Talk:Francesco Carotta

message: :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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Date of funeral

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Expanded theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Closing section is gobbledegook 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue weight