Talk:Iruña-Veleia

Untitled

Kaixo berriz Sugaar: I think maybe you should be warned that according to opinions I have heard (privately) from very well established specialists in the Basque language (whom I cannot name for reasons of discretion, but I HAVE heard this at first hand), there is currently a strong suspicion that the Iruña-Veleia texts, and some of the other details surrounding them, may be fake. Nobody is sure yet because of the limited amount of information that has been "leaked", but what has been divulged does not sound very convincing. So while nobody is prepared to say so in public yet, privately there is a lot of doubt about the whole business. I thought you perhaps ought to be told that, considering that you have written this article. --A R King 12:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say: you have a rumor and I have a press release by scholars. In principle, further information should have came out by this Fall. I really wouldn't like to fall in rumors. If it's a "Piltdown Man" we will know for sure sooner than later. I mean: knowing how biased usually is Spanish and other academy against anything sounding "too Basque", they would not allow the slightest academic error or doubt.

For the same reason, my first reaction is to think that the rumor is politically motivated. In Spanish language enviroments you still find now and then all kind of attempts to resurrect all kind of theories that would make Basques anything but native, to increase the size of Leon at the expense of Pamplona (Navarre), etc. Equally the French still often promote the theory that Basques conquered Gascony and even Iparralde in the Dark Ages, even if nothing points in that direction.

There is too much politics around this issue of Basque history as to trust such rumors. On the other hand, Basques scholars have much more often than not sinned on the opposite direction: being too shy and cautious. I seriously doubt that it is a fake but, if it is, we will know for sure and we will know soon.

I'll be disappointe though (and the article would have to be reviewed).

I imagine there's no doubt about the hierogliphs, even though they sound much more out of place: apparently they were not used in Egypt anymore and what the heck are they doing in such a remote place as Veleia? --Sugaar 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me make it clear I'm net telling you to change the article. I just thought you would find it useful to have this knowledge of the "rumour", as you call it. What you do with that knowledge is not my business! I'm also not claiming to be an expert on the issue myself, I'm only reporting what I've heard.

However, I want to clarify some things that apparently I haven't made clear. By the way, I wrote the above message to you twice because the first time, the server didn't work when I tried to send it and I lost the whole message and had to start again. My original message had been longer and more detailed. Sorry!

First of all, while I agree with your comments about the Spanish and the French, this rumour came directly from the Basque Country, and from Basques who are top Basque scholars and intellectuals, including people with very high positions in Euskaltzaindia. I myself am a member of an Euskaltzaindia committee where I come into contact with such people, and where I heard this.

Second, I don't think the word "rumour" is quite adequate. A rumour is a belief, often without justification, circulated among people who often have no access to scientific or qualified information. In this case, what I am telling you is not being circulated publicly, as far as I know. In fact, the people who are saying this don't want it to circulate publicly, which is why there is so much discretion and why you haven't read such comments in the press or elsewhere. It is out of respect for that intention that I am afraid I cannot name who I heard this from.

Third, the people who were expressing their doubts about the writing were speaking for themselves, giving their educated opinions, and it was clear from the context that there was no political or other ulterior motivation. Apart from the fact that we are talking about scholars who have dedicated their entire professional lives to the promotion of the Basque language, and who like you (and me) would be delighted if such a discovery turned out to be authentic, the fact is that despite that feeling, they are saying that they (unfortunately) find it hard to believe. As for their reason for saying this, the point they were making is that while some people are in a hurry to jump on the bandwagon and come out publicly giving opinions about the putative discovery (i.e. the people whose observations you have read about), they (the people I spoke to) think it is much wiser at this point not to say anything until we know some more, because it may turn out in the end that it was all a hoax and they would look very silly. They were saying that they were surprised that the ones who reacted quickly had not reflected and done the same. Nobody is in a position yet to accuse anybody of a hoax because there is too little information to judge, but these people are saying it is advisable to just wait and see at this point.

Finally, some of the doubts expressed (I repeat I am not an expert on this) related to historical, cultural and archeological issues that just don't seem to fit in with expert knowledge of the period and look like anachronisms. Secondly, questions were raised about the linguistic material itself, concerning a number of details that, while perhaps not categorically disqualifying the text, make it look rather unlikely as a text from the period claimed; in a sense, these too would be anachronisms. Thirdly, it just seems rather improbable, and somewhat "miraculous", that this one instance of Basque writing should be found but that there should not be other examples around. These lines do not reproduce the arguments in detail, so you shouldn't try to form an opinion based on them, but I'm just trying to give you an indication of the kind of reasons that I heard mentioned. --A R King 16:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Just discovered that there's another article (stub) on the same subject (Veleia (Spain)). It's quite obvious to merge or maybe even just delete the stub (as this article is much more complete).

Note: when merging, notice that the stub is disambiguated at Veleia, that should after the merge redirect here. --Sugaar 11:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity issue (update)

This week I had another opportunity to check again on the latest state of opinion about the putative "oldest Basque texts" among Basque language specialists of the highest standing in the Basque Country. Nothing has changed, I was told, since the last discussion a few months back, on which I have already reported higher up on this page. That is to say, the authenticity of the findings is viewed by my sources as being just as doubtful as it was last time.

The only information of which the public disposes (including the academic public, and therefore this Wikipedia article also) comes from press reports, not directly from scholarly evaluations. Sensibly, serious scholars are awaiting publication of the findings by those who claim to have found them before giving an opinion. Publication of findings had been promised for October (last month) but have now been delayed until the middle of next year!

All we can say, then, is that serious Basque language experts have seen strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Basque texts leaked to the press; such doubts can only be clarified, hopefully, when fuller and more reliable information about the texts is made available, but until it is, the doubts are not going to vanish either. I will not go into details again about the reasons for these doubts, other than to reiterate that they are based on both "external" and "internal" arguments.

I will give one example of an "internal" argument, i.e. one based on the content of the putative text: the use of the letter z roughly as in modern Basque seen in the text is an obvious anachronism, coming over a thousand years too early in fact, because the modern use of z in Basque to represent a voiceless sibillant is an imitation of the similar early modern Spanish usage (compare the similar use of z introduced by the Spanish colonists in America, as seen in classical Nahuatl orthography for example). From Spanish conquistadors to Roman legions there is quite a time leap, I should say! In Roman times, the letter z had a quite different value (when used at all).

So, the information about this given in the article is based on unconfirmed and dubious information from the press. Not only that, but it also uses that information selectively. For instance, in the Gara article the link for which is given on the page as a reference, we read:

«Consideramos que esta comparecencia era necesaria ­añadió Gorrotxategi­, porque las filtraciones, en mi opinión totalmente irresponsables, y cuyas consecuencias todavía están por ver, han colocado a la comunidad científica en una situación muy incómoda, levantando sospechas de fraude inadmisibles y, si no sospechas, un gran escepticismo».

(My translation; the emphasis is also mine:

"We considered this appearance [in a press conference] to be necessary," Gorrotxategi added, "because the leaks, which were very irresponsible in my opinion, the consequences of which remain to be seen, have put the scientific community in a very uncomfortable position, raising suspicions of inadmissible fraud or, if not suspicions, certainly a high degree of sceptisim.")

The fact that the claims about the text are presented in the Wikipedia article without qualification, while the existence in the scientific community of "suspicions" or "scepticism" alluded to in the same source is not mentioned, could be seen as lack of rigour. I suggest (once again) that some qualification be added to inform the reader of the real status of this information according to currently available knowledge. --A R King 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gara: Confirman la autenticidad de los textos hallados en Iruña-Veleia.

Los miembros del equipo investigador han salido al paso de las "perplejidades en cadena" que apuntaron recientemente los profesores de la UPV Juan José Larrea y Joseba Lakarra, quienes, entre otras cosas, mostraban su asombro por la supuesta aparición de la palabra "iankoa", con el artículo, cuando se supone que éste lo utilizó el euskara siglos después, basándose en las lenguas románicas.

Lacónicamente, Filloy se ha limitado a decir que este término no aparece entre los grafitos encontrados, por lo que ha pedido que no se hagan análisis con falta de datos.

Translation: The investigating team members have come forward to stop the "chain-reaction perplexities" that were mentioned recently by EHU-UPV professors J.J. Larrea and J. Lakarra, who, among other things, showed astonishment for the supposed appearence of the word "iankoa", with the article, when it's supposed that this was only used in Basque centuries later, based in romanic languages.

Laconically, Filloy limited himself to say that this term does not appear in the found graphites, asking for analysis not to be made with lack of data.

So please, stop divulgating unfounded rumors. Thanks.

Nuclear spectroscopia has shown that the texts are older than the 3rd century.

The investigation continues and it deserves outmost respect. --Sugaar 19:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are adopting the wrong tone there, Sugaar. Let's get things back into perspective, shall we? Nobody is "divulgating unfounded rumours". Larrea and Lakarra are highly reputed scholars in their field; I don't think you have any reason for referring to ideas that they support as "unfounded rumours". Secondly, I am not "divulgating" them; all I have done is ask you to take into account that such opinions exist (at highest levels among the Basque-language specialist community, as it happens). You are the one who is only giving out one viewpoint, and I have only suggested that your account should take into account the existence, at this early stage in the game, of a highly authorised alternative viewpoint.

Why on earth you have decided to champion one side in this scholarly dispute against another, and make such a big deal out of it, I fail to understand. But you might want to consider (if you can manage that much objectivity) that my own sources, mentioned above, who (privately) coincide with the view that thinks the authenticity of the find should be questioned, are also scholars of equally high repute but not even the same ones referred to in the article you have quoted! So there is no question of it being a fringe or crackpot view. Also, your latest "proof" reflected in the Gara article you quote (and which is in all the Basque press today) only reports on a new statement by the researchers who made the original claim; of course they are saying "we are right". They have to. We haven't heard the response of the Larreas, Lakarras and the rest of the specialist community yet. So hold your horses, my friend! --A R King 20:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't brought forward anything. All your sources are the very sources I have brought here. You have only spoken of rumors you have heard, like if that could question anything. Please, be serious: if you have something bring it forward with sources, if you have only an academic rumor, keep it for yourself.

You are the one who should hold your horses or bring more clear documentation so we can see where the problem is - if there is any problem at all. --Sugaar 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there's something more than the researchers asking for calm and denying that "iankoa" is among the texts. There is a mention of molecular analysis of the ostrakas by a prestigious French laboratory saying that they are dated in the 3rd century the later. If you want to keep pushing for the hoax rumor, you need now to also question the profesionality of the CNRS, who affirm that is impossible that the texts are younger than that:

La analítica principal sobre ellos se ha realizado en los laboratorios de espectroscopia nuclear del CEA-CNRS del Estado francés, y básicamente consistió en analizar la pátina superficial de las evidencias que ha permitido determinar que cuando ese material quedó enterrado en el subsuelo, en el siglo III, "los grafitos ya estaban hechos".

Coloquialmente explicaron que esto hace imposible la falsificación, que se hubieran hecho las inscripciones posteriormente en el material que se recuperó enterrado a la altura de un sustrato del siglo III, porque tienen elementos que sólo los genera el tiempo y es imposible hacerlo en el laboratorio.

El físico nuclear Rubén Cerdán ha explicado que para estos análisis se utilizan 155 elementos de discriminación, que sirven para descartar que en las muestras se encuentran elementos que existen en la actualidad pero que no existían en el siglo III, como determinados elementos provenientes de explosiones nucleares o restos de detergentes.

I am kind of outraged at your insistence on rumors that have no base. I know that Spanish nationalism is fanatic and miserable but I'm not willing to play their game. Thanks. --Sugaar 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Simple note about translations of the words. In modern basque "urdin" means blue, but not long ago means "the colors of the sky" from white to blue, including grey. This use of "urdin" is rare but acceptable today. the translations may be:

URDINISAR : white star, blue star, grey star.....

ZURI URDINGORI : Zuri is translated as "white" as in modern basque, can be translated "for you" , translation maybe "for you greyred"

Personaly, as basque speaker, is really amazing the understanding of those words more than thousand years before they wroted, i think is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.152.149 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2006

I know that but I simplified for matter of understanding. Urdin and Gorri were general color terms: urdin could also mean grey and even green, while gorri made reference to anything from yellow to brown.

But urdin is not "white" in any case, I think. Nor the placement of the adjective before the noun is common, at least in modern Basque (it would be "izar urdin"). Plus the "z" that we find in "zutan" is not there. I thought of "urdin izan" and "urdinez har" but they make little sense either.

Zuri could mean that, but it seems to make more sense as a list of colors. They seem to be "school texts" of some child.

And in any case, I followed the source article on their likely meanings. --Sugaar 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Final attempt

Sugaar: I will make one more try to put this into perspective (something which I feel has been sadly lacking here from the start). After this I will try to keep my mouth shut, so bear with me this one last time.

Here we have an article about the archaeological site Iruñea-Veleia which refers to some findings, including what are purported to be the earliest (by far) specimens of writing in Basque, which are currently in the news. The public (including the scientific community, i.e. everyone except perhaps for the archaelogists working on the site) do not at this time dispose of a full range of reliable facts because none have been released. There are only press reports from the archaeologists and some opinions from other Basque experts that have also been circulated in the press. These opinions include both expressions of doubt about the authenticity of the texts that have been released and expressions of support. However, most Basque specialists are refraining from publicly taking a position as professionals, which is as it should be because neither they nor anyone else have been provided with a rigorous and comprehensive account of what has been found. However, informally at least, I think there does exist at this time a general feeling in Basque linguistic/philological circles, at least among some academics and scholars and possibly among a majority of them (though obviously I don't have data to prove that they are a majority), who would agree that it would not be wise to assume, at present, that these are necessarily authentic third-century Basque texts, as the finders have claimed. Some of the reasons for maintaining this position of "abstention", "not assuming" or "wait-and-see" have been explained by those academics who have chosen to speak to the press about it. At the present time, a full report is expected for some time next year, at which time it may be possible for many of the present doubts and suspicions to be resolved one way or another, but for now this is all we have to go on.

The English-language article on the subject, which I believe you have written, only gives the version of the team who announced their findings to the press. It contains nothing to reflect the existence of the scholarly opinions that recommend caution or of the current "dispute", if that is what it is. When I made my first comments to you on this page about this, they were to point out to you that such "reasonable doubts" do exist. And that is still the only thing I am trying to tell you. Your reaction was not what I would have expected.

You insist on referring to the scholarly opinions I am talking about as "unfounded rumours". You have also intimated, more than once now, that the scholarly opinions I am talking about are some sort of anti-Basque Spanish plot. And you have complained that I am "divulgating" (by which I understand you mean "spreading") the aforementioned "unfounded rumours". I take these "points" is reverse order. I am not trying to spread/divulgate anything, I am not even defending a yes/no position on the authenticity issue, I am asking for a bit of balance in the article (and also in your attitude, if at all possible) by reporting on the full range of views/information now available. As for the Spanish conspiracy theory, which you have recently once again alluded to, you are obviously not listening because I told you before that I am referring to the opinions of respected scholars in the Basque academic world. There is nothing Spanish about them. Of course, even if there were, your way of reacting (I am not Spanish either, who's bringing the Spanish into this?) would surely smack to many of paranoia and an inability to address the issues per se. Finally, why do you insist on dismissing the opinions that suggest we should exercise caution, expressed publicly and privately by many specialists, as "unfounded rumours" just because you (obviously) don't like them?

The upshot of this is that, sadly, at the present time, the article on Iruña-Veleia in the Spanish Wikipedia appears to be a lot better and more balanced than this one on the English Wikipedia. (Unfortunately they haven't got around to writing anything at all on the Basque-language Wikipedia yet.) That's a shame in my opinion. I must therefore refer interested readers who can read Spanish to the Spanish-language article [1], and draw their attention in particular to the references included in that, which will provide some of the sources and information lacking in the English article. (I suppose it would be too much to ask to have those references added to this article too? After all, the ones already cited here are also in Spanish...)

From one of these references, a newspaper interview[2] with the academic Joakin Gorrotxategi, I quote to conclude (English translation follows):

-Si el puzzle no encaja, ¿no surgirán sospechas de falsificación?

-La respuesta a eso tendrá que ser el final del estudio. Yo aún no estoy seguro de que eso sea auténtico. Pero, ojo, de la misma manera que reclamo que no se puede decir ahora que todo va a misa, por la recíproca no podemos decir que esto es falso. No creo que esto se vaya a dilatar, parece que de aquí al verano ya estará el informe definitivo.

-¿Se le ha pasado por la cabeza que el hallazgo pueda ser falso?

-Para mí están abiertas todas las posibilidades, también que sea verdadero.

Translation: - If the jigsaw puzzle doesn't fit, won't that lead to suspicions of forgery?

- We'll have the answer to that at the end of the investigation. I am still not convinced that it is authentic. However, just as I am now claiming that it is too soon to assume that everything is true, conversely we cannot be sure that it is a fake either. I don't think this will go on for long, apparently the official report is going to be available by next summer.

- Has it ever occurred to you that the find could be a fake?

