrong"), but sources may not be complete. I have in mind a more neutral wording, explaining more the case, but nor relating so heavily on A-V, more as somehow implicated, less as major protagonist (and with many references); so it could be more informative and less "personal". I will think about.

Remember also that John Vandenberg has asked Arnaiz the documentation (15 days ago[8]).

On the other side, it is well known the use of the terms "Libel" and "Lies" made by the "tandem" (specially Arnaiz1 and Virginal6) against other editors (and not only on his biography, but sometime ago even on his alleged "linguistic" theories), may be we should have resorted to the WP:THREAT protocol. Now that the claim includes a legal threat against Wikipedia I believe that the protocol should be applied.Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the unverified material to the best of my ability.(Draft) Does this look right?

Our deleting admin appears to be away, so I'm restoring the section. Everything left in is sourced to the two citations, and so should pass WP:Living. I clarified that the embezzlement charge has not been confirmed in court. The references to other court cases I deleted, as they are not confirmed by 2ary sources (WP:Living: "Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material."). I took the liberty of adding Arnaiz's defense, as it appeared in El Pais. — kwami (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fairly bullet-proof to me. There's an extra space before the citation and it's El País with the acute but other than that, I can't see how anyone can pick holes in it. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Extra space?

I've deleted the draught, since no-one else was using it, and the original is preserved in the page history. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I add some links to newspapers which can be used as reference (only those that can be freely read, there is more material, but not contradictory in the Diario Medico):

• El Pais Febr. 2 2002 Apartado el jefe de inmunología del Doce de Octubre por supuestas irregularidades. El catedrático dice ser víctima de una campaña por sus artículos sobre palestinos y judíos
• El Pais March 3 2002 Detenido el jefe de inmunología del hospital Doce de Octubre. Fuentes policiales cifran en 3,91 millones de euros el desfase en las cuentas del departamento
• El Pais March 6 2002 El inmunólogo del hospital Doce de Octubre, en libertad con cargos
• ABC March 6 2002 Un jefe del 12 de Octubre, entre los seis detenidos por malversar fondos
• El Pais March 17 2003 Los jueces anulan la suspensión del jefe de inmunología del Doce de Octubre
• El Pais Nov. 11 2003 Un juez suspende 33 meses de empleo y sueldo al jefe de inmunología del Doce de Octubre. Confirmada la sanción que el Imsalud puso a Arnaiz por falsear compras en el hospital.

It looks like all began with a countable inspection to the Hospital department directed by Arnaiz (who claimed know nothing about bills) which found irregularities for between 860.000 and 3.910.000 €, and there were some other charges on bad behaviour (these ones against Arnaiz). The administrative sanction against Arnaiz was confirmed. There are references to the existence of a criminal action for the problems in the hospital on which there is no more info in the newspapers, nor on whether Arnaiz was finally accused in this penal process or instead were only some of the other persons arrested (maybe the penal action is still in process?). What it is crystal clear is that the Anonymous versions were wrong (and false) pro Arnaiz, and that the alleged editors with alleged privileged private information did not complain on those anonymous wrong statements.

Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any particular interest in expanding this, but if you wish to do it, as long as every point is directly supported, I'll add it in to the article. Or we can wait till it's unprotected. (I'll request for 'pending review' protection.)

Okay, you can now add them directly. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The administrative question is clear by the newspapers. The problem is on the penal question which is claimed to be pending in 2003. We have no reliable info. IMHO the best way could be to center in the administrative sanction and let the penal question of the embezzlement of more than 300.000 € to some extent in the background. The wording on this question is the real problem. But adding more references should be a must. Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I haven't been following this for a while; but chapeau for your efforts. Good work. Trigaranus (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How can I be sure you're in the Secret Service too? Our Secret Handshake doesn't work online. — kwami (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Victim,collateral damage or sock puppet?

I think that what Tinpa says is interesting information.I will try to show it again. It should not be forbidden. By the way,he has forgotten(at least) two secretaries:one of them has since theattack to the Arnaiz-Villena group been in the psychiatrist.Finally (I a not completely sure of this)she has been declared non-useful for working.She has not worked in the last 8 years. I will gather more specific information on the case.Virginal6 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:original research. On WP, we work off of WP:secondary sources. — kwami (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post unsubstantiated legal threats against people. I'm protecting this page for a few minutes while I delete it from the page history. — kwami (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DEFAMATION because REWARD.-PALESTINIANS and Secret Services

JUST REVIVAL OF A TEN YEARS AGO WITCH HUNTING CASE.

KwamiKagami,Akerbeltz,Dumu Eduba,Trigaranus.You have agreed to defamate Arnaiz-Villena by obscure reasons.Many people think you belong to the same Secret Service(I think that only some of you may).

