Talk:Francesco Carotta

Requests for Comment: How can we meet standards for Religion, Linguistics, History, Biography

This article just went through a highly contentious RfD that resulted in - no consensus[1]. Clearly, although the article will not be deleted, many editors have serious concerns that they have not been able to resolve. These center on the notability of the topic: a person who it is claimed is an important scholar of religion, linguistics, history, and biography. If the topic is notable, how can we improve it to meet the standards of other articles that tough on religious, linguistics, historical, and biographical issues? 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen so far, the claim that Carotta uses "tools" from linguistics other than a number of technical terms seems highly questionable. The proposed transformations are major and would require a detailed explanation, but as far as I can tell, there are no references to known phonetic laws which could corroborate the theory, only vague hints. The technical terms themselves also seem inaccurately applied. See the above discussion. Iblardi (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but editors canot put their own views into articles. The question is, are his views about language, or use of linguistics, considered significant or fringe by other linguists. How can this article report what standing his work has among linguists (not editors of Wikipedia, linuists "out there")? Can we find out how often he has been cited? Was the book reviewed in lingistics journals? Is there any way to measure its standing among linugists? And notale sources on this issue that we can cite in the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, any undergraduate who has paid attention during a course on Greek or Latin historical grammar will tell you that the arguments Carotta uses are a load of "apekool", so there will probably not be many scholarly reviews around. No, his views are not significant. Yes, they generated some publicity and therefore, in my opinion, a short entry on Wikipedia is justified. Iblardi (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you satisfid that the article is written in a way consistent with your approach? That is the Q. Edit away I agree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Iblardi, your remarks above, e.g. To be honest, any undergraduate who has paid attention during a course on Greek or Latin historical grammar will tell you that the arguments Carotta uses are a load of "apekool", are defamatory not only towards Carotta but also towards Dr. Kavoukopoulos who has examined Carotta's work. If you think you know linguistics better than they do, go ahead and publish a sound critique of Carotta's work. Otherwise you should refrain from such libelous remarks since they might be actionable. — Populares (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is also that you apply rules to refute Carotta that do not apply in the case of a diegetic transposition. For example: Of course it's probable that Lukas originated from Lucanus. But the clean scholarly Greek and all these wonderful "true etymologies" are very often no arguments to refute a diegetic transposition, because aside from the "true etymology" there is the folk etymology—and this is especially the case in the sermo castrensis and "humble language" of some early Christian writings—, and if in later times, after the formation of the Greek name Lukas, that same name is also used as a Greek form of Lucius, then that's simply how it is, although the "true etymology" can be different. So the fact is: the "undergraduate" knowledge of "clean" Greek grammar and ideal linguistics that you are applying here won't always be of help. And besides: Having shown a blatant lack of expertise and/or knowledge in the above discussion, it's presumptuous to use it here as evidence that Carotta's work is allegedly a "load of apekool". The cult. —92.225.57.158 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read up on the terminology. Folk etymology has nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as "ideal linguistics". Historical grammar only describes the changes that actually took place, usually via the "vulgar" language. Iblardi (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair he did read some of the book excerpts on Carotta's website. The problem is that he came to conclusions too fast. It says in the quoted footnote: "the phonetic transitions are naturally more complex and depend on the location and the time. […] all the more so because we still do not know when and where these hypothetical transitions may have happened." It's at the very beginning of the book, which is why it says: "So at first it is about taking stock only." On those first pages it's only an overview. And the book (being a research report) substantiates many of the early hypotheses later on, especially concerning the lingual environment. —92.225.57.158 (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the point, "he came to conclusions too fast." And I have a feeling that this conclusio praecox has something to do with his general attitude towards this article, which he stated on Slrubenstein's talk page: "But what would be wrong with having a very short article explaining that the man published a book, that he is unqualified, that his ideas have no credibility, [...] and may even dissuade some from taking the matter too seriously." — Populares (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To address my presumed inadequacy regarding Greek, the Dutch system traditionally disregards the accents and follows the Latin rules of accentuation; I should have double-checked about the placing of the accent in the first word, but again, this has no consequences for the argument as such. The accent in mégistos is absolutely correct and does form a problem to Mr. Carotta's thesis. With respect to my "conclusio praecox", I actually wanted to be sure, which is why I started to read some of the contents - there just might be something in there. But I quickly came to the conclusion that this is not the case. The example I mentioned is among the more prominent and verifiable ones. I wouldn't even know where to begin to attack the statement that "Antonius" must lead to "Simona" (=Peter) because people decided to read that particular word from right to left(?!). I can understand why Van Hooff thought the book was meant as a parody. Iblardi (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why Van Hooff thought the book was meant as a parody. You do know though that van Hooff actually, at least initially before he made his remarks, did not read Carotta's book? He even publicly called on the people to not read this book. Now, that's an upright, scientific attitude, isn't it? — Populares (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Did people follow his advice, then? Iblardi (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it became a bestseller. The fact that a notorious buffoon like van Hooff advised against it apparently motivated the people to read it even more. —Populares (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want my honest opinion to the question in this section? You would need the full time attention of several professionals to get this article up to any encyclopedia standard. I however vote for a weak keep. Carotta should not be treated as a serious linguist, but should be noted as a pop cultural phenomenon that has recently been viewed by some group of people to be newsworthy, legitimate, interesting or otherwise notable. He is not a linguist, he is a kind of crackpot, but he's notable for the essence of his crackpotness - and there's nothing (short of hiring a fleet of well-versed editors) that would get this article up to wikipedia standards, given his actual work.Levalley (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley.

Levalley, this is not a Vote for Deletion - we had that and the result as, "keep" so we are no longer voting on keeping it or deleting it. We need comments on how to make it a better article and hopefully people who can edit it Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as usual, Slrubenstein. I get it now. I'll take a look at it, although it is my impression that so much is needed to make it better, I wouldn't know where to begin.--Levalley (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

What does Rubenstein mean by "to make it a better article"? To butcher it completely in order to prevent the people from reading the book right from the start? Why does Rubenstein not go ahead himself, could there be a better writer for that purpose than he is? —Populares (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a Request for Comment is to solicit the views of a wider range of editors. Or did you not know that? You seem intent on repeating your point of view so much so I think you are afraid of listening to others. I am not. So, instead of writing on and on as you do, I wait for others to add their voices, and will read. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing should never be about either getting someone to read or not read a book - but to provide reasonable, accessible information about the book - both for the curious (who may never read any book on the subject) and those who might want to read it. --Levalley (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I think its worth noting that this article is supposed to be about the author, not the book. In my opinion, the first step in improving this article is to add more biographical material about the man himself, with an eye to establishing notability. If there are few sources that can independently verify his notability outside this particular work, then perhaps the book should have an article and not the author. Bonewah (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Populares and NPOV