- I consider all possibilities open, including the possibility that it may be genuine.

The position of judicious caution so clearly expressed here is what I am asking to see reflected in the article, and you are dismissing my suggestion as "divulgating unfounded rumours".

I rest my case. --A R King 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also keep a judicious caution. Yet if we have a respectable researching team and an also repectable laboratory claiming that they are real and that their age is at least from 3rd century CE (that would make them 1st-3rd century, because they use Latin alphabet), by the moment the weight is clearly on the side of being a real finding of important consequences (not the only one in that site, btw).

Most of the reserves placed by Gorrotxategi are philological cautions: philologists have reconstructed a supposed proto-Basque and had certain expectations that don't seem to match what has been found. But, as linguist, you should know well that it's not a very "exact science" and that it's largely based in assumptions and theories that may well be flawed.

In a personal note, languages do evolve but colonizing languages (like Latin) seem to evolve much faster than static ones (like Basque), due to the accent and substratum influence of colonized peoples. This is not something that Linguistics seems to accept easily (based as it is on IE studies, a rapidly colonizing family) but I'm strongly convinced it is the reality.

In any case, I think that the best is to give the finidings validity till proven otherwise (something that doesn't seem likely after the datation). Nevertheless, if you want to add a section on caution statements, I think that would be good for NPOV - though probably would need to be reviewed as months pass and more and more information comes out.

Just notice please that your referenced interview is prior to the announcement of that datation, which is extremely important in giving credibility to the finding. If you could find some objections/reserves from later dates, it would be much better. --Sugaar 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's both keep our eyes open for new statements of opinions of Basque (or other) scholars on the matter. You will probably be quicker than me because this is not a high priority issue for me. For that reason I prefer not to edit the article myself, so I'll leave that in your hands (or those of any other interested editor).

As for your comment about linguistics, I think for this purpose it may be compared to history. Historians don't of course know everything about the past, but they do sometimes have good reasons for expecting some things and not expecting others to be the case, that is, for discriminating between finds that sound perfectly feasible and those that raise specialist eyebrows (such as obvious anachronisms of one kind or another). And the same can be said of linguists as regards linguistic data. This is not the right place to discuss "how they know that", of course. I am not claiming that linguists know everything. But I am not going to take seriously a claim that linguists' professional opinions ought to be ignored whenever it suits someone based on the argument that 'it's not a very "exact science" and that it's largely based in assumptions and theories that may well be flawed'. And if you want to know my opinion, present-day linguistics is not just Indo-European-biased: it is English-biased. But I also recommend you distinguish between linguistics and "philology" as taught and practised in Basque universities. --A R King 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit after merge

I've removed: This article is about the Roman town in Spain. See also Veleia (Italy). becuase Veleia already disambiguates to both. I've also fixed the link at Veleia disambiguation page. --Sugaar 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation of "jaun"

Somebody changed my original translation from "mister" to "master". Master is not the meaning of jaun. Master would be jabe in the sense of "slave-owner" (jabe means "owner"), ugazaba or nagusi in the sense of "boss" or maisu (a Latin/Romance loanword obviously) in the sense of "teacher" (itself irakasle)

Instead Jauna is used like "Mister" (Mr.) in English or Spanish "Don". Odriozola Jauna is (in current usage) Mr. Odriozola, though in the appropiate historical context could also be Lord/Sir Odriozola. --Sugaar 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sugaar. I was the one who changed "mister" to "master" in the glosses of IAUN. I see you have changed it back again. The reason why I made the change is that the English word "mister" is normally used as a title, e.g. Mr. (=mister) Smith. In fact it is rarely spelt "mister", usually it's abbreviated. So it is only partially equivalent to (e.g.) Spanish "señor", the use of which is not restricted to titles but has another meaning in "el señor de la casa". In Basque this is "etxeko jauna" (compare "etxeko andrea"), or we can also say "etxeko jabea" (owner). But you can't say *"mister of the house". Even "Bai jauna!" should not be translated as "Yes mister!" unless you are portraying a very colloquial (dialectal) usage. Basically, whenever you're not saying an actual title as in the "Mr. Smith" formula, you don't say "mister" in English. Therefore I don't think it's very appropriate to gloss IAUN as "mister" in the present context. That was my reason for proposing the change, for your information. Ondo izan, --A R King 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but you can't compare languages so directly. Jaun is used modernly mainly as "Mr." (mister) or "sir" (or "Lord" in religious contexts). But the usage is not linearly the same as in English or even Spanish. I can't know if 1800 years ago this translation would be valid, in any case "master" is not correct. So either keep it as "mister" or remove it (keeping only the "lord"/"sir" meanings). --Sugaar 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way around. Jaun still means "master" or "lord" (any good Basque dictionary will tell you this), and this is undoubtedly it's original meaning. The whole idea of calling someone "mister so-and-so" is a modern concept (in any language) that was foreign to Basque in past centuries, so the idea that this was the original meaning of IAUN eighteen hundred years ago would be anachronistic. In English "mister" was originally the same word as "master" and the "mister" sense is thus also derived from the concept of "master" - which by the way is related to French "maître" (from Latin "magister"), which is also the French translation of Basque "jaun". If it was up to me, I would gloss "jaun" as "lord, master". Since they're identical, it looks like you got your glosses out of the Gorka Aulestia dictionary published in Reno - a source I'm afraid I cannot recommend very highly. --A R King 21:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the 2000 and it doesn't say so. Master is an English term that, while derived from Romance, has some meanings (slave-owner, boss and teacher/professor) that are not equivalent in other languages. The same term in Spanish ("maestro") only has that third meaning being an old-fashioned term for teacher, a remark of excellence or a term used for spiritual teachers. In Basque it is the same: its equivalent "maisu" has only that meaning of teacher (that is impossible to render as jaun).

I'm not sure what you mean by "original meaning". Arguably this term is a derivate of jas (clan), meaning surely "chieftain" or "clan principal". Whatever the case, lord, sir and mister are valid modern translations. Master is not. Master should be translated as either: maisu (teacher), nagusi (boss) or jabe (owner). Jaun can only be used in some contexts as a replacement of those terms because of the hierarchy/respect it implies, the same as English "sir/lord" or Spanish "señor". Aditionally (declined as jauna) it is the exact translation of "mister" (Spanish "don/señor") when it accompanies a personal name.

You can call your boss jauna but it means "sir", not "boss" or "master". If you were a slave or serf of past times you could surely use jauna to call your master, but again it is with the meaning of "sir", "lord" or "milord", not a translation of "owner". Spanish "amo" (master in the sense or slave-owner) translates as:

1. jabe. 2. ugazaba, nagusi

The second aception has more the meaning of "boss" or "patron" actually. While jabe is owner in general. Nowhere you see jaun, which is translated into Spanish as:

Jaun: señor 

... explaining then that it's almost compulsory with priests, where it's equvalent to Spanish padre (English "father").

Spanish señor can't be translated as "master" either but as sir, lord or mister (Mr.). --Sugaar 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sugaar, my advice to you is to invest in a new Basque dictionary. Despite the misleading name, your Hiztegi 2000 is very out of date. At one time (long ago) this was the standard dictionary because it was the only usable one (of Batua), but now it's hopelessly antiquated. The original author, Xabier Kintana, put it through several editions (and changed its name each time) but made hardly any changes so that you're actually using a dictionary that was "up-to-date" in the 1970s (and even then, to be honest, many of us complained about its numerous defects). Also, Kintana is a prescriptivist and his dictionary is prescriptivist in the extreme, meaning that it doesn't tell you what usages exist, but what usages the author thinks should exist. A useful tool in its time (for which a whole generation is very grateful, including myself) but not much use these days, and certainly not a reliable sources for a discussion such as this one.

For historical questions there are better dictionaries, including Azkue's classic work and the supplement covering northern dialects by Lhande, and of course the definitive source, now completed, is Euskaltzaindia's Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia (by Mitxelena and Sarasola), if you can get hold of it. If on the other hand you want an all-round modern dictionary, I strongly recommend the big Elhuyar (now available on-line [3]). But even a present-day pocket dictionary, such as the little Vox one which is easy to find (a serious work nonetheless, with Ibon Sarasola himself as one of its editors) will do you a lot better than Kintana's.

I will not bother to argue about your opinions of what means what because they only seem to be based on or inferred from the scanty information you have gleaned from the sources you quote. Instead, I'll just copy here the entries for jaun in the small Vox and the large Elhuyar dictionaries and let them speak for themselves, while also demonstrating my point about the incompleteness and unreliability of Kintana.

From Vox (the Oinarrizko Hiztegia, second edition of 2001):

jaun i (titulu gisa) señor. Elizegi jauna, el señor Elizegi. 2 señor, dueño, propietario. 
3 Dios: Jaunaren eguna, el día del Señor.

From the Elhuyar Gaztelania-Euskara Euskara-Gaztelania (for convenience I'll copy from the on-line edition, referenced above, which is almost identical in content to the printed book edition):

jaun 1 iz. Señor, noble
Bizkaiko jaunak: los señores de Vizcaya
Dukerri bateko jauna: Señor de un ducado
2 iz. Señor, hombre; individuo de cierta categoría social
Egun batean pobre, beste batez jauna: un día pobre y otro día señor
Jaun egina etorri zaigu: nos ha venido hecho un señor
Jaun- eta andre-multzo bat: un grupo de hombres y mujeres
3 iz. Señor, dueño
Zeruko eta lurreko erregea eta jauna delako: porque es dueño y señor del
cielo y de la tierra
4 iz. kortesiazko tratamendua Señor
Mikel Segurola jaunari: al señor Mikel Segurola
Erretore jauna (Ipar. jaun erretorea): señor párroco
Alkate jauna: señor alcalde
Bai, jauna: sí, señor
Jaun goren hori: excelentísimo señor
Jaun agurgarria: estimado señor
5 iz. maiusk. (Jainkoa) Señor; Dios
Jaunaren eguna igandea da: el día del Señor es el domingo
6 iz. pl. Erl. (aingeru-mota) Dominación

--A R King 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A little comment

If I am not wrong, the use of Z in basque writing is relatively modern (in old times, S and Ç were used for it); thus, I can´t understand that it were in roman times. An other point: In the basque order of words URDINISAR is not blue star, but star of blue. In basque "standing" is not ZUTAN, but "zutik". IOSHE ,with an modern english SH?. J. Aranguren158.227.33.102 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If for "old times" you mean since the 16th century, you're probably right, as the alphabet used was based in neighbouring romances, where "Z" is rare. But here we are talking about a much older time.

How do you think "zutan" should be translated? Like "sutan" (burning)? --Sugaar (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct category?

Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Were basque christians in the 3rd century AD?

I think the article would benefit from a discussion about the implications of the finding of christian references (the Calvary and the sentence in Basque about Joseph, Jesus and Mary) at such an early date. It is often asserted that the Basques were relatively late converts to christianity (see the Wikipedia article about Basque People for an example), and these findings would seem to contradict that. I´m not an historian, so could someone with more knowledge on this topic include a few lines about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know how to interpretate this exactly. It's clear in any case that Christianity was quite spread around by the 3rd century CE and we are talking of a romanized spot: a major city (in the regional context) maybe only comparable to Pompaelo. Along signs of Christinaism also signs of Egyptian culture and religion have been found, so it may just reflect the complex religious situation experienced in the Roman Empire as a whole, with Tha Theia in decline and oriental religions in ascense. Anyhow, it was surely something affecting educated romanized people and not the rural masses (generally more conservative).

Later on, with the introduction of feudalism, Basques went rebellious and the Roman control of the area was apparently brought to an end or at least to a very unstable military presence, with clear signs of burning of villae and the apparent creation of an "inner limes" around Vasconia. Maybe then Chrisianity receeded.

But it may also be the case that Christianity was there all the time, even if alongside other more traditional beliefs, much like Christianity exists now alongside traditional Native American or African beliefs in the Western Hemisphere or elsewhere, sometimes in synchretic forms (that's why saints veneration was invented, right?). Pamplona (Pompaelo) and Bayonne (Lapurdum) are very very old bishophric seats that were indeed active in the earliest decades of the Middle Ages (not sure about the date of their foundation) but Pagan practices are also recorded as late as the 16th century, when the Inquisition intervened more aggresively, specially in the mountains. Basque mythology has arrived (very fragmented) to the 20th century but much of it deals with clear tensions and struggles with Christianity. Often two versions of the same legend are respectively Christian and anti-Christian or, others, have an ambiguous meaning, like the lamia nymph) who felt in love with a Christian peasant and, after he died of internal contradictions (love vs. religion) she would go to his funeral but remain outside the chapel.

It's said that chapel-building killed the lamiak. But obviously his did not happen in one day nor year. It's said that the Olentzero (the Basque Santa Claus) is the last Jentil (obviously "gentile": pagan) who, instead of going underground liks his relatives, converted to Christianity. Etc. The first historical Lord of Biscay is said to have been married to goddess Mari but have offended her by making the signal of the cross at home. Etc. It's evident that the sociological (and political) struggle between the old and the new religions was long. This length was probably favored by the tolerance that the Basque states, specially Pamplona-Navarre, generally professed to all beliefs. --Sugaar (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sirs, 1-There is no a firm proof that this place should be called Iruña-Veleia.Some scholars are naming it now Iruña-Oka. 2-There is no a single evidence that the Basque inscriptions do not belong to the 3rd Century AD. Three independent international laboratories have assessed it. 3-The "official study group" has been choosen among locals.The conclussions may be unsuitable,since international experts,particularly linguists,should have been included.If the findings are valuable,as it seems,life work of some experts within the "official study group" would be destroyed. This conflict of interest is probably the cause of repeated delays in the last 2 years,avoiding to publicy show the found material .The last delay has officially been announced a few days ago. """DEVA""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.41.186 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the evidence is pretty firm now, when the Foral government of Alava has revoked the digging license of the company which was doing the works, and is trying to sue the pants outta them. Unless anyone wants to keep arguing about what the experts say about knowing Descartes about 14 centuries before he was born? Because the latest group of experts were less than kind about the supposed works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.103.137 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted; will you apologise?

I am not a very vindictive person by nature. I have a tendency to forgive and forget - eventually. But I'm just wondering: given the rude way in which I think I was treated in the above discussion page (thank goodness for permanent discussion pages) taken together with the eventual rectification which has subsequently been ratified throughout the scholarly community and even in the Wikipedia article concerned, do I deserve an apology? --A R King (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Archaeologists and linguists do not necessarily agree that inscriptions were forged

I came here just after I finished reading an article published in Four Stone Hearth, a monthly carnival of the best of the blog posts relating to four-field anthropology (paleo, archaeo, linguistic, and cultural). The article [4]s suggests that there is reason to believe that the inscriptions are authentic and that the accusations against the archaeologists may have been politically motivated.

I don't know who's right or wrong in this matter (it's not my field), but if the folks who run Four Stone Hearth, who are well-regarded in their fields and have no axes to grind (so far as I can tell) think that the archaeologists may be right, then the article should be revised to say only that there's a controversy, and NOT to take sides in the controversy -- which it currently does.

I'm holding off on making those revisions until other folks have had a chance to comment. Zora (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no serious voices claiming the authenticity of the Veleia inscriptions. There are too many irregularities among the inscriptions.

Remember also that the archaeologist that worked at Veleia said that during the excavation no inscription was found, that the inscriptions "appear" after the washing of the pieces. Given the huge number of inscriptions allegedly found it is too odd.

Of course on Old Basque is little what can be said for sure, but the problem lies in many other questions. How to explain NEFERTITI, ANQVISES, odd iconography, or the use of modern punctuation signs? One oddity is possible, two maybe, but there are too many.

Besides this: where is the documentation of a god name MISCART?. And besides the fact that I do not see the M, consider the series: SENECA, SOCRATES, VIRGILIO ... MISCART Is not serious.

The article is biased. It claims that "Gorrochategui, did originally but changed his mind later on", but the fact is that many people doubt on the authenticity of the Veleia inscriptions but give the benefit of doubt until further research. Gorrochategui was one of the first researchers that claim he was not sure of the authenticity, later he was sure of the forgery. To call the team "ad hoc" is another distortion or to say that "a press conference tries to demonstrate that all was a forgery". The alleged irregularities of the official team are claimed but I do not see them.

Another problem is that the findings are so odd that the "normal" behaviour that I would have expected from the Veleia team is much more cautious on the authenticity of all the inscriptions.

As it is stated in the note number 7 even the alleged physical analysis have been accused of being a fake, copied from a manual.

Last but not least, remember that Wikipedia uses reliable sources and you can not compare official reports written by reputed experts and professors with self-published matter by self-claimed experts and blogs. There are many reputed journals on epigraphy in the world, let them try to publish in them.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dumu, it seems that you've already made up your mind on the matter and want the article to reflect your view. But we have one reputable source (Four Stone Hearth) that thinks another view is worth presenting. Four Stone Hearth has been publishing for years, is run by accredited professionals with degrees and academic jobs. It may be a blog, but that doesn't mean it's contemptible. It's at least as credible as a government report (which is not the same thing as publication in a peer-reviewed journal!).