You are picking up newspapers news that came out mostly during a 1-2 month period,about 10 years ago.. You do not show any official/legal document.,like the Public Prosecution Report: [named parties deleted] National and international scientists related to this research group were convinced hat Secret Services were behind the case. The “defamation because reward” was also concluded by the Royal College of Physicians. Hospital and University community were convinced that all this affaire started pushed by Secret Police Services ,since 2 months before false accusations occurred, a paper about Palestinians(by Anaiz-Villena et al) had been censored and recomended to be destroyed by librarians. The paper showed that Palestinians and Jews were closely geneticaly related.This has been confirmed by other authors. A sample of the international disturbance and uproar on this case is found here, [9] And the Palestinian paper is in the Tokyo University web,here, [10]

Not only Arnaiz-Villena,but Jorge Martinez-Laso was falsely accussed and tortured (strongly mobbed)at hospital and had to leave Spain to Cristina Navarrete lab in London- UK with 3 small children. Manuel Martin-Villa was also falsely accussed. Because of reward. None of the accusations to these people were legally supported .Now they all work for Administration and have brilliant scientific careers,as they have had since their begginnings.

People(KK,TR,DE,AB), you go against Arnaiz-Villena together ,in concert: it seems the Secret Services are back and using Wikipedia (and I think to some of you also) for their aims. Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinpa (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

come on, this is just pathetic.

My question would be, how is any of this of encyclopedic relevance? This is article apparently just heaps up a pile of obvious crackpot publications. We have standards for covering crackpottery, but they are rather high, it needs to be crackpottery of note. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a dump for random crap.

Now if Arnaiz-Villena passed WP:BIO, coverage of this embezzlement stuff might be in order. But I see no reason whatsoever to consider this a valid biography article. Arnaiz-Villena is an immunologist who has also published a pile pseudoscholarship. This alone doesn't establish WP:BIO notability.

And, I might add, as Arnaiz-Villena does not qualify as a public figure, he does have a right to have his privacy protected, per WP:NPF. --dab (𒁳) 21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's very visible random errr... stuff. There's many a not-so-knowledgeable person who has published on, say, Basque quoting Arnaiz, assuming it's bona fide stuff. It needs to be (with proper sources of course) put in its place otherwise it will pop up again and again and again. Or I might have misunderstood you dab? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

well, by your line of reasoning, writing extremely crappy publications would ensure the author gets a Wikipedia biography, just so we have a place to say how awful it is so people won't keep adding it to our 'real' articles?

this does in fact work, but is it the way it should be done? Think PN Oak -- this guy wrote hilarious nonsense and was at least twice as paranoid as our man here, but he is also cleary notable for the stir he created among the lunatic fringe of Hindu nationalism. As long as AV doesn't elicit a similar echo, he isn't quite on the same page as PNO for our purposes. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the field. If you write junk in something majorly mainstream, say English lit, you're right, people are just going to ignore you and it won't in itself make you notable enough to feature on, say, a wiki bio. But some fields are small, some even tiny and being a crackpot in such a field sadly makes you notable. You would find it hard, for example,to write a book on Basque linguistics and NOT point out that AVs stuff on Basque is sheer lunacy. Any serious vasconist in a way has to declare his position re these crackpots (not just AV). I think we need to apply WP:Bio with a degree of relativity. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Documented Information

I have written a summary of my experience in the last page paragraph (not about my also accused colleagues experience )with false accusations and my reports of Health Autthorities to Judges and The Royal College of Physicians results. This summary should prevail about newspapers sourced news (outdated) and should remain- A parallel trial should not go on Wikipedia ,particularly after a long time and without a reason. If any of us had commited any of the false widespread accusations in WP wold not be working now in University or Administration,researching and publishing; particularly, in my case would not be working now both at Health Service and University as a High Civil Servant with many research publications,continously from 2002 to 2010 (see my publications in PubMed,in Biological Abstracts in my page , in this web page or in Google Academic) Arnaiz1 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reinstated discussion btw. Dab / Akerbeltz

[mirror of material above]

I've reinstated this bit of discussion between Dab and Akerbeltz because I find it worth noting. I am in no mind, myself, to have AAV's biography deleted for lack of notability, although I am beginning to wonder if he really is worth all the paranoid balonies we are served by him. I agree with Akerbeltz's response in that I believe WP affords ample, and perfectly sufficient, space to have even half-noteworthy people introduced in its otherwise hallowed halls, as long as it is sourced. I am generally very happy to find articles on WP about Barry Fell, Devaneya Pavanar, or Christian O'Brien and to be able to assess their merits, or lack thereof. It is not as though WP is cramped for space. And as long as people have been published and quoted and seem to have an excentric kind of following, I hardly ever read an article thinking about the WP:Notability guideline. I only do that with Gustav Bertha. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW Kwami: what has prompted the more frequent use of visibility revision? Some of the more annoying allegations, and patience wearing off? (Not that I wouldn't understand...) Trigaranus (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated legal allegations against named 3rd parties. I don't delete page histories very often, which is why I made such a mess of this. Got it so that the material is all there except for the line or two where he names people. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the reason for this article in the first place, if I remember correctly, was that fringe edits were being made to other articles using Arnaiz as a source. This article was thus a way of demonstrating to those of us who'd never heard of him that he is not credible, and shouldn't be used for anything. (As if that wasn't obvious enough from his books!) I have no objections to deleting the article, as long as that doesn't have any negative effects on the articles he was used as a ref for. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, several bird articles link here. Is there an ornithologist w the same name? — kwami (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

hm, ok, Akerbeltz said

"Any serious vasconist in a way has to declare his position re these crackpots (not just AV). I think we need to apply WP:Bio with a degree of relativity."

