Talk:Michael Servetus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing

This page still needs a good deal of cleanup/corrections/wikification. I'll work on it as time allows, but if anyone wants to beat me to it they're more than welcome to.

The latter part is largely narrative. And maybe plagiarized. I would only request that the mention of importance to modern Unitarians be preserved. --Tydaj 03:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think we're going to have to find some attributions for those opening quotes, or remove them entirely. Similarly, the article has some small NPOV problems that need to be addressed. - Neckro 07:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Small' NPOV problems? It seemed like a good portion of the article sites Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr, which from its title doesn't sound like a very neutral book. The article dwells on the horrors of Servetus's death using graphic terms, and no effort is made to give the Calvinist side of the situation. This leaves me wondering why Calvin wanted Servetus dead, and what was really going on in 16th century Geneva. These questions show me that there is more going on here than the article admits. -- OracleofTroy

I hope my current revision is better. I didn't do much research, so I didn't add too much new information. I got rid of the "Passion of Servetus" paragraph. I tried to present some info from a Calvanist POV using the article below, but I found it hard to get past the authors extreme bias. It seems that Servetus' execution was out of principle, but I can't really proove this from the little info I've got. It's very difficult to find a resource without significant bias on one side or the other. --Tydaj 02:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite improved since last I looked at it. I think it is still a bit POV, but improving greatly and getting harder to find anything concrete to take issue with. -- OracleofTroy 02:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to elaborate Calvin's view in light of the times and his actual involvement. I even put in a couple sources that seem basically positive on Calvin. I'm worried now though that I've went too far the other way. Which is slightly amusing in a personal way. See even though I tried to list the negatives of Servetus and defenses of Calvin that's mostly out of a sense of fairness. On a personal level I do consider Servetus to basically be a martyr, I traditionally did blame Calvin, and I have a basically negative view of Calvin in general. However researching it did make me re-evaluate my opinion on Calvin's involvement which does seem to be less than I had believed. Although I still prefer Servetus to him and I wish Servetus was as well known as Giordani Bruno.--T. Anthony 03:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to me now to present a reasonably balanced view. It is of course focused on Servetus. I suggest removing the POV warning. J S Ayer 02:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems like that quote at the beginning is pretty unneccisary. Everyone has a fan-club. Even Einstein's article says "widely regarded" rather than "someone once said..." Schwael 16:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have modestly altered the descriptions of Servetus's trial, condemnation, and execution. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and Will and Ariel Durant's The Reformation agree that the other Swiss churches did not call for Servetus's execution, and at least the first says that by the laws of Geneva a transient alien who did not conform to the established worship could at worst be banished. J S Ayer 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of 'immolation'

The word 'immolation' does not mean burning. It simply means to sacrifice.

My bad. I think I was tryin to be a bit too fancy. Thanks. :) neckro 01:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it often carries the connotation of burning. --Tydaj 03:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page is very biased in favor of Servetus; much of the article is quoted verbatim from books containing half-truths, misstatements, such as calling Calvin the head of a "dictatorial regime" when he never served a public office, and unnecessary editorializing, e.g. describing execution as "in accordance with the common practice of the day, unfortunately" (emphasis added). Anti-Servetus arguments are reduced to external links and dismissed as mere "Apologetic[s]". This POV must be given a chance to defend itself equally to maintain neutrality. I am therefore adding the POV badge to the article. --Teslacoil 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calvin was a leading political figure in Geneva at the time though, wasn't he? That's a point everything I found agreed on.--T. Anthony 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "unfortunately" (before I reread this). It seems to me that the statement was already qualifing enough. It was also an opinion. --Tydaj 02:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree too. I'm a Calvinist so any chance to diss Servetus might seem to be terribly biased... however I do think the writing needs to be improved to be more NPOV. --One Salient Oversight 07:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a UU, I too am too worried about bias to edit it. --Tydaj 03:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe not :p --Tydaj 02:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Calvinist side is given in the article on Calvin, is it not?? After all, Calvin did have a rather effective way of silencing the man, didn't he?

For the record, I'd like to give a brief explanation of the changes and additions that I did on the Servetus page. The theology was confusing, since there was no explanation of why the Son was not eternal in S.'s view. I also moved the theology section after the first books, since as it was, it seemed that S. was already developing his theology in Toulouse; however, this is unlikely, but he did get involved in Protestant activities, because his name appears in a list of "suspect students" that should be watched by authorities. Most probably S. began to develop his theological ideas during his trip with the imperial court and particularly after the crowning ceremony in Bologne, where he was outraged by the pomp of the Papal delegation, and actually he went next year to discuss with Oecolampadius, therefore he had already reached some conclusions and felt ready to debate them. Another important change was that the Jews had already been expelled from Spain, and the Muslims had lost the war and were marginalized and on the verge of expulsion themselves, therefore Servetus could not be developing a theology "for the main religious minorities in Spain", as one of them was already banned and severely persecuted, and the other was defeated and marginal. Finally, it was important to remark that the discovery of pulmonary circulation was totally unnoticed because most copies of the book were burned, not because of reliability (I added that it was the first mention of it "in the West" because apparently at least one Muslim physician in the late Middle Ages had already described it, and perhaps this text was circulating in Paris when Servetus studied there). --Jdemarcos 14:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, apologies. I read somewhere that Spain's main religious minorities were still Jews and Muslims in his day. Also the written accusations against him at the time accused him of "Judaizing" or "Islamizing" the faith. So I figured maybe appealing to them did matter in a way, but you're right it wouldn't have.--T. Anthony 06:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Remind me why exactly there is believed to be something called a "Calvinist point of view" on this issue? What could ever, in any universe, in a million lifetimes, justify the BURNING TO DEATH of a human being for his opinions? Don't answer that because I already know the answer: Nothing.--JC

Oh for myself I personally think Calvin was a harsh and vengeful person who believed in a harsh and vengeful God. I do think he had tremendous power in Geneva, even if he didn't have official power. Anyway I just read the NPOV dispute and it seemed to be about this being unfair to Calvin. So I mentioned that hostility to Servetus's ideas was widespread and that he may have insulted Calvin once. I think it'd take a very odd person to decide that means Calvin was right in wanting him dead.--T. Anthony 12:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As for Calvin not holding public office in Geneva: Joseph Stalin did not hold public office during most of the years that he was dictator of the Soviet Union. J S Ayer 15:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Book links, a question

When linking to a book is there a conventional way to so on Wikipedia? In this article, I posted a link to a book at Amazon, but I don't really intend to promote one retailer over another. It's just a convenient link. Any suggestions? --BAW 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

After reading all threads, I must say...

It is quite clear that calvinist's will still try to silence the truth about the matter. Michael was murdered for what he believed in by a blood thirsty tyrant who was,at the time, the most influential leader of a blood thirsty religion. He is a hero and martyr by any definition of the word. To take away the dramatic highlights of his page would be an injustice. My God, how long will it take for trinitariansim to destroy itself. Sooner rather than latter I hope....

Don't overreact. It's just that articles here have to show both sides. The article was seen as far too biased toward him, which would not be done to any martyr here. As it stands now though I think it's still clear that Calvin worked towards his death and believed his choices were conversion or decapitation. The actual facts in a neutral manner I think make Calvin look bad enough. And although I'm Catholic, it doesn't make us look that great either. (Except that he managed to escape Catholic prisons and was not executed by Catholics)--T. Anthony 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"He developed a bitter hatred based not only on the unorthodox views of Servetus but also on Servetus's tone of superiority mixed with personal abuse."[citation needed] Without a citation, this is just innuendo, which may be usefully avoided. The mellifluous tone of the article is already revolting enough. Moreover, the fact that Serveto's execution is not mentioned in the introductory paragraph is somewhat odd.[tito:19/10/2006]

Accusation regarding marriage

As for the question, "Whether he has married, and, if not, how, given his age, he could so long avoid marriage," this is an oblique accusation of sexual immorality. Such a charge is easy to make, often true whether the accuser knows it or not, and almost impossible to refute even if the accused should happen to be innocent. Servetus replied that rupture had long since made him impotent, and had kept him from marriage. Now, to locate my source... J S Ayer 04:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about that. I just found myself thinking how that would sound in any other kind of trial and it struck me funny. I'm not even sure the Islamic courts in Iran exactly ask that when they imprison Baha'i.--T. Anthony 14:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

-Here's your source: Ronald H. Bainton Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus (Beacon Press, 1953) I can also tell you that Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr was a fairly well-balanced book.

Thank you! Action taken! J S Ayer 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I beleive his name is Roland H. Bainton not Ronald.

What is meant by "rupture"?

Is it not Testicular rupture? I'll at least add testicular rupture to the rupture disambiguation page V-squared (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It can also apparently mean rupture of a spermatic cord or of a blood vessel serving a testicle. J S Ayer (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute

I see this has been on "POV" dispute since March 2005. Does anyone see a way to resolve the issue? Or has the dispute lasted so long because people just gave up and forgot to remove it?--T. Anthony 09:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote to remove the warning and see if anybody reacts to it. --Jdemarcos 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, let's find out if anyone reacts.--T. Anthony 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think our combined efforts have produced an article that we can all be proud of. J S Ayer 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why modern quotations?

I don't see the point of quoting in the article some comedians or poets who mention Servetus in their texts. What does this add to the quality of the entry? If anything has to be quoted, it is much more interesting to know where to find essays and bibliography on Servetus, rather than some poem or TV show! --Jdemarcos 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Birth date unknown

For some reason, an anonymous poster does not like that I clarify in the article that the date of September 29 is not necessarily the exact date of Servetus's birth. Simply, there is no documentary proof of it. September 29 is a good guess based upon it being St. Michael's day, according to the Catholic calendar of saints. Therefore, if he was named Michael, there is a high chance that it was because either his birth or his baptism (usually the same day or shortly afterwards in those days) was on that date. But we do not know for sure, and this must be reflected in the article to be totally accurate. --Jdemarcos 10:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

John Calvin's (alleged) letter to the Marquis du Poet (de Poët) - September 30, 1561

I removed the following information, which I added to the article on Sept. 27, 2006, because it references a letter, allegedly written by John Calvin, but which is, as I have recently discovered, apparently nothing more than a scurrilous forgery:

Calvin never expressed any remorse over his involvement in the death of Servetus. Toward the end of his life, in a letter to the Marquis de Poët, Calvin wrote: "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus, the Spaniard."

The refutation of this alleged letter of John Calvin to the Marquis du Poet is given by Jules Bonnet (1820-1892) in the above edition of Calvin's Lettres, 2:588-593. Unfortunately, I failed to notice this refutation before adding the quotation to the article (my French being very rudimentary).

I added this material in good faith, thinking the letter genuine, since, for several years, I had been trying to find a refutation of it on the internet, but to no avail. If it were really false, surely a refutation would exist by now, or so I thought. But none were to be found! Still, I remained skeptical as to its authenticy. It was only after having discovered Voltaire's use of it (a presumably reliable source), coupled with the absence of any kind a refutation on the Web, that I concluded that it must, in fact, be genuine, and that it should be included to the article. I see I was quite wrong! Mea culpa!

Below is the English translation (entitled: An Historical Calumny Refuted) from Letters of John Calvin; Compiled from the Original Manuscripts and Edited with Historical Notes (4 vols) by Dr. Jules Bonnet, vol.iv, pp.434-438

We read in the Nouveaux Memoires of the Abbe d’ Artigny, vol. iii. pp. 313-316:

" An able Jesuit very fond of literary anecdotes has communicated to me the following letters, the originals of which the Marquis du Poet preserves with great care… These two letters of which the patriarch of the pretended Reformed, has painted himself to the life, do him so little honor that no efforts have been spared to get them out of M. du Poet’s hands, with such pertinacity indeed that a minister of the Cevennes having asked to read them wished to take forcible possession of them, which gave rise to a rather animated scene, the consequences of which, as may well be imagined, were not to the advantage of the preacher."

Such is the first mention slightly embellished of the two famous letters which, published in 1750 by the Abbe d’ Artigny, were about to furnish Voltaire with a sarcasm, and commence their career of scandal in a celebrated chapter of the Essai sur les Moeurs.

" The last feature in the portrait of Calvin may be taken from a letter in his own handwriting, which is still preserved in the Chateau of La Bastie-Roland near Montelimart. It is addressed to the Marquis du Poet, Grand Chamberlain of the Queen of Navarre, and dated the 30th of September, 1561: 'Honor, glory, and riches will be the reward of your pains. Above all do not fail to rid the country of all those zealous scoundrels that stir up the people to make head against us. Such monsters should be smothered, as I have done here by Michel Servetus the Spaniard.'"

Too circumspect to reproduce the sorry trash of the letters signalized by the able Jesuit, and accepted without examination by the Abbe d’ Artigny, but too partial to discuss their value, Voltaire confined himself to a quotation, and flung as a challenge to the Reform a phrase in the handwriting of Calvin, containing an atrocious exhortation to murder, enveloped in a cruel allusion to the death of Servetus.