It's the WP way to present the controversy, not to use the article to propagandize for your point of view. I don't have time now, but in a few days, I will read what I can of the literature and attempt to revise the article to be more even-handed. Let the readers follow the references and make up their own minds as to who is more credible. If your view is correct, you have nothing to fear. Zora (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is very simple. There is no controversy.

I have read a great deal of the official reports and they are very conclusive (read for example on the Veleia use of the mathematics sign "=" which is an invention of the XVI century for example), and many of the "alternative" versions. Evidence is overwhelming.

Note that the Veleia alleged discoveries have not even been published by the excavation team in any reliable source or journal. Have they even tried to? I am afraid not.

WP rules follow reliable sources WP:RELIABLE. Wait until any reliable source is published (if any, if sometime) claiming that the "discoveries" are not a fake. There are many journals on epigraphy in the world. Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum, a fact that you do not seem to be aware. Refer also to WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL.

--Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In a newspaper it has been published a report on a physical proof (not an opinion) that may be interesting to mention in the article Nuevas pruebas contra la mentira de Veleia. The graphological report asserts that the inscription on 11.249 was made after gluing the pottery (with modern glue to reconstruct the piece). --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I haven't had time for a rewrite, but I did do some reading. I found the linguistic arguments convincing; however, the physical evidence was problematic. You had one kind of evidence pointing one way, another kind pointing the other. So an article debunking the physical evidence is indeed useful.

I've changed my mind re the controversy. The guy with the website supporting the claims for the inscriptions seems a little "off"; the archaeologist making the claims is a contract archaeologist, not an academic, and I'm afraid that contract archaeologists, AS A WHOLE, don't have the credibility of academics (not meaning to impugn any particular contract archaeologists, many of whom are quite reliable). My own conviction, at this point, is that someone was playing a joke on the contract archaeologist and he took the bait, seeing fame and fortune dangled in front of him. BUT ... I don't think we should say that in the article. We have to give the evidence, pro and con, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. I think most readers will come to the same conclusions that you and I have reached. Zora (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear all, This article is of course the opposite of objective. It doesn't mention at all that we are treating with a controversy. The official version that everything is forgery and that Eliseo is a crook sounds good, is sustained by newspaper articles and even by an article in Archaeology. Unfortunately, the reality seems a bit more complicated. There are a dozen of reports written by different specialists (all with Ph.D.) that find substantial errors, serious gaps in the investigation, and maybe even biasing (see: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/informes). To name just one aspect, several inscriptions are covered by rests of a crust (looks like carbonate in the picture) that is sufficient archaeological evidence to consider these inscriptions as authentic (if this crust is not artificial, an element that is not investigated! See http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org). My opinion is that we don't know yet. So we will propose substantial changes for this article. An alternative view on the Veleia affair can be read in http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/affaire.

Saludos, Koen

PD. Profesor Emeritus Jean-Batiste Orpustan (a respected Basque philologist and academic from the university of Bordeaux, claims that inscriptions in Basque are credible (see http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/conferencia-silgo-iglesias and http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/silgo)

The the contents of the newspaper article you cite is not correct,Dumu, you can see (here: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/veleiaonline:sobre-cola-mentiras-y-pruebas-forzadas) with you own eyes that the glue is on top of the inscriptions in the questioned inscription. Not everything what appears in a newspaper article is reliable, and maybe less in the case of Iruña Veleia.

You are quoting your own opinion in a webpage as evidence. Please read the rules on reliable sources and their use in Wikipedia (take a look to the fact that adding as reference blogs were you write could be considered spam). Read also that wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOT#FORUM. As this is a judicial affair, and the report on the glue a report to the judge, we can wait to the sentence. BTW: a direct autopsy is always better than a photography. And next time, please, try to place your comments in the right place an sign them.--Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The bias of this article is apparent. It is based on quick references from Spanish newspapers, who in many Basque related issues can contruct a real monster out of nothing (e.g. Egunkaria case). Altogether this article is no doubt one-sided and unbalanced. Recently the investigators accused of forgery were acquitted in the count of economic fraud related to sponsoring of the works of Iruña-Veleia, the probe into the issue carries on.Iñaki LL (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment by now on you Khazar2, now maybe this is more a suitable place. Basically the issue remains the same, both formally and in content. I saw Xabier Armendaritz' fixes, but the news presented here anyway are without contrast, despite there being several documents in the academy pointing to the contrary and supporting the claims of the former research team. Specially some citations are dubious, sounding almost like a conviction. For a start, the team was cleared of wrongdoing in the lawsuit opened to judge a possible mismanagement, not reflected here. It's not my intention to take sides on one or the other, but this is an ongoing issue and the wording is unacceptable, and citations are feeble for a reader who wants to get proper and reliable information, so I will revert the NPOV tag (preferred), or I can delete the section content. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Case against Gil to be decided this May

See [5], Doug Weller talk 11:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

Complete omission of any mention to expert opinions favoring the authenticity of the findings at the Iruña-Veleia archaeological site is contrary to Wikipedia’s neutrality rule

In the article, it is stated that “Eventually, all these inscriptions turned out to be a fabrication, as concluded by the 26 experts who analyzed the data for almost 10 months, and that went public on November 19, 2008. The texts were described as "crude manipulation," "incoherent," having texts and words both "incorrect and non-existent", and as being so "obviously false as to be almost comical." The case was dubbed by some as the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula" and "the product of an elaborate hoax."” However, no mention is made at all to the reports that favor the authenticity of the findings. This cannot be attributed to ignorance, since at the “external links” section, the SOS Iruña-Veleia web site is listed, where reports on both sides of the controversy can be found. Some of the pro-authenticty reports are authored by respected scholars in different fields, including archaeologist Edward Harris, author of the stratigraphic method used by the archaeologists at Iruña-Veleia and by most archaeologists today, epigraphist and professor of ancient history at the University of Santiago de Compostela Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero, French linguists Hector Iglesias and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan, German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz, palaeopathologist Joaquín Baxarías, and archaeologist and epigraphist Luis Silgo,. Outside of the SOS Iruña-Veleia site, two videos by Edward Harris arguing in favor of the correct stratigraphic dating at the Iruña-Veleia site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8BXT0fwa9U&feature=youtu.be, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMIcxerbY-o&feature=youtu.be, texts of conference presentations by Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero and Ulrike Fritz and a journal article by Hector Iglesias. Therefore, it appears as if this Wikipedia article is misleading the readers by omitting any mention to the existence of a scientific controversy around the Iruña-Veleia findings and only mentioning the opinions of authors favoring their falsehood. This is contrary to the rule of neutrality that all Wikipedia articles must follow, which implies that the article needs complete rewriting in some sections which are absolutely biased.

An additional point is the omission of the link to the Ama Ata blog http://www.amaata.com that currently is by far the most active in discussing the Iruña-Veleia findigns. Four days ago, I added this link with this description “Ama Ata, blog dedicated to linguistics, history, archaeology, genetics, epigraphy ..., with a particular focus on the findings at Iruña-Veleia. Articles and comments are largely favorable to the authenticity of the findings". Yesterday, this link was removed stating that “we rarely link blogs see WP:EL”. However, the blogs “Ieshu Ioshe Marian”, “En el ángulo oscuro”, and “Iruña Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos VIII: Más cerca de la autoría” are still there. Why remove only the Ama Ata blog and not all of them? Obviously, this is not a neutral action. Mmthomson (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As Mmthomson indicates there are dissident opinions of well established scientists, but appart from this, one can observe that the so-called 'Comisión Científica Asesora' was composed of only experts from the local university, one of his members became eventually the new director, this 'Comisión' was presided by a politician without any scientific formation. From the external experts that were consulted , only three of these external experts delivered elaborated informs, and one of these three, Dr. Perring, insisted on the need for control excavations before making conclusions. There are no formal conclusions, neither a unified inform of the Commission that was discussed and signed by the members of the Commission, only informs of the different working groups are known (why should they have been kept secrete?). These working groups have conclusions that variate on a scale from contemporary forgeries to not being conclusive (Madariaga, the chemist).

There are Conclusions written by the Secretary of the Commission () that were offered to Mr. Gil after the last meeting of the Commission, and don't appear in the 'Actas'. These were not made public ()but were filtered, and demonstrate that the local government decided to make the local university responsible for the exploitation of Iruña Veleia, which of course heavily questions the independence of the Commission that only counted with experts from the same university:

″4. Elaborar un nuevo proyecto arqueológico para Iruña-Veleia, con la participación de la comunidad científica y en concreto de la Universidad del País Vasco. Los fines de este nuevo proyecto serán la salvaguarda, promoción, potenciación de imagen, excavación, consolidación, expropiación, investigación, musealización, puesta en valor y difusión del Patrimonio Arqueológico de Iruña-Veleia, proporcionándole todas las infraestructuras necesarias.″

So there are good reasons to be sceptical with the whole construction, and that should be reflected in the article, because these are facts that are reflected in official documents. Most of supposed forgeries have a long way with several reversals of their status while new evidence appears... Maybe it is to early to be sure of something, and scientific debate needs its time. Koen Van den Driessche (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not my intention to bring further noise to the debate, very valid points have been stated above for their inclusion in the article as regard substance. I am afraid the problem lies not so much with the the content but EN WP's policies of not accepting blogs, applying then to all blogs, you are right, but accepting, at least initially, local or other newspapers like El Correo or El Mundo for one, which have stood out for their partysan stance and 'headlining' approach on the matter; sadly in these recent cases newspapers are the main accepted sources. There are good grounds to think this is a WP:UNDUE case by which the reader cannot gather balanced data necessary to form a proper opinion on the matter. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits in the text of the article to make clear that the cited statements are only the media accounts on what the provincial government of Álava and some members of the expert committee constituted by it publicly announced on the findings of Iruña-Veleia. I have also made some changes in the introduction in order to make known that there is a scientific controversy going on on the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia findings, a fact completely omitted in the previous version, and I have added a new section on the expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings, which is basically the same information that I have provided above in this talk page, which nobody has commented on that is incorrect. Mmthomson (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A citation was added in support of the statement “The committee did not produce any formal consensual agreement”. It is difficult to add a citation to show that something did not happen. It is the same difficulty for using a citation supporting the statement “As of 2017 no peer-reviewed study has been published supporting the falsehood of the findings and no control excavations have been performed at the site”. The citation that I have included is the web page of the provincial government of Álava (“Diputación Foral de Álava”) where all official documents on the Iruña-Veleia case are put. And among the documents provided by the DFA there are individual reports, but no consensual written agreement by the expert committee’s members, which is the strongest proof that can be given to show that such formal agreement was not produced by the committee.Mmthomson (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iruña-Veleia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375086.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375087.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006151031/http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala6.375101.php to http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala6.375101.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121207044632/http://paperekoa.berria.info/plaza/2012-11-30/042/001/iruzur_bitxiena_eta_ikusgarriena.htm to http://paperekoa.berria.info/plaza/2012-11-30/042/001/iruzur_bitxiena_eta_ikusgarriena.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Gil's trial taking place now.

How Forgers Get True Believers to Buy Their Fake Artifacts Doug Weller talk 19:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

To editor Doug Weller: Three people just sentenced to jail terms. At least one of them pleaded guilty. Zero^talk 02:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian's article is taken directly from some unreliable Spanish media and has many errors. According to two restorers, employees of the plaintiff in the judicial case, the Provincial Government of Alava, who examined the piece under the microscope, there is no RIP at Iruña-Veleia and the supposed R is a "holiness mark" similar to others found at the site, and the judge believed them and so she states this in her sentence. Letters similar to modern Js were commonly used in Roman times and there are numerous examples, e.g. at the Vindolanda letters, Pompeii or Le Mans http://sos-veleia1.wikidot.com/latin. There is no "Descartes" at any Iruña-Veleia inscription. This was suggested in three reports, but the authors of two of them later retracted their views and publicly said that they were not sure of the "Descartes" reading. With regard to historian Almagro, he is known for his personal views favoring the hypothesis of “late Basquization”, proposing that Basques migrated to Spain from France after the fall of the Roman Empire, but his views are not shared by many other authors. And no one pleaded guilty for forging any of the more than 400 graffiti from Iruña-Veleia publicly presented as discovered at the site. What happened is that one of the archaeologists working at the site, Oscar Escribano, engraved the name "Veleia" on a potsherd found at the site and showed it to his colleagues telling them that he had found it at the excavations, but the next day he told them that it was a joke. He admitted having done this joke from the beginning of the Iruña-Veleia case, and this was publicly known, but the prosecutor and accusation, without any proof, used this banal epidode to sue him, together with Eliseo, for being the perpetrator of all of Iruña-Veleia's alleged forgeries. However at the trial he only admitted having engraved a single pottery fragment with the name Veleia as a joke, and he was sentenced with a fine only for damaging that single piece from Roman times, which is considered to belong to the "cultural heritage". Therefore, the article’s statement that Escribano “maintained that the whole thing was “nothing more than a joke”” is false. And the glue mentioned in the article was used by the archaeologists to stick together two pottery fragments, which is common practice in archaeology when two contiguous pottery fragments are found. It is important to note that the judge in her sentence dismissed all the arguments of the reports of the Scientic-Advisory Committee constituted by the Provincial Government of Alava, mentioned at The Guardian’s article, saying that they were “hypotheses and opinions” in the context of a controversy in which different experts held different opinions on the graffiti. It is obvious that the entire The Guardian’s article is biased and unreliable. In a section below, I have made a proposal for some changes in the Wikipedia’s Iruña-Veleia entry, and I will wait some days for comments in favor or against before introducing them (or not, or modified), which is how changes in Wikipedia articles should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmthomson (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Mmthomson (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: damn, I saw the headline yesterday on my Guardian app but didn't read the article. Interesting. Are you going to use it somehow? Doug Weller talk 08:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free. But a more detailed account would be useful. Zero^talk 08:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am bringing my comment here from my talk page. The Guardian takes its sources straight from Madrid, so no wonder. A very disappointing and tricky case with many interests at play. We have plenty of further information here in Basque and Spanish too disputing shaky statements, like saying there is "RIP" written on it and further vested assertions. As I have read, no one is saying there is "RIP" written on it, or "funny pig drawings"...

For all the name of the The Guardian, there is a conflict of interest with the person writing the article. A real pity. Further info with all the trial details would be forthcoming. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I correct myself: COI with the source of the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Iñaki LLA COI with the Guardian? The court? Doug Weller talk 12:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

COI with the only source of the journalist, as I let you know in my talk: Martín Almagro. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller These edits are one of the problems of the EN Wikipedia: having to take one-source far-away media outlets that provide certainty (I would rather call it "peace of mind") with filtered info for easy consumption as reliable sources. For a start, this does not hold true. If Eliseo Gil is held as "the archeologist", he is actually not held as a perpetrator, but as the person held liable for the operations going on under his responsibility (and hence the "fraud").

The "RIP" part is also very problematic, since that is an interpretation of the accusation. The defense does not see there any "RIP" = Requiescat In Peace". Iñaki LL (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Please do stick to the facts, that is the spirit of the WP. You are removing credited and reliable information from reliable sources, reflecting exactly what they say, nothing more. Harris' statement is directly relevant to the issue, and is clearly an authentic public document. The statement related to the the sentence just represents exactly what the sentences says, a sentence talked about in the article.

It is a very serious concern for me that straight lies like the "RIP" question used by the Spanish corporate media to vent ridicule against the excavators remain in place; as you know it has been a major warhorse issue of the accusation and powerful media. In the face of this evidence, The Guardian article shows is treading water. The mention of the "J" is also subject to contention, as ephigraphists know that some Latin "i" have a lower tilde to the left.

At the moment before my edits only corporate media with shaky statements reflecting exclusively one of the parts are in place. Do you really want to keep all this easy-consumption sensationalist headlines? Well, do it if you think that is what the EN WP is about. I would just call it censorship. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Harris's document is about stratigraphy (and he says " therefore, it is most likely that the sequences they have compiled are the stratigraphic truth" which is not quite the same as "He concluded that the findings held true". If we can use it, and I've asked at WP:RSN, that's all we have to say. Your edit makes a big deal of it. You are also using a court case for evidence about archaeology, and we don't use court cases directly, only reports on them - again an issue I've raised. Your wording "Despite this assertion held by the accusation, the two UPV-EHU experts committed an appreciation error, since the lines carved in the pieces are not actually letters, and no "RIP" can be inferred from them,'" is unacceptable as it is using Wikipedia's voice to state something disputed. You don't like the way we work here, that's your privilege, but you can't override our guidelines and policies peremptorily. We need to stick to what reliable sources say about the subject which is not quite the same as sticking to the "facts" particularly as those facts are what has been challenged. And why you put something that was in May 2009 before the events of 2008 is puzzling and unhelpful. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I read Harris' document and agree with Doug. It definitely does not support the conclusion "the findings held true". In a context where fraud is a possibility, it does not even support the conclusion that the stratigraphy is valid, but only that the second-hand files put at his disposal show valid stratigraphy. He takes pains to note that he has not seen the original files. Zero^talk 02:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not an archaeologist, but I should apologize for not reflecting accurately what he stated. The reference is anyway there for anyone to see. What he approves is the stratigraphic study conducted, and there is no doubt he supports their archaeological job. I do not think we need to use the same words, as this is also discouraged by Wikipedia. We are not being inaccurate by stating per source that in his view "the archaeological methodology used was solid".