I appreciate this. But the question is, if AV's crackpot theories about Basque etc. are notable to a Vasconist, does this mean we need to keep a biography of AV? As Kwami puts it,

"This article was thus a way of demonstrating to those of us who'd never heard of him that he is not credible, and shouldn't be used for anything. (As if that wasn't obvious enough from his books!)"

This is entirely my point. "providing a reference to other Wikipedians that the subject is unnotable" is not a valid WP:BIO criterion.

It would seem more reasonable to create a dedicated article to Basque_language#Hypotheses_on_connections_with_other_languages. AV's theories can be discussed there, just as his Black Athena theories can be referenced at Black_Athena#Reception and/or African admixture in Europe, but witout us needing to bother to prance around with his embezzlement cases which in themselves are perfectly unnotable. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami said that he's "not credible", not that he's not notable dab. That aside, he may well have published serious stuff in a prior life.

If we take the route of deleting this one, we'd have to be consistent and delete loads of bios. Given the controversy he has caused on WP, in the courts, in Basque studies and other places, I cannot see how he's not notable, if nuts. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read again, Kwami said that the article was created because he is not credible. Viz., the reason for creating the article was making a repository to dump information on how he is not credible. AV may or may not be notable, but so far the creation and evolution of this article has had nothing to do with the question, and has not established that he is.

"publishing serious stuff" does not make you notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Any scholar publishing serious literature on a topic may be cited in an article on that topic, but that doesn't buy them a personal biography article.

please read WP:BIO now so we can avoid wasting time over non-issues. "Creating a controversy on WP" is not notable. "Creating a controversy in court" may be, depending on whether we have substantial coverage of the case in independent, third party literature. We have lots of articles on notable fraudsters, see Frank Abagnale and articles etc. So far, it is far from clear that AV is notable as a fraudster. It is even further from clear that AV is notable as a crank or crackpot. And it is very far from clear that he is notable as an immunologist (actually, this article has next to no information on the one topic where we can assume he has proven to be competent). --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete article?

Two editors have One editor has suggested deleted the article as not notable, one that we should keep it because of the cruft he's written about Basque. Other opinions? — kwami (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

who's the second one saying it should go? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misread the comment. — kwami (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Be aware hat the article was created with no references to his fringe pseudo-linguistic books, but fo his genetic polemics(and of course that many experts consider his genetic theories flawed at best). These were the reasons to create the article.

Last but not least: Arnaiz1 and his many sockpuppets are broking wikipedia rules and adding false data, inventing court sentences, accusing persons and institutions, and making disruptive editions since many months ago quosque tandem?Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Who has suggested the article should be deleted? I strongly suggest the article's edit history should be kept. My suggestion is to look into whether this is a valid biography article. If it turns out that this is rather about (a) fringe publications about Basque and (b) fringe publications about ethnicity and genetics, my suggestion would be to split that material off to articles where it is on topic. If necessary, such an article can even be created. E.g. pseudo-linguistics surrounding the classification of Basque certainly deserves an article, and we do not so far seem to have one. --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, dab. The article is about AAV and the theories he has published. Thing is, the whole shebang started when Dumu, or myself, don't really remember, stumbled across the now-deleted articles on "Iberian-Guanche inscriptions" and the "Usko-Mediterranean" languages. The idea was that the theory itself was too fringey or diffuse to warrant its own article, but as AAV had made enough of a name for himself to earn his very own lemma (bit like Barry Fell), the theory should be mentioned in the article on him and his "research". So after a rather annoying struggle to have the two articles hauled off WP, summaries of his works were included in this article here, where they belong. (BTW just pop out a search on "Usko-Mediterranean" on WP, and you'll still find vestiges of it around in other articles.) The present controversy, on another note, was sparked off by public information on lawsuits brought against AAV, and is unrelated to his theories on linguistics and genetics. Trigaranus (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ah yes, I remember. You have done well, your solution worked. But now this embezzlement thing came up and we bought us more trouble dealing with that than what the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions were in the first place.

Perhaps we should keep this article, I do not have a fixed opinion on this. If AAV is notable enough to plod through his legal disputes (and his sockpuppet stunts), fine, let's keep an article on him. But perhaps it would make more sense to create one large article listing Basque-related fringe theories (a bit like Phaistos Disc decipherment claims or Location hypotheses of Atlantis).

