Talk:Francesco Carotta

Clean-up / revision

I have cleaned-up and revised the German version of the article. In Dec '11 or Jan '12 I will do the same here. Basically it'll just be a translation of the German revisions. Landgang (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure that the current German article is 100% neutral, but on first sight it seems fair enough and in most respects a considerable improvement. Only the description of Carotta's theory as merely controversial seems off. I think that overstates the amount of support that the theory has received and understates the criticism. As you cannot have missed, we had some turbulences at this article 2 1/2 years ago. Let's all try to improve the article without falling back into these old patterns. Hans Adler 09:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that I know the theory like the back of my hand, and I do believe it's true, but that doesn't mean that I can't be neutral about it. Neutrality means to neither support nor put down the topic of an article in the article, and I believe I managed to do that. (To some extent my guide for the article revision was the one on Christoph Luxenberg.) However, I found it necessary to add the term "controversial", not only because it is in fact controversial, but because there were considerable controversies about the theory in the Dutch media, by scholars & journalists, for many many years, but also pro- and contra-opinions on the theory that did not originate from any debate: overview. From my understanding, any other term, e.g. like "fringe" or "disregarded" etc. (or vice versa the exclusion of an adjective) would lean either to the pro- or contra-side. Furthermore (on the reception), I don't know how it is in the English WP, but the German WP specifically states that opinions about a topic are to be disregarded, while only well-founded, serious comments are to be included. Many commentators have screamed "what a great theory", even scholars, but that's irrelevant, because it's just an opinion. Same goes for the other side. So the three that are mentioned in the English article—O'Connor, Wyke, Piñero—should never have been admitted in the first place. (At least in the German WP they would not be allowed. Even a scholarly opinion is just an opinion. Same goes for the feuilleton writers who wrote "parody" or "outstanding" etc. I wonder what relevance a journalist's opinion on a scientific theory would have.) The two that I quoted in the article (Canfora and Merz), are to my knowledge the only scholars that offered something more on Carotta's theory than just an opinion, pro & contra by the way. But Hans, you seem to be one of the more active people here at the English version, so I would kindly ask you to review any revisions I will make starting in late December or early January, especially since (at the moment) I'm not yet 100% familiar with the english WP's rules (and with formatting aspects, e.g. in the references). Landgang (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now started to correct and extend the article. It will surely take a couple more days. Landgang (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just replaced some material you deleted - as you say, you aren't familiar with en.wiki's 'rules', and I think we discussed the sources already - read through all the discussions above. Opinions are allowed. You can raise whether a specific source can be used at WP:RSN but read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS first. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I fear that it was the de:WP rules in my head. Sorry 'bout that. I did some clean-up of the Reception-paragraph, reformatted the references, and added some more info. Nothing big though. Landgang (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, it's surprising how different they are. You seem to be doing a good job here, if you've read the talk page you can see there have been a few problems in the past. :-) Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the liberty to change the article status from stub to B. Not sure if that's allowed, though. It shouldn't go beyond B at the moment, because I believe there are still some things that might be missing. For example, a subsection explaining in short a few selected but simple arguments from the theory could be added some time in the future. But I wouldn't want the theory-section to be extensive like the one in this article. ;) And there are probably still some improvements possible in terms of English/style etc. Landgang (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Although less poignant than in the past, once again somebody is trying to turn the Carotta-article into a far too positive description of a theory that is generally and almost universally considered as pseudoscientific nonsense. I will try to find time to correct this a.s.a.p., but for the moment I hope more experienced editors will already have a critical look to what has been done so far.--Adelheid24 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

To elucidate my accusation, this is amongst the latest comments on Landgang's changes to the German version: "Die „Schändung des Körpers“ kommt bei Canfora nicht vor, die „Auferstehung“ kommt nicht vor, dass diese die Ursache dafür war, dass der Körper nicht geschändet wurde, kommt nicht vor, dass dies „nur knapp“ geschehen wäre, kommt nicht vor, und dass Canfora Carottas Theorie „erweiterte“, ist der angegebenen Stellen ebenfalls nicht zu entnehmen. Das hast du dir alles ausgedacht. Ich nenne das Quellenfälschung und überlege mir, ob ich dich als Vandalen melde." --Adelheid24 (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This contribution may be a bit long-winded, but hopefully I can make myself clear. I wish to add another point of criticism.

I think that the sentence "Alongside Couchoud, the theologian Ethelbert Stauffer is an important early warrantor of Carotta's theory: Stauffer regarded the Clementia Caesaris as a historical precursor of Jesus' Love-thy-enemy,[36] and he located the origin of the Christian Easter rituals, especially of the Good Friday liturgy, in the rites during Caesar's funeral,[37]..." is problematic. I have read both Stauffer’s article and the excerpt from Christus und die Caesaren quoted on Carotta’s website (http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma/eclement.html). Based on these texts I would say that the contentions that Stauffer considers the clementia Caesaris to be a "historical precursor" of Jesus' message and that Christian rituals have their "origin in" the funeral rites for Caesar is misleading. When you read the relevant passages you will see that Stauffer approaches the whole subject more as a believer than as a historian, using a traditional Christian view of the course of history as a planned series of events ordained by God in order to prepare humanity for the coming of his kingdom. Within this tradition, Christ's birth is believed to have occurred "in the fullness of time", an expression used to signify that, in the course of the last centuries BCE, God was making the world 'ready' to receive Christ's message of salvation. Associated with this approach is the concept of typology, meaning, among other things, that historical events can somehow be interpreted as 'foreshadowings' of divine truths which are to become fully clear with the advent of Christ. The Christian author's goal is more to highlight formal correspondences between historical events that make them meaningful against the background of this theological scheme of salvation than to try to establish strict causal relationships between such events in the same manner as a historian in the usual sense would do. Such an author would in fact be writing a work of historico-theological exegesis rather than historiography as we normally understand it.

That this is indeed how Stauffer sees it is evidenced by his declaration in "Clementia Caesaris" that "[d]as ist das Ende des größten Begnadigungswerkes, das in der vorchristlichen Weltpolitik je geplant und begonnen wurde", and by his contention in Christus und die Caesaren that "this clemency of Caesar is embedded like a meta–physical postulate in the stormy history of that advent century before the turning-point of all time. The Christian knows how God Himself, and God alone, fulfilled that postulate. Caesar’s work of conciliation fell to pieces. Christ’s work of reconciliation was accomplished."