User:Populares seems to be lacking some grasp of the meaning of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that all viewpoints need to be treated with equal weight; it means that viewpoints need to be treated commensurately to their weight in the real world. Right now, this article waxes verbose on the haldful of people supporting the idea, while nearly ignoring the vast majority of scholars who either dismiss or ignore the idea as being historically unsupported.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a distortion of the facts. Actually the number of scholars who have spoken positively about Carotta's work outweighs the number of those who have dismissed it. Futhermore it has been demonstrated in each and every case that the derogatory remarks of the detractors lack substance. It is true that the vast majority of scholars has remained silent, but what does that prove? —Populares (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One would think that users who voted Strong delete in the AfD discussion would abstain from editing the article they failed to get deleted rather than trying to kill it afterwards by misrepresenting edits. But that would be expecting too much from some people, I guess. Well, that's the culture of Wikipedia and at least some of its users, or rather its unculture (i.e. barbarism) I should say. —Populares (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, just look at User:Rbreen's edits. Pathetic. And he actually has the nerve to comment "a stronger summation of this view" with regard to Murphy-O'Connor's (MOC) review of Carotta's book. In this case "stronger" of course simply means "biased": Nowhere does MOC speak of "coincidences" when it comes to the JC/JC-parallels that Carotta shows in his book. All that MOC writes is: "on the basis of what he sees as a series of parallels". So my original wording—"expressed doubt concerning the parallels between Jesus' and Caesar's life"—was much closer to the original review. But no… Rbreen needs to make it "stronger", i.e. more in accordance with Wikipedia unculture/barbarism/bias, writing that MOC regards them as "coincidences", whereas MOC never expressed himself like that. Same thing with the other alteration: that WP-barbarian Rbreen redacted the article to now read that MOC "criticized Carotta for drawing greatly exaggerated conclusions", whereas MOC only wrote that Carotta "never explains" or "carefully avoids" explanations. NOWHERE does MOC's review say that Carotta presents "greatly exaggerated conclusions". This also means that my original wording—"criticized Carotta for avoiding explanations of his theory"—was closer to MOC's review.…………and this is just one example of many (see his other guerilla edits). So I'm happy to say that you, Rbreen, are a liar, distorter, biased WP-cultist, barbarian and a gargantuan motherfucker. Simple as that. Same Wikipedia bullshit all over again. I mean, don't you dimwits see what you're doing here? It's so utterly pathetic. I really don't know if I wanna cry or rip your fuckin' head off. —92.225.57.158 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If the number of scholars who have spoken positively about Carotta's work outweighs the number of those who have dismissed it, why is it that Carotta's idea isn't taught in history curricula? Why isn't it discussed in academic papers? Why has no researcher expanded on his original idea by making predictions of finds based on it? That's simply because the idea is utterly fringe and the article, in order to respect NPOV, needs to point it out rather than talk at length on the small handful of people who support it. My opposition to the article was mostly on the basis that this was fringiness trying to posture as legitimate science. Now that the article is kept, work needs to be done on the article to make clear that this idea is indeed fringe.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We have to accept that Carotta's theory is fringe, but that doesn't mean that it's bad or wrong. But I think that "fringe" is a correct assessment. That's just the way it is. Something like this takes decades to settle in. No wonder there's a lot of animosity here displayed by our Wikipedia clerks. But what I don't approve is the deletion of actual real scholars speaking favorably of his research. But just for the record: Fact is that Carotta's research has been taught academically, in lectures either by Carotta himself or others… at the University of Basel, the Univ. of Madrid, at the Univ. of [???] in Texas. He has peer-reviewed academic publications, scholars speaking out for him, inviting him for lectures… he's teaching clerics etc. pp.. —92.225.57.158 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "fringe", it has a negative connotation. Carotta's theory is simply new and mostly still unknown. It is a new theory which has great explanatory power, more than any other theory on the historical Jesus has ever had. It solves the riddle of who the historical Jesus was, that may be one of the reasons some so-called scholars don't like it, they might become redundant after all... —Populares (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's fringe. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as WP is concerned, it is fringe. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe or not fringe, the facts about Carotta, his theory and its reception should be presented correctly. Don't you agree? —Populares (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean you now agree that his views are fringe? Please be clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these things should be presented correctly. And given that his ideas are fringe, to present them correctly, we cannot give them undue weight or suggest that they are not fringe. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bunderson, are you daft? What you are doing is putting on "fringe-glasses" and then you look through those glasses at the object of examination thus violating Wikipedia's so-called NPOV rule. Those "fringe-glasses" are nothing other than a negative a priori bias which precludes neutrality, objectivity and reliablilty of any evaluation. But unfortunately you're not daft, at least not that daft, rather the problem with you seems to be similar to what someone wrote above re Rbreen's edits. —Populares (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Putting on "fringe-glasses"" is what we need to do at WP, when something is fringe. To ignore that something is fringe, is to give it undue weight. Ignoring the fact that X is fringe would necessarily violate NPOV, because it would put us in the position of presenting X with undue weight. It would be wrong not to wear these glasses, as it were. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Does wearing those fringe-glasses also warrant distorting facts, misrepresenting scholarly statements and plain simple lying? I want to give you a simple example of what is the problem here, maybe you can get that. Let's assume for arguments sake the total number of scholars who are regarded as being able to speak qualifiedly about a topic is 1000. Now out of that 1000 10 speak favorably, approvingly of a new theory/study and 5 dismiss it (not even looking at the problem of those dismissals not being justified by the actual content of the work, most not even having read what they criticize, because they know beforehand like Iblardi). Now your argument seems to be that since 10 out of 1000 is just a small minority (1%) this theory must be labeled as "fringe" and thus those 10 voices must be given lesser weight than the 5 voices speaking against the theory. You tacitly assume the vast silent majority must hold the same view as the 5 detractors. On what grounds is that a valid assumption? So instead of ignoring the 985 silent voices and just evaluating what was actually said by those commenting thus having a majority of 10 vs. 5 (2:1) in favor of the work, you add the silent ones to the critics thus arriving at a ratio of 990 vs. 10 (99:1) against the theory and consequently giving undue weight to the detractors. Having thus established the theory's "fringe" character you can distort it all you want and defame its author with impunity. Is that feasible? Is that a rational, scientific, neutral, objective, valid, reliable and most of all honest approach? Because that's what you are doing with your "fringe-glasses". Of course, for WP-cultists that doesn't seem to be a problem, and the dimwits among them don't even notice the problem. So again, I ask: Why can't WP just factually state that there is a notable new theory which has gained support by 10 scholars, 5 have dismissed it, though without sound arguments, whereas the vast majority has not commented yet? That would be the factual account of what has happened? But of course, we can't have that, can we? Why not, is lying obligatory in WP? —Populares (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we all agree that we should comply with out policies especially NPOV, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A small fragment of support for Carotta?