This was but the prelude to the fortune reserved for the two documents of which the singular destiny has been to serve the rancor of the philosophical spirit of the eighteenth century, against the religious spirit of the sixteenth, and the hatred of a school which does not shrink, we know, from a defense of the inquisition and the massacre of St. Bartholomew, but which piously veils its face before the funeral-pile of Servetus, and the inconsistent rigor of the Reform at Geneva. The letters to M. du Poet were destined to furnish ample matter for the declamations of a party, not very scrupulous in the choice of its arms against heresy. It has not failed to lay hold of them. Let us content ourselves with recalling to mind that we find them invariably quoted in a great number of writings of Catholic controversy, from d’Artigny and Berbier, down to Abbe Amodru; that they have obtained the honor of double mention in Audin, and a little insertion in one of the most vaunted works of M. Capafigue. Let us add in fine that a writer of Dauphiny, M. Aubenas, has renewed the accusation, reproduced by a learned historian, M. Lavallee, who does not hesitate to condemn Calvin on the faith of Voltaire.

Such is the history of these letters which, quoted with the most unshaken assurance for more than a century, have acquired in passing from mouth to mouth, a mysterious authority which seems placed beyond dispute and doubt. Thus spring up and are propagated at the pleasure of passions interested in spreading them, those falsehoods consecrated by time, which cannot brook; however, the slightest examination, and yet of which the most palpable refutations can scarcely shake the empire. It is one of those pious frauds which we now attempt to unmask for the first time.

Among the seigneurs who embraced with the greatest ardor the cause of the Reform in Dauphiny, in the second half of the sixteenth century, we must reckon Louis de Marcel, Seigneur of Barry, Mornans, Saou, Baron du Poet near Montelimart. He united his exertions to those of the principal noblemen of the country, Monbrun, Blacons, and Mirabel, to obtain liberty o conscience, ad vied with them in bravery for the defense of Lyons against the Catholic army. He took part in the battles of Jarnac and Montcontour, and followed the fortunes of the King of Navarre through all the vicissitudes of the civil wars. His services were not forgotten, and when the cause, for which he had valiantly combated, became triumphant, he was named successively Chamberlain of the King of Navarre, councilor of state, Governor of Montelimart, and lieutenant general of the Maruquisate of Saluces, 1593. We see already by theses details that the importance of the Baron du Poet as a chief of the Calvinist party is much posterior to the death of Calvin. But he had declared for the Reformation before this period, and must have kept up with the Reformer an intercourse, of which we think we find the traces in a letter addressed "to a Baron of Dauphiny". This intercourse is attested besides by a tradition generally disseminated in the southern part of Dauphiny, and of which it is impossible not to recognize the value.

It is in consequence of this tradition that must have arisen and gained credit in the district, the false letters fraudulently inserted in the archives of the family of du Poet – at what period and by what hands? Of that we are ignorant.

Need we say that a simple perusal of these letters in the memoirs of the Abbe d’ artigny had inspired us with invincible doubts of their authenticity? But these doubts equivalent to a moral certainty could only acquire a scientific certainty by an examination of the documents themselves. No pains were to be spared by us to obtain such a result. The archives of the family of du Poet, long preserved in the seigniorial manor of du Poet-Ceylar near Dieulefit, transported at a later period to the chateau of la Bastie-Roland, had at length fallen by inheritance to the Marquis d’ Alissac de Valreas, whose kindness has permitted us freely to consult the correspondences which illustrious successions have accumulated in his hands. Among all the documents which compose this family inheritance, among which we remark the distinguished names of Montmorency, Conde, Chatillon, Lesdiguieres, Henry IV., ect., two, the reader will easily conceive, almost exclusively attracted our attention. The simple inspection of them was sufficient to confirm all our doubts, and demonstrated with an evidence not to be resisted the spuriousness of these letters.

The proofs in confirmation of this conclusion are so numerous, that our only embarrassment would be to examine them. We must content ourselves with a summary enumeration of them.

1. These originals, written by Calvin’s own hand (as Voltaire affirms), are anything but autographs. The are neither in the handwriting of Calvin, nor in that of Jonvillers his secretary, nor of Antony(Antoine) Calvin (Calvin's brother), who sometimes held the pen of under the dictation of the Reformer during the latter years of his life.

2. If these pieces are not in the handwriting of Calvin, still less do we find them in his style, admired by Bossuet himself and one of the finest in our language. That style is concise, nervous, and dignified, bearing the impress of a strong individuality more easy to caricature than to imitate.

3. From the form let us pass to the substance. The two letters swarm with mistakes and historical blunders which betray the work of an unskilled forger. The first, dated the 8th of May, 1547, and addressed to M. du Poet, General of the Religion in Dauphiny, could scarcely enumerate some obscure martyrs in that province. The second dated the 13th of September, 1561, has for superscription – to M. du Poet, grand chamberlain of Navarre and Governor of Montelimart, dignities with which he was invested only twenty years later, in 1584. It is one of Calvin’s accusers, M. Aubenas himself, who informs us of that, without remarking that the notice which he has devoted to M. du Poet is the best refutation of the authenticity or the letters attributed to the Reformer. We should have but too easy a task in pursuing in detail the analysis of these letters. But how is it possible to go through with it? How take up one by one the errors, the improbabilities, the nonsense, the enormities of every sort accumulated as if on purpose in these pages, in which the absurd vies with the odious, in which men and things are so sillily travestied, in which the grand and holy revolution of the sixteenth century is represented by a shameless scribbler as a course farce played by impudent mountebanks! Here the pen drops from our hands! When anonymous calumny dares to attack by abject defamation the most venerated names, it deserves not the honor of a reply; to confound it, it is enough to show it up in open day. To quote these pretended letters is to refute them!

Believe me, in the future I will be much more vigilant in checking and re-checking the accuracy of my sources. Delta x 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Servetus's Earlier Correspondence with Calvin

Someone has mischievously removed the account of Servetus's correspondence with Calvin in the 1540s, when Servetus asked for a safe-conduct to visit Geneva and discuss theology with Calvin personally. Calvin refused, and broke off the correspondence, remarking to his friend Farel, "I will not give it, for if he comes here, if my authority is of any force, I will never permit him to depart alive." That's from memory. Now Calvin appears in the article without introduction, and without even a link.

Also I have several respectable sources saying that, while the other Protestant cantons condemned Servetus's doctrine and advised its suppression, none told Geneva how that should be accomplished. I am looking for a copy of the work cited to the contrary, to see exactly what it says. J S Ayer 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored this section. --moof 10:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I now have in hand a copy of The History and Character of Calvinism by John T. McNeill, and it DOES NOT say that the other reformed cantons advised that Servetus be put to death. I will soon replace this with a reference to Prof. Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, which says, in detail, that they didn't. J S Ayer 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Theology

I'm rather surprised that this topic has not been discussed more. We all come with a bias, and mine is towards Oneness Pentecostalism. Other biases I have noted are Unitarianism, Unitarian Universalist Association and the New Church. Servetus is not always easy to understand and therefore his writing can be construed to suit a variety of interpretations. I think it is important that we recognize these differences and try to avoid steering the article too much in one direction. For example, Servetus may be recognized as a Unitarian martyr by the various Unitarian churches, but to other faith groups, even those who embrace his nontrinitarian views, he is not seen that way.
Of major concern is the divinity of Jesus Christ. My personal view is that Servetus accepted that Jesus Christ was fully God, and that while we are imbued with the Spirit of God, individually we are not the "fullness of the Godhead bodily". There is a conflict here with those who see Jesus more in terms of the "model man", and in the spirit of NPOV we should allow the different views to be represented. Rev107 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from what I have read Oneness Pentecostalism and the New Church have very similar views on God. And I also think Servetus has very similar views to these. I have read the Restoration of Christianity and he repeats his idea of God over and over. It's not just my bias that causes me to believe he holds both to the unity of God and the full divinity of Christ. It is very easy to demonstrate by what he says. Anyone who claims he has a theology similar to modern Unitarians will have a hard time showing evidence. It was very annoying to me when I read "Out of the Flames," and he was made out to be a believer in the Arian heresy.

"God has revealed Himself to us, making Himself outwardly visible through the Word, yet internally perceptible through the spirit." (Preamble to Restoration of Christianity).

"There is nothing greater, reader, than to recognize that God has been manifested as substance, and that His divine nature has been truly communicated to mankind. It is in Christ alone that we shall fully apprehend the manifestation of God Himself through the Word" (Preamble to Restoration of Christianity).

"For the heavenly Word made flesh on earth expressed the substance of flesh so that the flesh itself is said to be from heaven: because that flesh in itself actually has the divine substance from heaven” (Restoration of Christianity, 104).

"In Christ there is not some portion of God, but the whole totality of God, the whole fulfillment of the Word and the spirit" (Restoration of Christianity, 105).

Jasonschnarr 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How can Oneness Pentecostalism claim any historical connection with Servetus, when Pentecostalism was invented in the 19th century? At least Unitarians can claim historical continuity through Blandrata and Dávid. And theological ideas (like everything else) are subject to evolution. It is only normal that Servetus's ideas were changed by others in later generations. Otherwise it is merely plagiarism or reconstructionism, but not history. --jofframes 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We (speaking as an OP) prefer to think that Pentecostalism was "invented" on the Day of Pentecost c. AD 33! And because we also think that the history of "theological ideas" (some would say Truth) is more significant than organisational history, we trace our beliefs back through time to the source. History is "HIS-story".
Some would argue that Father Christmas has an historical link with Jesus Christ! Rev107 08:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Very inspiring thoughts if you believe that stuff, but this is an encyclopaedia, not Sunday school. --jofframes 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not Sunday School, but it ought to be an honest examination of what Servetus himself believed. The way I see it, you are trying to use Servetus to support the UUA agenda, rather than recognize what "stuff" he actually taught. In my opening paragraph to this section, I suggested that both views could be represented. Rev107 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not supporting the UUA agenda, among other things because I am not a member of the UUA. And saying that Pentecostalism (not Pentecost) started well after Servetus is just plain history. Besides, I do not think that Servetus ever ran along aisles or shouted in church or spoke in funny languages, so try to look beyond mere metaphysics and then try to find similarities between Servetus and Pentecostals, and you will find very few (if any). --jofframes 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In this section we are discussing Servetus' theology so I'm not trying to look beyond "metaphysics" ... if by that you mean what Servetus believed. You seem to attach no importance to his faith - a man who died for what he believed! (BTW I am talking about OPs who are primarily distinguished by their doctrine of the Godhead - hence the name). Your views are certainly sympathetic to the UU agenda: radical search for truth, freedom of individual conscience, and applying reason to religion rather than dogma and church authority. I am not opposed to those views being represented, but Servetus' influence has been broader than that, impacting the faith of millions, and this should be reflected in the article. Rev107 07:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the theology must be represented, as I BTW have been doing providing quotes and bibliographical references. I will oppose any attempt at misrepresentation of Servetus as a sort of Pentecostal or any misappropiation by a group that IMO seems more Sabellian than Servetian, just as I would oppose any attempt to claim that Servetus was a Unitarian Universalist. Let us stick to the facts of Servetus's life and work and avoid competition about who can claim him. After all, Servetus was a loner, persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike, and very few raised in his defense then. Let us not forget that either. --jofframes 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is attempting to do what you fear. All I am suggesting is that the brief comments in the section on "modern relevance" should remain to show that Servetus' theology still has relevance for many Christians around the world today. To describe any man of signficance simply in terms of his "life and work" is inadequate. His legacy is what matters most ... and Servetus' legacy is not limited to the principles affirmed by MSI Rev107 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the MSI is a secular organization and therefore it deals with Servetus's theology only as a topic for study and research. It does not pretend to be the only representative or the owner of his legacy. But it certainly preserves his memory and his house, and it has a remarkable activity in the publishing of new books and research on Michael Servetus and his times. If you or your colleagues want to contribute to that effort from your religious point of view and you can produce materials worthy of publication, you are most welcome to send the fruits of your reflection and research to the Institute for consideration. --jofframes 14:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall consider it. Rev107 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about NC & OP.
Your comments are even more applicable to the Unitarian Universalist congregations. Almost the only relevance I can see that Servetus has to the modern day UUA is that they see him as a symbol of freedom of conscience.
Are you able to confirm which of these quotes comes from The Restoration of Christianity: An English Translation of Christianismi Restitutio, 1553, Edited and translated by Hillar, Marian , & Hoffman, Christopher A.

(A) "There is nothing greater, reader, than to recognize that God has been manifested as substance, and that His divine nature has been truly communicated. We shall clearly apprehend the manifestation of God through the Word and his communication through the Spirit, both of them substantially in Christ alone."

(B) "There is nothing greater, reader, than to recognize that God has been manifested as substance, and that His divine nature has been truly communicated to mankind. It is in Christ alone that we shall fully apprehend the manifestation of God Himself through the Word"

Rev107 07:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rev107, the secondfirst is MY translation of the Spanish edition. It is pretty clear in the footnote. It is unlikely that it is a word by word equivalent of the new English translation, but the meaning should be similar. --jofframes 21:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone who claims he has a theology similar to modern Unitarians will have a hard time showing evidence." As a UU, I'll second this. We like to count him as a unitarian, but UUs generally don't believe in Jesus as God, and Servetus certainly did. His views are like those of Oneness Pentecostalism because both those views are based on particular Bible verses usually ignored by Trinitarians. Jonathan Tweet 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when is modern Unitarianism defined by how many persons are in God? I thought it was about radical search for truth, freedom of individual conscience, and applying reason to religion rather than dogma and church authority. And Servetus certainly excelled in all those fields (and surely much more than most modern OPs). --jofframes 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything you say above is true, but you are discussing what Servetus symbolises for UUs, while others see his theological contribution as more significant. In the end, the reader must be allowed to decide. Rev107 02:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

quote A is from jofframes

quote B is from The Restoration of Christianity: An English Translation of Christianismi Restitutio, 1553, Edited and translated by Hillar, Marian , & Hoffman, Christopher A.