Among the elements associated with the "fullness of time" are (1) the unity of the Mediterranean under Roman rule, which ensured that travels over great distances could now safely be undertaken, and (2) the role of Greek as a lingua franca, allowing the evangelical message to be more easily communicated. A third aspect, which is the apparent subject of Stauffer's argument, is the role of the emperor cult and especially that of the dead Caesar with his associated clemency, which, again in this theological model, is believed to have functioned as another kind of 'pre-adaptation', preparing the masses for the superior message of divine grace which was to be preached and exemplified by Jesus, and which they would not have been ready to understand had this cult been absent. This, I think, is why Stauffer says that "[t]he Roman people glorified the dead Caesar in a unique passion-liturgy, which echoes the ancient eastern laments for the death of the great gods of blessing, and many of whose motifs show an astonishing connexion with the Good Friday liturgy of the Roman mass" and why he does not say that the Christian Easter rituals historically "originated in" the funeral rites for Caesar, which would be besides the point. (See also http://sueimonoshagios.blogspot.com/2011/12/subversiveness-of-jesus-and-his-gospel.html , on the same subject, where Stauffer’s book is referred to for further reading.) Iblardi (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughts. You are correct. I edited the article to remove all references to "historical" and reflect Stauffer's approach as a theologian ("soteriologically paved the way"). Concerning the second part (Good Friday & Caesar's funeral), the relevant source is his later book Jerusalem und Rom, where he was more explicit and used the word vorwegnehmen ("to anticipate sth."). As for the Canfora article: I have read it again, had it meticulously translated (took some time), and it is represented correctly here. (Thank you also for the link to that blog.) Landgang (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@IbIardi, You are absolutely right in presuming that Carotta (and his small, fut very loyal and devout group of disciples) give the false impresion that Stauffer's theories are backing or forrunning those of Carotta. It is a common trick in pseudoscience: trying to piggyback on the undisputed reputation of others. Same with Cafora, who is here intruduced (incorrectly) as extending Carotta's theory. You can even find it in the (ridiculously long) biographical notes, where we learn that Carotta was born in the former rural residence of the Zeno family (XIVth cent.!) and that his grandfather was a childhood friend of Giacomo Matteotti.--Adelheid24 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I started with cleaning up the biography. It is far too long compared to the importance of FC, but I only skipped that FC was dismissed from seminary "due to critical thinking", since that is entirely FC's own perception of the event. I have strong doubts about at least the importance of many of the other facts and events mentioned in the biography - what, f.i., does it mean that FC "supported the beginning anti-nuclear movement"? - but I have neither the time nor the want to verify it all. --Adelheid24 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Landgang: you replaced "due to critical thinking". I can remove it again, but will not, for the moment. I will not start an edit war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war) with you. I hope other, more experienced wiki contributors will take notice of the unbalanced and biased character of the lemma as it is right now. --Adelheid24 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) Adelheid24, you must not remove it again, because there is WP:SELFPUB, which is also valid for biographies about living persons: if the material is not unduly self-serving, if it does not involve claims about third parties, if it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, if there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and if the article is not based primarily on such sources, the stuff about the seminary, the anti-nuclear movement etc. can stay in the article. (2) An experienced WP contributor, which you apparently don't view yourself as (why? do you only hang around here to discredit Carotta?) would not simply call an article "unbalanced" and "biased", but also document that. I'm here to cooperate. If there are factual errors, I'm glad to correct them, as for example in the case of Stauffer. If a part is biased, which I want to avoid, then we have to work on it. All you are doing is making unnecessary edits, labeling Carotta's work in ways that are not correct, twice already. Let me remind you that these false claims of yours here on the discussion page had already been removed from the article, see WP:LBL. Your newest additions should also be removed, but this is not my job, but that of an admin. Landgang (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

However, I can see how someone oversensitive might see the version with the direct quote as "unduly self-serving", in the sense that Carotta is telling others in his CV that he was into critical thinking from early on. Therefore I have reworded the sentence in a more general way and removed the direct quote. Landgang (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Date of funeral

There is yet another problem with the current text. It is stated that Caesar’s funeral took place on the day of the Liberalia. ("In the article for the Theological Academy of the Archdiocese of Seville a case was made for the artifact's authenticity by tracing it to the eastern imperial cult, the Athenian Iobakchoi, and the worship of Caesar, which began during his funeral on the day of the Liberalia, where a wax effigy of his slain body and a tropaeum were shown to the funeral crowd.")

In its present form, this sentence can hardly be correct. The Liberalia were celebrated on 17 March, whereas Caesar’s funeral, according to the consensus view, was arranged during a Senate meeting on 18 March, and the actual ceremony was held one or two days later, i.e. on 19/20 March. (See for instance E.G. Huzar, Mark Antony, a biography (1978), p. 85; Z. Yavetz, Plebs and princeps (1988), p. 66; M. Fuhrmann, Cicero and the Roman Republic (1992), p. 169; J.T. Ramsey & A.L. Licht, The comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's funeral games (1997), p. 48; P.R. Baehr, Caesar and the fading of the Roman world: a study in Republicanism and Caesarism (1998), p. 305; G.S. Sumi, Ceremony and power: performing politics in Rome between Republic and Empire (2005), p. 100; H.I. Flower, The art of forgetting: disgrace & oblivion in Roman political culture (2006), p. 311 n. 66; K. Bringmann, A history of the Roman republic (2007), p. 281; H. Berry & A. Erskine, Form and function in Roman oratory (2010), p. 162; T. Venning & J. Drinkwater, Chronology of the Roman Empire (2011), p. 297.)

How can we change the sentence to reflect this? Iblardi (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Valid objection, if you look at the secondary sources. And it would be easy to change the sentence. (Two, actually.) However, there is one slight problem: nobody has ever disputed that the primary sources lead to 17 March as the funeral date. At first 17 March was viewed as the correct date (e.g. in Greswell, Origines Kalendariae Italicae, Oxford 1854, Vol. 4, p. 287-90), and Andreas Alföldi used 17 March in two or three of his articles (e.g. in "La divinisation de César dans la politique d’Antoine et d’Octavien entre 44 et 40 avant J.-C"). Some secondary sources do not decide on a date, a few give 18 March, and most vote for 20 March or even later, even as late as 23 March. The late datings (especially 20 March) are all tertiary, based on the computation in Drumann-Groebe (Geschichte Roms, Berlin 1899-1922). This computation however wrongly emphasized shaky sources, and it disregarded many other, incl. Nicolaus Damascenus. An example: according to Drumann-Groebe the first senate session is to supposed to have happened on 17 March, but during an intermission of the first senate session, Lepidus went to the forum and told the people that he had stood there with Caesar on the day before (App. BC 2.131.548; speech also in Nic. Dam. 27), which means that the first senate session was on the 16th, not on the 17th. That alone shows that the computation by Drumann-Groebe is false. There will be a peer-reviewed article out (this January, I believe) that deals with exactly this topic. (I only have a preprint version, but I guess the arguments for the 17th will not change in the print version.) Question: do we leave the sentences in the article as they are, or do we change them (which would be easy), only to change them back in a couple of weeks? Landgang (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think that Wikipedia’s credibility would be served if we allow dubious contentions to stand simply because they could be proven right in the future. Since you wrote so much of the article, I'll leave it to you to propose a different wording if you like. Iblardi (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, could you give a little more information on that article of which you have a preprint version? Who is the author? And do you know where it will be published? Iblardi (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's called "Liberalia tu accusas" (at least in the preprint version, which was online for a couple of months), and it's by Carotta. I contacted him about the journal & issue, but he doesn't want it public yet. He said a PDF version of the article will eventually be available here. Landgang (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the last two secondary sources you mentioned: Venning in his book on Roman chronology has 20 March, but with reservations (question mark); Ramsey (in Berry-Erskine) quotes Malcovati (ORF no. 3) and 20 March, but himself votes "clearly" for series no. 4 and 17 March. Landgang (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Venning mentions 18 March as the date on which Caesar's funeral was arranged without any reservation (see previous page), thus giving a terminus post quem which is still later than 17 March. I'm not sure how to read the second part of your comment. Ramsey identifies Anthony's funeral speech as "ORF no. 3", which was delivered "c. 20 March", and adds that "clearly it should follow in sequence ORF no. 4, which was delivered on 17 March, a mere two days after Caesar's murder." The way I read it Ramsey merely says that Malcovati's no. 3 was "misnumbered" because it actually followed Malcovati's no. 4 of 17 March instead of preceding it. Where does he say that Anthony's speech took place on 17 March? Iblardi (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