I realize that most people think Carotta's views fall outside any norms of common sense or scholarship (and I think I tend to agree). However, perhaps this is a deeper problem of reference and Carotta, like Nathan Salmon believes that words, however different, may point to the same referent. It is true that is possible that a person, like Superman, can have two names. But, like Salmon, Carotta's article is orphaned (that's a big problem), there are neutrality disputes and it appears that one of the persons involved in the article may have a conflict of interest. Is there an emerging area of knowledge in which the assertion "whatever I think it means is what it means"...as a theory of semantics...is not untrue? I am only partly being facetious. Both Carotta and Salmon (and others like them) are rated as minor, and I do not believe Wikipedia should proceed from newly evolved (or arcane) notions of meaning (semantic, pragmatic or otherwise). I am a person with a doctorate in a related field. So, while I enjoy new, well-thought-out and -researched "crackpot theories" as much as the next person (or more), I vote weak keep on the Carotta article. I do think Wikipedia should reserve some space for currently-notable and controversial pop theorists, but should not accord them status of "linguist" or "ultimate problem solver" and, if they claim that for themselves, they should be disallowed from further edits on their own article. If someone ever wants to add to my talk page an explanation of whether there is actually a process for resolving this kind of thing, I'd be grateful.Levalley (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

LValley wrote: [...] I do think Wikipedia should reserve some space for currently-notable and controversial pop theorists, but should not accord them status of "linguist" or "ultimate problem solver" and, if they claim that for themselves, they should be disallowed from further edits on their own article.

Levalley, do you have any proof for your allegation that Carotta is editing his own article? If not, retract that libelous statement. Dougweller, take note! — Populares (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I retract it! I have no proof - it's just an opinion, based on the fact that the flow of the article doesn't go very far (or at all) beyond his webpage. I'd feel more confident about the article if some of the people who wrote forwards for his book or did the documentary about him were mentioned here as more than footnotes.

His statement was not libelous. He merely re-stated WP policy on conflict of interest. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No he didn't, he alleged Carotta edits his article.

Reminder: User Levalley has offered no proof for his allegation that Carotta does edits on his own article. If Levalley doesn't deliver proof then he must retract that libelous statement. —Populares (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he did not allege that Carotta edits his article. At most, he insinuated so. There is a difference between making an allegation and insinuating something. He said, "they should be disallowed from further edits on their own article." This does not necessarily mean he thinks Carotta is editing this article; rather, it means that were the situation to arise where Carotta is editing this, he should be disallowed from doing so. There is a difference, even if it is nuanced. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I implied - and I do retract the accusation. However, it is not libelous because I still believe that even the secondary sources used here are on Carotta's webpage (perhaps it's not his page - but it is my view that it is his page, and I think it is common sense to continue to believe so. It's just coincidence that the article uses the same citations and quotes as his page? I'm all for footnoting an article about a person with their own published works, but I strongly believe that other citations are needed (who is he arguing against? What are the other received historic views on this question? Citations needed there). That's why it's an orphan article (at least one reason why). The Carotta article needs to be placed in a larger context, including the life of Julius Caesar and address the research already presented on Wikipedia in the Julius Caesar article. It is not seemly to have an encyclopedia claiming two things about Caesar without some indication of the status of the debate about the issue. Can anyone be found to support Carotta that isn't also mentioned on his webpage? I retract my statement that he is editing the page (I would have no idea) and ask instead for someone to address the issue that only things that Carotta has on his website are used in support of him, here. Something else is needed. That's my view. --Levalley (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

dougweller removing postings (from this talk page)

Dear dougweller, as someone stated above you are really doing a fine, fine job as administrator here. However, you should take a look at the following headers entered by Slrubenstein which have probably escaped your attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramdrake#Franco_Crackpotto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iblardi#Franco_Crackpotti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Franco_Crackpotto Are they in keeping with the Wikipedia rules? Kudos to you and keep up the good work! —Populares (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So you can do sarcasm, great. Those aren't personal attacks on other editors, and don't bring him in danger of being blocked. And I don't see them as BLP violations if that is what you are suggesting. If you think they are, you have the right to complain on the BLP noticeboard.

I take your comments as an acknowledgement that you know you may be blocked if you continue to make comments such as the ones I removed. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tag

As long as this article qualifies for the tag it should have it. Anyone removing it to make a point should read WP:Point, and although as I've been involved in this article I would not take the appropriate action is this continues, which is to block the editor (in this case a range block should work), if no one else stepped in I would simply take this elsewhere for review. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

diegetic transposition

This is a key term that needs its own page. If someone can write something about this method/construct in general, it would help this article immensely. I do see that Carotta is not the only person using this concept, so it would help to have a broader discussion of this technique and mention any controversies about its use on that page. Then, people who believe diegetic transposition occurs on occasion can refer to other examples to use in evaluating this one. --Levalley (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Apparently, the concept derives from literary theory and was invented by Gérard Genette. As far as I can tell, the term is used by him to distinguish a particular kind of intertextuality, in which the main action of an original narration (for instance, an ancient Greek tragedy) is transferred to a different place and time (for instance, the (near) present; an example would be Mourning becomes Electra). See [2], pp. 36-37. It seems to be meant as a useful way of categorizing intertextual relationships rather than as a theory with any special explanatory power. Iblardi (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia reader's opinion

@This article just went through a highly contentious RfD that resulted in - no consensus [3]. Clearly, although the article will not be deleted, many editors have serious concerns that they have not been able to resolve. These center on the notability of the topic: a person who it is claimed is an important scholar of religion, linguistics, history, and biography. If the topic is notable, how can we improve it to meet the standards of other articles that tough on religious, linguistics, historical, and biographical issues? 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have your standards, but as a reader, using WP only in order to quickly inform myself about a new topic, I must say that the information you are giving now is of little value to me, and the information that would interest me is not included. Beginning with the end:

The Dutch media controversy is absolutely not interesting. It was apparently part of a PR campaign, started a priori by a dubious person who had not even read the book http://www.scribd.com/doc/6735518/JAN-VAN-FRIESLAND-CONTRA-ANTON-VAN-HOOFF , and concludes with a list of persons, some calling it ingenious, the others nonsense. But please, as a reader I want to form my own opinion. A simple line stating that the work polarizes the readers would be enough.

The Reception is also superfluous. The opinion of these three persons is not relevant either, for the same reasons. For me, the only interesting reactions were those of Francisco Rodríguez Pascual and of Luciano Canfora, which were contained in the article for a while but now have been deleted. What a pity, because they related to the heuristic value of the theory – which is the sole valid criterion.

The Theory part is okay, but here I am missing information. You are telling the WHAT, but not the HOW, which in science is the major interest. How did this man come to the idea that the historical Jesus Christ could be Julius Caesar? This being an unexpected hypothesis—the characterization as ingenious or nonsense resp., shows that it is unexpected—something must have led him to formulate it. What had he observed?

The information in the Biography is sufficient for a person of little notability. Nevertheless, here too, one thing is missing. It says he is an "engineer, and a former IT entrepreneur and publisher", but the work is that of a philologist, a classical scholar. It does not fit.