--dab (𒁳) 18:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

=BIRD RESEARCH.Collateral damage confirmed.=

I have gathered more information about what Tinpa has told us (by the way the Palestinian paper link at Tokyo University does not work,I will go into this later). I have copied all information that Tinpa states.Most hospital consulted staff agrees with it ,while they are not sure of certain aspects. [libel deleted] Also,two secretaries were falsely accused and YES,ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN DECLARED UNUSEFUL FOR WORKING,after 10 years of psychiatrists directly atributed to the hunt hursh .

Dumu,why dont you go and look for the legal documents detailed yesterday by Arnaiz-Villena and you stop spreading false information (libels)?

Kwami,everibody knows that Arnaiz-Villena was also working in birds population genetics.He has published quite a lot of papers. Here is a summary of his group work on this area:

[11]

You should also ask directly the documents with your real name if you have nothing to hide.The same applies to Dumu Eduba This case(Palestinian paper censorship) was commented by"The Guardian ","Le Monde " and other USA newspapers and should now be clarified.Why this rush in deleting the page now? .Good luck!Virginal6 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2010 (UT

As anybody (with good faith) can read in a previous edition on this page I stated to have found and read sentences 184 and 1/04, and that its content is not what the group of sockpuppets claim to be. And let's not fporget that when I asked to you (Virginal6) if it was sentence number or appeal number you did not answer. Two months ago Arnaiz1 was asked to afford the scans of two document on what he claims to be truth, where are these documents? In his imagination?

Arnaiz1 keep son his pathetic campaign of nonsenses defamating the newspaper EL Pais (BTW the same newspaper to which Arnaiz-Villena gave an interview whereas was in search by the police, and where he calimed to be prosecuted by "the Jewish lobby") but pretend to forget that these sentences were also published by the "Diario Medico". But the bunch of sockpuppets keep on trying to distort this question and making pityful victimism. You have written here so many falsehoods and distortions that I do not believe a word of what you say. Curiously enogh all these person that Arnaiz accused here as having made false accusations are still working at the Hospital 12 de Octubre Inmunology section, but Arnaiz do not appear since some years ago. I insist, these persons should be informed of Arnaiz1 (and his sockpuppets) accusations against them.Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

=TSVI MISINAI=

The reference 12 of this page about a famous Jewish writer Tsvi Misinai (linked to AA-V name )is thE Palestinian paper. There is also in other Internet sites.Virginal6 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

=PUBLICATIONS BY ARNAIZ-VILLENA AND GOOD FAITH=

Have you read the page that you are keenly editing against A A-V?. Because it is documented that he has published more than 330 paper in population genetics of humans and birds.This is stated and referenced in the 3 first lines of the page.

You have picked up two or three publications which do not like or go against your interests and try to dismiss the whole Arnaiz-Villena work.However,Arnaiz-Villena is considered internationally a top-HLA and genetics expert.

Now,you cannot do anymore and go against a ten years ago affaire,that was a witch hunt(against at least 5-6 researchers and others) after the Palestinian paper,which(the paper) has been forgotten until about 2 years ago? Why?Virginal6 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

=The libellous last paragraph should be removed=

Newspaper El Pais says amount of deceited money was 0.4 million €. BMJ says 3,9 million €,ten times more. They state anything that they invented od were forced to say. These are not serious sources.Please permit only this section with official documents. Please,follow the guidelines to living people biographies.Virginal6 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I already above: * El Pais March 3 2002 Detenido el jefe de inmunología del hospital Doce de Octubre. Fuentes policiales cifran en 3,91 millones de euros el desfase en las cuentas del departamento. As usual Virginal6 is at best wrong, at worst.... Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

=Different sources,different lies=

DIFFERENT SOURCES,DIFFERENT LIES

^No,every newspapeR said a different quantiity,invented or forced.(0.3m€,860.000€ and 1,9 m€)In the same day or with A FEW days of difference. In any case this was SHOWN TO BE FALSE-Look for the sentences and documents. This is false : sentences have already been detailed for you,FOR wp, to entertain in (dates and Judges) I will delete again .You know that this is false.This is becoming funny as Akerbeltz says,particularly for Summer.