Jasonschnarr 18:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please quote the page for "quote B" in the Hillar edition? The Michael Servetus Institute is going to receive the book in a couple of weeks (kindly sent as a gift by Alicia McNary) and then I will be able to check it myself.

FYI, this is the original Latin text:

omnium maxima, lector, Deum cognoscere substantialiter manifestatum ac diuinam ipsam naturam vere communicatam. Manifestationem Dei ipsius per verbum, et communicationem per spiritum, vtrinque in solo Christo substantialem, in solo ipso plane discernemus, vt tota verbi et spiritus deitas in homine dignoscatur.

--jofframes 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Governing Council

An interesting article! I noticed the phrases "... he was burnt at the stake by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council as a heretic." and "...and the Geneva Council refused his request." and I couldn't help but wonder, who were the members of this council? Who was the leader? How many people were on the council? Was there a vote? Was it unanimous? Has this been documented? Bebopadopoulos (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All this historical information about the political system in Geneva in Calvin's time is perfectly documented, just check any good biography of Calvin. In the death sentence itself there is no hint at disagreements inside the Council, you can check it yourself in Bainton's Hunted Heretic, pp. 140-2 (Blackstone Editions, 2005). --jofframes (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

His Name

I see that Michael Servetus's name has been changed from Miguel to Miquel. Is there some valid (probably Aragonese) reason for this? Also, the alias Reves, known for his father the notary, has been attributed to our subject as well. Is this true and documented? J S Ayer (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The custom in Spain was (and still is in rural areas) that a nickname is for the family, generation after generation, and not just for an individual (although individuals may be specifically nicknamed also, and usually family nicknames derive from an individual's nickname). "Revés" was the family's nickname (probably a word play with the letters of the family name). --jofframes (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Several major researchers of Servetus' life (both Historical Orthodox Christian and Unitarian sources) attribute him the name Michael Servetus, or Miguel Serveto, I think that if they (published authors) feel that it is historically justified to call him Michael Servetus, then it should be enough for a Wikipedia article. I think that the resources I have provided should be more than enough to close this question.

A contributor is obsessing over his name, trying to prove that it was not Servetus. Why? Our subject signed his greatest work MSV; what can this be but Michael Servetus of Villanova? As for his being unknown in Geneva, one man knew him there: John Calvin, from when they had been students together, and had clashed over theology. "He was recognized," says Calvin, "I thought he should be detained." Very passive he is, but I don't know of anyone else in Geneva who could have recognized Servetus. Still, I think far too much effort and ingenuity is being expended on the subject of his name. J S Ayer (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there are no proofs Michael and Calvin ever met, also there is just one source assuring he was arrested in the Church, he himself declares he was arrested in the Hostal of the Rose, in Geneva, in the Geneva Council,Michael declares that. And the owner does not deny it. Effort no, proofs from primary sources are presented, as secondary sources relying on them. Actually it is not one user but 5, as far as I have counted, who have referred to this issue. And it is ver important cause if his true name is Michael de Villanueva, means he was an orphan , and his mother married again. This affected to his theology. Michael always talks in his theology of the unseen Father, and it also explains why he writes the name ""Servetus" on the most dangerous works. Yes, MSV means that, but again, how you proof your identity, is presenting documents like today. You do not prove it by signing a book. Oecolampadios, Capito, Bucer and Melhanthon are all pseudonyms. Michael used his own. But I insist, the one person that was in contact with both Michael and Calvin was Frellon, and Arnoullet. Michael studied almost at same time than many of the Order of Jesus founders, but we cannot affirm he met them.--87.220.101.70 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is very important. It was communicated to Germany Universities. Also why ingeniuty? Ingenuity is to believe a secondary source says the truth when one cannot access the presumed primary sorce it is referring to. Here anyone can, as the ISHM did, which is by the way in the top 10 of the biggest international peer reviewed organizations. Also on Michael knowing Calvin, it is not impossible, but as it is said it is not proved. But Michael it is true that Michael is arrested in an Inn. Anyway, even if they knew each other, that does not change anything. Calvin spied Jean Frellon and figured out that it was Michael de Villanueva the man who was writting the other letters. Though they are not signed, he guessed it was the same person that published those works, Servetus. And he fgured out there was some Servetus at Villaneuva de Sijena, and he beleived Michael de Villanueva was a pseudonym. He says he is going to send the proofs of this to the inquisition, in Vienne Isere, but in the pages he sends, there is nothing on this two names. THat is why the two sentences, both civil and religiuos one, pronounced against Michael, are against Michael de Villanueva, not against Servetus. So yes, Calvin could have known Michael, but , as historians got confused by the coincidende of his last names. A royal document of French naturalization is a true proof of previous real documents that proof that identity, as it was passed by the Dep of History of Heinrich Heine. And yes, that source on the arrest at the church could be true as well, but it does not change official data.--Donald Schäfer (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yes J S Ayers is right, Paris had 220.000 habitants in those times, and about 10.000 were students. It can be. But then he knew physically, the appearance of Michael, and his name Michael de Villanueva. He later during the letters they exchanged without signing them, Calvin realizes those ideas are the same of " Servetus" from the two published books. Then he spies Frellon and confirms that person it is Michael de Villanueva, staying at Vienne Isere. And yes, Calvin happens to believe what it is said in the cover of those two works, cause he figures out, there is some truth beneath . It is true there is a Servetus family and it is true they are at Villanueva de Sijena, but it is also true, they are the family of his step father. But Calvin believes he is actually " Servetus" and he desperatelly tries of convincing the Inquisition for accusing Michael of those two works, but he does not get it. What the inquisition understands of all of it it is that that person has documents that proof he is Michael de Villanueva, and that yes, he is an heretic, the " proofs" of Calvin do not prove anything. But after that Michael, for some reason goes to Geneva. Nobody really knows why, cause there are no logical reasons for doing that. But one, his friends Arnoullet and Frellon had been molested, and he might have wanted to deviate the attention from them. This is just a theory held by some scholars, but it is the one that makes more sense. His adoptive family at Villanueva de Sijena, ment nothing for Michael, and Michael constantly sends the Inquisition to molest them, with the data he writes on the covers(it is unknown what exactly happened between them). But the new group of people he gets to appreciate and love are the printers, specially those two. So when he arrives to Geneva, it can be he went to that Church and created that epic situation, it has some sense, cause at that Inn, who would recognize it? Some say he could have signed as Servetus , in the Inn. Ok lets supose Calvin recognizes him, both by what he is saying , and by how he looks like, as Ayers says, it also has sense. But it also matches perfectly with Michael being Michael de Villanueva, and affirming ( without documents) that he is " Servetus". Later Calvin was so powerful, he always referred to Michael as he though he was called, " Servetus". It is a complex story indeed. All we have for deciding what is true is the official documents, and they all proof his name was Michael de Villanueva. I will recheck the article for adding "nobody knew him, but maybe Calvin himself" , someone could add that reference to the Inn Michael mentions in the Geneva Judgement, and still of course leave the other source that refers to Michael confronting Calvin as " Servetus" in the middle of the mass.--Alice Alaster (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The main issue is a whole revision of the primary sources has been carried out in the last years.The main thing is the consensus has changed, due to the proofs presented in 2010-2011 and accepted by the scientific world. Still it is a too important information like for retaining the old one. Logically most of the secondary sources rely on Bainton, and he does not take in count the documents, and relies on the 2011 proved falsification of the notarial protocol of 1504. I find reasonable that previously to 2010 the consensus was different, until the new documents were shown. Though it is kind of said.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok sounds very propper, specially when scholars such as Fuentes Sagaz, Gonzalez Echeverria, or the Scientific Journal Vesalius as it has been mentioned here, or the russian magacine of Elen Behler, have published books and articles during the last 2 years for supporting this proof. While most of previous secondary sources relied on a document that does not exist. I think the explanations that were included in the article are ok for checking the transition from the old beliefs to the documented truth after the revisions of 2 years ago. So, ok Belousov, for me it makes sense to add that note.--Carole Serné (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It has happened in wikipedia before. The concept of a subject has changed. For that one must show why the previously used sources are not valid, and why the new ones are. That is, presenting the primary sources. I was also using Bainton and the previous researchers. But now I can see he did not get a primary document for writting on the Identity of Michael. So ok. And I can see the three documents that are in the website, as a worker in the archives I know what can be real and not. Those documents are. Anyway, as Belousov as noted it was not until 2010 when all changed. It was then when thanks to the primary sources and secondary sources ( published works) supported on them have changed the scientific consensus. So I think the modification is ok, showing the consensus, and noting it was not like that before 2010.--Joost Van Herbrüggen (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Belousov that change is balanced. I agree. I can create a link to the document that shows the falsification if it is required.( but I find it not necessary) It does not mean all the sources that were mentioned are worthless at all. Most of those researchers made great contributions, specially in theology, as someone has mentioned. The theology is perfect and should be respected. The article still contains all those references on that topic, from the traditional Unitarian and Bainton line researchers, and also many of them for the life of Michael, in the aspects they were right.It is the identity of Michael himself what has changed, I would say from 2009 more than from 2010. The article has evolved good and shows the consensus in the scientific world right now with the correction of the mistakes and a small requiered explanation.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read the article. I seethe understanding of the true identity of Michael Servetus has changed, and now it has been proved it is not his true name, nor his life conditions were the same. Nor some of his motivations. I find correct to mention this was not always thought so. And how they reason why historians thought something different before 2010. I also think the presentation of the 3 official documents is great. I dont think the falsification needs to be shown in the article, I found it on one of the websites from the article. It is realy embarrasing to think someone can write such a senseless thing in a notarial protocol of 1504, before Michael was even born in 1511, and to affirm he had end his studies. Clearly Castro y Calvo did not dare refer the document, and just presented what he claimed he had found. Ridiculous. falsification. We should focus on other aspects that have not been mentioned of Michael, such as his Astrology or his friendship with Sylvius I will also add some curious stuff at Charlie. His swordfight.--NathanPreston (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I had not checked the falsification. I agree it is really embarrasing. I think Belousov solution is good. I don't know much about Michael's astrology, sorry.--Alice Alaster (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a few more things to say. First, thank you for the personal messages. Second, he is known to history as Servetus, and if that turns out to be, in some sense, an alias, he is still known as Servetus. Lenin and Stalin are known by noms de guerre; do we refer to them in their articles as Ulyanov and Dzhugashvili? The birth names of some revolutionaries are unknown. Third, the statement that identity was established the same way then as now seems highly questionable. Identity was not established in my (distant) youth the same way it is now. Back then, a credit card or even more ephemeral item would probably do. I remember when driver's licenses came to be demanded, or identity cards made by the state, and many people protested that citizens shouldn't need identity cards. They lost that one; the change has been made. Michael produced a document with a name on it, and the authorities were satisfied. He could probably have produced another document with another name on it, and that would have sufficed to get him French papers, too. In former generations, in many jurisdictions, it was quite easy to change one's name, often just by doing it. I am interested to know what names he used at various times, but I suspect this effort to establish his "true name" may be an attempt to impose a modern concept on an epoch when it didn't really apply. I think we should refer to him consistently by the name by which he is best known, while noting when he used other names. Come to think of it, I believe this is Wikipedia policy. J S Ayer (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleary you do not understand how Royal documents were inspected in France. then the chamber of Comptes of France, and the royal Chancellorship was inspecting it for more than half a year. He had to present documents from the La Seo church from Zaragoza for proving his diocese, his title of Medicine, and more, and these documents were highly inspected too. This was also inspected by the Dean Tagault. The one who produced a document that makes no sense is Castro y Calvo, We nowadays think we can create false documents in ancient times as easy as here. One, the reasons for suggesting it are unconsistent. It is to say that a note on a work of a historian that doe snto refer any document has more worth than a Royal document. and a registry of a University. Second, nope. He was not known as Michael Servetus before not even wirtting any work, before 1532. Garcia de Padilla and Iñigo de Urries, two noble men, kind of secretaries of the Empire, and from spain, they had been with michael for a very long period of time in the retinue, and they do not know who " Servetus " is. In Contrast to that, there is no evidence h e was not called like that. So, the idea that all is false is ridiculous, and it is just to make all fit, according to the old theory, denying all the new documents. The problem is, the theory has no documents that prove anything. Wikipedia policy is to show consensus, which is the one we defined, and to rely on reliable sources. Secondary sources based on nothing are not reliable. They are fiction. What we " believe" is not what it is. What it is is what it was proved. What it was proved it is what the documents prove. There is nothing that states his name was Servetus but when he does not present any document. I thank you your opinion but you do not understand how documents were inspected in ancient times. ( many people do not know) Historians do. A Royal document is a definite proof. Anyway you are right on using the name " Servetus" for refearing Michael, for the main article title etc. I will leave that , and also the reference to Servetus today , in theological aspects. which is where " Servetus" appears. That is the consensus today. To refer this charater as Servetus, and to explain later he was called Michael de Villanueva, but that he used the pseudonym " Servetus" for theological works. Normally if the character is very known by that name and it does not have any meaning to change it , it is left like that but in this case, it is very important what name to use. one is for theology and the pther for all the rest of his life, at navarre, aragon, vienne isere, montpellier, charlieu, paris, lyon, bologne, and that name " Servetus" just appears in the works, and in the judgemenet without proofs. So, sorry but no.As Vesalius Journal states, after being reviewd by the 1200 members of the ISHM, life of Michael cannot be understood upside down.Though the title yes, it is proper to call it Servetus.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is as simple as this. The biggest International Organization of History of Medicine, one of the biggest peer reviewed systems in an International level in the world, with more than a thousand members, all expert historians and phyisicians, have peer reviewed the documents and have determined unquestionably that the story events are that. This is from the last years shared in hundreds ( almost a thousand) of Universities Algeria, Germany, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaïan,Belgium, Brasil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus,Croatia, Egypt, Finland, France, Macedonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, India, Israël, Italy, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turquey, U.K., Ukraine, Uruguay, U.S.A., Venezuela, among others. I think the question is closed.--Donald Schäfer (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is very enlightening; thank you. You are right, I had no idea that he had provided such extensive documentation for the name Michel de Villeneuve. J S Ayer (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

