Talk:Clemens Arvay

This guy is an author of books on ecology. He studied botany many years ago. He cannot claim to be a biologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollyfelix (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not misuse Wikipedia for character assassination. In the German-language Wikipedia a dirt campaign against Mr. Arvay, which apparently has his exclusion from the society to the goal, runs for a few weeks. I therefore suggest to protect this article from quick changes by newly registered users and to restore the old status - before user Ollyfelix. --–2A01:C22:C00D:5300:BE5F:F4FF:FE8A:7248 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep an eye on Avary. He has books to sell, and I am pretty sure he is editing his own pages. He is a bit confused about Wikipedia, and he does not understand that he cannot use his Wiki entry as his "Lebenslauf". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.248.10 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned I don't think the edits from 27 September 2020 and later can be justified. They are mainly ad hominem attacks, e.g. "align with other conspiracy theories" and do not reflect the BLP standard of an encyclopedia. If there is no objection, I will revert to the pre-27 version on 4-10-2020 evening CEST. The concern that Arvay - that is his name - may use Wikipedia as his CV is unfounded as he runs his own website. Mregelsberger (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) --- I fully agree with your sugestions. The English Wikipedia should not slip towards a kind of flamewar as is the German Wiki tending to. But maybe one or two sentences to note the actual status (opinion+criticism) in 2020 should do. ChJn (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, his latest videos are almost exclusively attacking Bill Gates and Covid Vaccines. Since he has no background in human phsyiology or virology, it is entirely acceptable to state that his views aligh with conspiracy theories. His videos are being shared 1000s of times by people in the anti-vax movement, and he has not disowned these people. These videos do not make any sense in terms of the central tenant to his works which is health ecology. His claims linking ecology with vaccines is tenuous at best. There should be serious concern that he is using the Corona Denier movement as a way of selling more of his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3A04:8401:C9AD:4CCD:3FB5:2B43 (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, people use to sign their comments here. I will wait until tomorrow evening to find your signature or I proceed with the suggested edit, considering that there is no serious objection. Mregelsberger (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Life Sciences / Biology. Stop edit war!
There is an ongoing edit war on the German Wikipedia Page on "Clemens Arvay". This edit war started after Arvay published critical articles on the shortening of safety procedures for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Do NOT allow the same edit war on the English Wikipedia please. The English Wikipedia is known for being rather free of such phenomenons. Arvay has 2 degress in life sciences. He ist clearly NOT an agronomist. His work is not related to agronomy either. His vita is public on his website: https://www.clemensarvay.com/about There are 5 confirmations of academic experts about his status, including an english one: https://6d0f65ae-3ec3-4e35-a70f-3840370e5ccd.usrfiles.com/ugd/6d0f65_699f336abb66407fb9dd195b847b5956.pdf ...and four German ones: https://www.clemensarvay.com/vita

Dear admins, please protect this article in case the attempts of manipulation go on. This war should not be allowed to swap over from Germany. Thank you.--J Forkler (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article was originally published by the editor of Clemens Arvay, Random House. (Translated page from corresponding German Wikipedia article. Disclosure: This edit is made on behalf of the Verlagsgruppe Random House.). The same was in the German Version [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clemens_Arvay&oldid=165147787 by de:Benutzer:Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe. --Reinhold Dieckmann (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Landscape ecologists and plant scienctists are biologists. His work is centered on biodiversity and health. This IS, biology, too. The term "biologist" oder "life scientist" ist not only justified, but it´s the best summary for his qualications.--217.149.168.16 (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * animals with four legs could be dogs. But not always. This is the best summary for your "logic". --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument is logically inconsistent, because he has two degrees in life sciences; what you are trying is to reduce him to plant sciences. This is wrong in fact.--213.225.35.57 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit war slopping over from Germany

Reinhold Dieckmann edited this page and removed the term "life scientist". Minutes later he turned up in the German Wikipedia´s discussion page of the entry "Clemens Arvay", just to report that the English Wikipedia doesn´t list him as a biologist. Btw., until yesterday it did. But then the edit war slopped over from Germany. The same people who manipulate his page in the German version now manipulate the English one to referr to it. This is invalid. Once again: Arvay is educated in biological subjects, his work is centered on biology, and he is established as a biologist. German Google finds 18.000 hits for "Clemens Arvay" and "Biologe". There are also a view english google sources available on the web, but he is mainly active in Germany and Austria. One of 5 experts startements about this issue is in english: this one. People are now starting to alter the english Wikipedia page to refer to it in the German edit war. This is very questionable and should be avoided.--217.149.168.16 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The discussion in the German wikipedia shows how these users try to argue with the english wikipedia after they themselves changed it!--213.225.35.57 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This German article about the situation was published in the German media: "Vaccination controversy: biologist Arvay critizises defamation campaign against critics" Btw. Neither does he critizise vaccines nor is he against vaccination. He only critizises the shortening, in his words: "telescoping", of safety procedures.)--217.149.168.16 (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stick on the facts? Stop biasing the article with your POV asap. thx. BTW: Arvay has never studied biology. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The facts are:
 * Arvay qualified in two subjects of life sciences (landscape ecology and plant science)
 * his work is centered on ecology&health (see his books and research gate profile)
 * "Plant scientist" is an inadmissibly simplified identification to summarize his fields. "Health ecologist" is the adequate and correct identification in summary. (The details are anyway listed in the curriculum vitae below.)
 * This is not my "POV". As linked above, several experts even confirmed that he should be identified as a biologist, including an English confirmation. But you don´t even want to accept the health ecologist.