(ref 37) in excess of 50 million pesetas (El País)0,3m€

(ref 38)ABC March 6 2002 Un jefe del 12 de Octubre, entre los seis detenidos por malversar fondos . The inspection reach the account of 860.000 € for the first of the five years investigated. The Police estimated that the amount for the five years could be of 3,91 million € (El Pais March 3 2002 Detenido el jefe de inmunología del hospital Doce de Octubre. Fuentes policiales cifran en 3,91 millones de euros el desfase en las cuentas del departamento)

Sources are INVENTING QUANTITIES.These are not reliable sources20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Virginal6 (talk)

Since Virginal et al. have been blocked for sockpuppetry, I've reduced the page protection. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

fair enough, AAV certainly did misbehave, but be extra careful to satisfy WP:BLP seeing that we have now blocked the article subject trying to protest libel in his own biography. I am especially concerned about WP:NPF, it isn't clear whether AAV's notability as a crank gives him the "public figure" status that would allow us to mess with his privacy. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the sockpuppetry case, except to note that I deleted part of the page history of this talk page to purge it of legal allegations against named parties. But I linked your concern to the case archive. — kwami (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say I find it extremely suspicious that AAV is supposed to have embezzled hundreds of thousands of Euros for years, and that he should be busted just at the moment when there is a big outrage over his politically incorrect comment that "Palestinians live in concentration-camps". I also find it rather weird that the retraction of his paper is purely justified with this political incorrectness, not the quality of its scholarship. Based on the patent nonsense AAV published about Basque, I admit that I am predisposed to assume he is a classical crank and thus a difficult person to work with (as we now know from hands-on experience too), but the Human Immunology case nevertheless seems fishy to me. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am away in my rural retreat, so I have not had a chance to contribute to this debate. I created the article because I thought he was notable. Yes, I admit that I did so in part to provide a central space in which the credibility of his ideas could be discussed. His articles on ethnicity have had an impact. Like you, I doubt that it was coincidence that the case against him was made so soon after the "concentration-camps" controversy, but we can't note that in the article. The paper, by the way, can be read online. It's full of absurdities. See the PALESTINIANS AND JEWS section above. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I do not think there is a relation between accusations and the "concentration-camps" controversy (as it is not with the fringe linguistic work he published by the same years), sincerely it always looked to me as "my dog ate my homework" (and I do not imagine the Mosad wasting resources to fake bills and buy false witnesses, do you?) . In the papers it is clearly stated that when the management of the Hospital was transfered to the local authority (Autonomous Community of Madrid) this began an audit.

BTW Maybe the political silliness (as that that assume that genetics differences can explain political "hostilities") were what attracted attention on the paper (in any case very bad job that of the journal), but to think that there were no scientific criticisms is wrong. The very review in nature explained that it was very odd not only that a study claimed that "Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans" but that the worst is that these odd results did not ring an alarm bell in the researchers. Also the selection of the material was criticized (as no reliable), it has been put forward that studies with more data (in cases and criteria) show very different results, and, as a matter of fact, there is an American Handbook of Genetics that uses Arnaiz's (and collaborators) researches as an example of arbitrary conclusions.

For example, the political hypothesis can be tested. Is every research that genetically connects Jews with there Arab neighbors rejected and prosecuted. I doubt it, and for example here we read

"Each Diaspora group has distinctive genetic features “representative of each group’s genetic history,” he says, but each also “shares a set of common genetic threads” dating back to their common origin in the Middle East."

(and of course any linguist who do not follow the usko-mediterranean lunacy knows that Hebrew language is a very close relative of Phoenician and Aramaic, and relative of Arab).

The question is a little like that of the fringe translations made using Basque as a key language (not only Arnaiz's translations but those of many others): never accepts criticism, but claim some political explanation, some times the critics are bad because anti-Basque, other times because pro-Basque, and people let themselves to reduce the discussion ton these silly political questions because it is easier that understand arguments.

So, maybe the explanation of this question in the article is missguided, as it leans too much on the sensationalist political story.Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

=Back to the embezzlement=

Also, I find it highly dubious that we retain the article in the state of "the case was pending as of 2003" because the newspaper reported on the case when it was pending, but apparently not on its conclusion, where AAV was discharged. That's journalism for you, it just isn't sexy to publish articles "update, all our previous scandal-mongering was in fact without merit".

Now AAV himself is in a position to cite the final verdict, Sentence 184, TSJ Madrid, February 19th, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid; Sentence TSJ, Madrid, January 10th 2004[12], which is in principle perfectly verifiable.

In my book, it is a BLP violation to keep a record of a persecution as "pending" and denying the subject the clarification that the charges were later dismissed. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the alleged final veredict, that what Arnaiz1 and etc has told is false. Sentence of February 19th 2003 is mentioned by "El PAís" and "Diario Médico".

Even if no one seems to be aware I expressly say it was possible to search the sentence: Let me remember my words:

" There are databases on the sentences of the TSJ of Madrid. So I suggest to ask any reputed wikipedia editor with access to those bases and do a search.

I did such a kind of search an found. The sentence 184 of 2003 is exactly as explained by El Pais , but very different to the story told by the anonymous edition. I found a sentence of TSJ, Madrid, January 10th 2004, with an appeal number 1/04 , section 7, with president Dª. Camino Vázquez Castellanos; Magistrates: Dª Mercedes Moradas Blanco, D. José Luis Aulet Barros, D. Santiago de Andrés Fuentes, Dª. Carmen Álvarez Theurer. It is a sentence indeed on a case of the IMSALUD against a Doctor, but the name of the doctor is not Carlos Antonio (they publish only the personal names) as was in 184/2003 but a name beginning by G (may be they shortened a list of names, I doubt but....). Most important, this sentence does not invalidated any charges , but it stops the administrative sanctions (against Dr. G) until the parallel penal case is being resolved according to the principle of "non bis in idem". I could not find any other sentence of that they (BTW it was saturday) which could explain anything more. Maybe it was lost in the database or in the searcher? But to find a 1/04 on a case of the IMSALUD against a Dr seems too much for a coincidence.''