What the judicial truth goes apart from what the headlines state is that a major lead presented (and used to vent ridicule) by the accusation to hold that the inscriptions are a forgery is actually unfounded (to cite one), making the very piece of news presented by The Guardian extremely shaky for a reader who wants to gather relevant information to form a complete opinion on the case. Not to mention that the article is based on a single source, Martín Almagro Gorbea, a major proponent of the fringe Late Basquisation.

The problem lies that with Doug Weller's reverts, a reader is getting, simply unbalanced and misleading information, and not the information necessary to form an well-founded opinion. There is one thing above the maze of rules, and it is called intellectual honesty. Let us implement it. You cannot keep complying all the rules all the time (rule for the sake of rule?), and if a rule prevents you from improving an article, ignore it. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, you can't ignore the rules just because they prevent you from inserting your point of view. Your call to intellectual honesty is pathetic. Having now read the court judgement it seems that Harris has nothing to contribute because the charges have nothing to do with stratigraphy. Zero^talk 10:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero, I am talking about honesty on the facts, not my view! The sentence is clear on the RIP letters, the UPV-EHU experts' appreciations were not right. Is this not either relevant? Serious? Also, Harris' statements are about the methodology pursued and archaeological results presented by the excavation team. Not either relevant? Really? Iñaki LL (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The accusation about RIP was not accepted by the court. They were found guilty of adding inscriptions to the sherds after they were excavated and falsifying records. Other members of the excavation team testified against them. So it has nothing to do with the methodology of the excavation. Unless you can prove that Harris is an expert on inscriptions and personally examined the sherds, his opinion is irrelevant. Zero^talk 14:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A problem: "On November 19, 2008, it was publicly announced that all these inscriptions, some 400 in total, were forgeries, a conclusion reached, unanimously, by the members of the committee who analyzed the data for almost 10 months." Since Gil was a member of the committee, how could it have been unanimous? Zero^talk 10:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Another problem to shed light on. From the 400 inscriptions (as cited by you above) deemed to be 'forgeries' by the academic committee analyzing the shards, only 36 have been considered to be forgeries by the tribunal in Vitoria-Gasteiz. That conclusion was reached by means of the data of the analysis conducted in the laboratories of the Spanish Ministerio de Cultura. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not a problem. There was no need to analyse all of the 400-450 "exceptionals". This article[6] led me to this academic source The 'exceptional Findings' Of IruÑa-Veleia (Álava): Syntax Of An Archaeological Forgery which can be downloaded. I've reworded the bit about the committee. It probably still needs work based on the article I've just linked to. Again, the issue was basically about the inscriptions, not the stratigraphy. Eg the quote in Archaeology ""If you're selecting sherds to write on, those sherds are separated from the ones that are discarded. But the stratification doesn't show this separation. It looks like the graffiti was a post-discovery activity." Doug Weller talk 14:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Well..., that was the announcement made: "400 inscriptions forged". Take a look at the take by Edward Harris (Thursday, November 19th, 2015) and his conclusions of the official approach towards this issue, not reliable either? You may want to know of the pressures (like losing a job position) gone through by a number of topic-specific professionals in Vitoria-Gasteiz who approved of the job the excavation team was doing, as appeared in the trial, etc. Or you may want to keep aligning with the one-source corporate media, and keep producing an unbalanced cherry-picking article. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Harris: "Since Gill and Filloy have recovered the stratigraphic sequences of their various trenches at Iruña-Veleia, it follows that if they state the “forgeries” were found at such and such positions in the sequences, that the artifacts are “true”, authentic, and datable in relation to the stratigraphic sequence and other artefacts and physical evidence found on the site." Thanks for the proof that Harris has nothing to say. Nobody has claimed that the sherds are inauthentic or that their stratigraphic context was misreported. The real issue is whether the inscriptions were present when the sherds were excavated or added later. Harris doesn't know. Zero^talk 16:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero, I think we are reading the same text. "Nothing to say?" Harris is reputed to be very comprehensive and detailed in his work, no wonder he is not stating "the shards are true/false", obviously so, I think no expert from outside the excavation team would dare take that risk. He talks about the methodology, the atmosphere surrounding the issue, the authorities dealing with it: "It is impossible to forge the 400 graffiti from Iruña-Veleia", "your discussion of the extraordinary inept way in which this matter was handled by the authorities is extremely well argued and is a very important statement on the disgraceful proceedings which have resulted in the libel and slandering of several very professional excavating archaeologists", "One does not need to be an archaeologist to agree that these objects are authentic, for the bases for declaring them to be forgeries defies all logic and understanding", "The matter is an utter disgrace to the archaeological profession in the Basque Country, in Spain and indeed Europe. The way must be found to reinstate Eliseo Gil Zubillaga, Idoia Filloy Nieva and any other archaeologists who have been tarred with the hideous brush of being forgers, there being no earthly reason or motivation for them to carry out such an massive fraud on the archaeological community and indeed the world at large", etc.

Now coming back to the article section in question, since we are attempting to improve it. As a person exposed to plenty of information from both sides in three languages, I can only say that the text as it stands now does not represent the complexity of the matter, it follows an incriminatory path, conspicuously stripped of any nuances. Also, the sentence "The inclusion of the letters RIP were seen as a clue that the artefact was a forgery as it suggested that Jesus had not been resurrected" is at the moment devoid of any validity (a boomerang?), and it should just be removed out of intellectual honesty (see the trial sentence, where "RIP" is discounted, still my contribution and source, the sentence itself, was removed).

I merged the sentence section with the (again) incriminatory title with the precedent section, "Sensational findings and forgery case", where it belongs. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed mention of "RIP". In the final analysis it played little part. To give a full account of the "RIP" matter would take a paragraph and it simply isn't worth it. As for Harris, thanks for "One does not need to be an archaeologist to agree that these objects are authentic", which is pure BS. Zero^talk 03:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok then... thanks. Well, the RIP thing has been probably the most publicized casus belli for the incrimination, just that. The reader deserves not to be misled. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't read the statement about RIP. But I see no point in discussing anything with someone who doesn't offer good faith to experienced editors and doesn't seem happy with our guidelines and policies. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So is it ad hominem now? I responded to you in my talk page, and I made my points very clear above, strictly about content and an honest approach on information. Sorry, that has nothing to do with anything personal, and I am more than entitled to disagree with the construction and the clear bias of this section. Impossible to get anything near of a full picture on the developments of the case and the circumstances surrounding it in this section.

This contribution was not either very helpful, I do not think it even sticks to regular style for a heading, let alone after I have added all the information above. That said, this section definitely needs a lot of work. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

To editor Iñaki LL: Find a statement that satisfies these criteria: (1) it was made by someone of undoubted expertise in epigraphy who challenges the court verdict; (2) it was made after the court verdict and not before. Then we can consider it for inclusion. Don't bother with Harris as his expertise in epigraphy is not established. If you can't find such a statement, the tag will be deleted. Zero^talk 09:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The work done is first and foremost an archaeological task, regardless of what linguists may consider acceptable or orderly. That job is being questioned. Actually, excavation team officials have demanded that an independent European team outside the Spanish context, where many interests are at work, conducts a expertise survey on stratigraphy, that is, on the layers remaining in the lines carved (there may be better terminology for this, I am not an expert myself and English is not my native language).

Regardless, evidently this section is exclusively giving one contested version instead of reflecting its complexity. The most prominent evidence of that being all the mediatic fuss about "RIP". Probably more info will be available soon. You may do what you consider suitable. I will also do what I consider is suitable and honest with the facts and a balanced approach for a WP article. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what statigraphy is. It is about dating of the layers in the ground during an excavation. Independent experts have already examined the contents of the inscriptions (things carved on the pottery). They found remnants of modern alloys consistent with recent carving using steel implements. They also found non-ancient patina. The court decision cites these tests as evidence towards a conviction. Zero^talk 11:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, sorry, yes I do know, but I have not all the details about the extent of the discipline. The bits of metal have also been refuted by the defense as contamination that takes place in all or virtually all archaeological surveys, analyzing the the size of the metal bits, inconsistent with a present-day forceful carving; I guess that may also be what you refer as patina.

What you call 'independent'. Yes, it has been publicized like that. The laboratory is from an institution in Madrid, belonging to the proponent of the resurrected "Late Basquisation" fringe theory, dismissed by Koldo Mitxelena, among others. The members of that investigation committee are virtual all from UPV-EHU. Guess who will be taking over the archaeological fieldworks from Gil's team and a huge budget? Linguist Henrike Knör also supported the findings [7], and denounced pressures to professionals.

Antonio Rodriguez Colmemero has also analyzed the shards as perfectly valid [8], see also his intervention here (at the end, at 00:42 on the pig drawing. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000:do you think this warrants the unbalanced tag? Doug Weller talk 14:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No, but as in all BLPs it would be reasonable to add a small amount of attributed contrary opinion subject to the conditions I listed above. Zero^talk 15:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I would just call it intellectual honesty and respect to the reader, who wants to form a full opinion on the matter. At the moment, impossible. Should not that be guaranteed, the tag should remain where it is. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your talk of intellectual honesty is annoying bullshit and you should stop it. Our job is to report what reliable sources say. It is not our job to help readers make decisions. Nor is it our job to argue against court decisions. I told you what is reasonable to add but it is not my job to find it. You find it. You don't have consensus for the tag, so it is going to be removed regardless. Zero^talk 10:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

To editor Iñaki LL: Your recent additions show that you don't understand our policies and practices.

"However, doubts have also been cast..." —— Opinions must be presented as the opinion of someone. Also, no opinion in support of the committee is present in our article. Also, it is vague and uninformative.

"The proceedings lasted for over nine years, "with no justification"... —— We don't argue that the time was justified, so why argue that wasn't? And why is this significant? And why should "support group SOS Iruña-Veleia" be mentioned at all?

"They also noted that the prosecution had only called experts supported by the accusation." This is given as the opinion of Juan Martin Elexpuru who is a writer with no archaeological expertise. It is also silly, since it is the task of the defence to call witnesses in support. Prosecutions always only call witnesses for the prosecution.

All these additions are commentary prior to the conclusion and report of the court. How do you know that these (unnamed) people haven't now changed their minds? Zero^talk 04:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Zero^talk 04:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

1. I removed the opinions without a clear author as suggested by you.

2. The group SOS Iruña-Veleia is a relevant group during the whole affair in support of the defense and the authenticity of the sherds, why not cite it like others? The information a reader expects is on all the circumstances surrounding the case in order to make some sense about the scandal, and not only the measures of the shards, their materials, the names of experts, the case goes beyond scientific surveys and conclusions, clearly so.

3. My fault, at the moment of writing: it is the prosecution, not the accusation, as shown on the text of the reference ("fiskaltzak"). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

How is it "intellectually honest" to add Canto's criticism of the committee and leave out her statement "But of course, there are texts like Deidre and CVORII that are beyond salvation." That's an unbalanced presentation of the source. By the way, it is "sherd", not "shard". Doug Weller talk 13:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Well, very simple. So far there were only noisy, dismissive adjectives on an incriminating path against the excavation team; still they have remained there. I counterbalanced the bias with this sentence, I do not know why I should add all the comments she made. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of an entire section, “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia”, providing true and highly relevant information on the controversy on the Iruña-Veleia findings, based on a personal opinion, is contrary to Wikipedia’s norms

I have seen that an entire section “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia” has been deleted, with this brief explanation: “irrelevant as it was a fraud”. I assume that this idea is based on the court ruling of 10 June, but it is an opinion that is disputed, not a fact, and it is not a norm of Wikipedia that a section or an article can be removed based on personal opinions. It should also be considered that on 7 July the accused archaeologist, Eliseo Gil, has submitted an appeal, claiming his innocence and requesting his acquittal. Therefore, the judicial process is not over yet, as the court of appeal may rule differently. In the Spanish constitution and in the rule of law of all democratic countries there is a basic principle, which is that of “presumption of innocence”: all citizens are innocent unless proven guilty. And the guilt of Eliseo Gil, according to the Spanish law, has not been proven, since there is no final and unappelable judgment against him, and therefore he is innocent. It must also be considered that the verdict against Eliseo was based only on clues, since, according to the sentence, there were no proofs against him, and that only one of four reports on physical evidences submitted to the court was taken into consideration to rule on favor of the falsehood of the graffiti. Therefore, the guilt verdict has a very fragile basis, and it can be perfectly overturned by the court of appeal. What would happen if this court declares Eliseo Gil innocent? Should the article be corrected again with regard to the scientific controversy? This controversy is indeed related to, but different from the judicial case. Scientific controversies should not be decided in the court of law, but in scientific fora, such as scientific conferences and journals. Judgement based on law and judgment based on science have their own fields of action and one should not invade the other’s sphere. I think that all scientists would agree on this. This is why even after the recent court ruling, no scholar on either side of the Iruña-Veleia controversy has publicly asserted that the scientific controversy is over. Therefore, the undeniable fact of the existence of a scientific controversy on the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia findings should not be hidden from the public on the basis of a court ruling, and much less when the judicial process is still unfinished. And if one reads the sentence, which is available at https://www.eitb.eus/multimedia/documentos/2020/06/10/2616548/Sentencia%20Iru%C3%B1a%20Veleia.pdf, it can be seen that the judge repeatedly acknowledges the existence of such scientific controversy, asserting that there are “conflicting opinions of various authors, which should be assessed in the field of the archaeological, linguistic, epigraphic and other sciences”…”And after this public presentation of the pieces, a controversy started between the different experts about the authenticity and falsity of the graffiti, discrepancies that are proven by the content of the minutes of the Scientific-Advisory Committee, constituted by the Provincial Government of Álava, which was created precisely because of such controversy.”… “As can be seen in the reports provided to the court both by the private accusation and the defense of Eliseo Gil Zubillaga, there is a controversy between the different experts who have been able to analyze the pieces about their authenticity.” And nowhere does the judge say that the verdict puts an end to the scientific controversy, and she cannot decide on this, because she is not an expert in any of the subject areas related to the Iruña-Veleia findings. Rather, what she says is “Notify this resolution to the parties, letting them know that against it it is possible to appeal to the Provincial Court of Álava”. And this is what the defendant has done. And once an appeal is submitted, the sentence being appealed is not in force, which means that Eliseo Gil, at this moment, is not guilty of anything.

Apart from this, with regard to the deletion of the “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia” section, it should be pointed out that, at the entry of the Spanish Wikipedia with the title “Polémica sobre los hallazgos epigráficos de Iruña-Veleia en 2006”, under the section “SOS Iruña-Veleia” it is said: “In 2009, the SOS-IruñaVeleia⁴⁷ platform was created to defend the authenticity of the findings. This platform criticizes among other issues that the adhesions on the grooves of many engravings have not been investigated⁴⁸, which they consider "a primary evidence of authenticity in archeology". They also denounce that no contrast excavations have been carried out. The platform has released a dozen reports⁴⁹ that they say respond to the main accusations of falsehood. The authors of the writings include philologists (Héctor Iglesias⁵⁰ or Juan Martín Elexpuru⁵¹) and archaeologists such as Cecil Edward Harris⁵² and Luis Silgo).” Leaving aside the fact that the said reports have nothing to do with the SOS Iruña-Veleia platform, and some were written before its creation, at least the reader has some knowledge of the existence of opposed opinions among experts on the Iruña-Veleia findings and links to some of their reports are provided. Similarly, in the French Wikipedia, it is said that “However, in 2008 an analysis of these inscriptions questioned the authenticity of these inscriptions^5,6. This negative analysis is however currently contested by a dozen specialists from, among others, the United States, France, Germany, Spain, etc.⁷.” So here too we can see that information is provided on the existence of a controversy, with mentions to different opinions on the findings and with a link to one of the reports from a proponent of the authenticity of the graffiti.

Therefore, the readers of the Spanish and French Wikipedia are informed of the existence of a controversy on the Iruña-Veleia graffiti. Why should this information be hidden from the reader of the English Wikipedia, an information which was provided until very recently, but arbitrarily deleted because someone has the opinion that “it was a fraud”? And why shoud the opinion of a policeman who testified in court saying that the case was “one of the greatest falsifications or manipulations relating to archaeological materials from the Roman world” be put in the article? What does this policeman know about the archaeology of the Roman world? Do you know that the declaration of this policeman was completely ignored by the judge in her sentence and that after his declaration the judge said “clues are not proofs”? And isn’t it absurd to include the opinion of this policeman who knows nothing about archaeological falsifications of the Roman world at the same time that the mentions and links to the reports by serious and respected scholars in epigraphy, archaeology or linguisitics are deleted – and this only in the English Wikipedia?