On Venning: I only have the preview page with 20 March on Google Books. But yes, 18 March is often given as the date of the arrangement, because based on Drumann-Groebe that was the day of the second senate session. On Ramsey: Yes, I completely misunderstood that passage. :( But it's the same as Ramsey. Whether an author writes "?20" or "c. 20" doesn't really make a difference. Landgang (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Iblardi: You should know that the funeral date is the main topic of a book written by Holland's most fanatic Carotta follower (and his translator) Tommie Hendriks (see http://babakfakhamzadeh.com/site/index.php?c=2&i=5047). Although the book, as well as the forthcoming article by Carotta, tries to give arguments for the funeral on the 17th, the main argument is the author's wish to parallel Caesar's death and following events with those of Jesus (third day etc.).--Adelheid24 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And? What would be wrong with that? If Caesar's funeral was not on the third day under any circumstances, it would put a huge stain on the theory. Carotta is simply doing, what any scholar would do: substantiate the theory with new scientific research. And if it's really true that the article will be published in a peer-reviewed journal (which wouldn't be Carotta's first by the way), then he isn't just "trying to give arguments"; it means that he has given strong scientific arguments worthy of academic publication. And it would be quite a big thing also in a different respect, because the article (at least the preprint version) also had a passage on the effigy and the tropaeum. Landgang (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be easy, as the accounts are confused. Plutarch for instance (in Life of Brutus) says that the Senate did not order Caesar's funeral until the day after it first had met in the temple of Tellus, during which both Antony and Cicero held an oration. Plutarch suggests that this meeting took place on the day after the murder, i.e. the 16th, but this is contradicted by Cicero's own account that he did not see Marc Antony before he went to the temple of Tellus on the third day after the assassination, i.e. the 17th (Phil. 2.89). And he is of course a primary source. Iblardi (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. That's because there were two senate sessions, on 16 and 17 March, and Cicero only came to the second on the 17th. The day before he was hiding on the Capitol, where he tried to summon his own alternative senate session. (from memory) Landgang (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But according to Plutarch the Senate then broke up to meet again on the next day. That must have been the 18th when the above scheme is followed. Iblardi (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Landgang, I don't know much about the chronology of events following Caesar's death, but I know enough of Carotta's "scientific methods" to be pretty sure that here too it will be proven that he is manipulating the facts.--Adelheid24 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you are correct, but we'll find out when it's published. Until then. Landgang (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Biography

Those who are familiar with the work of Francesco Carotta know that he and his loyal disciples use many tricks to suggest that C and his theory are more scientific and more positively spoken of than they are. One of the more frequently used tricks is exaggeration. Here I want to ask questions about C's biography. First of all it is very long for such a minor author and in itself already an indication of how Carotta likes to blow up his own importance. But the exaggeration is not restricted to the length alone, I am afraid. What does it mean for instance that "in Rome he supported the beginning anti-nuclear movement"? Did he attend some demonstrations, signed a petition or what? And how about all his studies at all those universities? How serious are they? I myself did obligatory one semester long courses philosophy, Italian and archeology, but would not dare to name in a serious CV as a substantial part of my education (as a historian). Most of C's claims are difficult to verify very easily, but not so his claim that he was a co-founder of Die Tageszeitung. So, to start with, dear @Landgang, can you tell us why you did not mention this in your German version of C's biography and can you tell us what is said about Carotta in Heide Platen's article, mentioned in note 7, and in the books on the history of the TZ, mentioned in the German version of the TZ-lemma?--Adelheid24 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The lack of verifiability may itself pose a problem. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons autobiographical material from personal websites should only be used if "the article" (or, presumably, the autobiographical part of the article) "is not based primarily on such sources." Moreover, in the case of people who are relatively unknown it is advised to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources."[1] Not all of the information given in the "Biography" section seems relevant in this regard (cf. your example). It also follows that any statements found in the subject's CV that may be considered unclear or contentious and are otherwise unverifiable should be treated with extreme caution. Iblardi (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Iblardi. Thanks. It is not difficult to find persons on the internet who were involved in the founding of the TZ. I wrote one of them today and got an immediate answer, confirming that Francesco Carotta was NOT a co-founder of the TZ!! I asked if I can quote the mail. If so, I will post it tomorrow.--Adelheid24 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Adelheid24: The article by Platen describes how the tageszeitung was founded, that some people in the left-wing movement were against it (the article's author Platen herself), but others (among them Carotta, named in the article by his nickname Cham) approved, others were already beginning to organize, trying to find investors (like Daniel Cohn-Bendit), formulating a general political approach for the newspaper etc. In the relevant passage the article deals with the Frankfurt-side of the newspaper's origin from the ID "Informationsdienst", not with the Tunix Congress in Berlin. So whatever your ominous online source says, I have an article from the archives that says otherwise. The info on Carotta and the tageszeitung is valid. According to the tageszeitung itself (!!) he was there when the newspaper was founded, and he spoke in favor of its foundation. The article also quotes Carotta as having been part of the formation of other newspapers: Libération in Paris, and Lotta Continua in Italy. And I didn't add that to his biography, by the way, although it would have directly associated him with Jean-Paul Sartre. So much for your allegations concerning "exaggeration". The part about the tageszeitung was originally in the German WP article, but the newspaper's online archive doesn't extend as far back as 1984, and one German WP editor was too lazy to research and verify it for himself, so he simply deleted the information. How about actually going to the archives? Or buying the CD-ROM which has it all? Or contacting Carotta himself for more information or to clear things up? That's what I did. As for the Italian anti-nuclear movement: I believe that it's relevant, because at that time it was not the "usual" thing to do. If it happened today, it would probably not be relevant. As for Carotta's studies, it's based on his CV, as in so many other cases here on Wikipedia. As for your other comments, the only thing it shows is that you seem to have some kind of beef with Carotta, which doesn't really surprise me, since you are apparently from the Netherlands. But that's not the kind of attitude we would want here, I believe. We want a neutral and to-the-point discussion about how to represent his person and his research. It's not the place to discuss what we or others believe about his research, or for you to write what you believe what kind of person Carotta is or what you believe the motivation or methods of his "disciples" seem to be. @Iblardi: As for the sources in general: the biographical part lists a couple of other sources, enough to warrant also the use of his CV (short- and long-form), especially since the article as a whole has enough other sources. Sure we can talk about specific points and their noteworthiness, but it should be clear that Carotta's past in left-wing political circles is a major and important part of his life, and imho that includes anti-nuclear activity, which was pretty novel at the time, and it ties in neatly with the rest of his activities. Landgang (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the relevant passage from Platen's article:

Irgendwann 77/78 war's, als aus gegebenem Anlaß schon wieder in der Linken der Ruf nach einer bundesdeutschen Tageszeitung laut wurde. Ältere Häsinnen und Hasen winkten ab. Von Wagenbachs "Gegen-Bild" („weil die Leute das lesen wollten“) Anfang der 70er bis zum "Zentralorgan" in guter Dutschke-Nachfolge im Berliner Kreis Mitte der 70er: keine Chance! Dann kam Karl-Heinz Roth aus dem Gefängnis und steckte sichtlich voller Energien. Im Frankfurter "Pflasterstrand" war dasselbe schummerig-graue Licht wie vor den Fenstern, Achim vom Blatt aus München stand da, langhaarig und großmäulig, und immer dort, wo es etwas zu organisieren gab. Eine linke Tageszeitung? Toll, und da mache ich gleich den Anzeigenverbund! Dany C.-B. war – wie immer – schon unterwegs, die Geldgeber aufzutreiben. Karlo Roth hielt's mehr mit der Politik und der Zensur des Deutschen Herbstes: Unbedingt muß sie her, die linke Tageszeitung! Und dann Cham, der verrückte Italiener mit Pathos: "War ich dabei als in Frankreich "liberation" gegründet wurde, war ich dabei, als in Rom "lotta continua" gegründet wurde, bin ich dabei, wenn in Frankfurt "linke Tageszeitung" gegründet wird!" Die Runde nickte bewegt vor sich hin. Und ich? Saß in meiner Ecke und dachte: alles besser als die Lethargie der letzten Monate. Werden wirds eh nichts, aber es muntert die Leute auf.

It should be noted that the whole thing continued until the Tunix Congress in Berlin. But the article doesn't say anything about Carotta's further involvement. However, we know that he used to work for the newspaper occasionally. Landgang (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another article on the origin of the tageszeitung. It was eventually produced in Berlin (1979), after the Tunix Congress (1978), but the "central debates" happened in Frankfurt more than one year earlier, including the "creation" of the newspaper's "concept". In Frankfurt the first few Nullnummern were published, and the article even states that the decision to produce the newspaper in Berlin was only due to taxation reasons. The article also prominently features Cohn-Bendit as a representative of the newspaper's formation in Frankfurt. He is also named in Platen's article, as Dany, together with Carotta, as Cham. Landgang (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

More info, which also clarifies the chronology. Combined (all three articles): 1976: first discussions about a left-wing newspaper; 1977: further discussions in Frankfurt about the newspaper; 1977/78: foundation against the will of the ID Informationsdienst; 1978: presentation of the concept on the Tunix Congress; formation of local/regional initiatives; first Nullnummern published in Frankfurt; 1978/79: production moves to Berlin, more Nullnummern; 1979: official launch of daily publications. Carotta is right there at the epicenter, in Frankfurt 1977/78, during the foundational period, together with Platen, Roth, Cohn-Bendit et al. Landgang (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Landgang: The only thing the article proves is that Carotta “was there” when the TAZ was founded and that he claimes that he “was there” when Liberation and Lotta Continua were founded. Well, let me tell you, I “was there” when the wall fell in '89 (and so was Sarkozy: Funny photo!! ). It does not say much about our involvement in the events does it?

As for my source's mail:

“Liebe Frau …..., /...... / Auf jeden Fall kenne ich Francesco Carotta nicht. Ein taz-Gründer war er mit Sicherheit nicht. Vielleicht ist er mal auf dem einen oder anderen Initiativtreffen aufgetaucht, aber das kann man keine Gründungstätigkeit nennen. / Freundlichst, …....”

And in reply to my request to quote:

“ja, machen Sie das! Es freut mich, wenn Sie Wikipedia korrigieren; ... / Ich habe vorsichtshalber im taz-Archiv nachgefragt, und ein Mitarbeiter hat seinerseits einen früheren Mitarbeiter des ID gefragt. Auch er kennt Carotta nicht. Es stimmt also mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit auch nicht, dass Carotta ID-Mitarbeiter war. / Viel Erfolg wünscht, ..........”

I am in no hurry to change things, so please ask Carotta for more substantial evidence before we continue to verify his other claims.--Adelheid24 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant. The Initiativtreffen were after the Tunix Congress, where the concept was presented by Ströbele, shortly after the newspaper had been founded in Frankfurt. It's not about whether Carotta was at one of those later regional meetings or not. We have a published official source by the newspaper itself, an article written by someone who was there when the newspaper was founded, an article written close to the actual events, an article written about the foundation, where it says that Carotta was part of the Frankfurt group (close to the ID) that kicked-off the tageszeitung. But you can propose to your "source" that he/she write an officially published article himself/herself, like Platen, in which he/she tells the readers his/her own view of the newspaper's foundation, in which—and this is important, mind you—he/she also presents some evidence that Carotta was not part of the foundational group in Frankfurt. Until then we have (I repeat) a published official source that tells us that Carotta was part of the group that founded the newspaper. It seems to me that your only goal here is to discredit Carotta with some vague and irrelevant claims, allegations and assumptions, with no supporting evidence. Landgang (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Landgang:

We have a published official source by the newspaper itself, an article written by someone who was there when the newspaper was founded, an article written close to the actual events, an article written 'about the foundation', where it says that Carotta was part of the Frankfurt group (close to the ID) that kicked-off the 'tageszeitung'.