References

I see in the article that this statement is made: "... claim Servetus as a spiritual ancestor" and reference is made to several groups with links to outside sources. I also see that none of the links is to that religions official website or book that 'they' have written. This puts all of these links as POV - not official. For instance I see that the Jehovah's Witness link (this first one in the list) is to a book that lists them as a cult. No matter what anyone might think this is not an unbiased or official source. This particular link and reference should be fixed and pointed to the official website of that organization. As should all the others. If actual sources can't be found for these citations then they should be removed. As they are simply POV opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal RS (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotion of Islam

What is the relevance of this sentence in the "Modern Relevance" section? "It is increasingly recognized that the discovery of pulmonary circulation was made 300 years earlier by Ala-al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Abi al-Hazm al-Qarshi al-Dimashqi (known as Ibn Al-Nafis) who was born in 1213 A.D. in Damascus." It does not talk about Servetus' relevance. It does not refute the first sentence of the section, or how Servitus' manuscripts were or were not found. Recommend striking it.

That's not in the Modern Relevance section, it's in Scientific Legacy and Honors. I recommend leaving it. J S Ayer (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction: Franciscus Sylvius couldn't be Servetus' teacher

The article claims that

In Paris, his teachers included Sylvius, Fernel, and Guinter...

Sylvius links to Franciscus Sylvius who was born in 1614 while Servetus died in 1553.

Top.Squark (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for noticing it. --jofframes (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very vague?

Nevertheless, Servetus rejected these theologies in his books: Adoptionism, because it denied Jesus's divinity;[15] Arianism, because it multiplied the hypostases and established a rank;[16] and Sabellianism, because, at first glance, it seemingly confused the Father with the Son.[17]

I understand this, but all these are self-contradictory. You can't deny Trinity and also all these. I have never heard of such doctrine and I have been studying theology for years. If you don't believe in Trinity, either you are Sabellian(saying Father is Son), either you are Arian(saying Father is greater than son, but both are divine) and Adoptionist(Son is an ordinary man).

How was he rejecting all these? --Otherguylb (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Swordfight

I added a curious thing on Michael. It is not very important but I think it is fresh and nice.--NathanPreston (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As you suggested I have expanded the section concerning Astrology, the Dean of the Faculty of Paris and the work of Michael.--Donald Schäfer (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is actually a not very well known aspect of Michael, wow! Thanks for that--Alice Alaster (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

I think we should find some outsider to re-evaluate this article. Recent additions have been outstanding. I think it qualifies for GA or A status. J S Ayer (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But I think we should wait some time, as it has been suggested.For instance I just modified some details in the article. I also think it would get at least an A status, in future. We need to specify the page in some references, I will work on that. Also we should bear in mind the many scientific articles that will appear shortly, during this year, after the Vesalius Journay and briefs of the ISHM and the many other important organizations that have accepted it, besides all the secondary sources we already have on it. And graphical material, it is good so far, but it can be completed. I think after some time that re-evaluation will be great. --Alice Alaster (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. Some years ago this article lacked many works by Michael de Villanueva/Servetus, and now with the primary sources that empower the true secondary ones, it adquired another rigurous level. Also the life of the subjet is understood completely( by the true identity), and previously it was not. And it had sections that lacked lot of data,( career, etc). But in the other hand to request a re-ealuation right now, when all the article is changing for good, can miss many of other completions users are doing( actually they have been doing it even in the last few days). My opinion is we should wait ( less than a year) until we get a more static article, and then we can re-evaluate it. I think your proposition is good, and I will suport it in future, and I think you are right and will get a GA. Thanks --Donald Schäfer (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tudela hypothesis, again

I am reading with sadness that this article has been taken over by supporters of the so-called "Tudela (or Navarre) hypothesis". This is unfortunate because this hypothesis, that nowadays is based exclusively on the task of one Spanish "scholar" (actually a pediatrician), lacks any academic consensus to support his particular claims and "findings" (most of them based on previously discovered material, so there is hardly anything new here). The scientific method in social sciences requires that any individual innovation or "discovery" is confirmed by independent sources. We do not have this confirmation here, just the revision and expansion of a theory that enjoyed some support in the 19th and 20th centuries (including remarkable scholars such as George H. Williams), but nowadays is widely discredited in favor of the "Villanueva hypothesis" that makes Michael Servetus... well, Servetus himself, from the village of Villanueva in Aragon, as he claimed to be in his earlier theological works and during the trial in Geneva, being "Michel de Villeneuve" just a persona to cover his true identity during his years of hiding as a fugitive from the Inquisition in France... I hope that reason will prevail and that a one-man hypothesis does not become the standard for this Wikipedia article. --jofframes (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That "hypothesis" was proved before one of the biggest peer review systems known. That researcher yeap, he is actually a pediatrician with 3 national prizes, in medical research, and also has a bachellor in Modern History. The MSI and the gov of Aragon suported him untill he started thinking "Servetus" was a pseudnoym. Those discoveries are recognized in past, both by your institution and even by the government of Aragon, in the main newspapers, and we can see his lectures in your MSI. What happens is that now, you try to discredit him. Well sorry, there are news. What this shows is the intolerance of the MSI, and how they now lie about the past: www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs?page=4 www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs?page=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Schäfer (talk • contribs) 08:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, these comments about the Michael Servetus Institute are unfortunate and unacceptable both in their form as well as in their substance. The manners of other members of this talk are also beyond the limits of what an average educated scholar should be. It is innapropriate to use such an insulting language in the academia. Moreover, some of the comments clearly reflect a deep ignorance regarding the foundation and spirit of our Institute. We have as one of our core values the spread of tolerance and freedom of conscience (http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/values.htm) and, although we are far from being perfect, we apply effectively this principle in our relationships with other individuals and institutions. In this regard, Mr. González Echevarría has always been treated respecfully by us and our Institute has never tried to discredit him. He does not need our support, since he gets enough support from the Government of Navarra. As a matter of fact, the article by Jaume de Marcos, before being downgraded, included a clear reference to this author. This is called "intellectual integrity". Therefore, we simply do not agree with the way he treats and interprets some facts that he deems as proven without the introduction of any evidence. Secondly, just to be crystal-clear: neither our Institute nor the Government of Aragon have endorsed in the past the theories of this author about Servetus' identity or birth place. Implying that we had endorsed all his discoveries in the past until he started thinking Servetus as a "pseudonim" is totally innacurate and misleading. Thirdly, our Institute is a cultural & scientific society that does not depend on the Government of Aragon, although, as other cultural institutions, we receive some small subsidies to organize some of our lectures. Our main activities are based on the volunteer work of our members, who are fully independent to deliver their opinions. Fourthly, in our Institute, we do not lie about the pass. We look critically at the historical sources and we analyze them with a global and open mind. What we do not do is to single out documents in our own interest and draw conclusions without taking into account their context or to make up theories based on pressumptions which do not stand before the rules of human soundness. You may agree with us or not, but accusing us of lying about history is baseless and it is hereby rejected by our Institute. Further action will follow before Wikipedia to avoid this slandering in the future and, among other petitions, the Institute will request the withdrawal of those derogatory comments from this web site.

With regard to the other so-called "new" information, note the following:

The official documents pointed out by this author to argue that Michael Servetus was born in Tudela have been known for decades and used by many scholars before him, and also the Jewish origins of Michael Servetus. Zaporta was the family name of a very well-known family of Jewish converts in Aragon and, again, this has been widely known for decades.

Kind regards,

Dr. Sergio Baches, Esq.

--Bachesopi (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone has an Opinion. It is good to know you think so. But I do not agree, "Baches." It is your member who started being derogative. Also you are still in an evident conflict of Interests. Dr.I. Belousov. Kind regards. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr. Belousov. If you are referring to me, I don't see where I was being derogative, I was just pointing out obvious breaking of the editing rules. Instead, I did receive some rather inconsiderate warnings against any attempt of correcting the article that were written in my User talk page. Pointing out that basic policies are being repeatedly violated is not being derogative, it is stating a plain fact. Nevertheless I do appreciate your reversion of changes to conform to existing policies. Regards. --jofframes (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not derogative, but you talked about that researcher and his reputation, maybe not with a bad intention, but well, you understand it can sound like taht too. You were right on the wikipedia policies. We commit mistakes, all is ok. I should have not been rough when I gave my opinion. And I will not carry out any more actions about Conflict of Interests cause we solved it in a good way. It is good we all contribute to Servetus's life and work information. Lets just forget all this. We have a good article, which shows the accepted data in the world about Servetus. We should all be happy. And I appreciate your collaboration De Marcos. ttyl--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Belousov. I am sorry if my words seemed to be disrespectful to Mr. González-Echevarría. I do respect him and his research. I simply disagree with his methodology and his conclusions. I was merely trying to point out that this research was in no way establishing new standards in the academic view on Servetus, his identity and his work, he is simply advancing a line of research that will be confirmed or rejected in due time as scholarly debate goes on in the future, existing evidence is examined by other scholars, and perhaps if new evidence is also presented in the future. Please also note that "new works" attributed to Servetus are also pending verification by the scientific community, his authorship needs further study and confirmation, and cannot be taken yet as conclusive evidence of previously unknown works. To present his authorship in the Wikipedia as established, lacking any further confirmation from 3rd-party academic sources, could therefore be considered original research. Thank you for your understanding. --jofframes (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. One thing is to talk of Tolerance and another thing is to be tolerant. I can also make a manifest. Words are gone by the wind. Good luck Dr Baches Opi http://www.villanuevadesigena.com/es/noticias/n51-instituto.htm

I also announce I won't be involved in any "fight." This is the last time I will edit. So don't be surprised if I don't answer any polemic stuff. I am tired of it. So good luck with it. ( and I mean it).--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interests for the version of their own institution

Both Baches Opi ( a completely new user with no more editions, by the way) and "Jaume de Marcos" are in a clear conflict of Interests.http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/board.htm No patriotism, no biased information, and no changes without primary new sources. You are warned. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing.--Donald Schäfer (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation of Michael Servetus article

I am sorry to insist but apparently a few users of like-minded opinion have co-opted this article. Therefore I will provide further information here before presenting my case for arbitration.

Please be aware that, as it stands now, the main explanation in the article is based upon Francisco Javier González Echevarría's hypothesis about "Miguel de Villanueva". This goes against WP:NPOV, as only one line of research is reflected in the article.

Furthermore, it also goes against WP:NOR, as it presents a research done by one scholar as the standard explanation, totally disregarding the academic consensus on this matter. More specifically, the current text of the article violates the following rules:

criteria for inclusion edits (should) present:

• Ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or
• Ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

González Echevarría's theory about birth in Tudela or that Servetus' true name was "Miguel de Villanueva" has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it has not been "repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers". This is González Echevarría's original research, which is very respectable, but it should not be considered as established or mainstream knowledge, or as the majority opinion among scholars, about the life and whereabouts of Michael Servetus.

Furthermore, using González Echevarría's original research also goes against WP:FRINGE. The standard academic knowledge about Michael Servetus is that this is his true name. By affirming that Michael Servetus' name was actually "Miguel de Villanueva", González Echevarría is promoting a minority or fringe opinion (actually he is the only current defendant of that theory). According to Wikipedia's policy, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." This is being clearly violated in the article with its current contents. If you are unaware of the standard research about Michael Servetus, I will be happy to provide you with more information, or you can go to your local library instead.