Therefore, let’s respect the people who read and trust Wikipedia, the world’s most consulted encyclopedia, who have the right to receive accurate, complete and neutral information on the facts, not one-sided opinions with blatant omissions on a controversial issue. Let’s respect the norms established by the creators of Wikipedia, who wanted to provide true and objective information to serve the people. Let’s respect the judge who asserted that there exists a controversy among experts on the Iruña-Veleia findings, the judges of the court of appeal who will review the case, and the laws and the judicial system of a democratic country that guarantees as a basic human right that every person is innocent unless proven guilty and strongly protects the personal image of each citizen. In sum, let justice and science follow their paths, let judges and scholars do their jobs, and let encyclopedias inform the people of the facts.

Having said this, here are my requests: 1) Would it be possible to put back the recently deleted section on the expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia, with links to their reports? (In line with entries at the Spanish and French Wikipedias, and knowing that the alleged forgery has been appealed in court). 2) Would it be possible to remove the statement by a policeman saying that the Iruña-Veleia case is “one of the greatest falsifications or manipulations relating to archaeological materials from the Roman world”, since this comes from a person who has no expertise on archaeology or archaeological falsifications and was not taken into consideration in the judicial sentence, and, therefore, it is completely irrelevant in an encyclopedia’s article? 3) Is it possible to inform the readers of Wikipedia that Eliseo Gil has appealed the sentence that says that he is a forger and that 36 (out of more than 400 found at the site) graffiti from Iruña-Veleia are false? (And, therefore, according to the Spanish laws, the entire case is subject to a new judgement, and at this moment Eliseo Gil is innocent, and has the right that his image be not publicly damaged by portraying him as a convicted criminal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmthomson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mmthomson (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of writing a WP:Wall of text over 1,500 words long, you could have made your points much more concisely. That would enhance the chances of someone reading it, as otherwise they just glance at it and move on. Zero^talk 08:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. You may be right in that a shorter text could be made available. Thank you for pointing this out. These are the main points of the text above (621 words):

- An entire section “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia”, which had been in place for more than 3 years without anyone objecting to it, has been deleted without prior warning or discussion, with this brief explanation: “irrelevant as it was a fraud”.

- This is a disputed opinion, not a fact.

- This opinion could be based on the court ruling of 10 June, but the archaeologist accused of forgery, Eliseo Gil, has appealed on 7 July, and, therefore, the entire case is subject to a new judgment in the court of appeal, which could rule differently.

- The verdict was based only on clues, without any proofs, and only one of four reports on physical evidences submitted to the court, which concluded that 36 of 39 analyzed graffiti (out of more than 400 found at the site) had signs of recent engraving or manipulation, was taken into consideration (there were no conclusions of falsehood in the three other reports). The judge acknowledged that there were no proofs that Gil personally engraved the graffiti, admitting that somebody else could have engraved them. Therefore, the guilty verdict has a very fragile basis and could be overturned.

- Scientific controversies should not be decided in the court of law, but in scientific forums.

- No scholar on either side of the Iruña-Veleia controversy has publicly asserted that the scientific controversy is over.

- In the sentence, the judge acknowledges the existence of such scientific controversy, asserting that there are “conflicting opinions of various authors, which should be assessed in the fields of the archaeological, linguistic, epigraphic and other sciences” and that “there is a controversy between the different experts who have been able to analyze the pieces about their authenticity.”

- Articles in both the Spanish and French Wikipedias mention the existence of conflicting views among scholars on the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti, providing links to their reports. This information, which is highly relevant to the Iruña-Veleia’s findings, should not be hidden from the reader of the English Wikipedia.

- Not only the reports of serious and respected scholars on the Iruña-Veleia’s findings have been removed, but the opinion of a policeman, with no recognized expertise in archaeology nor in archaeological forgeries, who testified in court asserting that the case was “one of the greatest falsifications or manipulations relating to archaeological materials from the Roman world” has been added. This policeman’s testimony was completely ignored by the judge in her sentence. Therefore, the above-mentioned statement is completely irrelevant in a Wikipedia article.

- Let’s respect the people who read and trust Wikipedia, who have the right to know all relevant facts about an issue, the Wikipedia’s norms, the resolution of scientific issues in scientific forums, the judge who asserted that there is a controversy among experts on the Iruña-Veleia’s findings that should be assessed in the fields of archaeology, linguistics, epigraphy, etc., the judges of the court of appeal who will review the case, and the laws guaranteeing the right of every person to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.

- I would like to

1) Put back the recently deleted section on the expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia, with links to their reports, which was in place for more than 3 years without anyone objecting.

2) Remove the recently added opinion of a policeman asserting that the Iruña-Veleia case is “one of the greatest falsifications or manipulations relating to archaeological materials from the Roman world”, which is irrelevant and misleading.

3) Inform the readers that Eliseo Gil has appealed in court the sentence convicting him as a forger of 36 graffiti from Iruña-Veleia (out of more than 400 found).

Mmthomson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.86.93 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the appeal? It could be a newspaper report, but it can't be something like an online forum or blog. I entirely agree that it should be mentioned. Zero^talk 06:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I know that he said he would appeal, but I can't find that he did. Here's a source for what he said[9] but that wouldn't belong in the article, only a real appeal would belong.

We can't just restore the material I deleted[10] - it's far too wordy and contains material contested above, eg Harris. It would need a complete rewrite. @Mmthomson: would you like to suggest something here after taking into account the discussion above? Doug Weller talk 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad that a dialog can be established on this subject. The philosophy of Wikipedia is that of a bottom-up encyclopedia, based on reason and honest discussion. And as any encyclopedia intending to be a reliable source of information, it should be based on the stick-to-the-facts principle, and when expert opinions are relevant, there should be a balanced representation of the different views on a subject, particularly in controversial issues, following another basic principle of Wikipedia: neutrality. Wikipedia, to be credible, cannot take sides in controversial issues. And the undeniable reality of a controversy among experts on the Iruña-Veleia’s findings is clearly stated in the recent sentence on the Iruña-Veleia trial.

Now, in response to the comments above:

I haven’t found any media news informing of Gil’s submission of an appeal, but a note at El Correo on 4 July says that he had appealed “several days ago” https://www.elcorreo.com/alava/araba/fiscalia-recurre-fallo-20200704193021-nt.html. However the note is focused on the appeal by the prosecutor, requesting an increased fine, 21,600 € (600 € x 36 pieces from Roman times considered damaged by Gil) and the banning of Gil from practicing archaeology during the prison time of his sentence (even if he doesn’t go to jail). A previous note on 11 June at EITB (Basque public TV) web page https://www.eitb.eus/es/cultura/detalle/7297391/caso-irunaveleia-eliseo-gil-recurrira-sentencia-dos-anos-medio-carcel/ says that Gil will appeal, and his lawyer explains the main bases of his appeal: the sentence is based on “scarcely elaborated clues, without legal weight to determine a criminal conviction" and it fails to provide Gil’s motive to commit the alleged crimes. I think that the response of the defense attorney to the sentence is also relevant information, based on the principle of presumption of innocence.

With regard to a shorter version of the deleted section, I propose this one, with the same title:

“A number of scholars have made public their views favorable to the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s findings through reports, articles, books and videos. These include archaeologist Edward Harris [ ], epigraphist and historian Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero [ ], linguists Hector Iglesias [ ] and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan [ ], Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz [ ], archaeologist and epigraphist Luis Silgo [ ], and archaeologist Xabier Gorrotxategi [ ].”

But there are additional changes I want to propose. I already mentioned one: removing the opinion in court of a policeman with no expertise on the subject of his statement. And, following the principle of only mentioning expert’s opinions, removing that of a politician, Lorena López de Lacalle, who promoted the lawsuit against Gil (and therefore is not neutral in this case), dubbing the case the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula". In the category of nonexpert opinions is also that of a Basque journalist Alberto Barandiaran, who allegedly called the case "the product of an elaborate hoax”. I have entered the provided links, and I don’t see that Barandiaran expressed this opinion (although it may be in line with his known opinions). If nonexpert pro-falsehood opinions are mentioned, in order to be fair and neutral, pro-authenticity opinions should also be mentioned and links provided. This would be a waste of space and time and of little interest to the reader.

I propose other changes in order to correct false or erroneous statements. In the introduction it is said that “In June 2020 the archaeologist who had made the claims and two collaborators were found guilty of fraud and presenting false records.” This contains untrue statements (only one external collaborator was convicted for allegedly forging a report, and an archaeologist of his team was convicted for damaging a single pottery fragment of Roman times, engraving the name Veleia as a joke, but not for fraud) and the information on the sentence is erroneous and incomplete, and it is also repeated at the end of the article. This is my proposed text of the last sentence of the introduction:

“In June 2020 the archaeologist who had made the claims, Eliseo Gil, was sentenced by a lower court of Vitoria for fraud and connivance with an external collaborator in forging a report. Gil has appealed this sentence to the Provincial Court of Álava.”

The title of the section “sensational findings” should be changed to “exceptional findings”, since this is how they are usually referred to in the media and blogs. At the second paragraph of the subsection “Developments”, it is said that “Later others [members of the committee] were added from Madrid, Italy and Britain.[8]”. This is incorrect, since they were not members of the committee, but external advisors. The sentence should be changed to “Later the committee requested reports to scholars from Madrid, Italy and Britain.”

This is my proposed text for the last paragraph of this subsection:

“Most of the 14 reports issued by the committee found problems with the so-called "exceptionals" and three asserted that they were the product of a forgery. However the report on physical evidences was inconclusive. Based on such reports, the culture deputy of Álava, Lorena López de Lacalle, who also presided over the Scientific Advisory Committee, expelled Gil and his team from the archaeological site and demoted the chief technical official of the Archaeological Museum of Álava for her support to the authenticity of the findings.[9] Ultimately, one of the members of the committee, Julio Núñez, became the new director of the Iruña-Veleia archaeological excavations.[11]”.

And this is my proposed text for the last sentence of the “Forgery case” subsection:

“In June 2020, the court ruled that the artefacts had been “manipulated by Eliseo Gil Zubillaga or by him through other persons with contemporary incisions with the intention of simulating that such pieces contained inscriptions or epigraphy of the same age as the objects on which they were engraved and giving them a historical and cultural value of which they were devoid.” The judge admitted that there were no proofs that Gil had personally engraved the graffiti and the sentence was based only on clues. Gil has appealed this sentence to the Provincial Court of Álava.”

In addition, links to web sites need to be updated. Some are not operative and some are for blogs that have been inactive for years. Currently, there are only two blogs that are actively dealing with the Iruña-Veleia findings: Ama Ata https://www.amaata.com/, whose participants are mainly pro-authenticity, and “Iruña Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos X: la sentencia”, at Terrae Antiquae, https://terraeantiqvae.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2043782%3ABlogPost%3A474367&xg_source=activity&page=1#comments whose participants are mainly pro-falsehood. Links to both should be provided as relevant information to those interested in the Iruña-Veleia findings.

Mmthomson (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Mmthomson, You admit that you can't find a source that an appeal has been lodged yet you think the article should say it anyway? It doesn't work that way; the rule is "no source, no inclusion". As I understand it, an appeal was supposed to be lodged within 10 days, possibly extendable to 20 days, so there should be a source by now. Gil should have announced it.

Unfortunately many of your suggestions are unbearably biased. The article has very little citation of named experts who support the forgery claim, so putting in a big list of supposed supporters of Gil is not acceptable. (Where is the extremely damning evidence of Sr Navarro given at the trial?) A lot of your list is old and one should ascertain the opinion of these "supporters" now to check they are still supporters now that more evidence is available. I looked at only one, Ulrike Fritz and read her 2008 article. Here is her conclusion about the hieroglyphic inscriptions:

"The ostraka with hieroglyphic signs seem like “exercises” from scholars and if we compare them with examples from Deir el-Medineh and the Fayum we regonize, that the writers have less knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language. Sometimes there’s the impression of Egyptian verbs like “to eat, to see, to sleep, to make and to be” or Egyptian nouns like house, place, animals (dog, lion, bull...) and gods (Seth, Selkis, Chnum...), but it is not easy to read and classify the signs. So the sense of the written “word” or “sentence” is not clear and even if there’s a cartouche (which contains usually a Royal name) it is not possible to decipher the name. In Graeco-Roman times sometimes the meaning of the words are “secret” and we have a kind of cryptographic writing, but usually it was only used by priests in sacred texts in temples and in our case it is not plausible that the teacher and the scholars are able to write in a cryptographic manner."

This is not support at all. It shows someone who is struggling to make sense of the inscriptions. Personally I would reduce commentary from outsiders and include a one-sentence statement from Gil or his lawyer maintaining innocence. Zero^talk 06:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, You wrote: "You admit that you can't find a source that an appeal has been lodged yet you think the article should say it anyway? It doesn't work that way; the rule is "no source, no inclusion". As I understand it, an appeal was supposed to be lodged within 10 days, possibly extendable to 20 days, so there should be a source by now. Gil should have announced it."

There are two press articles that sustain the claim that there is an appeal:

https://www.eitb.eus/es/cultura/detalle/7297391/caso-irunaveleia-eliseo-gil-recurrira-sentencia-dos-anos-medio-carcel/: in its tittle;

https://www.elcorreo.com/alava/araba/fiscalia-recurre-fallo-20200704193021-nt.html :1st paragraph "Ya son dos los recursos que deberá estudiar la Audiencia Provincial de Álava sobre la sentencia de las falsificaciones en el yacimiento alavés de Iruña Veleia. A la presentada hace unos días por la defensa del principal encausado,el exdirector Eliseo Gil, condenado a un global de dos años y tres meses de cárcel, se agrega la de la Fiscalía de Álava.

I think that this is enough to sustain the claim.

--Koen Van den Driessche (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Koen Van den Driessche: definitely not. The first one says "will appeal", the second one says the prosecutor is unhappy with the sentence and will appeal to have it increased. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agree on the first one, but doesn't the quoted paragraph from the second one refer to an appeal lodged "a few days ago" by Gil's defense in addition to one lodged by the prosecutor? To editor Koen Van den Driessche: I can't see this past the pay-wall; is there more about an appeal by Gil in the article? Zero^talk 12:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: probably but that's just an inference, I don't see the word appeal - that might refer to evidence presented during the case. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I will respond in detail to the response by Zero to my latest comment, but, with regard to the appeal by Eliseo, perhaps I did not use the most precise word when saying that I hadn’t found any media news informing of Gil’s submission of an appeal. Perhaps the correct word should be “announcing” rather than “informing”. Because El Correo did indeed inform of the appeal when saying:

"There are already two appeals that the Provincial Court of Álava must study on the sentence on forgeries in the Alava site of Iruña Veleia. To that submitted a few days ago by the defense of the main accused, former director Eliseo Gil, sentenced to a total of two years and three months in prison, that of the Álava Prosecutor is added.”

The Spanish word for appeal is “recurso”. What the El Correo note says is that there are already two appeals (“dos recursos”) submitted: the one submitted some days before by Eliseo and the one just submitted by the prosecutor. Which other interpretation can be given to the sentence “there are already two appeals that the Provincial Court of Álava must study…that submitted a few days ago by the defense…”?

It must be said that neither the prosecution publicly announced the submission of an appeal nor did the private accusation publicly said that it will not appeal. It seems that El Correo found out about this and also that Eliseo Gil had appealed some days before. Therefore, I don’t know why it should be requested from Eliseo Gil, and only from him, to publicly announce that he had submitted an appeal. He did announce, though, through his lawyer, that he would submit an appeal, specifying the reasons for submitting it. This was published in several media https://www.elcorreo.com/alava/araba/defensa-eliseo-recurrira-20200611215440-nt.html ; https://www.naiz.eus/es/actualidad/noticia/20200611/eliseo-gil-recurrira-la-sentencia-que-le-condena-a-dos-anos-y-medio ; https://nortexpres.com/pena-de-carcel-para-eliseo-gil-por-falsedad-documental-y-estafa/ ; https://www.kaixo.com/noticias/eliseo-gil-recurrira-la-sentencia-que-le-condena-a-dos-anos-y-tres-meses-de-carcel

He had 20 days to do it and 20 days passed about two weeks ago, and he did not announce that he had changed his mind. Morevover, no media has announced that Gil has failed to appeal and that, therefore, his sentence is definitive and the judicial case is over. You must take into account that the case has been closely followed by many Basque and some Spanish media and has provoked numerous comments. Had Gil failed to appeal, this would be big news, with media saying that Gil had accepted his conviction and had acknowledged being a forger. Nothing of this has happened. How do we know that Gil is alive? Should he appear every day before the press to show that he is alive? Doesn’t this seem ridiculous? We know that he is alive because he is a person known to the public whose name has appeared frequently in the media in the recent past and the media have not announced his death. The same should apply to the appeal: Gil publicly announced that he would appeal, and after the deadline for submission had passed, no media has announced that he had failed to do so, and that, therefore, the judicial case is over. Moreover, El Correo informed in a note published on 4th July that he had appealed some days before. Let’s use our common sense. And if sources supporting the appeal are needed, there are the links to notes by El Correo and EITB which were provided.

