Talk:Francesco Carotta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reasonable Doubt

"Beyond any reasonable doubt"? That sounds POV to me.Bjones 20:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is POV, but if you read the book, which is online on Carotta's homepage you will see that it is justified to say this. Anyway I removed "beyond any reasonable doubt". Populares 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, it's quite the bombshell. I appreciate the work you've done, but I still want to let a few other editors review this before removing the tag.Bjones 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of scholar is he?

What is the evidence that he is a linguist and phiolosopher? i know he says he is, but does he have any degrees? Any university appointments? Publications in peer-reviewed journals? This seems like self-promotion to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I object to his being listed as a "biblical scholar." Are we defining "Biblical Scholars" not as professionals with advanced degrees in New Testament or Hebrew Bible history and textual criticism but "anyone who wrote a book on a biblical topic"? If he's a philosopher and linguist, list him in those categories, not "Biblical Scholar." Considering some of the other names on the list, this fellow doesn't belong at all...

J. Murphy-O'Connor

O'Connor's remark is not admissable for two reasons.

(1) O'Connor's criticism is superficial and biased.

• (a) He doesn't mention the book in the bibliography and doesn't deliver any proof to back up his criticism; it's therefore biased and unscientific.
• (b) This has to be viewed in conjunction with the fact that author User:Dougweller has taken O'Connor's remark out of context: O'Connor actually begins the short passage quoted in this article with the following sentence: "Greatly exaggerated conclusions have been drawn from coincidences"; but nowhere does O'Connor explain what the "conclusions" are, why they are "exaggerated", why they are even "greatly exaggerated", what the basis for Carotta's "conclusions" is, and why Carotta's basis is supposed to be mere "coincidences". Therefore this latest addition falls under WP:Libel—"all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory"—and conflicts with WP:Biographies of living persons (Criticism & praise), in that no WP-material should be based on sources that are biased, taking sides, and are not neutral.
• (c) Furthermore the WP guidelines clearly state that authors "must not give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints", especially to minority viewpoints. Since this article doesn't mention the numerous positive reviews of Carotta's book by scholars and journalists, this article would then itself be biased and not neutral — and possibly defamatory.
• (d) It is not clear why a priest and theologian such as O'Connor would be a representative critic and a reliable secondary source. In fact Carotta is not a theologian. The main fields of classical sciences used in his book are philology/linguistic analysis, archaeology, history and anthropology. Philologians like Fotis Kavoukopoulos, archaeologists like Erika Simon, historians like Luciano Canfora or anthropologians like Francisco Rodriguez Pascual have supported or endorsed Carotta's work or have even expanded on it.
  

Conclusion: If at all, Murphy O'Connor's ubershort passage should be quoted in a separate paragraph in the article as a prime example of the Biased and unscientific reception of Carotta's work.

(2) O'Connor has obviously not read the book, because none of what he writes about Carotta is factually correct.

• (a) Carotta does not write that Christ and Caesar have the same initials. This was actually written by Victor Hugo.
• (b) Carotta does not simply write that the crossing of the Rubicon and Jordan are a parallel, because nowhere in the Bible and the Caesar sources are the Rubicon and the Jordan actually mentioned by name at first, only as a border or "the river". The philological examination however shows that the Jordan is paralleled by the river Aternus, which Caesar also crossed. Rubicon/Jordan are surely a parallel in the overall dramatic structure of both narratives, but scientifically they are not.
• (c) O'Connor alleges that Carotta maintains that "someone thought it worthwhile to invent a figure called Jesus Christ". On the contrary, Carotta does not maintain that the figure of Jesus Christ was invented, but that it is the product of a diegetic transposition, a rewriting and cultural displacement process. Carotta actually maintains that (i) Jesus is a historical figure, and that the relevant historical person behind him was C. Iulius Caesar, and that (ii) Jesus Christ as the god of Christianity is a mutation of the god Divus Iulius.
• (d) Carotta does not iterate mimetic standpoints, in that Jesus' life is supposed to have been "modeled" on the life of Caesar. On the contrary, according to Carotta, Jesus' life is the life of Caesar—after a diegetic transposition.
• (e) O'Connor falsely claims that Carotta delivers no explanations, when all of his book is about just that: delivering explanations for the countless parallels.
• (f) O'Connor also writes that Carotta supposedly "carefully" avoids "any explanation" of why there are four gospels. In fact, Carotta deals with this issue extensively, laying out the possible transmission history and showing that GMark is a gospel with an Antonian tendency, overlayed by the later synoptics (Matthew/Luke) with sondergut from sources dealing with Octavian, and that GJohn (like most of the Epistles) is a gospel with strict Augustan sources and tendencies.
• (g) It is furthermore striking that O'Connor—in his book about Paul—does not even mention Carotta's conclusion, namely that the historical Paul (mentioned in Acts II) is in fact Flavius Josephus. It could be assumed that O'Connor wanted to avoid mentioning the many parallels in both people's vita.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the paragraph about O'Connor's "criticism" has been deleted. In the future, contributors to this article like User:Dougweller—who is after all an administrator here at WP—should avoid infringing on WP rules and guidelines. —85.179.141.31 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit here doesn't seem to have been saved.