Therefore I must urge you to immediately revert the article back so that it reflects again what is considered the standard or academic consensus about the name, identity, and birthplace of Michael Servetus. Otherwise I will be forced to denounce your manipulation of the article to the administrators of the English-speaking Wikipedia. The editors that have been manipulating this article lately to support one man's theories are now warned. --jofframes (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Published in magazine Vesalius. academic journal. Also in the abstracts of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Cataluña. You are in a conflict of interest. That's it. Stop now.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned in your talk page their supporters. That's it.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you propose? to change the birthplace? I would consider it, as long as the other theory is mentioned, So lets see, what do you propose --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, De Marcos is correct in some things. The other theory is better known. And we cannot impose something so new to everyone. ( Though it is a goof theory). I think we should change the birthplace and identity of Servetus, and some of the education aspects etc. More according to the normal biography. I think we have to keep the references to the Zaporta notarial protocol of Gonzalez. The rest of his life can be changed I think. And the other sections are ok. De Marcos, you have to understand we users do not manipulate. We contribute the best we can, and we master some areas, some others we don't, none controls every area of Servetus. That's all. Then what do you all think? It is fair. --Alice Alaster (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. The early life, education, career, etc. I agree, you can modify it Jaume.(keeping the references to the converso heritage) Anyway, Marcos, we are editors not manipulators. We do our best, and so you do I guess. For example I know you contributed to the theology section, and it is a good section. We contribute to some others. Ok, I agree, life can be changed, by the normal biography--Carole Serné (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Carole. I was not referring to every editor in Wikipedia, just to a few individuals who, perhaps well-intentioned, were making changes in the contents of the article that did not respect the rules of Wikipedia regarding original research, fringe opinions and due relevance to majority and minority opinions in academic research. I will have a look at the updates now. Best regards. --jofframes (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Swell. Ok, I guess wikipedia is not the place for new ideas. Ok I agree with those modifications. Anyway this is not a place for attacking people. I guess my comments on De Marcos were maybe too strong. I accept he is correct when he says the standard biography is more supported. I just don't like to hear comments attacking people. So I apologize if I was too rough. I still think there are ways to proof a theory is more supported without attacking anyone. I think Alice and Carole are right on this. Modification of the biography sections keeping the Converso references as Bernstein proved. --Donald Schäfer (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Modifications accepted in the four sections of life then.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I hope it is ok now.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to reply about this matter. I'am a French cardiologist and really I want to say something to Mr. De Marcos and Mr. Baches. Really I am very surprised to question about González Echeverria. Gonzalez was national delegate of International Society of History of medicine of Spain for more tahn ten years. He is very respectable person in investigation and he has a University degree in History and he usually comunicate about his researches in originals in Latin, Paleograghy and Grec language. He is devoted about Servetus and his rechearches are about originals documents. For instances I have( replaying De Marcos) in Vesalius, with peer-review in my case or in Spanish Congress or Spanish journals historical publications ( i have seen in his web(michaelservetusresearch.com) as Historia 16, Pliegos de Bibliofilia, ans so on with pears- review... We know it for the first time about his jew family with officials papers nor ideas as others servetologist said, but without pages or reproductions of documentments, because for us,from a jew family, was the first time . Neither Spanish scholars nor French have demostrated it before 1999, and it is very easy to prove reading famous servetologist saying no document of jew family before this year...

For other part Paco Gonzales is like me Doctor in Medicine and he has demostrated his surname was Michael De Villanueva with documents in my country, in Paris and Grenoble and he had presented these large documents in the last meeting in Barcelona( Spain) in last September, documents that I had seen with my eyes after in my city Paris, and in Grenoble ( Isère), saying always De Villanueva ( Villeneuve) in French from XVI century that" Michel de Villenefve, docseur de Medicine native de Tudelle au Royalme de Navarre"( trois fois in the same document) and it was issue for The King( Le roy Henry II de la France) and others documents in Paris with the same nom , Villeneuve.

Afterwards he has researched a great deal of works from Servetus, that Paco Gonzalez have presented in these years from 1996 to us in several International Congresses of History in front of a teachers of History from differents countries from tout le monde ( Not only French). We have the opportiunity to read his publications and books( The last one, printed in 2011, too). We think of some of the opinions from Mr. Baches and Mr.De Marcos about him in this page are neither rights nor trues , even they are not unbiased with their arguments, without official documents... .Avec ma consideration --M. Richard

Dear Mr. Richard. Thank you for your comments. I certainly understand your appreciation and concern for the work of your colleague. As a physician, perhaps you are not totally familiar with issues related to law, Spanish history, or the Reformation, and therefore it is important to rely on many voices before reaching conclusions about a subject matter that may be complex or obscure and not of direct professional concern. Nobody is blaming Mr. Echevarría for bad faith or ignorance about the matter. It is simply a question about the conditions prevailing in Wikipedia in order to publish reliable and verifiable information. As I have thoroughly shown above, transforming the Michael Servetus article into a one-man show (i.e. Echevarría's research) violates several basic principles upon which the Wikipedia is based. It is not acceptable to give more relevance to a minority opinion (such as Echevarría's) than to the standard or majoritary view about the subject. Echevarría's research should be mentioned according to its relevance, and his works are quoted in the article as you can verify. It is good to know that the International Society of History of Medicine has such a devotion to the study of Michael Servetus. Nevertheless I find strange that the ISHM seems to be paying a lot of attention to Echevarría's particular research, but it is not paying at least the same attention to many other scholars that are publishing regularly and consistently on the same subject, although reaching different conclusions. I am sure that there will be other occassions to discuss this and other matters with the open-mindedness that should guide the efforts of our societies and ourselves as individuals and fellow scholars, and that it would be fair game to contrast data and information from different lines of research and not simply believe what only one respected colleague is saying, as if only one person was in possession of the truth and everybody else was in error. Anyway, here we can only abide by the rules and policies of the Wikipedia as stated in the discussion above. Best wishes. --jofframes (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The works remain. It is senseless to say they have not been checked. References to peer review systems, to academic journals, and to other scholars. It does not matter what the Servetus institute thinks about. They simply do not talk of that, I see a strong interest to discredit the researcher that we all editors can see. The consensus was for the life, which is not generally acepted in that way. The Michael Servetus institute is not publishing at all on the new works, but that does not change anything. The academic journals, the American Society for the History of Medicine, Aki Yerusalahyim. It is nice to see how De Marcos says Gonzalez is not a scholar, but he calls himself one. The research of Gonzalez has been passed by all the academic journals, Pliegos de Bibliofilia, Raices, Vesalius, Abstracts of the Royal Academy of Catalonia, and many congresses in all over the world. And also in Spain, in Malaga, Albacete, Santiago. It is ridiculous to say his works are not acepted. And about the Zaporta, none showed before him that Michael was Converso cause of it. Castro y calvo did not see it, and Bainton, nor Baron, nor Alcala saw it, and they denied it. Besides, everyone can see the strong interest in removing anything that has to do with Gonzalez. This destructive way of acting is just the fruit of fear, of how that Institute is trying to conceal even half of the known work of Servetus, as an attempt to diminish the recognition of that researcher, and so, of the risk that he would be listened more. He is anyway, and we all can see what that institute is doing. But as Calvin did not get to silence Servetus, the Institute will not get to silence the works of Michael. Don't you see your behavior is ridiculous? All editors can check how an institution based on Servetus is trying to attack ideas, and discredit a researcher. The truth is that researcher has discovered more things than all the whole institute together, and he is a threat, cause he defends his birthplace is different. But we people here know what goes on. The works stay.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course the works stay. Clear attempt to conceal anything related to Gonzalez.--NathanPreston (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. "Bernstein", you seem to ignore quite a few things about the Michael Servetus Institute, which has been publishing works on Michael Servetus and his times for more than 30 years. For your information and for all others who are interested in the subject, I invite you to read these studies by a wide range of Servetus scholars from Spain and around the world, including authors from the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Brazil, etc., who have been publishing under the auspices of the Servetus Institute. To see the catalogue of its publication, you may visit this page. No sensible person would, after reading this complete catalogue, think still that there is no research at the Servetus Institute or that the Institute is "blocking" knowledge (how? Mr. Echevarría is publishing his work under the protection of the City Hall of Tudela, which is fine and good, and even logical, therefore his work is not "blocked"!). BTW, thanks for this chance to share with readers about the hard and disinterested work that the Servetus Institute has been doing for so long and with little recognition up to now. Have a nice day. --jofframes (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as logical as you defending anything related to the MSI. What did the MSI discover? did it discover new works of Servetus? did it discover his Converso origin? did it discover new documents? I see works on "Reflection", studying works that are published, and giving opinions, it is not research. It is to write about Servetus. The MSI did not discover anything. No new works, no new documents, even the documents of Juan Servetus diocese were found by Gonzalez. Even the Bible in Huesca, even the Converso origin. Not every stuff that is published has the same importance. It is not the same to talk of Barions, than to discover they are compounded by Quarks, or to finf a Lepton Z0. It is not the same to talk of medical treatments than to talk of the discovery of penicillin. It is not the same to talk of how good Jesus was than to find the Dead Sea Scrolls. One thing in common, every discovery is always attacked, by people who do not discover a thing.--NathanPreston (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am starting an inquiry about sockpuppetry on this article. --jofframes (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What I note is you are trying to go beyond the consensus. We should go back to the Conflict of Interest. The works stay.--Carole Serné (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Carole. As you should know, the Wikipedia is not the right place for advancing new theories, whether there is consensus or not from a limited series of users. Yes, the works stay: Ronald Bainton, Angel Alcalá, Marian Hillar... They all stay and they are giants in the field of Servetus studies. With all due respect to Mr. González-Echevarría, it is still to be proved beyond doubt that his particular research stands on the same ground. Anyway, as I said, this discussion must not take place in the Wikipedia, but it should be raised where it belongs: in the realm of academic research, peer-reviewed journals, reliable sources, and international congresses (and not just the ISHM congresses, which are fine, but also others such as the 2011 Servetus Congress, which for some reasons none of those users seems to have heard of or has interest in it, or even the 2006 International Servetus Congress in Barcelona, organized by the Servetus International Society (you cannot claim conflict of interest here). Or journals such as the Journal for the Radical Reformation (which has published articles by Marian Hillar), or the Journal of the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society (which has honoured me publishing of my work along with Canadian Peter Hughes, for example), or Bandue, the official journal of the Spanish Society for the Science of Religions (SECR), which has also published my article on Michael Servetus and Islam... When you see the whole picture of Servetus studies today, and how selective some people are, you begin to wonder. Best wishes. --jofframes (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider it necessary. I am sure De Marcos understands we modified half of the article according to his likes (editions that have remained for 6 months. We simply do not agree with him in the works section, as most editors said before, it must stay. Much was allowed, and consensus was reached. All good. The article is now fine for me too.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Belousov. I did think that we had reached a consensus, but recent attacks against it seemed to disagree. I do support the article as it is now, and theories will be challenged where it belongs with a specific publication showing all data available, so that everybody can see all arguments and make up their minds. I will keep interested people posted so that they can reach the materials. Best wishes. --jofframes (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You welcome, anyway we do not agree on what we consider Giants. I consider a giant someone that discovers new works, and Converso origin, and documents. Not someone who writes a lot about it ( though it is also good of course). Or makes introductions to a facsimile work of Servetus, or a biography ( there are so many.), or a translation. Anyway. I am glad we agree on the article. No yes I mean it when I say I quit editing , good luck to anyone.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that Alcalá has not discovered anything? For a start, I recommend you reading this interview (sorry that it is in Spanish, but logically enough, a majority of information about Servetus are in Spanish and knowing the language is a must to delve into that pile of documents). It will give you a hint of all the work that has been done in the last decades, taking Servetus out of near oblivion. And Hillar has successfully linked Servetus with Locke's ideas and the freedoms in the US Constitution. Best wishes. --jofframes (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure he has not discovered anything. And he says one thing and the next one 7 years later, Obras completas " few drops of blood, converso family has no importance in Michael at all, the discovery is not important" , 2011. "the Conversos", a whole chapter of 25 pages for Michael, saying his whole theology is Jewish. Also, when he mentions for example Girolamo Aleandro in his "Complete works" he says " I correct this from Baron, with many mistakes" well, I checked those mistakes, He simply copies his text, Apparently he did not think someone could check it. And the best of the best is when he says in his work " El Leño verde" that Servetus is a paedophile. He also denied the "Ghost bible", even he did not check it in the archives that Baurier said was at. Hillar made a connexion with John Locke, so? It is his opinion. Documents? new works? notarial protocols¿ research? nope, reflection on ideas.He also said the Ghost bible was signed, and it is not. If we focus on that, Gonzalez has linked the trinity with Michael Servetus himself, and his life, by saying "Servetus" is a person for theological ideas. When it comes to make links, everyone can. When it comes to find documents and new works, not everyone can. Regards--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I may disagree on some of your points and not so much on others. But I would like to point out that, important as biographical details may be, the most important part is the work. And for me (you may disagree), the most important part of Servetus is his three theological works, and particularly the Christianismi Restitutio, and studying the implications of the work (if not the theological construction per se) and its lasting influence not just in the Reformation, but also in the wider stream of thought that would lead to the establishment of freedom of conscience and religious views in the Western world. That is Servetus's lasting legacy, more than where he was born or who his parents were (I have no doubts about that either, but I certainly respect any research that is done in that field). And make no mistake: having a converso origin in his mother's side does not mean that Servetus' theology was Jewish, or that his view of God was similar or convergent with the Jewish understanding of God (and I say it with my utmost respect and admiration for the Jewish religious and cultural legacy). Servetus was certainly interested in opening ways of understanding between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but he was very critical with these religions as well, and he hoped that the three monotheistic religions would finally integrate in a single reformed, non-Trinitarian Christianity, in which Jesus was "the son of the eternal God" and not the second person of a trinity. --jofframes (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

if we are now talking of links it could also be noted Gonzalez establishes Servetus as the Co-founder of Modern Pharmacology, thanks to the new works. Anyway I can see we think differently. Our opinions have been expressed. Anyway it is good to know we reached a consensus on the article. No more editions from me , lol.(nor in the talk so either), deffinetly.ElPais Good luck.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr de Marcos Editing for his friends