In spite of the four descriptions, that is still only one article with, until now, only one phrase, confirming that he was present. But what did he do to justify calling him a co-founder???? More facts please!!!!!--Adelheid24 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Go get those facts! Go get 'em, girl! Just for your information: we have a relevant source (Platen's article) that Cohn-Bendit was "there", at the zero hour. And the taz thinks of him as a primary representative of that zero hour in Frankfurt (see the article I hyperlinked above). Now my question: why would Carotta, who (like Cohn-Bendit and others) is named in that article (as "Cham"), not be allowed to be counted among the Gründer-Crew, if Cohn-Bendit and others are? I bought the archive CD-ROM, I got that article, and it's absolutely clear about what happened, and who was there. Now it's your turn to go to the archives and come up with a published relevant official source that clearly states that Carotta (or "Cham") had nothing to do with the foundation of the taz in Frankfurt. Go get those facts! Go get 'em, girl! Landgang (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So you have bought the archive CD-ROM! Perfect. Tell us what else is there about Carotta/Cham. Or go to a library and ask for the books named in the German version of the TAZ-page to see how often FC/Cham is named in the index. In the meantime I keep my doubts, since we still only know that this "verrückte Italiener" shouted something "mit Pathos".

By the way: I wrote Canfora because of your/Carotta's claim that he "extenbded" Carotta's theory. And this was his reply: Gentile ........, / I am the editor of "Quderni di storia" and published an abstract of Carotta' s Book: the thesis of Carotta is interesting, not necessary true. / Gute Arbeit, Ihr / Luciano Canfora In combination with the quote from the German talk page I gave above, I suggest that you change your formulation.--Adelheid24 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That was to be expected, since columns in popular news magazines are not usually the platform that scholars use for extending each other's theories. Dropping a couple of playful suggestions in such a column doesn't really qualify as scholarship - it should be unnecessary to point this out. The contention that Canfora "extended" Carotta's theory is clearly unwarranted, even without the evidence from the private emails (which of course cannot be used to source any claims or counterclaims in the article). Iblardi (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Dear Ib: That was to be expected indeed.

In the meantime I wrote Antonio Piñero, told him that the present wiki formulation ("Spanish philologist Antonio Piñero wrote that Carotta's reading of the Gospel as a diegetic transposition was one of the most remarkable and ingenious exercises he had read about the problem of Jesus' historicity, but also noted the complexity of his theory as a possible problem") suggested that he did not exclude the possibility that the central theme of Carotta's theory might be true and asked him if he could confirm this.

Today I got the following answer:

Dear Madam:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I sincerely congratulate you for your perspicacity.

I quote:

La tesis de F. Carotta sobre la transposición diegética me parece uno de los ejercicios de ingenio más notables que he tenido ocasión de leer últimamente acerca del problema de la historicidad de Jesús. Pero una vez concedido este extremo, la hipótesis me parece en absoluto “antieconómica”, es decir, es mucho más complicada que la explicación contraria: la de la existencia historia de un Jesús judío que luego es repensado e interpretado por sus seguidores, hasta llegar a su divinización. Este proceso se realiza dentro de un marco general de la acomodación de su figura, un mesías judío, a la de un salvador universal que encajaba a la perfección con las demandas de innumerables gentes en el Imperio Romano.

La tesis de Carotta, por el contrario, explica lo “obscuro por lo más obscuro”, supone acumular hipótesis sobre hipótesis, efectúa comparaciones de términos fuera de contexto algunas de ellas “traídas por los pelos”, de modo que forma un conjunto perfectamente inverosímil como explicación de la existencia de Jesús como figura literaria. (pages 345-346, ¿Existió Jesús realmente?, Editorial Raíces, Madrid 2009, 350 pp. ISBN 978-84-86115-64-7. Editor literario, Prólogo y Epílogo.

The final part of the quotation is a radical distortion of my assessment of his thesis.

Thank you very much indeed for your kindness.

Best regards,

Prof. Dr. Antonio Piñero

@Dear Landgang: Are you still working on it? If not, please tell us when we can start cleaning up the present version.--Adelheid24 (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should I work on it at the moment? What are you trying to achieve here? Piñero writes that Carotta's thesis was notable and ingenious ("uno de los ejercicios de ingenio más notables que he tenido ocasión de leer últimamente acerca del problema de la historicidad de Jesús"), which is what he also wrote in his book article, and that's also what it says in the WP article. Piñero however then qualifies that remark by noting the complexity of the theory ("es mucho más complicada que la explicación contraria"), which is what he also wrote in his book article, and that's also what it says in the WP article. So, in that email he simply reiterates what he wrote in his book article, and that article is already sufficiently represented (i.e. with both sides of the coin) in the WP article. As for his final remark—"the final part of the quotation is a radical distortion of my assessment of his thesis"—, I can't see where that is supposed to be the case: Piñero writes that the theory's complexity is a problem (economical argument, Occam's Razor etc.), and that's what it says here in the Reception paragraph: complex theory, i.e. not simple. So the only thing I see that can be changed is linking to Occam's razor, which is what I've already down. Satisfied? Landgang (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not satisfied. Adding Occam's razor does not end the misleading suggestion that Pinero considers the possibility that Carotta might be right.--Adelheid24 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah? He doesn't say that Carotta is wrong, either. He simply says: "ingenious, but the problem I see is the complexity". And that's what's in the Reception paragraph. Nothing more, nothing less. No interpretation on the part of WP, no weighing of Piñero's statements in either direction, based on comments or statements that are not in his article. Landgang (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so angry? I don't blame you for copying Carotta's own overview of the reception of his theory. Perhaps you did not know that this overview, contrary that what it claims in the beginning, is extremely biased and that it is full of misleading formulations and downright false information. Instead of being gratefull that I enlarged your knowledge and gave you the eginning of a better insight in Carotta's tactics, you are getting pissed. Why is that?--Adelheid24 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because until now you have not produced anything substantial or valuable. As far as I can see, all you've come up with are sham fights and spurious arguments. So naturally I suspect you to have an agenda against Carotta, But I repeat, I'm open to substantial and valuable suggestions for improvement. Until then. Landgang (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article gives undue weight to the (moderately) positive element in Piñero's review and glances over the much longer negative part. After calling Carotta's work an "inventive"/"witty"/"ingenious" exercise (whichever you prefer) and one of the most remarkable he has read on the subject lately (note that he doesn’t exactly say that it is "one of the most remarkable and ingenious exercises he had read"), in the second, more substantial section of his review Piñero points out that Carotta is "explaining the obscure by the more obscure", is making far-fetched comparisons between terms taken out of context, and is piling hypothesis upon hypothesis, all of which, he concludes, leads to an explanation that is as a whole "completely improbable". This is a harsh verdict on Carotta's theory, and it is not properly represented in the article, which merely says, euphemistically, that Piñero "also noted the complexity of his theory as a possible problem". Iblardi (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the common practice of Carotta and his internet disciples (all 4 or 5): Canfora who “extended” Carotta's theory, Stauffer who “is an important early warrantor of Carotta’s theory”, Carotta who was “co-founded” of taz, etc. etc. In fact I dare to say that every single substantial claim or representation of words or involvement of others in the present article is at least misleading, sometimes indeed (@Ib) as subtle as changing “one of the most remarkable ingenious exercises” into one of the most remarkable and ingenious exercises”. And I am sure that this has been carefully planned and talked over before it was posted by Landgang:

When I first saw Landgang's adaption of the wiki Carotta page, I was surprized to see not a single example of Carotta's famous ethymological juggling. This has always been the core argument of Carotta propaganda (Gaul – Galilee, Pilatus – Lepidus etc.). The Dutch version of the Carotta page was still full of it and I only added some “outdated” explanations (like that crazy thought that “Eloï, Eloï, lama sabachtani” might be a direct quote from psalms 22:2, instead of an obvious transformation of Caesar's “Men(e) servasse, ut essent qui me perderent”) or added some extra examples (like that the name of “Siddhartha Gautama”, can be deduced from “Octavi(an)us Sebastostos”, who died some 4-500 years later). I did what, according to Dutch journalist Pieter Steinz, Maria Wyke did: just citing Carotta's arguments to show the ridiculousness of his theory. Apparently this insight has finally reached Carotta and his faithful too.

And then I read Landgang's first entry last September on the German Carotta talk page:

Soll im Artikel ein Abschnitt mit Beispielen eingefügt werden? Ich habe mir das Archiv und die ursprünglichen Versionen des Artikels durchgelesen, und ganz am Anfang gab es (relativ unstrukturiert) ein paar Beispiele aus der Theorie, die aber wieder gelöscht wurden....

Bernhard Wallisch replied: Servus Landgang, mach mal, but Landgang never did and, im my opinion, never intended to do.

Instead on 6 January Landgang wrote: Hierzu noch eine Frage. Oben hatte ich angeboten, einen Abschnitt mit Beispielen zu machen. Wenn euch der Artikel jetzt schon zu lang erscheint, dann wäre das ja wohl müßig, oder? Würde mir auf jeden Fall Arbeit ersparen.

Meanwhile he had written an article, both in German and in English, that discusses Carotta's theory in very general termes and remains extremely vague as far as real tangible arguments are concerned. Even the hilarious “crucifixion” of Caesar's waxfigure has been blurred: The text only speaks of a waxfigure and a tropaeum, no longer of a waxfigure on a tropaeum.

Arguments have been replaced by namedropping in trying to impress the reader: universities, academies, scholars (who have nothing to do with Carotta's theory), and lots and lots of “expensive” words like diegetic, syncretistic, soteriological, philological etc. etc. (In Dutch we would call such a display of delusional wisdom “baked air”, “gebakken lucht”).

What do I want to say with all this. Well, to me it is obvious that Landgang is one (or a collective) of the close associates of Carotta and the master himself. Not only the fact that he knows of articles that still has to appear, and that every change by Landgang appeared the same day of Carotta's DIVVS-IULIUS site, but every sentence carries his signature. That in itself is not a crime or against wiki rules, I suppose. But the content of the article is partly false and entirely misleading and, most grave of all, has been used by Carotta to enlarge his scientific status. As said, on the DIVVS-IULIUS site there is in the heading a link “Francesco Carotta – Wikipedia” that leads you to the English and German versions as they were on 19 Jan. and 6 Jan. Unfortunately I did not copy the introduction as it was then, but the latest one (3 Feb.) reads as follows:

…..... [German quote of wiki beginning from 6/1]

That’s how the introduction to the German Wikipedia article on Francesco Carotta used to read. All gone now, of course, and it’s not the only information, which got lost on Wikipedia. So on this page you will find copies of selected versions of the articles on Carotta, as they appeared at some point in the past in the English and German editions of this online “encyclopedia”. These article versions are mirrored here for safekeeping due to year-long attacks of libel, slander and defamation, due to edits with blatant, deliberate misrepresentation of Carotta’s work, with biased emphasis of negative (and omission of positive) facts and voices, especially by a group of hardball editors from the inner circles of the German Wikipedia, often accompanied by bullying of other contributors on the articles’ discussion pages.

Personally I think Kopilot , the German editor, did a nice job. Carotta's theory is explained briefly in a neutral way and only in the reception part the negative responses prevail, but that is according to reality.

So I propose to skip Landgang's work, which will be preserved for prosperity on the D-I site and translate Kopilot's version, with his permission, unless you (@Ib) want to do it yourself. --Adelheid24 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)--Adelheid24 (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't studied the German page in detail, but as far as I'm concerned you can give it a try. We already noted that there were problems with this article's biography due to its heavy reliance on Carotta's own CV, so a review would be desirable for that section at least. Just make sure that everything is properly referenced. Iblardi (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can do it ourselves, but I have hardly time right now. A line every now and then at the most.--Adelheid24 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@Iblardi: Good to remove Canfora, but I think the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten. Phrases like 2009 saw a reexamination...' far too pompous. It is there only to impress, just like this Theological Academy, which belongs in a note. etc. etc. --Adelheid24 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Expanded theory