First, would you please explicitly state that you are not accusing anyone of libel.

Secondly (and this is what I wrote but didn't get saved) you need to read WP:RS more carefully, and WP:REDFLAG especially the third bullet point. Murphy-O'Connor (not O'Connor) is a noted academic and is a reliable source. Your opinion that he is wrong is irrelevant here. Please don't keep removing this. Oh, and please read WP:AGF - as you point out, I am an administrator and it is just possible that I understand our policies and guidelines better than you do. dougweller (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(a) I'm not accusing anyone of libel; it's possible that it might be libel, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not personally attacked here; (b) It's not about O'Connor being right or wrong; it's about the fact that he completely misrepresents Carotta's work and doesn't explain, why it should be dismissed or why he thinks that Carotta is wrong. Therefore it's not admissible because it's not a criticism of Carotta's work but simply derogatory and off-point. That's why it cannot be included. (c) A personal note: You may be an administrator, but on this talk page you have written the following: "it would be nice to use this [internet source] giving Carotta the Screaming Lord Sutch Memorial Award for such a complete load of garbage that it beggars belief, let alone how on earth it got printed", but it's a blog". It is a clear proof that you have an agenda against Carotta, that you are biased and malicious, because you would like to include material, that defames Carotta's book as garbage. I don't know how you earned the title "administrator" here, but due to this remark you should at least refrain from working on this article and let others deal with it. —85.179.141.31 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whew. You really do not understand how Wikipedia works yet. I've already suggested you read WP:AGF. I also suggest you read WP:CIVIL and refrain from name-calling. Liking or disliking, agreeing or disagreeing, with the subject from an article does not mean you can't edit an article. Meanwhile, that was your 3rd revert, and to make sure you understand that you need to stop reverting now and have been clearly notified, I've left you a warning on your talk page. Please heed it. I am certainly not going to block you, but someone else probably will if you break 3RR.

And of course it can be included. dougweller (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And my comment was a joke, I would never use a source like that, a blog, although the person who write it has a better right to call himself a historian that Carotta does to call himself a philosopher or a linguist. By the way, I've raised the RS issue here [1]. dougweller (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(a) Carotta does not call himself a "philosopher" or "linguist". He simply says that he studied it. (b) I'm not calling you names; I'm simply quoting what you wrote, and it's irrelevant that you're now trying to re-interpret your contemptuous remarks as a "joke". A joke can also be malicious and full of contempt. (c) I have to repeat myself: It's not about whether OConnor is wrong or right. Obviously I disagree with what he wrote about Carotta, but that's not the issue here: The issue is that OConnor completely misrepresents Carotta's research, and based on that false premise, he dismisses it. That's not a representative scholarly opinion, although OConnor might in other instances be a reliable source. But here that's clearly not the case. —85.179.141.31 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the article did. I disagree with your take on Murphy-O'Connor. So does the editor who put the comment back. Why can't I have contempt for the subject of an article? Not that I'd describe my attitude towards this one as contemt. It's edits on the article that count. I've edit articles on racists, should I recuse because I have contempt for them (NOT saying this guy is a racist, just making the point). You seem to be calling Murphy-O'Connor an idiot or incompetent, by the way. dougweller (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that the way OConnor deals with Carotta is biased and unscientific. I'm not saying he's an idiot. But now I have no choice but to call you an idiot. You may have not have said that he's a racist, but in all your declared contempt you're clearly saying that Carotta is no better. And it guides your edits, which are obviously biased. Where is a neutral evaluation of this secondary source? Where are the many positive reviews and comments? And now your also trying to include reviews by satirists and high school teachers! (It's unbelievable.) In my honest view it would be best to simply state who Carotta is, what his book is about, and wait for an actual scholarly review, instead of including snippets by some pundits, who have apparently only read about the book, not read the book itself. —85.179.141.31 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Murphy-O'Connor is the only actual scholar who seems to have commented on this book (the academic notability of which is highly suspect). Your opinion of Murphy-O'Connor's opinion doesn't count unless you can find a scholar who shares it (see WP:V for further details). --Folantin (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have searched for positive comments, the only ones I've found have been in press releases. I have definitely not suggested Carotta is no better than a racist, that is yet another personal attack. The German Wikipedia has tigher rules than we do about biographies of living people I believe. And the IP editor still doesn't understand WP:RS. I don't know what 'Where is a neutral evaluation of this secondary source' means. dougweller (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you could cite some of "the many positive reviews and comments". I've searched several bibliographic databases without finding any reviews of Carotta's books. EALacey (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this meet our notability threshold?