Besides the Crown of Aragon, multiple editions and the wish to destroy anythign taht has to do with Gonzalez, he edits on Alcala and Hillar, and made those sections. , defines them as GIANTS, And keeps doing it. The snext day after he complained about the editions on Servetus, suddenly the director of the MSI Bachesopi (talk), joined wikipedia and reverted a big part fo the article. Is this a joke? I will leave the decision to the consensus of editors, maybe it is not easy to see a relation between these people and what that user is trying? I quit editing. Apparently DeMarcos (Board of trustees of the MSI)threatens(talk) people trying to make then do what he wants. It seems it is the policy of the MSI, after they EXPELLED in 2005 Gonzalez (last paragraph expulsion). So you have a group of people all related even in the same picture, from the place where Gonzalez was expelled in 2005, cause he jeoparddized the whole old theory, on the identity of Servetus, and, of course the birthplace of Michael, which is what they care of. Ok " Gonzalez Expelled!". And now this member of the MSI institute tries to destroy any reference to Gonzalez, always says his.. " discoveries", trying to diminish his controbutions, which are huge: He discovered nothing. Gonzalez: document of Juan Serveto, found teh naturalization again, documents of the nuns of SIjena in Tudela, the 10 new works,the notarial protocol which proves his converso heritage, new editions of the ex poxtremis doctorum bible, in Huesca, he proved the existence of the ghost bible of 1545, and ratified the guessings on the manuscript of Paris. But he says " alcala is renowned" for instance. So now, all tries are in dennying any support to Gonzalez, in order not to give him an indirect support to his theory on the birthplace of Michael. The Michael Servetus Instute is just working for its own interest, its manifest is a joke. And Marcos is a COI This is a nice picture: ... COI (Baches Opi (second from the right), Alcala (from left 5th), Hillar( from left 6th), de Marcos( last in the right), yes if someone reads the wbesite they can identify all those) --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is enough. This man is refering his friends, he is part of the MSI, and he does not listen, every user tolerated his editions. He tried to hide any reference to Gonzalez, he hid most of his ISHM congress references. He did not invite us to a dispute. A COI with not good faith and destructive desire.We should proceed with a COI.--Alice Alaster (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Realy gross. He clearly told the director of the MSI. BachesOpi. An explicit try to adecuate the whole article to their wishes. COI. Yes we tolerated too much. As Alice said he also tries to hide any reference in the new worsks section. Clear COI. We already said the references were staying, as with anything that can be challenged. So, stop rtying t destroy or I will issue a COI.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Let's see he lied in the Zaporta issue, saying " it was known." As Belousov said, it was never published before 1999 that " michael was converso cause of the Zaporta conexion", cause it was not known, it was known separatelly, that he was connected to some Zaporta and that there was some Zaporta family which were converso, but none realted these two things, just as not everyone who gets hit by an apple , as Castro y Calvo, can descrive the General gravitation theory. So it is false. Second, he just edited references changing " Zaragoza" to " Tudela" in the book of Gonzalez, in an attempt to relate it more to that city wher IT WAS NOT PRINTED in. And as other users said he tries to hide as many references as he cans. No, the paragraph already says what it says, the academic consensus, ( on servetus scholars), not in big world wide organizations, do not share his ideas. Good. But when the works are listed the references must be listed, whether De MArcos likes it or not. For me it is also a Bad Faith COI, and clearly a try of the MSI to discredit and hide the work of this man which defends something non convinient for them. Even the director came in , the very day you edited!, This is a shame. This user must be blocked. He edits for his colleages, and lies.--Carole Serné (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it was known that Servetus' grandmother was the daughter of a famous converso. See Barón (1970): "Antón... se casó con Catalina Conesa, hija del noble Pedro Conesa y de Beatriz Çaporta". And the Çaporta/Zaporta family is well known in Aragon: Gabriel Zaporta was Charles V's banker and paid for several monumental works in Zaragoza, including a famous chapel in the cathedral. If Echeverría was the first to make the pretty obvious connection, certainly a small step but necessary to clarify that side of Servetus' family, good for him (it requires further study though, because the "Jewish connection" was claimed by other authors before him, including Sola and Américo Castro). It is nevertheless irrelevant, as Servetus' work shows no influence from Judaism, and little sympathy for Jews, as anyone can check in De Trinitatis Erroribus or in Christianismi Restitutio, and Servetus' theology is proto-unitarian Christian, with elements of modalism, and not Jewish. And probably he did not even know that there were Jewish ancestors in his maternal line, as he declared at the Geneva trial that his parents were "Christians of ancient race". As for Echeverría's book, it is edited by "Gobierno de Navarra", as it is clearly shown at the bottom of the second cover. It is only printed in Zaragoza, but the editor is the Government of Navarre itself. The edition even includes the line "TUDELA 2011" after the printing notice, and above in the same page it clearly says: "The publishing of this book has been possible with a grant from the Government of Navarre, through the Department of Institutional Relations and the Government Speaker's Office." This kind of notices are required when public money is granted to complete a project. So there are no mistakes here. And I only stand for truth, not for the interest of this or that institution, no matter how respectable it is. I am a member of many associations, and I would have a very hard time if I was dedicating my free time to defend and promote all of them, in the Wikipedia or elsewhere. Institutions can defend themselves, and they probably will. OTOH WP:FRINGE is a very clear policy of Wikipedia, and this is what Dr. Echeverría's findings are up to now, whether you like it or not. And I expect a change of attitude from you, Ms. Serné: you talk a lot about freedom, but you insist that I should be blocked. Is this your understanding of freedom? Michael Servetus (yes, Servetus) said: "in academic matters there should be no accusation, and that everybody should be allowed to defend his own cause in discussions." (Geneva trial) and he also wrote: "It would be much easier to discern these questions if, in the church, everybody was allowed to speak their own minds, competing among themselves in the spirit of prophecy". (De Iustitia Regni Christi). I have explicitly allowed that Dr. Echeverría's minority research is published according to what it is, a fringe theory (again, see the Dispute Resolution). This is how Wikipedia works, and it is not my fault if you ignore it or you do not like it. But nevertheless you want to block me because you cannot tolerate that I show proofs that Echeverría's findings may be flawed, or plain mistakes. I abide by the rules, and you want to impose your intolerance against dissenting opinions (which happen to be the majority view in scholarly circles, not a fringe theory like Echeverría's). That's all the difference. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, and the MSI is promoted by the Gonberment of Aragon, lol. All the time. DO you want me to list every work published with help of the Gob of aragon by the MSI?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You LIe again, I said name a work where it says " Michael was converso cause of the connexion with the zaporta family", Baron denies it, cause he does not know that beatriz zaporta was from the converso Zaporta Family, So you are lying. Name a work that says that before 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, Baron denies all the converso origin in all his works, what are you talking about? In that same work you are referrin Boarn says Michael is not Converso. cause.. he does not realize who Gabriel Zaporta is, do you knwo who he was? gonzalez, in 1999. he is the first who writes " Michael is converso cause of the zaporta conexion" None of your MSI published anythig before 1999, even more, it was so known that everyone wrote the contrary, Baron, Alcala, Hillar, so stop lying now. I have access to the whole works, so I know what they say and what they do not.Name a work, in which it says so. It was so evident nobody said it before, and wrote the contrary for decades, wow your statements are great, None said it before, what i said, and they even wrote the contrary. It was known?? hillarious. we can ask Bernstein, and his study on the Shaprut/ Zaporta families, on the Hebrew University, or what the University of Jewish studies says, or what the Jewish magazine of Culture says, or what Aki Yerusalahim says. You can alsk ask Bernstein how the Hebrew of Michael is Sephardic, and not Biblical so, it was learnt by his Converso influence, not by books, nor in Montearagon, nowhere. Absurd. It was his family, and relatives. And it was an amazing influence for him on the Zohar emanations--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your despise for the contributions of Gonzalez are evident. Your partiality as well. You are in a Bad faith COI, and you Lie before my face? you quote a book of baron, and pretend that Baron knows the Zaporta connexion? You try to hide any reference to Gonzalez, a person that has made a huge contribution to Servetus, bigger than the whole contributions of the MSI, which expelled him in 2005? You do not meassure up. And everyone can see how you lie here. Mediocre men try to destroy the work of geniuses all the time. Yes, ok I agree with you all. If DeMarcos keeps acting like this we will submit a blocking request on COI, or perhaps we could go further, This user has tried to deceive once more in the Zaportas, if gonzalez took the ovious small step" are u serious? that step changed the publicatinos of all the MSI, now they all say he is converso, befroe they said he was not!, Enough. Blocking request.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

proof of the lie of De Marcos, he sass :Of course it was known that Servetus' grandmother was the daughter of a famous converso. See Barón (1970): "Antón... se casó con Catalina Conesa, hija del noble Pedro Conesa y de Beatriz Çaporta".'" So, apparetly he tries to say , baron knew it. Nope.

Baron, 1970 same work MArcos refers to, page 24 " Three main reasons are used for defending the Jewish heritage of Michael:

1- michael servetus was sent abroad when he was 17 years old.. ( then he reasons why he is not Jewish) , page 24 line 17)

2- Spanish inquisition moved to ..( keeps reasoning why he is not jewish)line 5 page 25),

3- : "The behavior of Servetus with respect to the Trinity". ( and reasons why he is not Jewish ), line 13 page 25.

Line 19 page 25 " what it does nt seem fair is that biographes do not note the noble nature of the Serveto Family, with respect to this presumed Jewish heritage.