Mmthomson (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mmthomson: Your argument based on lack of contrary evidence is inadmissible original research. However, I'm accepting El Correo as a source for both Gil and the prosecutor filing appeals. Please help with one thing: Does the title say that the prosecutor wants to increase the fine by 21,600 euros or to 21,600 euros? In other words, is 21,600 the amount of increase or the total? Zero^talk 05:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I will not dwell on El Correo (corporate Vocento) as a media outlet in order to not divert too much from the topic, but information is more open, integral and accurate in the EITB news item, at least opens the door to the bare truth on the facts probed, i.e. the sentence does not state when, where, how, or exactly who made the falsifications subject to trial, key information for the reader, still not clarified in the article. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the appeal, the EITB item has nothing for us since it only expresses an intention to appeal which we are forbidden to turn into an actual appeal. Regarding "when, where, who", the court decided that Gil was responsible for the inscription falsifications whether he acted personally or through others (EITB says that). As for "how", the court accepted the scientific evidence that the fake engravings were made using instruments of modern alloys including plated metals and stainless steel. The court also found that the fraud was covered up by fake reports on tests never performed and that in some cases invoices were presented for nonexistent tests. None of this is the article, but it could be. I don't understand why you think that the full story would exonerate these guys. I think it would be the opposite: their guilt would become more clear. Zero^talk 08:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000:If you trust El Correo, that’s fine. The important thing is that all relevant facts should be in the Wikipedia article. But I trust more common sense than El Correo. Once the deadline for the appeal has passed, there is no point in saying that Gil has the intention to appeal, because this would have become obsolete and would hide the facts from the reader: either he did or didn’t appeal. And if it was said that Eliseo failed to appeal, this would be an obvious lie. Wikipedia should not omit relevant information nor should lie.

If more information is added on the trial, all information should be included, not only that from a particular point of view. Geologist Navarro was questioned by the defense attorney and was contradicted by geologist Mikel Albisu, who also testified in court. Responses of Navarro to questions by the defense attorney and the testimony and report of Albisu could also be mentioned, and they would not favor Navarro. With regard to the alleged fake reports and nonexistent tests, this has more to do with Cerdán than with Gil. The defense attorney, when he announced Gil’s appeal, said that Cerdán was recommended to Gil by the Provincial Government of Álava, which is the plaintiff. And Gil was accused of acting in connivance with Cerdán because he failed to provide a note for the delivery of the pieces to Cerdán, not because there was any proof for Gil’s participation in the elaboration of the reports. But, again, what should be stressed is that all this is subject to a new judgement by a higher court, which could rule completely differently. Meanwhile, Wikipedia should be neutral in this case and should not provide biased and one-sided information, portraying Gil as a criminal, since at this moment he is legally an innocent person. With regard to the scientific controversy, neutral and balanced information should also be provided. And the scientific case should be discussed in the scientific arena, which is what the judge wrote in her sentence: the “conflicting opinions” of the experts on the authenticity of the findings “should be assessed in the field of the archaeologic, epigraphic, linguistic, etc., sciences”. Not in the court of law. Mmthomson (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't sign your posts it's hard to figure out who you are. How is Gil legally innocent? And no, we do not have to mention everything that was said at the trial. Among other things, we can only add material that has been reliably published, not information from the trial documents which are WP:PRIMARY sources. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to sign my previous comment. The right of presumption of innocence is stated at the Spanish constitution and at constitutions and laws of many countries. This right implies that all citizens are considered innocent unless proven guilty. Eliseo has not been proven guilty, since the judicial process dealing with his case has not finished. Therefore, at this moment, he is innocent.

Perhaps I did not express accurately what I meant when I said “all information”. Obviously it’s not possible to include all information and I don’t have access to trial documents. What I meant, in response to Zero, who proposed to include partial information on the trial from a particular point of view, was to include all relevant information in order to provide a true, balanced and neutral view of what happened at the trial. And neutrality is a norm and an absolute requirement of Wikipedia’s articles. And at the trial not only geologist Navarro testified, but also geologist Albisu, who contradicted Navarro. And Eliseo had an attorney who questioned Navarro. So, informing only of Navarro’s testimony would be biased and nonneutral. Zero said in a previous comment that Navarro had provided “extremely damning evidence”. But this is an opinion, not a fact. I don’t know where is the “extremely damning evidence”, which I don’t see at all.

With regard to reliably sources, the fact that an information is published in a newspaper does not make it reliable. Some media in Spain have been combative in this issue, publishing biased and even false information. This biased and false information has crossed borders and has been reflected in media from other countries, which uncritically have taken it from Spanish media. For example, the Guardian asserted that “Óscar Escribano, a geologist, pleaded guilty but maintained that the whole thing was “nothing more than a joke”” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/11/spanish-archaeologist-sentenced-for-faking-basque-finds. A similar statement was published at The Telegraph. The reality is that Óscar Escribano is not a geologist and he didn’t say that “the whole thing was “nothing more than a joke””. He was convicted, not for fraud, but just for damaging a single piece of broken pottery from Roman times, valued by the judge in Eliseo’s sentence in 2 €. He engraved the name Veleia on the piece as a joke, engraving his nickname on the other side, and showed it to his colleagues saying that it had been found at the excavation, but next day he told them that it was a joke. This has nothing to do with Gil’s guilt or with the authenticity of the findings. The information published by The Guardian, apparently taken from some unreliable Spanish media, is simply a lie and is not reliable.

Mmthomson (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, we do not have to say everything stated on the trial, still we are responsible for showing a balanced view of the matters subject to discussion, and evidently the reader cannot gather now the points necessary to form a full opinion on the matter. The article stands though somewewhat better now than before I removed the statements relying on an El Mundo article paving the way to an state of opinion incriminating Gil, one that remained on this WP article for years. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say that Gil & Co are guilty. It says that a court found them guilty (objectively true) and that Gil has appealed (also true, though I'd like a better source). So there is no issue of presumption of innocence involved here. Zero^talk 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The example of the defense witness Albisu shows again why a more detailed account would make Gil & Co look worse. Albisu did not personally examine the suspect pottery pieces!! He only looked at photographs, from which he claimed to be able to see that the patina was not cut by the inscription (an assertion that would horrify any forensic archaeologist). He also did some experiments on modern pottery pieces which the judge considered were consistent with Navarro's direct examination of the ancient pieces. Zero^talk 04:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You can read the inform of the Judicial Expert Mikel Albisu here: https://fontaneda.net/veleia/Pagina/v900.html#, not 'witness', and at least 2 of the informs of the IPCE. As I understand well, the Judicial Expert Albisu doesn't mention direct observations or observations of photos, he evaluates the three contradictory informs of the IPCE. The IPCE first produced the final conclusions that managed the Judge,then a complete independent investigations about fluoresence wiht UV without conclusions, and finally a kind of correction of the first inform, which contradicts conclusions of the first inform. Better read first the inform of Mikel Albisu before we continue to discuss. Maybe the readers can get a glimps of the kind of problems that still are not solved.

Zero wrote: "He also did some experiments on modern pottery pieces which the judge considered were consistent with Navarro's direct examination of the ancient pieces". Could you please indicate where in the 'sentencia' the Judge mentions this? Koen Van den Driessche (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not willing to read Albisu's reports. Spanish is a foreign language to me and this is not a forum. Albisu's use of photographs without scale instead of "en vivo" examination of the artefacts themselves is described around pages 149–150 of the trial judgement. To your question here, the following is on pages 150–151. "Empezando por el objetivo final del informe, hay que señalar que, al tratarse de un estudio realizado sobre una cerámica de imitación, no puede trasladarse el comportamiento de la cerámica actual a la cerámica que lleva más de mil años enterrada. Otra cosa hubiera sido de haberse realizado el estudio con piezas reales de las que fueron encontradas en Iruña-Veleia con grafito, lo que no se solicitó en fase de instrucción, ni posteriormente a este Juzgado en el escrito de defensa, limitándose el perito a estudiar una falsificación en una pieza cerámica. Dicho estudio viene a corroborar las conclusiones del perito Sr. Navarro, pues el mismo halló restos metálicos -unos que corresponden a aleaciones que no existían en la época romana y que no han sido utilizados en su estudio por el Sr. Albisu, como el más abundante, acero estándar y acero inoxidable- y otros metales, todos los cuales resultaban estar inalterados y no oxidados. Y eso es lo que sucede con las partículas metálicas que detecta también el perito Sr. Albisu tras realizar los surcos sobre las piezas contemporáneas con un clavo, un cúter y un cuchillo, no habiendo detectado oxígeno en el análisis EDS de las partículas metálicas de hierro en los supuestos del clavo y del cúter, y de cromo y hierro, en el caso del cuchillo, deduciendo de ello que no están oxidadas. Es decir, que ratifica el resultado de los análisis realizados por el Sr. Navarro: al ser contemporáneos los surcos que conforman los grafitos y epigramas, los restos que deja el instrumental utilizado para realizarlos no presentan alteraciones ni están oxidados." Zero^talk 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000:“An assertion that would horrify any forensic archaeologist”. Are you a forensic archaeologist? But even if you were, the archaeologists’ expertise is not on analyzing ancient graffiti. And if you want to criticize Albisu or praise Navarro, you have to read their reports and know their testimonies at court (you can use free automated online translators). Albisu said and wrote many things and I don’t know where you found that he “claimed to be able to see that the patina was not cut by the inscription”. What Albisu found is that the sizes and shapes of the metal traces left by the metal tools in his experiment were inconsistent what was seen in the Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti. And this was not contradicted by the judge. With regard to Navarro, he acknowledged in court that he had no experience at all in a similar case and that he had used no control graffiti of undoubted age, either ancient or recently engraved, in his analyses (by contrast, Madariaga, who performed physical analyses, including analyses of patinas, at the request of the plaintiff, examined unquestioned ancient controls from another site, Arkaia, an he found no differences with the Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti, and, therefore, his report was inconclusive, as you can read at the sentence). And failing to use controls in an experiment casts serious doubts on the interpretation of the findings. And I say this as a scientist. And experience is also important, mostly when acting as expert witness in a judicial case. Because experience is required for someone to be called an expert. It should be also considered that evidence by an expert witness in court requires lower standards than scientific evidence, as in court an expert witness only needs to convince a judge, whose only expertise is on laws. But to publish in a scientific journal you need to undergo peer review: at least two or three anonymous reviewers with expertise in the field of the study must approve publication. And this is not enough: after publication, the study is subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community. There are numerous examples of studies published in prestigious journals which were subsequently retracted after criticisms from the scientific community or which were found to be irreproducible or wrong. In the case of Navarro’s study, it has not undergone any kind of peer review. Not even internal peer review by colleagues at his organization, which some institutions do prior to submitting any report. So, Navarro’s report doesn’t even have an explicit institutional support by the organization where he works. He bases his conclusions on the presence of modern metal particles on the grooves and the breaking of concretions. With regard to the breaks, this is the usual result of cleaning the graffiti so that they can be read, as archaeologist Xabier Gorrotxategi explains https://zuzeu.eus/euskal-herria/justizia-eta-iruna-veleiako-ostrakak/. With regard to metal particles, Navarro doesn’t explain why they cannot derive from external contaminations rather than from the engraving tool. Failure to provide an explanation may derive from his lack of experience with the techniques he uses. Because contaminations are common in any analytics, and I know this from my own experience as a scientist. And this is one of the reasons why the use of controls is absolutely indispensable when performing any analysis. In contrast to Navarro, Madariaga used unquestioned ancient controls, and he found lack of continuity of the patina, similarly to some of Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti, and therefore his studies were inconclusive. Had Navarro used appropriate controls in his analyses, they could have also been inconclusive. It should be added that the existence of contaminating metal particles was acknowledged by Navarro himself when he found them on the surface of the pieces outside of the grooves. And the pieces are undoubtedly from Roman times, according to all reports and testimonies. He also found them on the grooves of graffiti that he considered to be probably ancient, because they had incrustations inside; he interpreted these particles as derived from “retoques” (manipulations) on an ancient graffito. This is another basic scientific principle that Navarro has infringed: consistency in using interpretation criteria. The same finding cannot be interpreted differently according to the convenience or opinion of the researcher. You cannot interpret the presence of modern metal particles as coming from the engraving tool on some grooves, from manipulations on ancient graffiti on others, and from accidental contaminations when found on nonengraved surfaces. This is why Navarro’s report would not pass peer review by real experts and why it doesn’t constitute reliable scientific evidence on the falsehood of the graffiti. I must add that I have read all that I have been able to find on the Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti and I have found no proof whatsoever that they are false. On the contrary, I have found numerous and strong indications that they are from the age indicated by the stratigraphic dating performed by the archaeologists. And Navarro’s report provides some of these indications.

Finally, I would also like to comment on your repeated mentions of Wikipedia’s rules. There is a basic rule which you have not mentioned, which is that of neutrality, which is infringed in the current version of the entry on Iruña-Veleia. Other principles that any encyclopedia must follow are telling the truth and not omitting relevant information. These are also infringed in the current article, as there are several untrue statements and there is highly relevant information that is missing. And this is serious stuff.

Mmthomson (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is too much. This page is not called "Mmthomson's judgement on the Iruña-Veleia graffiti". You need to go somewhere else to make your arguments and write your essays. Zero^talk 09:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'll also point out that we don't try to be neutral, eg we don't give even weight to Creationism and science. We do not say that everything in an article is true, we simply report what reliable sources say about a subject and we should do that in a way that meets our neutral point of view policy (which as I said isn't the same as being neutral). And of course there is rarely an objective criteria for what is "relevant". Doug Weller talk 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Creationism has nothing of scientific. The defense of this has technical and procedure objections, like the size of the metal powder allegedly remaining from the metals left over from carving the lines (incompatible with forceful present-day carving) and other down-to-earth claims. I would say it would help if at least the article looks balanced. Sorry but those of us who live close to the area where this is happening and have an interest would not come here to have at least some of the details, e.g. listening at least once to what the defense's objections are, and there are, serious and not few.

Part of the issue lies with the impossibility of using the very sentence as a source. Another with the intricacy of the technical details. Another is the opacity and bias of the Spanish sources, and for this case The Guardian, typically relying for 'domestic' matters on Madrid sources with little nuance, marked for whatever issues considered by them as 'Basque', or "Basque nationalist". Very sad. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I’m responding to Zero’s personal opinions and statements about Albisu’s report and testimony and to his proposal of including parts of Navarro’s testimony in court, which he described as “extremely damning evidence”. I have not proposed to include these testimonies, but I said that if part of Navarro’s is included, this should be balanced, and Albisu’s should be included too. And I’m arguing that Navarro’s testimony was not “extremely damning”, as stated by Zero, and that it proves nothing.

It seems that we cannot state our arguments in the Talk page, in response to recent changes in the article and to others’ opinions and proposals, but the personal, nonexpert and one-sided opinions of a policeman, a politician and a journalist on the findings go in the main page of the article.

There is no point in mentioning creationism here. There are serious and respected scholars favoring the authenticity or probable authenticity of Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti, and this does not happen with creationism. And there is nothing in those graffiti that contradicts any known historical or linguistic fact. And the reality of a scientific controversy on Iruña-Veleia’s findings is stated at the judge’s sentence and at Spanish and French Wikipedias. And also at the English Wikipedia, as stated at the introduction: “Other authors favored their genuinely ancient provenance, in agreement with the stratigraphic dating performed by the archaeologists who made the discoveries”, but with no references to their reports and articles. A section on these expert opinions with links was in place for more than three years, without anyone objecting, but it was suddenly removed without prior warning or discussion. In response to my protest, Doug Weller said that the section “would need a complete rewrite. @Mmthomson: would you like to suggest something here after taking into account the discussion above?” I proposed a new version, but Zero didn’t like it. Here I propose a new one, in line with the principle of neutrality:

“A number of scholars in the fields of archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, linguistics, and Egyptology, from Spain, France, Germany, and Bermudas have made public their views favorable to the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s findings through reports, articles, books and conference presentations [ ]” (links are provided).

Mentioning the nationality of the scholars is in line with the information provided for the external advisors of the Scientific Advisory Committee and with the French Wikipedia article.

I have proposed other changes of other statements which are objectively untrue and not supported by any reliable source, and for removing arguable opinions on scholarly matters coming from nonexpert persons, but I have received no comments on them. I have already provided arguments to support the changes and I may add others.