I do not think so. I am not sure such a fringe theory even merits its own page. I did a "Google Scholar" search for "Francesco Carotta" and got only thirteen results. As a control, I did a google scholar search of me, and got 111 hits - and I and not notable enough for a Wikipedia article! Shouldn't we just delete this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Stadtzeitung" is probably a misspelling for "Stattzeitung". The correct spelling is a pun, meaning "instead of a newspaper". There are many little left-wing newspapers of this name in Germany. However, it seems that what is now the de:Stattzeitung für Südbaden, the Stattzeitung in Freiburg, did not cover Freiburg in 1989. So the "Stadtzeitung" reference is somewhat dubious, probably misspelled, and very likely does not contribute to establishing notability.
• "die tageszeitung" is a relatively important unorthodox national newspaper in Germany. A theory that Jesus = Julius is exactly the kind of thing it would love to present to its readers for Christmas. All the more surprising that the article "Jesus Christus, Caesar incognito" appeared only in the local Berlin edition. The article starts (my translation): "The Christian code has been cracked - the secret of the New Testament disclosed: Jesus Christ was really Julius Caesar". These are the usual irony markers otherwise employed on the humour page ("Die Wahrheit" – "The truth"). (I don't know if this link to the archive is portable.)
• It's a pity if this is not notable. It's one of our funniest articles. (And on first sight it seems plausible to me that some aspects of Christianity were adapted in Rome to make it suitable as a state religion.) --Hans Adler (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also unconvinced that this article meets our notability requirements. It could be nominated for deletion, but not speedied, since it does assert notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly hard to find sources for this article. There are no reviews of Carotta's books indexed in L'Année philologique, ATLA Religion, FRANCIS, Periodicals Index Online or Web of Science. Several of these have good coverage of European journals, so I do not think that language is the problem. Web of Science, which includes the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, does not even find any citations of Carotta's work. However, the Dutch Wikipedia article (Google translation) suggests that Carotta has received some media attention in the Netherlands; perhaps we need a Dutch speaker here. EALacey (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Dutch, but German is pretty close. I think the best thing in the article in the sense of contributing to notability is a review in a magazine published by Leiden University, calling the book "omstreden" (contentious) in an image caption. [2] --Hans Adler (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Carotta's theory did generate some publicity in the Dutch media, first when a translation of the book appeared in 2002 and later when a documentary based on this theory was announced by a Dutch director in 2007. The main reason for this seems to be that a well-known Dutch intellectual, Paul Cliteur, has publicly spoken out his support for Carotta's idea. The article in Mare cites several academics dismissing Carotta's method and conclusions in the most outspoken of terms ("nonsense") and makes clear that his idea enjoys little support. Iblardi (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... On the other hand, now we have an article giving ample space to the opinion of several non-notables (Peter Veldhuisen?). This is getting a bit ridiculous. Iblardi (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you're using the irrelevant writings of an unnoted and scarcely published, twice thrice rebutted pseudo-scientist high school teacher in the non-scholarly magazine of the university where he formerly worked, in order to have at least one direct source to support your bias against the "real crackpot pseudo-scientist", Veldhuisen is absolutely fine here. If you want to delete sources like Veldhuisen, then we must delete van Hooff as well, including the Mare article, because in there the criticism of Carotta is not based on direct personal articles and reviews, but on the author asking these people for their opinion and writing about them. You see, that's why I only wanted to mention the Dutch controversy briefly and leave direct quotes out of it, because there's a lot of tertiary sources, opinions of people who never read the book, and frankly a lot of unnecessary remarks from a very heated and extremely personal debate, scholarly crusades and even illegal activities. But no, the WP cultists wanted to use these sources, because they needed something to show that Carotta is nonsense and "utterly refuted"—the latter being wrong, by the way: you just have to read the short reply in ABG and the blog post by de Boer. A blogpost? Oh, right, that's not relevant in Wikipedia. But did you know that the editor of the ABG magazine, an old pal of van Hooff, sided with him and refused to publish neither Carotta's nor the others' replica against v.H.'s article and thereby disregarding standard academic conventions? Does the polemic tone of de Boer then surprise anyone? That's how bad things got in the Netherlands, and it's only the tip of the iceberg. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talking about cultists... The difference with Veldhuisen and others is that Van Hooff, by virtue of his (former) profession, lecturer of Ancient History, is actually supposed to have some relevant knowledge regarding the subject and, by virtue of the same, is qualified to criticize Carotta's methods. The same cannot be said of the angry people who indeed seem to make the debate very personal, readily resorting to, for instance, abject accusations of racism (by De Boer) and alcoholism (on this page) to discredit Van Hooff. The truth is that sometimes you do not need to read a book from cover to cover to judge its scientific quality. Van Hooff's comments may seem arrogant and politically unwise, but it happens that when a pseudo-scientific pattern (foregone conclusions, evidence distortion) becomes clear from reading the first pages alone, there is no need to finish the entire book. The way I see it, apparently Van Hooff thought he recognized that pattern and felt the need to issue a public warning when he saw the stuff being promoted by one or two more-or-less prominent opinion makers. Iblardi (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Van Hooff thought he recognized that pattern. But that hallucination of his has been refuted. And in any case: If you want to write a scientific, not a pseudo-scientific review of a book, you have to read it, not just talk nonsense about the cover. So a "lecturer of Ancient History" (which is nothing but a tutor), who now works as a high school teacher, is supposed to have relevant knowledge? I'm sorry to say, but the rebuttals by Cliteur, de Boer and Janssen et al. have clearly shown that v.H. has no sufficient and substantial knowledge in this field. Zero Zip Zilch Nada. PS: I've now read the article by de Boer again. It is quite polemic, right, but he substantiates the argument of racism. But I can't say anything about alleged alcoholism. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So I rephrase: Cliteur has called van Hooff a stalker. (I don't.) And the comment that the Dutch debate was quite nasty and laden with some possibly criminal remarks, was not aimed at van Hooff, but a general observation. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IP editing