You cited a work assuring it was known michael was converso, from a book of an authoe who defends he was not, cause he did not know of the Zaporta family. NOBODY, knew, the connexion with teh Zaporta , and at teh same time, that this family was JEwish. So, that small step is the brilliant moment of someone who knew more than the rest, and demonstrated, against consensus, with documents, a reality. Do not lie to me again, De Marcos. Baron thanks to Castro y calvo knew the relatives of Michael, but HE DID NOT KNOW; they came from a Famous JEwish family, same none did, nor castro y calvo, nobody of the MSI, and none. And they defended the contrary. Ur institute. That evident step,... was a revolution, and we heard it also in the University of Moscow. Cause the massive consensus was agaisnt it, before 1999, cause those few autrhos who claimed the jewish heriatge could not demonstrate it. Enough of your lies, COI, Blocking request.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not considering that Jewish and Christian traditions had different ways of dealing with ancestors. The Jewish tradition is matrilineal, they consider that "Jewishness" is transmitted through mothers. According to the Jewish tradition, then, Michael Servetus would be a Jew, because he descended from a mother who descended from her mother who was Jewish. The fact that they were no longer Jewish but Christians (that is what converso means, they were converts to Christianity) does not change this fact. However, the Christian tradition upheld that ancestry came from fathers: it is patrilineal. According to the Christian tradition, then, Michael Servetus was a Christian, because his father and both paternal grandfathers were Christian (as testified by the title of infanzón for the Servetus, whereas the Conesa were a noble family originally coming from the Tarragona area. Therefore, within the Christian tradition, Servetus was a Christian. And Michael Servetus thought, behaved, and wrote as a Christian. If he had Jewish converts in his maternal line, this is true, and I am sorry for all the writers who did not notice before, and congratulations to Echeverría if he is right at least once. --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, " just once". He aslo found the bibles in huesca, of Expostremis doctorum and the first document of Juan Servetus diocese, and knew where the naturalization document was, though no librarian knew it ( me included). perhaps he is right many times. Anyway good luck. we think differently.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just once. He is wrong when he says that he was born in Tudela, that his father was Jewish, that he was adopted by Antón Serveto, that his true name was "de Villanueva"... Too many mistakes in one book. I do not talk about Bibles or Dioscorides, that is the task for a philologue, not for a Religious Studies scholar. Still, it is fringe research and therefore needs confirmation from other scholars, or they may be refuted. The debate is open and interested scholars should say their thoughts about them in the coming years. But at least he is right in one thing, the converso origin of his maternal grandmother, and if he is indeed the first one who published it, he deserves to get credit for that. --Jdemarcos (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah he is wrong? cause there are documents that required previous documentation? when he sais his father is jewish? he is wrong when he says his true name is de Villanueva? Nah. It is ur opinion. The documents he has require previous information, none of yours does. So yeas, it is a great bookd with documents, not with a notarial protocol falsification of 1504. The main mistake is to haev not checked teh archives ever. To have trusted calvin theory , which he was not able to demonstarte with documents before the French judges, and which does not explain why he was not called Servetus, in the empireal Retinue. His theory is perfect, Yours is not. You cannot explain why he was not called " serveto alias reves from Aragon" in the retinue. " many mistakes" lol. Yours. To have trusted what scholars say, which is not based in ANY document which would require an inspection by an official organism, when two official organisms required a name., University of Paris, and the Naturalization. He is De Villanueva whenever he gives documents, he is servetus when he does not provide any PROOf of his identity. I understand it is a mistake for you, for you are a memebr of the MSI, which is located in the previous birthplace, and defends he learnt Sepahrdic Hebrew from artichockes, not form a converso city. Keep going. good luck--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A "perfect theory"? Ah OK. This "perfect theory" has many gaps. Too many. For instance, let's check a basic element in any biography: a father. We all know Antón Serveto, the notary at the Royal Monastery of Sigena. But who is the biological father, according to Echeverría? All that Echeverría himself can say is: "He could refer to two fathers: a biological father, a "De Villanueva", whose name we do not know, maybe the same as his son, Michael -and we ignore if he had any family connection with the "De Villanueva" in Zaragoza or Tudela- and another father, a notary, Antón Servet, alias Revés, who is an "adoptive" father, who later married his mother Catalina Conesa." (Amor a la verdad, p. 69). So, in a single sentence, Echevarría accumulates the following words denoting uncertainty: "could", "whose name we do not know", "maybe", "we ignore if", and then a theory about an adoption that is not supported by any document or witness. And we do not know the father's name, when and where he was born, what he did for a living, etc. And you call this "a perfect theory"? Try again, Belousov. Show me the father. --Jdemarcos (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is perfect, when it has not paradoxs. Your theory has paradox. The fact the father of Michael still is unknown according to Gonzalez denotes he is careful in saying what he studies. For the mean time, it is unknown. So yes, the theory is perfectly consistent. Witht the unknown father. Your theory assuming the father was Anton, with no documents relating both, but declarations without proofs in a judgement, has the paradox of the retinue, the paradox of the sephardic hebrew, and the paradox of the absurd election of the name, same first name, and pseudonym from the village where he was from for escaping, but anyway , lol, that is pure logic. Anyway, retinue an hebrew, Huge paradoxs. Gonzalez paradox, none. A theory is not wrong cause it has unknown data. It is wrong when it has paradoxs. Yours has at least 2, try again Demarcos, show me some consistency. Or even better, lol, just stop trying to convince me. We thing totally differently. In quantum mechanics nobody ever knows the momentum of a particle if they know the position, one of em remains hidden under an uncertainty. Still the variable exists and works perfectly with every experiment, just like the unknown father. But ah, your theory got two violations of the laws you theorized on, in the lab. Retinue and Hebrew, Good luck. bye.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you acknowledge that Echeverría's theory is defective, because it does not give a reasonable explanation about "Villanueva"'s Jewish father, the invisible and unknown one, who must appear in the story simply to justify the birth in Tudela and the surname (another assumption, because Echeverría only shows data from one hundred years later to justify that there could be a "Villanueva" in Tudela), and then the poor guy conveniently disappears (Dead? Exiled? Who knows!) when the family has to be moved in the story to Villanueva de Sigena to comply with historical facts. So far, so good, right?. By the way, Echeverría does not explain either what was Catalina Conesa, originally from Barbastro in Aragon, doing in Tudela of Navarre, very far from home. And why a respectable man like Antón Serveto would marry a Jewish widow coming back to Aragon with a Jewish child (according to Spanish social context in early 16th century, of course. Let's remember that compulsory conversion or exile was in effect since 1492). Good! No explanations, who cares! Everything is alright for the sake of "perfect theory". (In the standard version of the story, it is easy to explain: Antón Serveto, an infanzón from the countryside, would be glad to marry a young maiden from a noble house like the Conesas, a Catalan aristocratic family with branches in Aragon, Valencia, and Murcia, to gain respectability and honors; the Conesas would also be honored by marrying one of their daughters to a respectable notary serving at a Royal Monastery). Let's go on. Finally all your defense comes to the retinue (Hebrew is a minor issue and it could be explained even if there were no conversos in the family, but having conversos in the matrilinear ancestors, then it is no longer a question). Let's examine the retinue. Echeverría based his hypothesis exclusively on a denial: Urriés and García de Padilla "did not know about" a Miguel Serveto alias Revés accompanying Quintana (p. 89). But notice that a denial is not an affirmation. They did not know about a Miguel de Villanueva either! They simply did not know who he was. But Echeverría himself acknowledges then that Servetus could be a "porter, officer, etc.", but would appear "not as Miguel Serveto alias Revés" but as "Miguel de Villanueva" and so Padilla and Urriés "would not be aware of who he was even if they did know him or even talk to him" (pp. 89-90). So, again, Echeverría transforms a non-event into an event. If there was no father, Echeverría invented a father in Tudela to justify the birth and surname. If there was no recognition, Echeverría assumed that the name was different. But there is no name in the retinue, neither Servetus nor Villanueva. There is no positive proof, but Echeverría does not care (and you do not care either), and out of ignorance from these two guys, he invents a "proof" that Servetus' name was different. But there is no such proof! It is an assumption, just one more. These two guys may have paid absolutely no attention to the young boy anyway, irrelevant as he was at the service of Quintana, who was the really important guy. And when Echeverría says that Servetus was not in his list of "Aragoneses", he forgets the fact that he could be in the list of Catalans, because Villanueva de Sigena, although within the kingdom of Aragon, ecclesiastically belonged to the diocese of Lérida, which depended on the arch-diocese of Tarragona, not Zaragoza! (BTW that's why, many years later, "Alphonsus Lyncurius" called himself "Tarraconensis" when he wrote his apology). So, not being in the list of Aragonians is no proof at all that Servetus was using a different name. It simply proves that he was not in that list. Again, minor data are conveniently manipulated to justify the "perfect theory". --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, how does Echevarría justify this text: "E stato mandato qua in dieta una opra di 7 libri composta da un spagnolo aragonese chiamato Mihel Serveto alias Dereves sub titulo De erroribus Trinitatis... Il confesor de sua Maesta dice cognoscelo, huomo di 26 anni, de grandissimo ingegno, et era gran sophista." (Excerpt from letter by Gerónimo Aleandre, quoted in Barón, p. 460). The "confessor of his Majesty" is obviously Quintana. But, if "Michael Servetus" was a nickname used just for writing the book, and at the retinue he was called "Miguel de Villanueva", as Echeverría says, why did Quintana say that he knew him? He was not using that name at his service, and he was supposedly from Navarre not Aragon. Why could he recognize him so easily, while Padilla and Urriés failed? If you are the expert on Echeverría's wisdom, perhaps you can provide a satisfactory answer instead of the usual chatter and rambling. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Delighted , Quintana misguides the inquisition to a diocese, Huesca, which has no information On michael de Villanueva, nor information in the Serveto family. He protects himself. If they find information on DE villanueva they would figure out he is very related to HIM. If he would have sent them to lerida he would have led em to the Serveto family,. if he woudl have led em to zaragoza, eh woudl have led em to DE Villanueva family. SO he wants them to find nothing. That is why he says what he says, evidently, quintana knows what goes on. But he lies. By the way you said a false statement Michael de Villanueva name is not in the RETINUE OF the CROW OF CASTILLE. that is what Gonzalez says. He does not haveto be registered there. Third. The hebrew eduaction, on Astrology, MAthematics, Geography is a RABBI education, guess where from. Urries is the lord for the things of Aragon, lol, he travels with michael for a long time and you expect him not to know people form Aragon, Good luck with it. I said, speficif individual of hsi father does not matter. So just dont say bullshit.

You lie on de Villanieva in tudela. In the Manta the tudela, there are names from the XVI century, developed in the XVII. SO , a lie. And yes there are De Villanuevas from the XVI century.

Third, Anton was not INfanzon from birth, he starts signing as an Infanzon in 1529. Before he NEVER does it. SO another lie.

Exile and bad treatment of the Conversos in Aragon, of course. That is very posssibly why Michael left Anton, cause it was a hell to stay with him, that is why michael hated him so much like for sending the inquisition against him three times he did somethign horrible to him. Lol your retinue and teh Catalans, yoy wish. nah, Gonzalez checked the dioceses of Lerida, he found Juan Serveto with graphical proof., Michael is not there, so , do not say again lies, or check the archives. Alphonsus, lol again, that is a fan of Sevretus, even the name is faked. nevermind what your friend alcala says.

ANyway, De Marcos, enough, you can say all teh bullshit you want. We think differently. You have atheory based on letters of Calvin, and documents which were never issued after presentation of Indentity proofs!. Never. No document of those who u say. and again, Gonzalez has 2, inspected by teh highest organisms of France. yours were not inspected by nobody! cause they did not require information, nor in Geneva nor letters, nor any kind of oppinion, like taraconensis , post morten. in the other hand, there are clear evidences he was not called taht, in the retinue, and quintana tries to hide his contact with him, cause the info of Micahel is registered ALWAYS, as De Villanueva, that is why he sais @ Serveto@, of course he knowshwat goes on, he stays with him, and he know what he writes, not like the other members, who just know his official real name, De Villanueva.

Lol there is no official document where Michael is registered as Serveto Servetus, cause HE COULD NOT PRESENT DOCUMENTS, cause he had none!. He was eduacted in Tudela, and later possibly in Zaragoza, sorry but not in Barcelona, he never has Catalalisms. He does uses words from the ebro valley, which were not used in Sijena, but Zaragoza and.. curiously , another ebro valley, city, TUDELA. You get annyed by it, well I do not care. You try to convince librarians we pay attention the same way to documents that are not inspected. You have a wrong idea of history. You can now write letters, have epopel talking of you, and u even can assure to be someone, you can sign, you can be in prison for several months. So what, does it proof who you are? no. It proofs who you are thet fact you get to be a spanish citizen, if you come from france and you asked for it, and you had to present documents, as in any procedure, and if you were one of the 17 who got it with that king, and even more if the countries were at war, even more inspections. And of course the same with the UNiversity of Paris. OFFICIAL, INSpected. you say " ah well those are french", LOl so what. So lets see, what is easier to falsify the most inspected documents, or to utter statemenst with no documents?. guess again. No documents were ever inspected. A pitty. Now you have many letters and bullshit, but legally, Michael is Michael de Villanueva, and never Serveto, in spain there is no data, at all, and the indications shows he was not called that , such as in the retinue, and in ALL THE Official documents that extis which required PROOFS of his identity, he is DE Villanueva, never Serveto. A name for danegrous works and for theological confrontations. Whether you like it or not. You rather defend a lie, a lie you were used to. bye. I will not debate with a person who calls himself a" religious faith scholar" which is ridiculous by teh way , and has no idea on notarial protocols, such like the 1504 falsification defended by the MSI, which was one of the most gross actions we knew of in Lomonosov Uni,false protocol. So, no more replies, you are a COI, and you are in teh pic with your sources, you are in the board of trutseess of a dull institution that has tried to destroy half of the work of servetus, and defends ideas on patriotic reasonings. Even if Michael would rise from teh tomb would say " what the hell are you guys doing". For me calvinism. End of the debate. I have better things to do than to try to convince in a public media, dishonest people, evenm when i already proved their interests, their benefits, and their lies, online. Truth is the daughter of Time, not of authority. and MSI has shown it is not an authority in anything. But it hiding and destroying, that is what Michael wil tell you, with his own mouth. pathetic try to destroy. Bye, no more debate, no replies. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that talking to you is like talking to a wall. I am giving you hard data about Spanish ecclesiastical organizations and you talk about Barcelona! Pathetic. You really need to read more. Keep studying, student Belousov. Perhaps one day you will start thinking for yourself. That would be very good. Investigate. Read. Check all sides and be brave enough to dare reevaluate your beliefs. It is hard but it can be done. You can do it, student. It is the only way to stop being a follower of someone else and start being yourself. --Jdemarcos (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hard data? You are in tha pic, COI, dishonest and bad faith, enough, your moral is gone. I catched you in several lies, better said MANY. Bye. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything that had to be said, has been said. This discussion is now closed. --Jdemarcos (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on New Works section