Let me add that there is more info on the case (though indirect) in the BOCM (oficial publication of the Community of Madrid March 25th 2004 and October 11th 2004 which clearly show that the question was not over at least in October 2004, confirming that Arnaiz1 (and etc) versions of the fact do not deserve credibility (as his multiple distortions in the Usko-Mediterranean question).

Do not forget that in the first "anonymous" version allegedly all charges were withdrawn in February 2003, assert which has been shown false; and that at first they afforded January 10th as date of the second sentence..

As I told before, maybe a solution could be to let the embezzlement question as a background (do not involving directly Arnaiz as having being personally accused but only quoting the countable problems) but keeping the reference to the administrative sentence.

Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, I missed something, sorry. I am certainly not suggesting we take Arnaiz1's word for anything. Still, my point was that it is unsatisfactory to say the case was pending as of 2003, and this remains so. The case must either have been dismissed, or AAV either discharged or convicted, I do not believe it can still be pending after seven years, and it will be necessary to figure out which is the case. --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the question. As a matter of fact there is another possible situation. There is a rumour (but I could not find the original source, so it can be nothing) that the public prosecution failed to present the case in the allowed time limit (a VCSM, "very common Spanish mistake"), but maybe it is just a "YASIR" ("yet another stupid internet rumour"). But, on the other hand in Spain Justice is so slooooooooooow that if there were accusations and counter-accusations maybe it is still pending. The question is that we do not know what happened with those millions euros (what of course is a very interesting conundrum), so it looks better to focus on the administrative ending of the question while there is no further information. The informative intoxication made by the sockpuppets and his paranoid claims on secret services arise suspicions on the real ending of the question, though. Dumu Eduba (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general word of advice on my part, wanted or not: in the article itself, restrict yourself to as little information as necessary. It is, after all, just one aspect of the man's biography. Trigaranus (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the section should be short. But the problem is to have all the data to make a proper wording. For example, the title itself is problematic ("Suspension and charges of embezzlement"), I dislike it, I would prefer something softer, more aseptic, but I do not find a really suitable alternative. Nowadays my viewpoint on the content could be something like: there was a problem in the Department that A-V directed (mainly the countable irregularities, explaining the scandal, as it was an scandal, but not directly implying A-V in it), the investigation arose some administrative questions and accusations against A-V; the Public Health System of Madrid sanctioned him, and after some questions the sanction was confirmed by a Court. Or some structure like this, it is only an idea. Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

=Suspension and false accusations=

In 2002, Arnaiz-Villena was suspended without pay from the Hospital Doce de Octubre, after being accused,together with four other people from his research team ,of several false unproper and delictive conducts On November 2003 the Court of Administrative Litigation no. 8 (one body Judge Court)of Madrid issued a sentence stating that Administration was right in suspending him to 33 months of suspension from work without pay. . This was appealed against and a sentence was issued by the Madrid Supreme Court (Five Body Judges,Section 7,January 10th 2004,”Ponente” Judge Carmen Alvarez-Theurer,Sentence 1/04) which declared invalid the previous sentence(·”anulada”) because of unbased accusations. Though suspended from the hospital, he continued his work at the University and at the Health Service since the Fisrt Sentence against Helath Service in this case was given by the Madrid Supreme Court (Three Body Judges,Section 3,February 19th 2003,”Ponente” Ines Garicano ,Sentence 184).The Public Prosecutor Luis Ibañez issued an Act showing that some Arnaiz-Villena students had been forced to declare against him and against other member of the group(July 11th 2005).The Criminal Court closed down the case on January 4th 2006. The same conclussion of induced false accusations reached The Royal College of Physicians that started an investigation at Arnaiz-Villena request (November 7th 2006).

I belong to Arnaiz-Villena research group.He has asked me to put up this document to help solving the case as Wikipedia asks.He also asks to be free to talk in Wikipedia.. All of us here in Spain,and all scientific world here and abroad related to our research topic knows this affaire . Newspapers around the world commented on the case .Silence in Spain was total after the first 2 months of accusations. Arnaiz was already in the Health Service(after the 1st sentence) and other accusated researchers have good posts with productive research also. We have published a lot since 2000 in bird and human population genetics (not only the four –five papers named in WP). [13]

However,we think that obscure forces are after us.A sample of this is that Dumu Eduba (a linguist) unexpectedly started to put up in Wikipedia a legal attack without finihing it. We ask Wikipedia to remove the whole section·”embezzlement” until Dumu Eduba finishes his work with the help of any of us which can be reached in telephones or E mails put up in Arnaiz-Villena personal page`[14].Symbio04 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references for what you're claiming? Anything that we can verify? Your colleagues have been making these claims for years. If his lack of guilt has been established by a court, there will be a record of it. Yet no-one has provided us with anything. There are only two likely conclusions I can see: (a) this issue is of no real importance to you all, so you simply haven't bothered to provide the sources, or (b) the claims of innocence are false. After all, if we took the word of every convict that he was innocent, there would be no criminals in the world.