Please stop the attempts of inappropriate labelling in the intro.--213.225.35.57 (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop advertisment. Read the article, he has never studied "Health ecologist" (see this, what you think is irrelevant. --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "advertising" here. Your argument is simply wrong: Noone can study "health ecology", because this is an emerging discipline. But one can specialize in this field, which makes you a health ecologist - what else? The introdcution should be an appropriate summary of the persons field. Plant science is only one of his qualifications in life sciences and NOT his current field. The only alternative to Health ecologist is Biologist or Life scientist centered on health ecology.--213.225.35.57 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But you are doing that. The introduction has to be as precise as possible, not according to what a publisher wants to have. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of Arvay fans
In de-wiki, there is a CU running of various Sockpuppetry: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer_Bethelove,_Benutzer_Rosemary_Schauer,_Benutzer_BiMa62,_Benutzer_J_Forkler,_Benutzer_Oekomed,_Benutzer_Mara_Brunke

I suggest the IP or J Forkler should leave the article. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Check user procedure: no "sockpuppetry" was found
I am a long-time author on German Wikipedia. I report, that the Check User procedure (CU) in the German Wikiepdia showed that the above mentioned users are not sock puppets. No matches could be found between the profiles. The allegations that have been made here are false.--KonradLorenz (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And for the record, Users Bethelove, Rosemary_Schauer, BiMa62 and J_Forkler (see above) have all been banned in German wiki due to as single purpose acounts for editing in the German article "Clemens Arvay". --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

careful and source based editing
Greetings to everyone. I am from the German Wikipedia community. There have been discussions about the entry of the lemma person in the German community and consens has been found in many aspects. It would contribute to the quality of the English Wikipedia page if people from both "sides" would please stop adding poorly sourced content (YouTube is not a valid source, for example. If he plays music instruments is not relevant, etc.). I have translated a source based paragraph from the German page regarding the lemmapersons COVID-19 controversy. This text is the result of a consens from the German Wikipedia.--KonradLorenz (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Youtue videos can be a useful reference. He is becoming more well known for his recent videos than for his books. I think it would be important to expand more on his Youtube presence, and maybe write less about his biography (maybe cut it down). Does anyone know what his book sales figures are? Are they 1000, 10000, 100000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.248.10 (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That´s not true. He was a guest in the Austrian public broadcaster ORF on TV, for example. That´s more relevant then YouTube and it is a valid source. There are enough sources besides YouTube, such das Deutsche Welle. The paragraph I added is the result of a consens from the German Wikipedia. furthermore the YouTube videos that had been used here were not summarized correctly. Wikipedia is a source based encyclopedia and should fulfill high standards of objectivity. --KonradLorenz (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

occupational title
Arvay has been credited by the European Countries Biologist Association as European Professional Biologist. He ist recognized officially as biologist and that is why he should be also called biologist by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna* (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he ain't. He is listed as Dip. Ing., not biologist. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * what the hell is a "European Professional Biologist"? I went to the website, and after reading through some pages full of spelling mistakes, i can't find any reason for this so called "certification" to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.40.248.10 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Dipl.-Ing. is just an austrian academic degree, not a profession. It is equal to MSc. One can be Dipl.-Ing. / MSc, yet at the same time a biologist. There are some universities of live sciences that give the Dipl.-Ing. to their postgraduated students. The fact that he is a biologist was confirmed by the European Countries biologists association. This can be verified here https://eurprobiol.eu/index.php/member-list/ and here https://www.clemensarvay.com/vita --2A02:8109:8A80:F085:60B3:F720:BD02:B8CF (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"classic Corona free rider"
"classic Corona free rider" is quite an argument to make when NOBODY can be considered unaffected. He certainly profits from it but of course has skin in the game and any suggestion otherwise is just ridiculous! Maybe this should be adjusted! --DeineWurstfinger (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The user Gypsyhungarian tried to quote the "corona free rider" from an invalid source, namely the nomination list of "Goldenes Brett". This is a public forum in which anyone could "nominate" anybody anonymously. It´s nothing more than a list which anyone can access and modify. This is absolutely not an acceptable source. --2A02:8109:8A80:F085:60B3:F720:BD02:B8CF (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)