Removed most of the 2008 article info since it did not add relevant information about Carotta's theory. Changed the info about the 2009 article. The general information about the showing of the wax figure on a tropaeum to the crowd etc. is only temporarely lost. It belongs to the core of FC's theory and needs to be inserted there at a later time. (Tried to replace the Or.Bak. image by one showing the "transformation" from the denarius into the ORBak, but failed so far). Removed the info about the other article since it is only on Carotta's own DIVVS-IVLIVS site, so the external link is more than enough.--Adelheid24 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed the Orpheos Bakkikos image and replaced it by a combination of Carotta's figures 24a, 29a-d and 2b, which is far more relevant for understanding Carotta's "argument".--Adelheid24 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your own visual recreation of Carotta's article about the Orpheos B. Please be fair! Albeda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.19.16 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming that the picture constitutes original research and/or misrepresents Carotta's argument. Can you substantiate this? All of the images are present in the Orpheos Bakkikos article, and as far as I can tell nothing was added to, or removed from the sequence. Iblardi (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the images are from the Isidorianum article, only rearranged. However, I suggest removing the quote from the article: I think it's redundant, and the relevant information is already in the preceding sentence. Landgang (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Landgang: Both quote and image clarify the information of this sentence. So I can't understand your objections, unless of course you don't want people to understand Carotta's argument in full extent. --Adelheid24 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying that a sufficient description of the hypothesis is already in the preceding sentence. The sentence quoted from the article only describes the procedure, what Carotta did with the image(s). One more thing: I'm not sure about the copyright/license status of the image. The Buca coin and the Orpheos Bakkikos are in the public domain, but the reprocessed parts of the images and their combination are an adaptation, which is usually copyrighted, especially when it's associated with a new idea/work/theory. So Carotta's new image probably passes the "threshold of originality", and copyright protection applies. But I'm not sure: this paragraph is on the expansions of his theory, and fair use might also apply. Does anyone know for sure? Landgang (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Since the first page of the Orpheos Bakkikos article contains an explicit copyright statement, it may not be safe to reproduce these images -especially the reworked Endymion figure- without having asked for permission first. Iblardi (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the removed OB was not an pld photograph, but the coloured version from the cover of "The Jesus Mysteries, so not free of copyright either. To me my replacement seems a case of fair use, since it only illustrates an objective description of Carotta's article. If Carotta thinks otherwise (Landgang can ask him), I will make my own photoshop version.--Adelheid24 (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Divus Iulius" can be asked, as he/she seems to have some authority in these matters. See the Comments section of this blog. Iblardi (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, I did not know that blog. When Langang asks FC/DI permission for the image, perhaps he can remind him of the taz co-foundership. We still have no answer. Today I got an email from Hans Christian Stroebele, nowadays vice-leader of the Green party in the Bundestag and in 1978 together with Götz Aly and Max Thomas Mehr one of the main founders of the taz. He wrote: Tut mir leid, aber Herrn Carotta kenne ich nicht. Jedenfalls nicht unter diesem Namen. Möglicherweise wurde er anders genannt. Es gab vor der Gründung der Tageszeitung taz mehrere bundesweite Treffen, an denen viele Leute teilgenommen haben. Auch eine ganze Reihe aus Frankfurt am Main. Vielleicht war er dabei. ... I think that by now we can safely say that Carotta was at the most one of many, many people who attended a public meeting preceding the foundation of taz. I can still write the other two, but I am sure that will not change the general image. Enough is enough and it is so much easier when Carotta gives us more information himself. (Besides, Mehr has written for the German Magazine Cicero and that in itself will discredit him in the eyes of Carotta :) ).--Adelheid24 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)--Adelheid24 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Denarius to Orpheos.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Denarius to Orpheos.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Denarius to Orpheos.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted questions about this on the discussionpage of the image.--Adelheid24 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, the image is deleted, but I will repost it in another way or with small alterations later on.

Right now I'd like to return to this recent issue:

Date of funeral

The information about Caesar's funeral has been lost in my revision of 9 Feb. As I already wrote, I think it is part of the core of Carotta's theory and should be reposted there.

However, at the same time something else is going on: The article announced by Landgang has been published: http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/LiberaliaTuAccusas_en.pdf

In this article the link with Jesus' crucifixion and even the showing of the wax figure of Caesar, hanging on the tropaeum are not mentioned at all. It was no coincidence that the now lost text only spoke of a wax figure and a tropaeum, instead of a wax figure on a tropaeum!!

Apparently Carotta has covered up his"crucifiction" for the moment to get his article on Caesar's funeral date published in a respectable journal. And indeed this funeral date has nothing to do with Carotta's Caesar-Jesus theory and he might be even right about it, for all I know or care.

However, since it is obvious and beyond any doubt that Hendriks's and Carotta's initial motive to date the funeral on the 17th is their desired parallelism with the third day of Jesus's resurrection, I would not be surprised that their entire reasoning in Caesar's case is false and can be cracked by somebody who knows all the relevant texts and and how to interpret them.

Can you crack it @Ib?--Adelheid24 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Carotta's 'crucifiction' theory have something to do with the chronology of Caesar's funeral? No; not relevant regarding Roman chronology. But it could be relevant the other way around. Beyond that: hasn't Carotta published his other theory already? In 3 journals? Particularly from that theological academy? 12:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.38.59 (talk)

Indeed the "crucifiction" has, in itself, nothing to do with the chronology of Caesar's funeral, like I said. So it did not belong under the heading Expanded theory in the first place. The "crucifiction" needs to be incorporated in the central paragraph on Carotta's theory. Research on Caesar's funeral date can be mentioned as a spin off, but with a clear initial link in the 'third-day'-parallelism. --Adelheid24 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this whole discussion is fit for a WP talk page, but... Something very strange is happening in that article. While Carotta and Eickenberg rightly indicate that Nicolaus of Damascus, as a contemporary source, "could not be simply ignored" by Groebe (p. 7 of the integral version), they themselves seem to largely ignore the difficulties that the same account causes to their own theory. Among the several events that Nicolaus describes as having taken place on 16 March, he does not mention the Senate meeting that is supposed to have begun early on that day according to Appian's, much later, 'short' chronology. (Instead, in Nicolaus' account, the 16th is still marked by confusion and indecision while Antony and his associates are trying to garner armed support and establish their future course. The authors call this period of indecision "absurd", apparently because they cannot imagine that Antony would not retain a cool head under the circumstances (p. 11, n. 34).) At the same time they criticize Groebe for trying to save his 'long' chronology by filling up an otherwise void 16 March with a series of improbable events. But Groebe's train of events is to a large degree based on Nicolaus' narrative. The problem is that Nicolaus' version of the events is difficult to reconcile with the 'short' chronology provided by later sources. (And of course Nicolaus' narrative offers no direct support for any of the proposed funeral dates because it breaks off after the events of the 16th.) Iblardi (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your observations stimulated me to look at the article and some sources too. And indeed it is very strange and shows all the deficiencies so familiar to Carotta's book and other writings. First there is the usual lack of logic, beginning with the first sentence:

It is undisputed that 17 March 44 BCE results unanimously from the ancient reports by Nicolaus of Damascus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Appian and Cassius Dio as the historical date of Julius Caesar’s funeral ceremony. Still, modern scholars claim to know that they were all at fault....

The ancient reports cán (but don't) give unanimously 17 March as funeral date, but how can a date resúlt unanimously from reports and how can it be undisputed when the next line says modern scholars claim to know that they were all wrong? This is weird.

Secondly there is this irritating habit of lying and misleading through, amongst others, bluffing and exaggerating (“Here Groebe made two momentous observational errors”, “this absurdly long indecision...” etc.) and leaving out essential information that does not fit or might give you other ideas: Take the quotation from Cicero's 2nd philippic:

“What a day was that for you, O Marcus Antonius! Although you showed yourself all on a sudden an enemy to me, I still pity you for having envied yourself. What a man, O ye immortal gods! And how great a man might you have been, if you had been able to preserve the inclination you displayed that day—we should still have peace which was made then by the pledge of a hostage, a boy [...] [although] you behaved with the greatest wickedness while presiding at the funeral of the tyrant [...].”

followed by Carotta's observation that "Antony’s sudden about-face in the course of a single day clearly indicates that the Senate Cicero attended was followed by Caesar’s funeral on the same day".