As for the "mysterious forces", they're not so mysterious. Arnaiz has published demonstrably crack-pot pseudoscience (Usko-Mediterranean and all that nonsense). Now, he may be a very good geneticist, but his forays into linguistics are ludicrous. Yet there was a concerted attempt to whitewash his writings, to make them appear respectable. That is academic fraud, even if the original writing was simply ignorant. We were forced to revisit this again and again by propagandists for these bizarre ideas, so we looked into it further. Turns out that Arnaiz has been convicted of financial fraud as well. That doesn't make him look good. And then, when we write about that, sourced from Spain's premier newspaper, there are all of these accusations of a conspiracy, and that we're in cahoots with "secret services". That's as laughable as Usko-Mediterranean, and so makes Arnaiz and his colleagues look even more ridiculous.

So, please, stop the whining about conspiracies, and provide the references that the cases were overturned or dropped, so that we can resolve this in a responsible manner. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Symbio04 version is that it is different to previous versions (in content and in dates) published and or approved by Arnaiz and etc. First the case was closed in February 2003, then in January 2004, when these versions have been shown "wrong" then appears a new version. Less ever changing versions and more proofs, because after so many "wrong" data and changing versions your credibility is zero. (let's not forget that Arnaiz1 was expressly asked to sent the scanned documents he claimed as proofs more that two months ago but that he has preferred instead to launch more paranoid accusations and legal threats).

BTW any idea of the whereabouts of the 860.000 to 3.910.000 € that were missing in the countable inspection? Were they found or explained? Was the official countable inspection another "false accusation"?

On his "linguistic" methods and ideas, they are as serious as sequencing DNA using a ouija (but claiming that biologists reject this "revolutionary discovery" because they are closed to new methods, and that there is a conspiracy, etc. etc.), sad but true )Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And with "Symbio04", we have our old friend of various cloaks back among us. How quick. But it's nice that you decided to make those three half-productive edits on siskins (half-productive because your editing is as sloppy as ever, and took somebody else's time and effort to have it bent straight) to "demonstrate" that you're neither a sock nor a meat puppet. Listen, you can appeal a sockpuppetry block. It is not an advisable course of action to create a new sock just ten hours after you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. And should you really be one of AAV's assistants rather than AAV's own vanity editing -- which I do hope is not true, for your social life's sake --, don't you have better things to do than counteracting WP:MEAT? Trigaranus (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

=Habeas Corpus and Unbased embezzlement charges;=

On March 4th 2002,Arnaiz-Villena was taken by a police dependent on d the Haealth Service and witheld without a Judge Order in front of the office of thr Head of Madrid Health Service (Dr Equiza) against Equiza`s will;he was fired in the following weeks .AAV was caried out by this “police” to a flat in c/ Ayala,Madrid still without a Judge Order issued.He was terrified and after some time he managed to contact his lawyer,who appeared after 8 hours.An Habeas Corpus was immediately followed (by SMS) to the lawer’s office late that day. Habeas Corpus is a procedure to stop police withholding normal people without a Judge Supervision.It is the basis of a Lawfull State. The Madrid Judge-on –Duty rapidly ordered that March 4th night that AAV should be taken before her(Judge Maria Luisa Lazaro Trueba) And with the help of the Public Accusator left AAV free inmediately..

Therefore all news that the Hospital 12 de Octubre sent to newspapers on March 4th were published in March 5th were false. These are most of the news that have been written by Dumu Eduba. AAV was free on the 5th and visited both the Hospital 12 de Octubre people and the President of the Complutense University.People was amazed.Symbio04 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

=Unbased embezzlement charges=

Judge Julio de Diego Lopez closed down the investigation of embezzlement on January 6th 2006. All acussed people were pofessors,researchers and professionals paid by the State.All had one single salary and no bussiness .Nobody could explain this long time taken. Accusations were unbased,according to the Judge,to the Public Prosecutor and to the Royal College of Physicians.The last two bodies recognised that accusations had been interested and forced.

The details between have not even had written in a black novel,yet.AAV and others are asked to write all these details often..