Concerning the stub-Class, it seems adequate: little notability, short article.

Personally, if I had been an editor, I would have voted for "delete". Not because of lack of notability—he has some, although only in some countries—but because, this being a new and polarizing theory, it is not possible to handle it sine ira et studio, but only, as one could observe here, unfortunately, cum ira et sine studio. The edit war will continue and make the article only worse. If I may give a piece of advice: revert to the version the article had for the last three years, as it was structured originally, wait and see what the reaction in Spain will be, where the book will be published soon, and then reconsider it: If they are roses, they will blossom.

-- Marie Larousse -212.117.188.101 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I almost wish I had voted for delete too, since the article is in a pretty bad shape now. In all honesty, it is very hard to try to remain neutral towards a theory whose main argument is that people were too stupid to read (i.e. sometimes couldn't read particular Greek letters within words, in other instances somehow wanted to read words from right to left, inventing their own phonetics as they went along), when there is no argumentation except for reference to some all-inclusive and vague "diegetic transposition" and use of impressive-sounding technical terms without substance. This is only a smoke curtain used to impress less informed readers and it is typical for this sort of literature. I have read some excerpts, but that is really enough to realize this. I don't know how the article can make this clear, but, in my opinion, it should somehow, just to "protect" (sorry if this sounds condescending, I cannot think of any other term right now) unsuspecting readers. Iblardi (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[...] it should somehow, just to "protect" (sorry if this sounds condescending, I cannot think of any other term right now) unsuspecting readers.

So the article is meant to fulfill a condom function. Wikepedia ad usum delphini.

It is astonishing that Iblardi, of all people, who when copying just a single word from the Greek dictionary misspelled it, can claim that it is impossible that "people were too stupid to read". [yeah... "people were too stupid to read". very funny indeed. --85.179.133.219 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)]

Funny perhaps, but I didn't see my opponents do so well in the above discussion. And of course I didn't say that anything is impossible. However, the fact that something can be imagined doesn't necessarily it true. You need evidence for that. Iblardi (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there, one has to read it of course--and one should read it before starting an argument--but as we have seen, reading is not everybody's strength. —Populares (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is something that all text critics know, then it’s exactly those copying and dictating errors. One can study typical reading errors from the handwritten manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark e.g. in Couchoud (1926).[1] Below are only a few examples, e.g. from the Latin text:

ACCIPIETIS read as ACCEPISTI

ADPROPINQVARET as ADPROPINQVANT

TENENS as TENDENS

CVSTODIEBANT as CRVCIFIGEBANT

ACCENDITVR as ACCEDIT

COEPIT as COIECIT

NEMINIDIXERIS as NEINTROIERIS

INIVRIAM as INVIDIAM

PERCVTIEBANT as PERCIPIEBANT

GRABATTO as QVADRATO

DISSVPAVIT as DISTVRBAVIT

HAEC as FECIT

—and from the Greek text:

ANEΠEIΣAN read as ANEΣΕΙΣAN,

ΕΝΑΓΚΑΛΙΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ as ΠPOΣKAΛEΣAMENΟΣ,

ΠPOΣXΕΡΟNTEΣ as ΠPΟΣΤPEXONTEΣ,

ΘEΛETE as ΛEΓETΕ,

AMA as AΛΛA,

ΠΟΛΛA as ΠΛOIΑ,

ETΥΠTON as ΕNΥΠTON,

ΛAΛΕΙΝ as EΛAΛEΙ, and

KAI ΘΡAΥΣAΣA as ΣΥNTΡIΨAΣA

etc..

These are only a few examples from single manuscripts!

[1] Paul-Louis Couchoud, “L’évangile de Marc a-t-il été écrit en Latin?”, in Revue de l’Histoire de Religions, Vol. 94; N.B.: re-issued as public domain by Hermann Detering’s Radikalkritik, Berlin, 2007, available online.

Iblardi's comment must have been an April Fool's joke. —Populares (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you just discovered the phenomenon known as "critical apparatus", but I certainly hope you are not being serious about this piece of "evidence". If there is something that all text critics know, then it’s that lots of scribal errors occur during copying because of many reasons. One of them is the use of abbreviation signs. ACCENDITVR and ACCEDIT, for instance, can be easily confounded because a Nasalstrich above the E and the small sign following T that represents VR may be overlooked by a weary scribe; the opposite may also occur. In fact, knowing that some mistakes are common will help the editor to reconstruct a hypothetical original text. Sometimes a problematic reading may be less easy to explain. Yet in the above list, I do not see instances of entire words being copied from right to left. This is probably because a scribe is supposed to be able to read and write.

I am OK with all this, just don't present it as science. Iblardi (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I would be OK with your nonsensical tattle if it were just an ignoramus' talk. Unfortunately, from all that has been recorded on this and other pages, it is quite clear that you are a deliberate distorter, you have a WP mandate to distort, lie and defame anthing and anybody that is not to the liking of the WP authorities. May I ask what your qualification in linguistics and classic philology is? Whereever you got your degree, if indeed you have one, it probably was from a diploma mill. And again, I would advise you to be careful about libelous statements, Dr. Kavoukopoulos might not be amused. [Edit:PS: Just for the record, Iblardi's original wording of his last statement was: You know, I am OK with all this, just don't pretend that it's science, as it's not.] —Populares (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, I changed the wording even before your reaction, because I thought it sounded a little too harsh - which does not make it untrue. Anyway, judging from the ad hominem attacks I conclude that you are out of arguments. That's fine. Iblardi (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that you didn't have any arguments from the very beginning, the attentive readers can easily discern this from your comments on this page. It's not that I am out of arguments, it's just that I have better things to do than to argue with someone who is just "arguing" for arguing's sake in the hope of impressing the unsuspecting readers. And frankly, I have more pleasant things to do than wasting my time with people of your kind. —Populares (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A judgment about the quality of scholarship shown in an author's publications is not libel, however offensive you may find it. Please refrain from making such an accusation. EALacey (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Iblardi wrote: "Yet in the above list, I do not see instances of entire words being copied from right to left."
Numerous examples of this can be seen in Wutz, F. (1925). Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus, Berlin/Stuttgart/Leipzig.
Had User:Iblardi bothered to study first what he is disingenuously attacking he would have noticed that in F. Carotta, Jesus was Caesar. On the Julian Origin of Christianity, 2005, note 75, p. 370 it says:
"It is also assumed that the Septuagint was transcribed in Greek letters first and was then translated with occasional perceptual errors, amongst them the ones due to the misreading of the direction in which various words were to be read (cf. Wutz (1925). Apart from the Septuagint, transcriptions of Hebrew texts are contained in the writings of Flavius Josephus, Origenes, Eusebius, Epiphanes, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. For the heterographical use of the Aramaic in the Persian cf. Segert (1990), 1.7.6. So it is conceivable that a copyist has taken the name Antonius to be a reversed, heterographically inserted Simona and that he has ‘corrected’ the supposed mistake." — Populares (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