For those who are unaware there was a dispute on the extension and preeminence of the new works of Servetus in wikipedia. I will try to show here the points. In one hand, those works were peer reviewed in the ISHM and SSHM, cause every communcation is peer reviewed, and also in at least three Journals with a peer review system, Pliegos de Bibliofilia, Vesalius, and Historia 16. So it is a very serious investigation and is peer reviewed. In the other hand, it is true, that it is all the work of a man, and it is also true, almost non other scholar on Servetus published for supporting him in an academic Journal, on the new works. There are some experts, such as John Riddle , but there are no many. And most do not refer to these new works. So, after meditating a litle bit , I will modify the new works section, with a more neutral view of the things. It really hurts me and many of us who worked for that new section, It will always be in the old editions of this article if we need to rescue em. I will make a way shorter introduction, with a small explanation, clearly saying that most scholars on Servetus think it is not for sure they are by Servetus, but I will also mention teh ISHM and the SSHM as a support cause it is real. Later I will list them, with no more explanation that a clasifictaion in < translation works for children, Biblical works with woodcuts,... etc. I think De Marcos could be very satisfied after all the changes every user is letting him apply. One last thing. I will also remove the banner i put in the biographical sections, but I will name, in the section of the new works, the theory of Gonzalez on the idenitiy of michael.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, edited. I think the summary is enough and shows balance. Considering how worthy most of users here think Gonzalez Contribution is, I think now shows a balanced view of its importance and also of his not acceptance in the scholars of Servetus world, to date. So, I think everyone can appreciate how I drastically reduced the huge section to a list with a specific explanation. I do consider all the information there necessary. And that is why now I can remove the banner, from the bioraphy sections, as long as the mention of Gonzalez identity of Servetus hypothesis is mentioned, and as long as the new works sections are mentioned, as they are. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to show any point here. The dispute request and its resolution are open to anyone who wants to read it. It can be found here. You also do not need to insist here on your arguments that have already been refuted by participants in the dispute. The citations that you gave did not comply with the conditions of peer-review, sources were not reliable, and Echevarría's research has been qualified as a "fringe theory" (see WP:FRINGE). That is the state of the question and it is now settled and closed. Thank you for editing the old "New Works" section; however, your current editing is not complying with the terms of the resolution. The resolution presented by user Noleander said: "For the Michael Servetus article, my suggestion would be that the "New" section, which is rather large now, be compacted down to a one paragraph summary which summarizes Echeverría's claims, and makes it clear they are not endorsed by the majority." This suggestion was supported by all DRN volunteers who participated in the dispute. Your editing is still leaving excessive space to Echevarría's theory and it should be reduced to just one paragraph. However, footnotes have no particular limitation but they should not include claims that go against the resolution or pretend to ignore it. Your collaboration will be appreciated, of course, but if you fail to comply, I will apply the changes according to the terms of the resolution myself and take any other action that is necessary to preserve the quality and good standing of this article. --jofframes (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I did coolaborate in all. The ISHM passed it, in the peer review communcations. Now the section says what it says, not accepted by servetus scholars but a very few group, and passed by those two. It is the truth. And it is well referred. You can post some references on specific quotations on the peer reviewed articles againts him. the section was called " new possibilities" which u can change for " new" and it mentions the works, and some few details. The dispute u ordered, did not count will all the users here that defended those works, in this talk room, you did not even invited them. that firstly. Second, the article reflects what is a truth, the ISHM passed it and it has the references to the communications. Next time you present a dispute, make sure you invite everyone who has something to do with the defense of that section, such as Bernstein, Alaster, Preston, Schäfer, Serné and basically, all but you. Both the biography and the new works section was drastically changed cause of your petitions, which were listened. You are working for the MSI, which has great interest in destroying all the work of Gonzalez, nevermind at which cost. Wikipedia can take note of disputes and so did I, still, it is very legitimate to say the works, and the refernces to the ISHM and all I wrote, which is about a 10th of what it was before. I understand you get irritated by any mention of Gonzalez. I do not care. The section clearly says, it is not suppoted by majority of Scholars on servetus, and that it is passed by teh ISHM, and names the works, it also mentions in 3 lines the theory on the Identity of Servetus, which was preeminent and was completely accepted in the article some weeks back. So now all is ok.And the quality and extension of the article, was not thanks to you, but the theological section. It did not even have a propper works section, so what are you talking about?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Belousov, it is sad to see how you insist on personal attacks and judging intentions. Apparently you have not read any of my participations, here or at the DNR. I will not say anything else to you because I see that it is useless to try, you only listen to yourself. Just be careful to respect the decisions of the dispute resolution in its full integrity. Otherwise your misconduct will be duly reported. Bye. --Jdemarcos (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear JdeMarcos, do as you please, you are a deaf wall. You came here with destructive intentions, saying Gonzalez was just a " pediatrician", born in Zaragoza, Aragon, by the way. Your good faith is a joke. Your ambition, the biggest. Your actions, a shame. A person that works for an institution of Michael Servetus, which is interested in destroying the biggest contribution to Servetus works, now you tell me that is normal. Nope it is not, you do it cause of the support it can grant to that researcher, and that it is granting , nevermind what you say here or anywhere. You always talk of " opinions" and your actions will stay here so everyone can judge you, and your institution, which EXPELLED in 2005 scholar Gonzalez Echeverria, cause he thought the birthplace of Michael was another, and your institute is located in the previous one. First the theory of Gonzalez is a theory on Identity, different from the previous ones, which were on the birthplace. So that yous aying " Tudela hypothesis" shows what you care of. You revealed yourself your concerns. It is not tudela hypothesis. It is Servetus as a pseudonym hypothesis, way more general hypothesis. But again, you focus on " Tudela" which is you care of. Nothing on the works, no excitement, no data for saying why they are not, according to you, cause you have no idea. It was not published in any academic media, an attack to these works there is just a simple ignorance, and tha ridiculous references to Alcala's work, which is beside you, in pictures in the website. You even removed the Bible of 1545, which is in the lists of works of your michael servetus institute, and which was said to be singed there, a lie. So tell em to change it. Of course you removed it ,cause though that research was not led by Gonzalez, you know it was him who found the copy, and curiously in tudela, and showed it graphically for the first time. Now in your website you do not have a pic of that work, cause just Gonzalez has one. You removed many of the congresses references, saying " no more need", well that is ur opinion. The references have to be there, whether you like it or not. The althar to Anton Servetus, though baron might say that , about 3 decades ago, it is not true. One can think of, cause teh althar has to do with the trinity, what it says is " Built by Catalina Conesa, and Juan Serveto" but it does not refer to Michael at all. As always, speculation. So of course it again fits with the theory of Gonzalez, more if they rejected Michael. So. it proves nothing, it DID not require previous documentation, it does not refer Michael, so what are you talking about. YOu wrote that rude published the naturalization, wrong. Rude published a PART, of the naturalization, a Small one. The whole thing was published by Gonzalez, the whole 21 pages of the issue. Before it was not published. ( that if we do not talk of showing graphically). You cannot show any document which would require of PREVIOUS documentation and would state he was Servetus, you can talk of letters, you can talk of Geneva judgement ( stated that he did not present anydocument, for proving his name was " servetus") you can talk of some writters such as " tarragonensis" which affirms that, and writes works of Michael under his signature. You can talk of all the theological impact he had, and how he was known by that,you can talk of Geneva, and how in the judgement document it is stated he could not present any document for proving his idenitity, you can assume he was named "serveto" in Spain, but there is again no document which would require previous information for that. Just the reactions of teh inquisition to the cover of his dangerous books. You can also say he learnt hebrew from bibles, but it was a sephardic hebrew, imnpossible to learn from bibles, you can also say in basel, everyone used a pseudonym, and it is the first time he is called "Servetus", you can talk of no document which would require previous documentation, and curiously you do not mention whole france, the royal chancellorship, and the University of Paris, which required info, documents, and had to pay for the procedures of naturalization, which lasted 8 monthes, signed by the King of france, who just granted 17 naturalizations during all his life, you can also talk of how it is senseless not to change your 1st name, in order to escape fro the inquisition, or even use the name of the city where you were born, as a pseudonym,, he could have been called himself Esteban de Teruel, and not chosen a converso city, which would grant him problems, such as Tudela. You do not say how the hypothesis of him faking to be from Navarre in France is a fraud, cause if so , he faked to be from the diocese of Zaragoza, which was the document he was required, and which was noted so in the University of paris, Zaragoza, Aragon, of course. SO it has no sense, at all. And whole france, knew him for sure by other name. You do not mention there are no documents in Toulouse, and logic dictates he was not called so, cause he became important in France, after, with his scientific Georaphy of ptolomeus, and Syrups ratio, and nobody ever denounced he had changed his name, many students from Toulouse went to paris, and Avignon, Charlieu, Montpellier, but nobody ever said, hey you changed your name Michel de Villeneuve. Cause he did not., and that there is a document of the Spanish inquisition wich states the empireal retinue was asked about Michal Servetus alias Reves from Aragon Spanish, spefically the high nobles HUrries of Aragon, and more, from his own region, and after traveling with him for a long time, even before writing any dangerous work, they do not know who "Serveto alias Reves" is. So he was not called like that, even before writting any other work. You also do not say your instution mentions a protocol of 1504, which is by definition not atherable, as a legal instrument, and has information on michaek, of 30 years after, is this a joke? The truth is, the truth was buried by calvin, and his influence, and one can check how he lies in the third letter talking on th second one. He never send proofs to the inquisition in which would say his name was "De Villanueva" hidden behind Servetus. That is why judges of france did condemn " DE Villanueva" not " Servetus". IN geneva, they require " Servetus", from Vienne, cause Calvin did not accept any other criteria. Needs further study? The works? you do not care, nor the MSI, perhaps you can tell me what studies were done by the MSI on it, NONE. You guys do not care. nor published anythign on it, after 17 years. It is not study, you need oblivion, and you are behaving as... I canot say here the word. You know what , nevermind what you do, the truth is widely known now, and you can check 6 users out of 8 sort of, knew about all these. DO you know why? because it is important, and your bevahior a shame. I wonder what u will have to say to Servetus, if you meet him in next life , " hey Mike, I wrote some books on your relation with Erasmus, but i fought against 3 works based on Erasmus ( yes, Ditich of Cato, and two more, but how could You care uh), which were by you, but , well i was in an institute, and they listened to me there, and I defend the crown of Aragon, and that is what I care, so , we had to denny all those works, more than half. Also we tried in vain to discredit the researcher."

No more comments, good luck with your absurd and pretencious tries of trying to stop research, are you Servetian or Calvinist?. bye. ( no more editions for me) A conflict of Interest, has to be applied here. A shame.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. The article stands as it is, and as it should have been from the beginning. Fringe theories from lone-ranger scholars deserve their place in Wikipedia but according to their relevance and status, and this is the criteria that has been applied. End of discussion. --Jdemarcos (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is just amazing. Obnoxious indeed. This person is a COI. And his actions show how he just cares of the birthplace of Michael, and he wants to destroy anything that has to do with that scholar. Amazing most of his editions are on the Crown of Aragon as Belousov pointed out. And he works for the institution which expelled that scholar, and puts references to his colleages. That user has to be blocked, right now. COI applied on his talk page.--Carole Serné (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a Dispute Resolution on this topic. Read it. Note also that your COI accusation is pointless. The question was obviously raised at the discussion and the terms were clearly established: though one of the editors may have a conflict of interests, such conflict does not automatically invalidate his position. Read the rules and the resolution. Fringe theories may not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. The Echeverría theory is now duly included in the article as it is, a minority or fringe position. --Jdemarcos (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the reasons for denying the works? can u name them? u have no idea. Whatever you , Jaume, we know what you are doing. Bye.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not denying the works, which are comments on other works and translations anyway. They simply need further research. Otherwise we would be writing about the Jesus theory in the Da Vinci Code just because Dan Brown published a book about it. Publishing a book, reading a paper in a congress, is not enough. You need secondary sources, essays, peer-reviewed articles. I asked you tirelessly for more references and you could show only programmes and covers of non-academic journals. But it is useless with you, you do not even know how to quote. I know what you are doing: talking, talking, but not delivering. Zero. Nada. Just words and links that lead nowhere. --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I toldl you , Historia 16 and pliegos de Bibliofilia are academic journals, publishign on that, same than Veslaius, and same than the communications in the peer reviewed systems of the ISHM, do you think we are stupid or what? It is more reviewed than any contrary idea, which u do not present, cause you have no idea. U did nto provide anything, I provided peer reviewed communications, so just dont say bullshit. And i Invite anyone to read teh dispute , so they can check how i provide all, and he does provide nothing. cause it is all he has, words, where are your references? YOu have no idea what you talk of. I say it again Peer reveiwed communcations in the ISHM which you can check, what do you have to say to that? You don't knwo what to say? well then. " it is not peer reviewed" but do you think we are stupid or what? 5 International congresses, peer reviewed, which you can check teh lectures if you suscribe. Your own works of Servetus is more like a complete nonsense. I read your book, that one Of " Servetus our contemporary" it is for secondary school? Bye. Your tries are pathetic--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC) You can say 3 more times it is not in academic journals, that is why I say , Historia 16 and Pliegos de Bibliofilia rae academic journals, do you need an email from teh owner? I can get it, and from teh ISHM, for checking if the peer review articles by the president are peer reveiwed, if you want. DO you want? or now u don't want? that is.. aside the peer reviewed COMMUNCATIONS; in abstract books, of the ISHM. so it is passed, so dont say bullshit

I am Spanish and I know Historia 16 very well. It was in every press kiosk in Spain, so don't tell me that it was an academic journal. As for Pliegos de Bibliofilia, you must refer to Echeverría's 1999 article about Beatriz Zaporta. I have never denied the converso origin of Servetus' grandmother. And anyway, Pliegos was, as the name shows, exclusively about Bibliophilia, i.e. about books. It was not a journal specialized in medicine, or in history, just about editions, printing, and collections. All copies from Vesalius that you quoted were book reviews, not peer-reviewed articles, as was plainly shown at the DNR. So don't try to fool people with your baseless accusations. And be careful with your language because you will be reported to the administrators of Wikipedia. I repeat: Refrain from using insulting words with me. You are warned once, not twice. --Jdemarcos (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I refer to this (1999a) González Echeverría, Francisco Javier “Tres nuevas obras de Miguel Servet” en: Pliegos de bibliofilia, Madrid, nº 5, pp. 19-32. You do not know what you talk of, Jaume, you have no knowledge of Servetus, you refer works, of HIllar, Alcala, and Baron, and you even dunno they all agree with the manuscript of Paris, come on study a litle bit more. You are warned again, pliegos de bibliofilia, academic journal, on three new works, anything to say again? You are in COI, leave it now. You have no idea what you talk of, as I just demonstrated, read a litle. And Historia 16 is a peer reveiwed magazine. so what are you talking about. Besides, as I said 3 times, all the contect of Academic Journals is REVIEWED, All of it. From the editor comments to the colophon. It is not published what it is not shared. You have no idea. In Academic Journals not just manuscripts are published, and all of it is peer reviewd, so. just dont say nonsenses. You provide nothing, on data, reasons, references, or anything, and try to combat peer reviews systems siuch as the ISHM, in vain. All contect from Vesalius is peer reviewed, again I say, should we email the president?And also second thing you ignore, the communications you can also read if you suscribe, to teh nbumbers of the abstract books, they are also peer reviewed, so what are you talking about , third time, 58 countries, 12 national societies 38 delegations.Enough--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1