However, between "a hostage, a boy" and "[although] you behaved" Carotta left out the following lines:

"Although it was fear that was then making you a good citizen, which is never a lasting teacher of duty; your own audacity, which never departs from you as long as you are free from fear, has made you a worthless one. Although even at that time, when they thought you an excellent man, though I indeed differed from that opinion, you behaved with the greatest wickedness while presiding at the funeral of the tyrant, if that ought to be called a funeral".

From this it is obvious that Cicero talks of a period (at that time, when they thought you an excellent man) and not (necessarily) of a single day. (To be sure I checked the Latin original. Carotta quotes it as follows: Etsi [...] funeri tyranni [...] sceleratissime praefuisti. And here is the original: Etsi [tum, cum optimum te putabant, me quidem diffentiente,] funeri tyranni [si funus illud fuit,] sceleratissime praefuisti.

I think we know enough by now.--Adelheid24 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Whenever a quote gives the impression Carotta has a point, you can bet on it that he left out something. Here is the quote from Cicero's letter to Atticus, that gave Carotta's the title for his article:

"You put the blame on the Liberalia. What was possible at the time? Our case had long been hopeless. Do you remember that you explained that it was all over with us, if he were allowed a funeral? But he was even burnt in the forum, and a funeral oration was pronounced over him in moving terms, and a number of slaves and starvelings instigated to attack our houses with firebrands."

And this is C's comment:

"Accordingly, this must mean that Atticus could hardly have laid the blame on the Liberalia, if the funeral had not proceeded on the same day."

But these are the lines preceding the quote:

"Do you remember that on that very first day of the retreat upon the Capitol I exclaimed that the senate should be summoned into the Capitoline temple? Good heavens, what might have been effected then, when all loyalists—even semi-loyalists—were exultant, and the brigands utterly dismayed! You put the blame on the Liberalia. ... "

And now it becomes clear that Liberalia tu accusas refers to the absence of a number of loyalists during the senate meeting on that day and not to the funeral, which followed at an unspecified moment, perhaps the same day, but, given the magnitude of the event, more likely later. --Adelheid24 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing section is gobbledegook

The final section "Precedents and relations" is written in extremely poor English and it is hard to make out what the meaning is. "Until today many scientists have published on the tight relations between Christianity and the Roman religion, especially the imperial cult,[21] beginning with reputable books, for example by Gustav Adolf Deißmann,[22] but also with eclectic works, for example by Alexander del Mar." Until today many scientists have published? tight relations? beginning with reputable books and then eclectic ones? Is it not possible to be both reputable and eclectic? Just for instance. I would try to fix it but would be too tempted just to delete the whole thing.Smeat75 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that section is poorly written in condensed form. And some of the sources mentioned are pretty dated, from the early 20th century. Much of the scholarship from that period has now been superseded and is as applicable as the technology of the Model-T. But that is not the worst part. The last sentence in the introduction states that "Reactions to his theory have been mixed." That is just not right. Some time ago the intro used to say that most scholars think Carotta is out of his mind, or something like that (I do not remember the exact wording) and that seems to have been changed so it looks like he has some serious supporters. He does not. He is way out in the middle of nowhere by himself. But this type of article in Wikipedia is hard to manage because there are thousands of these fringe type characters with articles and looking after the pages against IP additions will fill an entire lifetime. I will, however, downgrade the rating to a start and tag that claim. History2007 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's original research, but it seems to have an apologetic function for the article (the theory). The rest is fine imo, but that section doesn't fit well with NPOV. Elsewhere, I've seen additions like that deleted. So why not here? 78.53.41.203 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement such as "Alongside Couchoud, the theologian Ethelbert Stauffer is a possible early warrantor of Carotta's theory" are ideas that fall under original research given that they relate separate sources to draw conclusions. And these statements are glued together to get the effect of WP:Synthesis. Weinstock's 1971 book for instance can not mention Carotta's book published after it, neither can books published in the 1950s. Before deletion these sections are usually marked before being zapped. I will mark it as such. As for the rest, the page makes it sound like Carotta is Ok in the eyes of some scholars, but that is not so. In general the suggestion that Julius Caesar (who died in 44BC) was Jesus is looked at along the lines of the suggestion that Nero was Elmer Fudd ... History2007 (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about ratings and markings, but I favour any attempt to ameliorate this lemma. Did some work myself (see how the lemma looked like in early Januari 2012), but did not want to continue too long. By the way, this is what Carotta writes about Wikipedia on his own site: Wir stehen leider auch in der Wikipedia – deutsch, holländisch und englisch bis jetzt nur, aber es droht mehr zu werden. :-( Die Wikipedia ist bekanntlich eine Pseudo-Enzyklopädie, eine obszöne noch dazu, und nicht etwa weil der Gründer sein Geld zuerst mit Pornos verdient haben soll. Schon der Name verdeutlicht es: Wiki, ein hawaiianischer Quicky, lässig am Strand sozusagen, weil jeder schnell irgendwann hinein schreiben kann, was ihm gerade einfällt – lo que le sale de los cojones, o del coño. Adelheid24 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Francesco seems to really love Wikipedia... But who cares what Carotta says really. If he says it is night or day I would not believe him. I think he may have a new book coming now: Jimmy Wales is Charles de Gaulle... That is all we need now. History2007 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

The existence of obscure articles authored by this writer is unwarranted, especially given that his writings have gained absolutely no traction in the academic world and - after an entertaining kerfuffle a few years ago - his theory has been ignored by the scholarly community. The purpose of citing such details appears to be nothing more than an attempt to create an impression of substance behind a fringe theory. That certainly counts as undue weight and breaks Wikipedia guidelines. --Rbreen (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Carotta is an irrelevant nobody. So go on and nominate the article for deletion. What are you waiting for, you fuckwad? 106.245.188.197 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Now also Mary Beard in her new book Twelve Caesars: Images of Power from the Ancient World to the Modern, refers to the work of Francesco Carotta, please rewrite the sentence: "This theory is generally ignored in academic circles."

Mary Beard:

https://books.google.nl/books?id=FYgpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=12+caesars+mary+beard+francesco+carotta&source=bl&ots=v1W_b9LxIa&sig=ACfU3U2deqyyqjpmHbb7pAC3h3MXzgDFmQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmrZbTt8TzAhWdhv0HHQxgCeQQ6AF6BAgZEAM#v=onepage&q=12%20caesars%20mary%20beard%20francesco%20carotta&f=false

Scientific articles Francesco Carotta:

1. https://www.academia.edu/28010044/LITERATURE_TO_RELIGION_AND_RELIGION_TO_LITERATURE_CHANGING_COLOURS_OF_THE_BIBLE 2. https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Sulla_postura_del_Cesare_Tuscolo.pdf 3. https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/LiberaliaTuAccusas.pdf 4. https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Orfeo_Baquico.pdf 5. https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/articula/Escorial_es.pdf 6. https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/quaderni/edito.pdf 7. Overview: https://dejister.wordpress.com/about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.102.67 (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)