one thing this talk page should not be is an argument as to whether Carotta is right. This violates Wikipedia policy in two ways. First, it does not matter whether he was right or wrong - this is not the standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, or the standard for inclusion of a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Second, it simply does not matter what editors think. Our task is not to decide whether Carotta was right or wrong. Our task is to write an article that complies with our core polcies. Any discussion of the merits of Carotta's arguments simply waste time and turn this into a chatroom rathar than what it must be: a discussion meant to improve the quality of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this discussion is something of a vicious circle with both sides (me and Populares) becoming increasingly heated. It leads to nothing and certainly doesn't add anything to the article. I'll try to refrain from it. Iblardi (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein said: one thing this talk page should not be is an argument as to whether Carotta is right.
What a bummer! I would love to see more of those misreadings/misspellings, particularly from the Septuagint, what about you Slrubenstein, don't you find that interesting? Perhaps User:Populares could present us with some? Anyway, I don't quite understand what your problem is. In the AfD discussion [4] you said that Most humans do not think Jesus was anyone special; I fail to see how this argument is going to rock their world. If that is true, how come you are all of a sudden so concerned with the Carotta article? I mean, who cares what some insignificant scholar thinks about the historical Jesus, if most humans do not think he was anyone special? You, dear Slrubenstein, most certainly have the noblest and best intentions, but isn't your concern with the article now a bit illogical? And btw, why did you want to have this negligible article, whose subject you so emphatically called a "crackpot", deleted? And why is User:Iblardi so much involved with it, or is he just your adjutant? And finally, you wrote, Our task is to write an article that complies with our core polcies. [emphasis mine] Who or what exactly is "our" here. Are you speaking for the entire Wikipedia, are you its supreme authority? Are you yourself Wikipedia, or does it mean that all other editors should follow your core policies? Would you please explain? Thanks. 78.43.166.76 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking here

Should this page be linked in the see also from Divus Iulius? It seems undue weight, to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, let it be known that Carl Rocco Bunderson (aka Bundy) is hereby awarded his second barnstar for his unfaltering, heroic defense of the Wiki. Bundy, we are proud of you!

Carl.bunderson aka Bundy: Defender of the Wiki

Secondly, of course Divus Iulius must link to Carotta. Both "arguments" put forth against linking, (a) "fringe", (b) "undue weight", fail to convince.

(a) Carotta's research is not fringe. But even if some think it has to labeled as such, "fringe" does not preclude linking, see e.g. how many pages link to the "fringe science" lemma Abiogenic_petroleum_origin [5]
(b) If there is anyone who has been working on the Divus Julius in recent years, following Stefan Weinstock, it is Francesco Carotta. Those who bother to study his work will confirm that. 78.42.120.186 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article is now only a rdr, it's a moot point. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the Divus Iulius article has gone. What a pity! But not to worry, there is much more to said about Divus Julius, so a new article might be created soon. Or will you delete that again, User:dougweller? Will you then allow linking it to Carotta, or what are your orders? 78.42.120.186 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Like the earlier Divus Julius, that page is now a redirect - but it's contents were added to the Julius Caesar article where they belonged. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Add to the section in the JC article - if it ever gets to be too big, it can then be split out, but not at the moment. That's the way article building should work. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How then do you suggest to solve the orphan tag problem. It seems WP is full of alert Bundies, whereas the people who voted for the article seem to be sleeping. Maybe the supporters of the Jesus-was-Caesar-theory or people interested in it should start canvassing for it like User:Slrubenstein did against it before the AfD discussion. BTW, he didn't get reprimanded for that, although what he did was clearly inappropriate canvassing, did he? 78.42.120.186 (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, what will you do, if it becomes an article of this [6] size? Will it be linked or not? 78.42.120.186 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Has User:Slrubenstein, who apparently is Mr. Wikipedia himself, already given his directions? 78.42.120.186 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing Carotta at books on Jesus

Is Carotta's work notable enough to be included on List of books about Jesus? I contend that it is so fringe as to be nn for that page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer: Yes, it is. If "fringe" or "non-notability" (which has been overruled btw, in the AfD) is your argument again (creating self-fulfilling prophesies again, Bundy, eh), please take a close look at what you have listed in there. It's mostly a load of extreme fringe c***. 78.42.120.186 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised to find myself in agreement with the IP above. The list is a joke, with highlights such as the Book of Mormon (in section "Ancient"), and an entire section ("Controversial books on Jesus Christ") for fringe theories. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why Carotta's book should be listed in the "Modern" section. 78.42.120.186 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So if the list is a joke, oughtn't we fix it, rather than making the problem worse by adding to it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The "joke" is not that the list has a section for controversial books or that controversial books are a joke, but rather, among other things, because Carotta's book (which is certainly about Jesus and certainly controversial) is not included on the list at all. Do you honestly think this list is complete? For example: where is 'The Messiah Myth' by Thomas L. Thompson? Or 'One Jesus Many Christs' by Gregory J. Riley? It would be ridiculous to include ALL books on Jesus, of course: so many of them are repetitive religious hackery. But there are few if any books that cover the ideas that Carotta's book does and those ideas are certainly worth knowing about even if only cursorily. Xedd (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you do with your list as long as you put Carotta's book in it. And let me tell you this: If you are really a new-born Catholic so to speak, your behavior is everything but "Catholic", it's not even honest. 78.42.120.186 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of religion, perhaps Carl Bunderson should consider what the renowned archeologist Erika Simon, who calls herself a devout Catholic, writes in the afterword to Carotta's book:
Religion is something deeply historical as well as human. Fundamentalism can only cause damage there. May the book of Francesco Carotta contribute that we remain open to questions concerning early Christianity. — Populares (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: So Bundy, don't be a fundie! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) — Populares (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the List talk page, not here. I've restored it to the List in fact. There are no clearcut criteria for the List, it has sections for things such as Jesus as myth, and yes, Thompson should certainly be there. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection

An anonymous user has engaged in disruptive tendentious editing. After the user violated 3RR, she was blocked. Almost immediately, another anonymous user made the exact same edits. Either the blocked user was evading the block, or has a confederate. either way this is not the way to improve an articeel.

This article has undergone many changes since the nomination for deletion. I have a set of questions for tho most active editors.

Is this article on a notable enough topic, with enough evrifiable sources, to sustain a wikipedia article? Or should it be nominated for deletion?

• Notable enough I don't think another AfD is justified. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a viable Wikipedia article, how can it be further improved

• Comment Clean up the date problem in the review section. That's probably enough although it will continue to be necessary to stop people from trying to claim Carotta's proven anything, etc.