Mmthomson (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not ever propose that Navarro be included. Zero^talk 15:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Here I state again my proposals for changes. If there are no reasoned objections to them, I will understand that the changes can be made:

1. Putting back at the end the recently removed section “Expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the findings at Iruña-Veleia” with this shortened text:
“A number of scholars in the fields of archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, linguistics, and Egyptology, from Spain, France, Germany, and Bermudas have made public their views favorable to the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s findings through reports, articles, books and conference presentations [ ]” (with links provided).
This is in line with the Spanish and French Wikipedias; with the statement at the English Wikipedia “Other authors favored their genuinely ancient provenance, in agreement with the stratigraphic dating performed by the archaeologists who made the discoveries”, which lacks references; with a recently deleted section in the English Wikipedia which had been in place for more than three years with no one objecting; with the link at the bibliography section to one of the mentioned reports (by French linguist Hector Iglesias); and with the invitation by Doug Weller to write a shorter version of the deleted section.
With regard to the assessment by one of the cited scholars, German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz, questioned by Zero, this is what she says in her report: “the pieces of Iruña-Veleia with bilingual inscriptions in Latin and with Egyptianizing hieroglyphs are nothing unusual.” http://sos-veleia1.wdfiles.com/local--files/fritz/informe_Ulrika_Fritz.pdf. And this is what she wrote in the summary of a conference presentation: “The influence of the Ancient Egyptian culture was immense in the Roman Empire and took place at Iruña-Veleia.” ”If we look at the finds of Iruña-Veleia we recognize that there are some parallels to other finds in the so called Ancient- or Old-Italy, later the Roman Empire.” http://euskararenjatorria.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/15_Ulrika_Fritz.pdf
It is clear, therefore, that she favors the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s Egyptianizing graffiti, as she finds nothing unusual in them and finds many parallels from Roman times. And she talks about “Egyptianizing” (not Egyptian) hieroglyphs. That is, imitations of Egyptian hieroglyphs used as decorative motifs in the context of an Egyptomaniac fashion. And Egyptomania existed in Spain since the times of the Phoenicians, as we see in the pseudo-Egyptian hieroglyphs engraved in a jug from the Treasure of Aliseda (c. 7th century BC) http://cieltesorodealiseda.blogspot.com/2013/02/el-tesoro-de-aliseda.html.

2. At the introduction it is said that “In June 2020 the archaeologist who had made the claims and two collaborators were found guilty of fraud and presenting false records. The court ruled that the artefacts had been altered “with contemporary incisions that were intended to suggest they contained inscriptions or markings of the same age as the objects themselves, and that they possessed a historical and cultural value of which they were devoid.” The leader of the police investigation said that it had been “one of the greatest falsifications or manipulations relating to archaeological materials from the Roman world”."
This contains untrue statements (only one external collaborator was convicted for allegedly forging a report, and a geologist was convicted for damaging a single pottery fragment from Roman times, engraving the name “Veleia” and his nickname in reverse as a joke, but not for fraud) and the quote from the sentence text is erroneous and incomplete (see comments below), and it is repeated at the end of the article. The opinion of an anonymous policeman on matters regarding archaeology or archaeological forgeries, on which he has no recognized knowledge or expertise, is irrelevant in an encyclopedia, also considering that his court declaration was not mentioned at all in the sentence.
This is my proposed text of the last sentence of the introduction:
“In June 2020 the archaeologist who had made the claims, Eliseo Gil, was sentenced by a lower court of Vitoria for fraud and connivance with an external collaborator in forging a report. Gil has appealed to the Provincial Court of Álava.” (The appeal should be mentioned at the introduction, which summarizes the case, since what defines the current status of the judicial case is not the conviction, but the appeal.)

3. The title of the section “Sensational findings” should be changed to “Exceptional findings”. This is the most common way they are referred to in media and blogs. They could be exceptional, but nothing in them contradicts known historical or linguistic facts.

4. At the second paragraph of the subsection “Developments”, it is said that “Later others [members of the committee] were added from Madrid, Italy and Britain.[8]”. This is incorrect, since they were not committee members, but external advisors. The committee members are listed in https://www.araba.eus/publicar/Veleia/AFADFA_IV_Nota.pdf. The sentence should be changed to “Later the committee requested reports to external advisors from Madrid, Italy and Britain.”

5. The last paragraph of the “Developments” subsection says
“At its fifth meeting on November 19, 2008, every report except that by Gil found problems with the so-called "exceptionals".[8] The culture deputy of Álava, Lorena Lopez de la Callecase, dubbed the case the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula", and demoted the chief technical official of the Archaeological Museum of Álava for her support to the authenticity of the findings.[9] Ultimately, one of the members of the committee, Julio Núñez, became the new director of the Iruña-Veleia archaeological excavations.[10]
I think it’s inaccurate to say that the report on physical evidences by the committee’s professor Juan Manuel Madariaga found “problems” with the “exceptionals”. The word better defining it is “inconclusive”. And this is how the judge defines it (“no concluyente”). Similarly, summarizing the report by archaeologist Dominic Perring saying that he found “problems” does not adequately reflect the contents of his report, as he asserted “the excavations have generally been conducted to a very high standard and impressive results have been obtained. It is quite possible that the majority of the archaeologists involved, if not the entire team, are working in good faith.” The opinion of a politician, Lorena López de Lacalle, dubbing the case as the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula" is also irrelevant and biased. She is no expert on archaeology or archaeological forgeries and she ordered to file the lawsuit against Gil, and therefore she is not neutral, but one of the parts in the lawsuit.
This is my proposed text for the last paragraph of this subsection:
“Most of the 14 reports issued by the committee found problems with the so-called "exceptionals" with three asserting that they were the product of a forgery. However the report on physical evidences was inconclusive. Based on such reports, the culture deputy of Álava, Lorena López de Lacalle, who presided over the Scientific Advisory Committee, ordered Gil and his team to be expelled from the archaeological site and demoted the chief technical official of the Archaeological Museum of Álava for her support to the authenticity of the findings.[9] Ultimately, one of the members of the committee, Julio Núñez, became the new director of the Iruña-Veleia archaeological excavations.[11]”.

6. And this is my proposed text for the last sentence of the “Forgery case” subsection:
“In June 2020, the court ruled that the artefacts had been “manipulated by Eliseo Gil Zubillaga or by him through other persons with contemporary incisions with the intention of simulating that such pieces contained inscriptions or epigraphy of the same age as the objects on which they were engraved and giving them a historical and cultural value of which they were devoid.” The judge admitted that there were no proofs that Gil had personally engraved the graffiti and the conviction was based only on clues. Soon after the verdict, Gil filed an appeal for acquittal and the prosecutor filed an appeal for a greater penalty.[12].”
In the current quote from the sentence, the phrase “manipulated by Eliseo Gil Zubillaga or by him through other persons” is missing, and it is important to inform the reader of all relevant parts of the sentence, one of which indicates that the judge could not conclude whether Gil had personally manipulated the pieces. Additionally, the word “perpetrators” is misleading. The judge speculated about the possibility that persons other than Gil might have performed the engravings, but no one but Gil was convicted for the alleged forgery of the graffiti.

7. Links to web sites should be updated. Some are not working and some are for blogs that have been inactive for years. Currently, only two blogs are actively dealing with the Iruña-Veleia findings: Ama Ata https://www.amaata.com/ and “Iruña Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos X: la sentencia”, at Terrae Antiquae, https://terraeantiqvae.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2043782%3ABlogPost%3A474367&xg_source=activity&page=1#comments. Links to both should be provided as relevant information to those interested in the Iruña-Veleia findings.

My proposals are intended to correct factual errors, inaccurate or biased statements, and omissions, recently introduced without prior notice or discussion.
Mmthomson (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you have again made radical changes in the article on the text which had been in place for more than three years, to which no one had objected, without proper discussion nor justification, against the rules of Wikipedia, among them to present a neutral point of view, and against your own suggestion that I present a shorter text of the section on opinions favorable to the authenticity of the graffiti. I'm not inventing these opinions: they are mentioned in the current text: “Other authors favored their genuinely ancient provenance, in agreement with the stratigraphic dating performed by the archaeologists who made the discoveries.” They are also mentioned, with references, in the Spanish and French Wikipedias. And they were referenced for more than three years in the English Wikipedia, with no one objecting. You say “you don’t have consensus”. The consensus is in the more than three years with a more balanced text without anyone objecting, in the references made in the Spanish and English Wikipedias, in your request for a shorter text for the expert opinions favorable to the authenticity of the graffiti, in the more than three months that have passed since I proposed the changes in the talk page without anyone objecting to them, and in the introduction of the current text stating that this a controversial issue. This controversy should be reflected not only in the introduction, but also in the main text, and should be referenced. There cannot be a contradictory, nor a nonneutral or unbalanced text, nor one taking sides in a controversial issue, even to the point of expressing the point of view of only one of the parts in the court litigation (that of the Deputy of Culture of the Government of Alava). The radical, one-sided and nonneutral changes made in June had not been notified previously nor discussed at all, nor were properly justified. Neither were they consensual and shortly after their introduction there were objections by three people. Wikipedia has its rules and has the mechanisms to defend itself. You and anyone else had the opportunity of discussing the proposed changes for more than three months, but they were not discussed nor opposed. So, if you want to discuss them now, I would like to know your reasons. If not, I will make use of the mechanisms Wikipedia has established to defend itself in order to serve its mission and its readership.

Mmthomson (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't make a single new point, so no new answer is required. Please let us know if either of the appeals are completed so that we can include that information. Up above I offered to consider a reliably-sourced statement matching these criteria: (1) it was made by someone of undoubted expertise in epigraphy who challenges the court verdict; (2) it was made after the court verdict and not before. I'm not interested in anything that fails to meet the conditions, nor in excuses for failing to meet them, nor will I read a response longer than 500 words. Zero^talk 13:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zero0000. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia thanked me for my edits. Indeed my edits have improved the article. Thanks to them, 1) for more than three years information and links on expert opinions from both sides of the controversy were provided; 2) readers are informed that some authors favored the ancient provenance of the graffiti; 3) an untrue supposed statement by a journalist was removed; 4) readers are informed of Gil’s appeal. But many more improvements are needed and I ask you to not to oppose them, as a service to the public, not to any particular person.

The changes last week were done with that intention and were posted for months without anyone arguing against them.

There is no point in mentioning excuses, nor are unreasonable orders to be given. At this moment there is no valid court verdict, since the one issued in June has been appealed. I’m interested in scientific issues, and no scientist would agree that scientific issues should be decided in the courts of law.

With regard to epigraphy: this is only one of the scholarly fields involved in the controversy able to contribute to its resolution. Others are archaeology, Latin and Basque linguistics, Egyptology, and archaeometry (particularly the last one). And the two epigraphists of the committee constituted by the Provincial Government of Álava who examined the graffiti didn’t explicitly say that they were forgeries. This was only asserted by two linguists. Epigraphist Alicia Canto, who is mentioned in the article, has expressed her views in blogs and newspapers, but she has never published a scholarly paper or report on Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti.

However, two epigraphists who authored scholarly reports, Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero, Professor Emeritus of Ancient History at the University of Santiago de Compostela, with expertise in Latin inscriptions from Roman Hispania, and Luis Silgo, with expertise in inscriptions in Iberian language, have expressed their pro-authenticity opinions. And both signed an article recently published in six Spanish and Basque media outlets, signed by 14 scholars from different fields, with Rodríguez Colmenero as first signatory, denouncing the distortion of the facts on the Iruña-Veleia trial and verdict made by the media and asserting that scientific issues should be resolved in scientific forums and through scientific means, not in the courts of law (in Spanish in Naiz https://www.naiz.eus/es/iritzia/articulos/la-ciencia-y-la-sentencia-sobre-el-caso-de-iruna-veleia, Noticias de Navarra https://www.noticiasdenavarra.com/opinion/tribunas/2020/08/31/ciencia-sentencia-caso-iruna-veleia/1074320.html and Historia y Arqueología http://www.historiayarqueologia.com/2020/09/la-ciencia-y-la-sentencia-sobre-el-caso.html; English translation at https://www.amaata.com/2020/09/science-and-court-ruling-on-iruna.html). Other signatories are Bermudan archaeologist Edward Harris, American linguist Roslyn Frank, and German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz. That Rodríguez Colmenero is an epigraphist can be seen in his publications, most of them on inscriptions from Roman times https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=105036. And here https://www.entrenosdigital.com/content/print/mais-luz-torre-hercules/202001091003538882 it is said that he is an “epigraphist of the first order”. Silgo’s epigraphic expertise can also be seen in his publications https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=114281. It should also be said that no author of pro-falsehood reports has publicly spoken on the Iruña-Veleia verdict, possibly because the judge dismissed all their arguments asserting that they were only opinions and hypotheses contradicted by other authors. (491 words.)

Mmthomson (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do anything, it certainly didn't thank you for your edits. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I received thank you messages from Wikipedia after my edits. Some of them are still in place and others were for more than three years without anyone objecting to them. I assume that everyone who uses Wikipedia is grateful to contributors who place reliable and useful information and who correct errors without receiving anything in exchange. I am indeed grateful to other contributors, and my obligation is to also make my own contributions.

I have responded to the previous comments providing the requested information, with links. Now, it is the time for improvements to be made and errors to be corrected. This will be the work for the next days or weeks.

Mmthomson (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Thanks" are sent by people, not by the encyclopedia. If you look at them you can see the username of the person who sent them. If you click "View history" at the top of this page (or the top of the article), you will see beside each record a link "thanks" that lets you send thanks as well. Zero^talk 13:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And I don't see the thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know who sends the thank you messages, but it is always pleasant to receive them. Wikipedia needs external contributors to fill the contents, correct errors and improve the articles. Without them Wikipedia wouldn’t exist or wouldn’t be credible. And I’m sure that Wikipedia leaders thank all the contributors who help to make it a credible and reliable encyclopedia.

With regard to the edits I made to improve the article and correct errors, some were trivial, but necessary: for example, one was to correct a link to a web page which was outdated and didn’t work. But my correction was reverted. I have seen that someone else has put back the correct link. Another was to correct a misspelled name, but my correction was reverted. I cannot understand this. Neither do I understand that radical changes are made in a Wikipedia article which has been in place for a long time without prior notice or discussion or proper justification.

I will try again to improve the article by making changes one by one, proposing and explaining them first in the talk page. I hope that other people interested in the subject can also participate in improving the article. Mmthomson (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As a principle, an article that has been in place for a long time, unedited and unobjected, should be the text of reference, and who must provide explanations is the person who wants to make radical changes on it, not the one who wants to keep the reference text. But the radical changes made in June were not discussed nor properly explained. The only news was that a lower court had issued a verdict on the Iruña-Veleia judicial case, which was immediately appealed. This is the real and objective information that should be given to the readers, but there is no reason for introducing the radical changes that were made, even with the removal of an entire section referring to the scientific controversy, which is separate from the court case. And this removal has no justification, since this controversy remains unchanged, as the positions of the authors involved in it remain unchanged and there are no new developments in the scientific sphere. Therefore, this section, with links to the reports, should be put back for respect to the readers, who have the right to know opinions on both sides of the controversy, and to the credibility of Wikipedia. If anyone thinks that it should be definitively removed, he/she should explain his/her reasons. My intention is to put a link to http://sos-veleia1.wikidot.com/informes, which has both pro-authenticity and pro-falsehood reports, and to the English-language reports.

