    ::: ==VIOLATING LIVING PERSON BIOGRAPHIES WITH LIES== The statements written by Kwami are false and is violating a  living person biographiy: 1-He is using ONE BOOK Critics FOR DISMISSING ALL ARNAIZ-VILLENA WORK ON THIS FIELD (see Discussion,just above, and ISBN numbers:most Arnaiz-Villena work is done after the critics) 2- In addition,according to Arnaiz-Villena himself thie is a defametory comment:see above ant this is copied and pasted: They should be avoided.Regarding to this case I could say, 1-Libel definition:published false statement damaging to person’s reputation (Concise English Oxford Dictionary) 2-JAVIER DE HOZ (1999)references only a small part of my work on linguistics .We have published four books more in Spanish and one in English about the topic since then.It is an outdated reference. The methodology that we followed is carefully explained later(2000),particularly in the English book chapter ,which may be retrieved from Internet (http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/biolmol) a)Title of Javier de Hoz commentary “Travel to nowhere througout the Mediterranean:languages that Iberians,Etruscans,and Cretans did not speak”He does not write about Cretans a single word and refers to a single one Iberian example to dismiss our whole work. b)Statements written by Lahoz:  1-...sometimes this type (of books) are written by unscrupulous (“desaprensivo” in Spanish) people...,including people from the Academic World   I consider this a false unbased accusation which damages my reputation.   2- ...(authors) do not know at all gramatical structure of Iberian and Etruscan...(This is the one single time he mentions Etruscan except in title).Grammars do exist only after Middle Ages and although some  Grammatical features ,not standardized and variable,must exist in the first times,it lacks standardization.Our hypothesis on this are as good as Lahoz one.  3-...(books authors) are a plain disaster (no further explanations).This is a libel or defamation.   4-...(books) are an a aberration in methods and results.No further explanation.This is a libel.   5-...Public money has been missused to pay the issue of a book with a scientific interest similar to that of using wax puppets and exorcism to cure cancer. This is a libel.   6-A crime has been perpetrated and there must be a responsable person to pay for it.(END) .(He referes to deviation ofpublic funds... or to the authors?).This book was unusually reprinted.This is a libel.  Thus ,Lahoz does not criticise the specific content of the book,but attacks thee authors ,without any base:he only does not agree with one example( 2 words in Iberian). I accept this.Although ,I believe we were right.He does not mention Etruscan or Cretan (as in title)  only to say that we do not know a word of Iberian or Etruscan grammars:our hypothesis on these are as valid as his.Grammars did not exist by then,and these languages are not firmly and finally translated.We have only hypothesis,including ours. I have already (last year, 2008!) complained to Lahoz himself:we had a nice chat and I asked him to phone me up if he had any problem with our writings.. 3-LAKARRA(in Protovasco,munda...in Ohienart 21,2006,229-322) He has feuds with some others ,as I gave refs.His references should not be included in Wikipedia regarding to Dene Caucasian or Basque; he states:  a-Page 242:Ruhlen and other seditious Greenberg underlings....Ruhlen is a linguist with different ideas,not a militar.What is this?   b-Page 243:He attacks senior linguist Theo Vennemann just because Theo V. thinks that Europe is full of old Basque toponyms,i.e.:Basque or related languages were the ancient European languages. According to Kakarra,Theo V. put forward this hypothesis ,because “eager of success at any cost”.What is this?   c)-Page 245:he says that from 32 Basque words used by us ,8 are Lating leanings (we hypothezise the contrary) and 5 are invented “ad hoc” by us. Later,he acuses us of forgers.This is a libel  Now,I would ask you ,mediator Jvdb,please check what I have stated or ask me more specific information on this,check if my statements are correct and transfer this discussion to the Iberian Language article discussion,where Dumu Eduba had already repeated almoust the same arguments and references,which he tries to hang also here. Thank you all.Arnaiz1 (talk)    IN SUMMARY,INFORMATION WRITTEN  IS NOT TRUE AND VIOLATES WIKIPEDIA POLICY ABOUT LIVING PERSONS BIOGRAPhIES    