Thanks, assorted comments may go below: Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clean up the date problem in the review section. That's probably enough although it will continue to be necessary to stop people from trying to claim Carotta's proven anything, etc. - Just noticed the Worldcat link, is that MOS? I've cut the 3 links to his official website down to one, which is what WP:EL calls for (the main page links to the other two links I cut out). I am convinced that he is notable enough and another AfD is not justified. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Doug, are you capable of doing this? I am glad we are finally focusing on the article and what improvements it needs/are possible (i.e. what this page is for)! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Text by blocked Populares (talk · contribs) deleted

Populares, are you the editor from Kabel Baden-Wuerttemburg who has been posting here? Your language and approach is identical. --Rbreen (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Populares was warned enough times, now another Admin has blocked him and I am removing his personal attacks. Again. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we've witnessed an administrative demonstration of power as with the "protection" of the article; thanks Bundy, for your kind warning. Can we now constructively return to the matter in hand? After all, it is the task of all of us Wikipedians to see to it that articles contained in this Free Encyclopedia adhere to encyclopedical standards and not those of the yellow press, isn't it? 'Free' should not stand for 'free of correct facts', 'free of truth(fulness)' or for that matter 'free of ethical restraints'. One would think we all, at least those of good will among us, agree on that. Now it happens to be the case, if not by willful disruptive tendentious editing then by negligence, that in its current state the article Francesco Carotta is full of errors of all sorts and easily verifiably so, some of which were mentioned in the previous, now "deleted" comment. Especially the section on the "Dutch media controversy" is a complete distortion of the real events, for instance, the review of Peter Veldhuisen was not related at all to the activities and pronouncements of van Hooff. This section needs a thorough revision, or maybe the best thing to do would be to just delete it, since it does not provide any information on the theory and might be of interest only to the yellow press. Furthermore, we the Populares, the People's Front of Rome so to speak, hope that it is not considered a personal attack if we dare to ask the reputable user Rubenstein what exactly he thinks it is that qualifies him to act as the expert for and supervisor over this particular article. If User:Slrubenstein does not deem us worthy of an answer, as has been the case a few times on this page, maybe other editors or just readers could try to help us understand. In any case, we fail to see why Slrubenstein's arbitrary words and deeds should carry any special weight for the decent normal Wikipedians. We also don't understand why there seems to be so little opposition to what appears to be his self-arrogated authority. So in closing we ask an unbiased and honest administrator—there certainly must be one around here—to remove the editing protection from the article so that some much needed reasonable work can be done by knowledgeable and sincere editors. In order to prevent tedious unfruitful edit wars we suggest discussing changes to the article on this talk page first. — Populares (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to the way it is edited, Wikipedia cannot use truth as a criterion. (This is to your advantage, although I am sure you don't believe it.) It seems that WP:TRUTH may apply in this situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha, very funny. Then use verifiability, if you prefer that. —Populares (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence in the article is: “When a few academics were asked for their opinion in a short article of the Leiden University newspaper, they backed Van Hooff's position.[24]” Besides the fact that other academics in MARE back Carotta, the sentence as it is written now, needs a clarification. Two academics indeed “back” van Hooff in the unacademic approach of neglecting Carotta’s discovery by not reading it: OK. But being a christian and an atheist they have fundamental different opinions about the historical Jesus. The are not as unisono as it wiki-looks-like. Van Hooff, as an atheist, also supports the position of the historical Jesus. (vpro 11– 4 – 2004) So, who is backing which position? You see: it is much more complicated than the sentence solo and the article suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.239.7 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

@Hans Adler, truth and/or verifiability

Let's talk about truth and/or verifiability. You had corrected the name "Stadtzeitung" we have in note #4 of this article into "Stattzeitung", because only the latter was verifiable, you said. Then, by chance, somebody found out the link to the "Stadtzeitung für Freiburg" and the erroneous correction could be reverted. Notice that if there had been no documentation of the "Stadtzeitung für Freiburg" online, but only, say, in a press archive in Freiburg, or if nobody had made the effort to verify the verifiability, the error would not have been detected, and the "truth" would now be, erroneously, "Stattzeitung". A beautiful mistake, by the way, very evangelical, being of the same sort as those we can find in the manuscripts of the Gospel.  ;-)

But let us apply this to another case, take Anton van Hooff, who is in charge to turn King's evidence for "pseudo-science", "severe methodological flaws" and "factual errors". Of course, he has written this, among several name-callings, so this is verifiable. But can we take it seriously? If we look closer we see that the first accusation of van Hooff towards Carotta was to not have taken into account the well known Tacitus-passage about Nero and the "christians". But since Carotta had treated it in detail, van Hooff was exposed, because he had shown that he had attacked a book without having read it, so that he himself was convicted of the "severe methodological flaws" and "factual errors" he tried to impute to other people. The subsequent escalation with the accusation of "pseudo-science" was only his embarrassing attempt to divert from the lack of professionality he had shown. This, too, can be verified. The question is then: Which verification is relevant?

Van Hooff is refered to as a "Senior lecturer of Ancient History and Teacher Trainer for Classics at Nijmegen University, the Netherlands" in the link given in note #17. But we see that at the University of Sofia he is also called "Professor Associate". Looking on the Internet we can verify that he is called a "professor" on several websites. Looking closer we can also verify that he was never a professor, and is by now a teacher in a secondary school, as he himself stated in a newspaper article. If we look to the list of publications he is giving there, we see that he is speaking of "numerous books and articles" but specifies only one title. Modesty or showing-off?

Van Hooff being a notorious polemicist, can his accusations be taken seriously? Nobody does it in The Netherlands (why is there no article about him in the Dutch WP? – The only Antoon van Hooff listed there is a zoo director, who was ashamed of the homonymy), but he is taken seriously here, in the English WP where most "judges" do not even understand Dutch. Why? Because it is so stated in the German WP already? If we take a look at the history there, we can verify that somebody had first put the article in the category "Pseudowissenschaft" (pseudo-science), but then, this being not allowed because libelous, they "discovered" "Van Hooff", taking him as "proof", without examining his credibility, happy to have the possibility to maintain their libelous allegation in an appearance of legality: it is "only" a quotation! ;-)

So much about verifiability and truth. The question of Pilate, BTW. — Populares (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies here also. It may be the case that Van Hooff is now a high school teacher, see [7]

But it wasn't that long ago that he was a university lecturer. [8] says "

1991-1995: Secretary of Euroclassica, the European Federation of Associations of Classical Teachers 1988-1994: President of the Association of Classicists in the Netherlands

TEACHING EXPERIENCE since 1976: teaching under- and postgraduate courses in ancient history since 1973: teacher trainer 1966-1973: teacher of classical languages and ancient culture at secondary schools

PUBLICATIONS AND RESEARCH AREA

Numerous books and articles on Roman imperialism, Caesar, Polybius, ancient bandits, old age in antiquity, suicide (From Autothanasia to Suicide, London 1990) and the Spartacus tradition (Dutch book appeared 1993). Dr. van Hooff is co-author of textbooks for history, ancient culture and Latin. He co-designed and presented a television course on Latin. Dr. van Hooff writes for several Dutch newspapers and takes part in public discussions on radio and television as well."