Given the slowness of the Spanish justice system, no ruling by the court of appeal is to be expected this year. And we don’t know whether its ruling will be appealed to a higher court. But whatever the final judicial outcome, the graffiti will remain controversial. Therefore, even if Gil is finally acquitted, there will be no reason to assert that this proves their authenticity, nor if he is pronounced guilty to assert that they are false. We have a precedent in the “trial of the century” in Israel against antiquities dealer Oded Golan for the alleged forgery of the inscription on the “James ossuary”. In this case the accused was acquitted, but the inscription still remains controversial. This controversy is reflected in the Wikipedia article, where arguments for both sides are presented, and where there is a section on “Scholarly analysis” and another on "Israeli investigation" separate from “Trial of Goded Olan” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary. Scientific evidence and court evidence are different, and scientists should not pronounce innocent or guilty verdicts in court cases, nor should judges pronounce authentic or false verdicts in scientific controversies. I think that all scientists and judges would agree on this. Mmthomson (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't link to a self-proclaimed obsolete blog.[11] It refers readers to [12] which is also a blog. We don't normally use links to blogs as either sources or external links. If you are trying to use it as a source you'll need to run it by WP:RSN. Looking at the article again, it does not claim that there is a hoax but I'd suggest that we might add the last sentence in the article to the end of the lead. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if it doesn’t explicitly assert that there is a hoax, it is strongly biased in the information and in the opinions currently provided, which is not in line with Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” rule, and lacks information on the scholarly controversy. This is in contrast to the article on the James ossuary inscription, which is much more balanced and deals with the scholarly controversy separately from the court case. I will later argue on this. For the moment, with regard to sources or external links, I would like to know whether these would be acceptable:

- The reports posted at Euskeraren Jatorria’s web site (Euskeraren Jatorria – which means “The origin of Basque Language” - is an association which promotes studies on the origin of the Basque language and organizes scholarly conferences and meetings on this subject.)

http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/04_Edward_Harris_EN.pdf

http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/06_Ulrike_Fritz_EN.pdf

http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/05_Antonio_Rdez_Colmenero_ES.pdf

http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/14.2_Jean_Baptiste_Orpustan_FR.pdf

- Summaries of conference presentations posted at Euskeraren Jatorria’s web site.

http://euskararenjatorria.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/15_Ulrika_Fritz.pdf

http://euskararenjatorria.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/04-Antonio_Rguez_Colmenero2_.pdf

- A scholarly article posted at Academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/24405159/LA_DECLINACI%C3%93N_LATINA_EN_EL_SIGLO_III_A_LA_LUZ_DE_LOS_GRAFITOS_EXCEPCIONALES_DE_IRU%C3%91A_VELEIA?auto=download

- A scholarly article posted at Artxiker (Artxiker Open Archive is a digital library that receives and disseminates intellectual productions of research in the field of the Basque language and typologically close languages.)

https://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.fr/file/index/docid/425473/filename/artxiker-Veleia.pdf

- A book posted at the personal web site of French linguist and professor Jean-Baptiste Orpustan

http://www.tipirena.net/Tipirena_-_Site_officiel_de_Jean-Baptiste_ORPUSTAN/I._Linguistique_et_lexicographie_basques_files/Basque_medieval.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmthomson (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mmthomson (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I missed signing my previous comment above. Now I have added my signature. Below is the text I propose for the section on the scholarly controversy on the Iruña-Veleia findings, an information which is conspicuously missing in the current article, since the time when changes were made in June:

"Scholarly controversy

Most reports issued by the members of the Scientific Advisory Committee constituted by the Provincial Government of Álava for the study of Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti or by its external advisors found that the graffiti were problematic, with three reports claiming that they were forgeries (citations). These opinions were mainly based on supposedly anachronistic linguistic or epigraphic features. However, the report on physical evidences was inconclusive (citation) and that by British archaeologist Dominic Perring asserted that the final word on the subject would need peer-reviewed publication by leading international scholars in the field and recommended performing excavations at the site by an independent archaeological team to see if the finding of ‘exceptional graffiti’ was reproduced (citation). In disagreement with the opinions of some of the committee’s members, a number of scholars in the fields of archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, linguistics, and Egyptology, from Spain, France, Germany, and Bermudas, have made public their views favorable to the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s findings through reports, articles, books, and conference presentations (citations). Their arguments are mainly based on a correctly performed stratigraphic dating, which places the pieces in Roman times, on the existence of parallels in ancient times, and on known features of the Basque language compatible with the linguistic features of the Basque graffiti. On the other hand, linguist Joaquín Gorrochategui, a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee, made public his arguments in support of the falsehood of the graffiti in the proceedings of a conference (citation).

As of November 2020, no peer-reviewed scholarly study claiming to prove the authenticity or falsity of the graffiti from Iruña-Veleia has been published and no control excavations by an independent archaeological team have been performed at the site." Mmthomson (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections to the proposed text and citations, I should understand that I can proceed to placing them in the article. I may add a citation to the text of a conference presentation by epigraphist Juan Santos Yanguas, a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Iruña-Veleia, “Los "hallazgos singulares" de Iruña-Veleia, de la ilusión al fiasco” (2014), although it is not available online. Mmthomson (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mmthomson: please don't until you provide the text including the citations you plan to use, as I have no idea what they are going to be. That last sentence appears to be original research. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

These are the proposed title, text, and references of the section (reference numbers are correlative to those in the current article):

Scholarly controversy

Most reports issued by the members of the Scientific Advisory Committee constituted by the Provincial Government of Álava for the study of the Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti or by its external advisors found that the graffiti were problematic, with three reports claiming that they were forgeries [14]. These opinions were mainly based on supposedly anachronistic linguistic or epigraphic features. However, the report on physical evidences was inconclusive [15] and that by British archaeologist Dominic Perring asserted that the final word on the subject would need peer-reviewed publication by leading international scholars in the field and recommended performing excavations at the site by an independent archaeological team to see if the finding of ‘exceptional graffiti’ was reproduced [16]. In disagreement with the opinions of some of the committee’s members, a number of scholars in the fields of archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, linguistics, and Egyptology, from Spain, France, Germany, and Bermudas, have made public their views favorable to the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia’s findings through reports, articles, books, and conference presentations [13,17-28]. Their arguments are mainly based on a correctly performed stratigraphic dating, which places the pieces in Roman times, on the existence of parallels in ancient times, and on known features of the Basque language compatible with the linguistic features of the Basque graffiti. On the other hand, linguist Joaquín Gorrochategui and epigraphist Juan Santos Yanguas, members of the Scientific Advisory Committee, have made public their arguments in support of the falsehood of the graffiti in conference proceedings [29,30].

References

14. Reports of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Iruña-Veleia https://www.araba.eus/publicar/Veleia/

15. Madariaga, Juan Manuel. Estudio e investigación del yacimiento de Iruña-Veleia. Estudios químicos. https://www.araba.eus/publicar/Informes/Veleia_Inf_24.pdf

16. Perring, Dominic. An evaluation of the reliability of the stratigraphic sequences and findings described in the “Report on the discoveries of exceptional graffiti in the Roman city of Veleia (Iruña de Oca, Alava)” prepared by Idoia Filloy Nieva and Eliseo Gil Zubillaga. https://www.araba.eus/publicar/Informes/Veleia_Inf_10.pdf

17. Harris, Edward. Iruña-Veleia archaeological assessment. http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/04_Edward_Harris_EN.pdf

18. Rodríguez Colmenero, Antonio. Iruña-Veleia: sobre algunos grafitos singulares aparecidos en las excavaciones arqueológicas de la ciudad romana. Un parecer. http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/05_Antonio_Rdez_Colmenero_ES.pdf

19. Fritz, Ulrike. The Ostraka with Egyptianizing hieroglyphs of Iruña-Veleia. http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/06_Ulrike_Fritz_EN.pdf

20. Iglesias, Hector. Les inscriptions de Veleia-Iruña. https://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.fr/file/index/docid/425473/filename/artxiker-Veleia.pdf

21. Orpustan, Jean-Baptiste. A propos des "Observaciones sobre los recientes hallazgos epigráficos paleovascos de Iruña-Veleia (TrespuentesVillodas, Álava)" de L. Silgo Gauche. http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/14.2_Jean_Baptiste_Orpustan_FR.pdf

22. Elexpuru, Juan Martín. Comentarios y objeciones a los informes de los profesores Gorrochategui y Lakarra sobre los grafitos en euskera de Iruña-Veleia https://www.academia.edu/3610374/Comentarios_a_los_informes_de_Lakarra_y_Gorrochategui_sobre_Iru%C3%B1a_Veleia

23. Satué, Alicia. La declinación latina en el siglo III a la luz de los grafitos excepcionales de Iruña-Veleia. https://www.academia.edu/24405159/LA_DECLINACI%C3%93N_LATINA_EN_EL_SIGLO_III_A_LA_LUZ_DE_LOS_GRAFITOS_EXCEPCIONALES_DE_IRU%C3%91A_VELEIA?auto=download

24. Fritz, Ulrike. Egytomania in the Roman Empire – The ostraka with Egyptianizg hieroglyphs of Iruña-Veleia and pieces of bone with Egyptian gods in Latin. Second International Conference on Iruña-Veleia. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. 7 May 2016. http://euskararenjatorria.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/15_Ulrika_Fritz.pdf

25. Rodríguez Colmenero, Antonio. Grafitos, textos y diseños de la Veleia romana: la urgencia de una solución. First International Conference on Iruña-Veleia. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. 24 November 2012. http://euskararenjatorria.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/04-Antonio_Rguez_Colmenero2_.pdf

26. Orpustan, Jean-Baptiste. La langue Basque au Moyen Age. En annexe: Du basque médiéval au basque antique: les inscriptions de Veleia-Iruña en Alava. http://www.tipirena.net/Tipirena_-_Site_officiel_de_Jean-Baptiste_ORPUSTAN/I._Linguistique_et_lexicographie_basques_files/Basque_medieval.pdf

27. Iglesias, Hector. Les inscriptions d’Iruña-Veleia: analyse linguistique des principales inscriptions basques découvertes. Arse (2012); 46:21-81. http://www.centroarqueologicosaguntino.es/uploads/descargas/585_021_INSCRIPTIONS.pdf

28. Harris, Edward. Es imposible falsificar los 400 grafitos de Iruña-Veleia. https://www.naiz.eus/eu/iritzia/articulos/es-imposible-falsificar-los-400-grafitos-de-iruna-veleia. English text at http://euskerarenjatorria.eus/?p=20212&lang=en

29. Gorrochategui, Joaquín. Hic et nunc. Falsificaciones contemporáneas. El caso de Iruña-Veleia. In: “El monumento epigráfico en contextos secundarios: Procesos de reutilización, interpretación y falsificación”. Editors: Joan Carbonell Manils, Helena Gimeno Pascual and José Luis Moralejo Álvarez. 2011. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. https://www.academia.edu/6728256/Hic_et_Nunc_falsificaciones_contempor%C3%A1neas_El_caso_de_Iru%C3%B1a_Veleia

30. Santos Yanguas, Juan. Los "hallazgos singulares" de Iruña-Veleia: de la ilusión al fiasco. In “Fraude, mentiras y engaños en el mundo antiguo”, p. 295-308. Editors: Francisco Marco Simón, Francisco Pina Polo, José Remesal Rodríguez. 2014. ISBN 978-84-475-3889-8. Mmthomson (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I see no objections to the text and citations, I should assume that I can go ahead and add the section on the scholarly controversy on the Iruña-Veleia's finds. Mmthomson (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I simply do not have time to work though all of the walls of text in this thread, but I will make some observations on this paragraph. First, we have no business passing judgement, in Wikipedia's voice, on whether stratigraphic dating has been "correctly performed". Indeed the whole sentence in which it appears seems to represent a Wikipedia editor's synthesis of the collection, rather than being derived from a source that itself has concluded that this is the take-home message of the collective body of work, which brings us to. . . . Second, it is problematic to base text largely on self-propagated 'research reports' that have not undergone any form of peer review, and the first three I called up among the references all fell with in this category. Not only does this open one up to inaccuracies, it also tends to lead to selection bias and/or giving undue weight to what represent in effect personal opinions. We really shouldn't be constructing our own summaries by synthesizing non-formally-published primary research reports, we should be summarizing a neutral secondary source that has done this synthesis already (and if there isn't one, then we shouldn't be including it at all). Third, the manner of presenting the work of 'all of these scholars in all these fields' gives the paragraph a tone that seems to elevate their opinions. This may not have been intended, but that is the way it comes across, and is to be avoided. Taken together, I would say no to the paragraph. Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia’s voice in the section, but what is clearly stated is that there are different opinions on the subject by different scholars, and it is their opinions and arguments, from both sides of the controversy, which are summarized and referenced. I should also say that, to my knowledge, no peer-reviewed scholarly article has been published in support of the authenticity or of the falsity of the Iruña-Veleia’s graffiti. The reports by the Scientific Advisory Committee have not undergone any kind of peer-review nor have they been published. However, the opinions of their authors are mentioned in the Wikipedia’s article by saying “every report except that by Gil found problems with the so-called "exceptionals"” (which is an inaccurate statement) and their reports are linked in the “External links” section. Also, the opinion of an anonymous policeman, who has no expertise on the subject; that by the Culture Deputy of Álava, Lorena López de Lacalle, who also has no expertise on the subject and is a part in the court litigation, since she ordered the lawsuit against Gil to be filed; and that by epigraphist Alicia Canto are mentioned. However, scholarly opinions disagreeing with them are only mentioned briefly at the end, which gives the reader a biased view of the case. In addition, in the current article, at the introduction, it is said that “Other authors favored their genuinely ancient provenance, in agreement with the stratigraphic dating performed by the archaeologists who made the discoveries.” And at the end, “In August 2020, a group of 14 scientists published a letter in several Basque newspapers, warning that the so-called forgery is a scientific controversy that remains unresolved, and that "scientific issues must be resolved in scientific forums, such as scientific journals and conferences, not in courts of law". This letter was signed by prominent archaeologists, among others”. Therefore, the scholarly controversy is briefly mentioned, and the reader interested on the subject would logically like to know which are the arguments in this controversy. However, the opinions of the authors on one side of the controversy are emphasized and all their reports linked, but no links are provided to the scholarly reports and articles of the other side (except one at the “Bibliography” section). I wouldn’t say that this is in agreement with the neutral point of view nor in the service of the reader. Finally, a section on the scholarly controversy was in place in the English Wikipedia for more than three years without anyone objecting.Mmthomson (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (for any later readers, I discussed a number of the sources and why we couldn't use them at WP:FTN. Mmthomson needs to understand that the various language Wikipedias differ quite a bit in what is acceptable. I don't know if the other language versions he is familiar with even have a NPOV policy, let alone something lie WP:Fringe. I suspect not as they keep on repeating "neutrality" which is not the same as "presenting a neutral point of view". Doug Weller talk 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we are thinking in a loop here.

There are reports that try to demonstrate that the finds are anachronical and others that try to demostrate the oposite with suposed parallels more or less contemporanous with the timing of the finds. One side seems to weigh more on academic credits, but at the end of the day there is no one serious cientific article published about the case, which is a very curious situation. By serious I mean in international peer-reviewed publications. There is e.g. no publication in the Journal of Archeological Science or in Archeometry to demostrate that the incisions are recent, or are not Roman. I was curious about the chemical report, and in it's conclusión it is not concluded that the studied inscriptions are false. The conclusions are in fact very confused. So we simply have to believe the university professors that gave their opinión in this case. But the socalled Scientific Board, who produced most of the negative informs, consisted only of professors of the same university. The worst thing of all is that this was the same university that was granted the following decade of excavation in Veleia, leaving a problem of scientific independency. The President of the Scientific Board seems to be a politician and the Secretary was one of her subordinates. All this is in my opinion serious enough to grant some credits to those who have investigated the case and come to oposite conclusions, and if you admit no publiced informs from one side those from the other side also must be admited for the sake of objectivity.

In court, the judge seems to have followed the conclusions of one of the reports from an official laboratory from Madrid, but also here there is concern about the experience of the laboratory with this kind of problematics. Maybe it is not that simple to investigate epigraphic falsifications, and I have the impression that there were never real archeometrists involved in this history.

My conclusion is that being cautious is an importantant virtue in this very misty case. 109.131.80.164 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We use secondary sources, not testimony/court reports

That's the way we work. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be important to know the precise Wikipedia’s norms concerning sources. These should always be reliable, and often media reports are not. And this applies to The Telegraph and The Guardian, which in their reports on the Iruña-Veleia case and court ruling are absolutely biased, even including false statements, such as “Another defendant, Óscar Escribano, a geologist, pleaded guilty but maintained that the whole thing was “nothing more than a joke”” (The Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/11/spanish-archaeologist-sentenced-for-faking-basque-finds and "the geologist Óscar Escribano, had cut a deal with prosecutors, admitting to faking the supposedly ancient graffiti, and accepting a suspended jail sentence of one year." (The Telegraph) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/11/spanish-archaeologist-given-jail-term-found-guilty-hoax-re-wrote/. But the reality is that Óscar Escribano never pleaded guilty for fraud, nor maintained that “the whole thing was nothing more than a joke” nor admitted to faking the supposedly ancient graffiti. He only admitted damaging a single pottery fragment from Roman times (whose value in the case of Gil’s ruling was estimated by the judge in 2 €) as a joke to his colleagues at the excavation, and he was convicted only for this, but he never pleaded guilty for forgery. Therefore, the reports by The Guardian and The Telegraph could be considered as defamation, which under the English law is considered “any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (…) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Criminal_offence. With regard to Eliseo Gil, The Telegraph mentions his intention to appeal, but The Guardian never mentions this nor that the court ruling is appealable. However, in spite of the obvious biases, omissions and falsities, possibly including defamation, which is a criminal offence, the The Guardian report is cited as a source in the Wikipedia article.

With regard to testimony/court reports, if for these transcriptions of court testimonies are meant, they are not publicly available, and, therefore, cannot be cited. With regard to the court ruling, the sentence in the article “with contemporary incisions that were intended to suggest they contained inscriptions or markings of the same age as the objects themselves, and that they possessed a historical and cultural value of which they were devoid.” is a direct (mis)quote taken from it (it is a misquote because it omits the initial part “manipulated by Eliseo Gil Zubillaga or by him through other persons”). Primary sources are frequently cited in Wikipedia’s articles (e.g. see articles on US Constitution or Roe v Wade case, just to mention two examples).

With regard to Wikipedia’s norms, it is mandatory to follow the one regarding the neutral point of view, to ensure Wikipedia’s credibility. And in this case, neutrality requires to make clearly known to the reader that neither the judicial case nor the scientific controversy on the Iruña-Veleia findings are currently resolved, which means that there exists the real possibilities that Eliseo Gil is innocent and that the findings at Iruña-Veleia are genuinely from Roman times.

Mmthomson (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)