The telephones and the E mail to consult these documents are in AAV personal page. All names are public.Symbio04 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

=CASE WAS FINISHED IN PRACTISE  AT THE BEGINNING OF 2003=

Sentence 1/04 starts:

“”En la villa de Madrid ,a 10 de Enero de 2004. Visto por la Sala de lo Contenciosp Administrativo el Tribunal Suparior de Justicia de Madrid,constituida en Srccion por los Señorees anotados al margen (Camino Vazquez Castellanos,Mercedes Moradas Blanco,Jose Luis Aulet Barros,Santiago de Andres Fuentes,Carmen Alvarez Theurer),el recurso de apalacion con el numero 1/o4 ante la miusma pende la resolucion interpuesto (sic) por la Procuradora D ALICIA OLIVA COLLAR,en representacion de D.CARLOS ANTONIO ARNAIZ VILLENA,contra la Sentencia de fecha 23 de Octubre de 2003 dictada por el juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo numero 8 de los de Madrid etc........TERCERO (pag 8).Esta sala Declara la nulidad de la resolucion impugnada....

This sentence annulls the Administrative charges:they do not exist anymore (all these false charges are spread by Dumu Eduba in the Third Paragraph,based on Sentence annulled of Court No 8)

Judge Julio de Diego Lopez: January 6th 2006 :he closes down unbased embezzlement charges investigation.They are not true.None of thr accused were taken to trial ever.

Yes the case was finished in fact with Sentence 184 (February 19th 2003) from Tribunal Superior de Justicia presided by Judge Ines Garicano : AAV Constitutional Rights had been violated and AAV started again in the Health Service (he did not leave University ever).Arnaiz-Villena alary was always fully paid because the University did not believe any acusation.

There are many other sentences induced by other accused researchers defense.

Dumu Eduba we can write the incredible black novel completely in this page,but it was thought for a book. You are working against Wikipedia rules and third paragraph of this page violates intimacy,biography of living people,,it is false and if you look for damaginf people,you are reviving a case that deserves more attention in Spain ,because it had sufficient all over the World .Censorship was absolute in Spain .Symbio04 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever you are Symbio, posting entire novels on the talk page as "evidence" is pointless because it's just "text", so there's no way of knowing whether this is true or not, it's simply not verifiable. So unless you can come up with sources I suggest you find something else to do? I'm sure we're all very busy people... And one suggestion, if you're not a sockpuppet, I suggest you change your approach to formatting because at the moment, the only person I've ever known to be so sh** at formatting Wiki text is Arnaiz. Well, no, and some strange person on the Kurdistan articles but fortunately Kurdish hasn't yet been used to decipher Rongorongo and solve the mystery of the Jivaro genome. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Curiously enough the sentences told by Symbio04 (aka Arnaiz1) are the same ones I could find and the content of which I told above. In 1983 the sentences suspended the suspension by a formal mistake, because it has been put by the administration without determining the length of time of the suspension (that is what they call to go against the rights of the accused). The second one is that (same magistrates, same date, same number) that I found but in which (at least in the database) the name of the accused was not Arnaiz but a Doctor whose name begins by G. The content of the sentence (according to the database) only was an application of the legal principle "non bis in idem" and concerns to the "administratives" charges that were also part of penal charges (of Dr. G.), in any case an ending, but another formal question (and of course some of the charges against Arnaiz were not part of the criminal legislation, but administrative faults and working faults, hence not part of the "non bis in idem").

Last but not least Symbio04 (and his akas Arnaiz1, Virginal6, Iberomesornix...) accused the Hospital of lying, the newspapers (even one to which he conceded an interview while in search and capture by police ;-) of lying (that besides some persons whose name with good judgement has been deleted by the administrators or the "secret services" or the "Jewish lobby"). Why do not sue them (the IMSALUD and El Pais, and el Diario Médico etc) in order to get at least a correction in the newspapers? That would be the proper way of action if Arnaiz really believes he is innocent, instead of his harsh and impolite accusations against me and against other editors. If you are really non guilty (and too clumsy to send the scanned documents long time ago when they asked and too amnesic as to explain your continuous changing versions of the story à la Peter and the Wolf), do it. We will be really pleased to quote and linking the correction in the newspaper. But if this is another of your tall stories (as those really offending and impolite allegations explaining why "experts" do not believe your silly fringe linguistic ideas)...... Behave as a mature person, please, should not be so difficult. Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: that say I repeat again that some reputed editor (or administrator) with legal knowledge (and better with access to the databases) should make a search on the question. Better if (s)he is a lawyer from Madrid who could access not only the Databases, but the original sentences. I have no intention of wasting more time searching sentences for a guy which always has changing versions (especially seeing that now the new sentences he adds are without clear references) and insults me (especially when it was me who suggested to dismiss the criminal story as a background not directly affecting Arnaiz-Villena and limit to the well documented administrative section (much better for A-V that remembering his period as a fugitive in search and capture, no where to be found, and etc). Maybe the better thing would be to ignore and delete all the sockpuppets provocations waiting for a reliable info, so we could use our time to more profitable editions. This guy has been offered more than enough opportunities.Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)