And in a book [9]

Anion J. L. van Hooff, PhD, is a senior lecturer in ancient history and teacher training in classics at Nijmegen University, the Netherlands. He was president of the Association of Classicists in the Netherlands from 1988 to 1994 and secretary of Euroclassica, the European Federation of Associations of Classical Teachers from 1991 to 1995. He has published several books and numerous articles on Roman imperialism, Caesar, Polybius, ancient bandits, old age in antiquity, Greco-Roman self-killing {From Autothanasia to Suicide. 1990), and the Spartacus tradition (in Dutch, De vonk van Spartacus, 1993; an English version. Spark of Spartacus, is in preparation). He is the coauthor of numerous textbooks on history, ancient culture, and Latin.

Clearly he is credible. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When one tries to find "the several books and numerous articles" apart from his work on suicide not much if anything shows up. Yes, he is called a Professor Associate on that webpage, but he never was a (full) professor and he actually currently is a school teacher. And he is clearly not credible, simply because he publicly decried a book he hadn't read, inventing imaginary faults in it and failing to make a single valid point of criticism. He furthermore used words on the author of the book he hadn't read which were and are regarded as libelous by many. That is not the behavior of a credible person, let alone a respectable, credible academic. — Populares (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you are saying "Clearly [van Hooff] is credible", aren't you then also implicitly saying that Piñero, Canfora, Kavoukopoulos, Simon, Rodríguez Pascual and others who all are/were real professors are not credible? Their evaluation of Carotta's work and that of the "Professor Associate" can't be valid at the same time. —Populares (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that we can't use conflicting opinions becaus they 'can't be valid at the same time'? Wow. Next question, whose opinion do I take more seriously on van Hooff, yours or the colleagues who thought he was worthy of holding various positions, the editors who published his work, etc? Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything. Rather I am clearly saying that you can't use "opinions" of people who don't know what they are talking about, people who just love to hear themselves speak and see their names mentioned in the media. Van Hooff's general scientific merits, if indeed he has any, are not the question here. Of course, you can and should use all available serious qualified statements, but such statements should have substance and should be related to the subject they refer to, i.e. such statements should be made by experts who took the trouble to read and study what they are commenting on. Van Hooff does not meet these criteria, the above named professors do. — Populares (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it that "people" in your second sentence refers to Carotta? --Hans Adler (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It refers to van Hooff and the likes of him. — Populares (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia take Van Hooff more serious as a scientist than he does himself? He writes: ‘Most of my activities have little to do with science: newspaper columns, schoolbooks, teachers training, general lectures ancient history and lectures for highly diverse public.’ In: Henk Procee e.a, Bij die wereld wil ik horen ( Boom 2004) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.239.7 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not relevant. He's a reliable source according to WP:RS. Right or wrong, publicity-seeker or whatever, doesn't change that. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He is a reliable source for what? For bullshit? Every single one of his "accusations" such as "pseudo-science", "severe methodological flaws" and "factual errors" has been refuted. No one takes him seriously not even he himself—except some smart-alec Wikipedians, it seems. — Populares (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to see how close you can get to the line without being blocked? I suggest you re-read WP:AGF again (I assume you have read it). Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to make it clear to you that a person who made defamatory comments about a book he had not studied cannot under any reasonable standards be considered a reliable source on the subject matter. — Populares (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Van Hooff himself (Skepter 15 (4) 2002), he did make a serious effort to read the book at some point. "Van Friesland keeps reproaching me for the fact that I did not take the trouble to study the entire book. Well, I did – more or less – when the Dutch edition appeared in November. But the work is such a torture to the common sense that Martin Ros (a book reviewer, red.), too, quit after twenty pages. Paul Cliteur was honest enough towards me to admit that he had read only half of the book when he proclaimed the gospel according to Carotta in Buitenhof."[10] Iblardi (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Iblardi quotes Van Hooff and that only proves that Van Hooff had to defend himself when it came out that he had not read the book. The fact that he tries to defend himself by claiming that others did not read it either, amounts to a confession.
And he admits it: "Well, I did – more or less – when the Dutch edition appeared in November." But the polemic of Anton van Hooff against Thomas von der Dunk and Carotta started in April and is already documented in Historisch Nieuwsblad – Number 5/6 · july/august 2002 · p.8 by Liza van der Veen: [11]

Thus by his own account he had not read the book yet, which until November was only available in German, when he began his polemic and his insults in April, and he still had not read a line by the time of the Buitenhof broadcast (December 1st, the Dutch edition had just appeared on November 28th), when Cliteur had already read "half of the book". Quod erat demonstrandum. Thank you, Iblardi. Note that afterwards, according to his own account, he also read it only "more or less" — i.e., more less than more, as one saw. — Populares (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your point being..? First he had not read the book, then he did, "more or less". Sorry that it did not change his position. Iblardi (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The point being that he lied, that he defamed Carotta without having read a single line of his work, and afterwards when he allegedly had read it "more or less" continued making false accusations and insults. Someone like that can not possibly be a reliable source. That's the point, Iblardi, maybe if you try hard you can get it. — Populares (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not "a reliable source" on what exactly? Iblardi (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cliteur writes: "The method of Van Hooff is as follows: He gets in touch with someone via e-mail and then in a public document freely paraphrases what you allegedly replied to him."Paul Cliteur, Modern Zealotism, in: De Vrijdenker, june 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.239.7 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And the saga continues. ;-) Cliteur's main concern seems to be that Carotta's book, which he thought contained interesting ideas, was never taken seriously by the academic world, while on the other hand his own "hyperbolic column" about the book, as he calls it, was taken too seriously by Van Hooff. But what would you expect? If Carotta wanted to be taken seriously by the academic world, why hasn't he published a single article on matters of classical history/philology/archeology in any peer-reviewed scholarly magazine before? Instead he directly went to the greater, less critical (for less informed) public, knowing that by doing so he would make himself vulnerable to accusations of sensationalism and running the risk of being placed on a par with Von Däniken and Velikovsky. Why hasn't he tried to gain any credibility as a classical scholar on beforehand? Iblardi (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your saga is continuing, Iblardi. An article of Carotta was published also in a journal of classical history, Quaderni di Storia in 2003, i.e. almost at the same time as the Dutch edition. Considering that such journals have long waiting periods, it was quite early. But you are here only trying to divert from the fact that Van Hooff criticized the book without having read it and indelicately distorted the words of Cliteur, telling us, that the choice of the publishing house misled the poor van Hooff. Are you really pretending that Bertelsmann and Random House do not publish anything of value?

But how could a genius like Van Hoof be misled by the publishing house? The answer seems to be: He himself is a reader of Van Däniken and Velikovsky, and knowing nothing else he thought a priori it must be the same. — Populares (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is something strange with this publication in Quaderni. A reference to this site was given as proof of it. It looks genuine. Yet the publisher itself does not mention Carotta's article in the summary on their own website, [12] whereas all the other articles, i.e. those by Pintaudi, Fantasia, Camassa, Foro, Longo, Villani, Merendino and Fabre, are listed. Is it strange that that looks suspicious to me? Iblardi (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a small image of the front page showing the content of the issue. I cannot see anything that looks like "Il Cesare incognito – da Divo Giulio a Gesù". Can you? Iblardi (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop bullshitting around, Iblahblahrdi. There are several sources for the article, including Google Books, which is a fucking scan! —85.179.137.182 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your abusiveness is very persuasive, anonymous. Then again, why did the publisher not list this article on its site, as it did for all the other articles in that volume? That is a question that needs to be resolved. Iblardi (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably just an oversight. Best thing would be if you, Iblardi, told the publisher about this lapsus so that he can correct it. — 91.89.169.158 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's strange. There is a more complete table of contents here, showing that there is in fact an article by Carotta on pages 357–376, between "Recensioni" and "Rassegna bibliografica". It doesn't look like the normal place for peer-reviewed publications at all. Moreover, this snippet view on Google Books suggests that the article was published with a certain degree of framing. In short: I don't think it was peer-reviewed. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean van Hooff didn't have a look at it? Just joking. Again, ask the publisher before engaging in moot speculations. Please let us know what you find out. 91.89.169.158 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, in cases such as this, there are certain markers which, when combined, will suggest to any professional (such as Van Hooff and the others) that they are dealing with a special kind of literature. If this is the case, most will not bother to read the entire book. Such markers are:

If this is really suggested to any professional how do you explain that professionals such as Piñero, Canfora, Kavoukopoulos, Simon, Rodríguez Pascual and others did not recognize those markers? — Populares (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• The author proposes a spectacular theory which, if right, would result in a paradigm shift within the scientific fields involved.
• However, he is unknown as a scholar. He addresses a general public that has only limited knowledge of the subject rather than his "colleagues". The public tends to be impressed by his erudition, which is displayed in an elaborate use of classical sources (as, for instance, Velikovsky does).
• The author states that there is something terribly wrong with our understanding of the past. This is due to the fact that the true story has somehow become extremely distorted by some kind of human failure on an massive scale. The subject itself has allegedly been made into a myth, a god, or something supernatural. (Cf. Velikovsky: "Trauma has oblitterated the memory to a terrible natural disaster, which is why we have no realistic historical accounts." Von Däniken et alii: "People could only explain those extremely advanced aliens by making them into gods.")
• Two widely separated, well-known historical individuals are said to be really the same individual. The similarities are too many to be coincidental. The evidence is presented as overwhelming. (Cf. Velikovsky fusing Ramesses III and Nectanebo I, or Hattusilis III and Nebukadnezar (not sure, but I think those were the ones - I actually read those); Carotta fusing Julius Caesar and Christ.)

Carotta seems smart enough to know that his book would trigger such a response. If he really wanted to be taken seriously, he should have tried a different approach. As it is now everything around this book suggests only one thing: pseudo-science. Iblardi (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You now are trying to do the same thing as Van Hooff: trying to prove a priori that a research you do not know can only be pseudo-science. With the same method you can prove that it is pseudo-science to affirm the identity of Alexander the Great and Zeus-Amon, of Antony and Dionysos, or even of M. Annius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. Apart from the fact that this, being theory-finding, is not allowed in WP – you should write an article elsewhere, maybe Van Hooff can help you find a friend for publishing it –, you should consider that you are now no longer quoting a libelous statement but making one yourself. — Populares (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to explain rather than trying to prove, but apparently this activated the "libel" function again. Never mind. Iblardi (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And the 'blockme' button. Making accusations like that is a very bad idea, and he has been given a 48 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Populares block has been extended for abuse of multiple accounts, I am deleting his attempts to evade his block by using an IP address as 91.89.168.201 (talk · contribs) who has now been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Populares Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page from editing by IPs, since this is clearly Populares evading his block. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did this six days ago. You do not need to do it again.

But I now have a request/suggestion for all people watching this page. Do you really think that discussing the article with Populares or any anonymous IPA is going to lead to an improvement of the article? I suspect that good faith editors like Dougweller and Ilardi don't really believe so. If I am right, here is the advice: do not engage Populares Just ignore her. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article only. There is no point to any other discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we summarize what has been learned here?

In copyediting rounds, I come across other kinds of claims about fringe ways of understanding ancient texts. Today, it is Robert Haralick, who is apparently an expert in computer vision. However, he has also got some fringe publications in using some kind of mathematical analysis of the Torah, and in his article, there are some unsourced claims about the relationship of the Torah (or something) to Moby Dick and War and Peace. Frankly, I can't understand the article, I just know that in the middle of an article about robot vision, there's something about Torah, War and Peace, and Moby Dick, and on the talk page, the subject of the article chimes in to mention whatever kind of numerical analysis he does (pattern recognition of some kind). I don't see any kind of "fringe" tag - just the neutrality tag (which the Haralick page already has). So do articles just stay the way they are, with a warning to readers? And, is there anyway to use a search tool on Wikipedia to establish whether or not an article is an orphan? Thanks for any help. I've been following this page for awhile with great interest.Levalley (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Looks like our friend Populares has decided he's right after all and that all of us are wrong. I'd like to invite him to stop edit warring and give another go at discussing the issues. If he fails again to gain consensus, I'd like him to be courteous enough to recognize that consensus can and does exist without him, and that he cannot always have things his way. Thanks to all.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And our friend Ramdrake thinks he has the right to just revert any edits he personally doesn't like, without the need of giving any reasons. The edits I made were discussed at length here. Of course Slrubenstein and Iblardi are not convinced, since all they are interested in is what they call "improvements", i.e. defamations, quoting of libelous statements. Maybe the best thing to do is to just completely remove the article and the trouble is over. Populares (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The important point is, the edits were discussed and rejected by consensus. You then come back from bloc and give yourself the right to restore your edits despite their being preivously rejected. Also, please stop the personal attacks, or you'll also get blocked once more over that too.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the same old story about alleged "personal attacks" again. There is no personal attack in my above comment, and the edits were not rejected by consensus. Populares (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Populares, I have reverted you one last time. After re-reading the entire discussion, it is blatantly obvious to me that your reversion is totally against consensus. If you still think the view of the consensus violates BLP, please bring up the matter at WP: BLPN. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who is reverting without sound reasons or explanations. Why are you doing that? What is your qualification and motivation?Populares (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Populares is heading for an indef block. Accusing people of libel is a personal attack, motivation is none of his business and irrelevant, as are qualfications. We don't ask people if they are qualified to edit. One of his edit summaries is also a personal attack which was also more or less an admission that he was edit warring against consensus. If he repeats this behaviour when he returns, I will take him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how Populares' edits have no support but his own, I've reverted them. It is clear there is no consensus for them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I consent to most of Populares' edits, I can't see how there would be a consensus against them. —85.179.135.184 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not Populares, mind you. —12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Populares, why are you evading your block?--Ramdrake (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)