This is a request, not an accusation. Will the IP editing from Hansenet please get an account? Otherwise it might appear that you are using sockpuppets to look like more than one editor. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That was not my intention. I don't have a WP account, and I want it to stay that way. An account is not obligatory. —85.179.131.43 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not obligatory. That's your choice. dougweller (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"vague" tag

At the moment the text says: "Using the tools of linguistics, philology and textual criticism as well as numismatical, iconographic, and archaeological evidence,[vague]…". I fully agree that it is vague, and I believe the original contributor simply copied and pasted this from a blurb or something similar. I have read the book, I know the theory very well, and I could rephrase that paragraph, as soon as I have more time. My question to you is now: How should this vague sentence be substantiated? If we look at the Dutch version of the article, they have gone to extreme lengths to explain the theory, but I think this is too voluminous for an encyclopedia. Anyone with a better idea? Or with an exemplary comparable WP article? Should examples be included? Thank you. —85.179.131.43 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically we need a reliable source making the statement(s). To analyse his book and make those comments as editors would be original research. dougweller (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concern. But it wouldn't be a scientific analysis and evaluation, it would not include any conclusion whether Carotta is right or wrong. It would just be a summary of his arguments. A summary of someone's theory is not original research. Only the theory itself is. E.g. if I took Carotta's arguments and rewrote the articles on Jesus Christ, stating that Jesus actually was Julius Caesar, then that would most probably constitute WP:OR. But that's not what I would do here. My main question however is about the scope and manner of the summary. As extensive as the Dutch version? Including examples from his books? Or comparatively brief? —85.179.131.43 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"orphan" template

The orphan template at the beginning of the article is quite useless, since editors like User:Carl.bunderson keep deleting references even from auxiliary articles such as List of books about Jesus. Does anyone honestly believe that we'll be able to improve the orphan state like this? If the watchdogs don't even deem it proper for inclusion in the "controversial" section, nobody will seriously allow an entry anywhere else. Not that I find this problematic, but then the template isn't really necessary, because it won't change a thing. We could as well remove it. —92.225.53.219 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the links you provide to this article are unsuitable, doesn't mean the orphan tag should be taken down. The article remains an orphan. In fact, a difficulty in finding a home for links to this article is demonstrative of its lack of notability. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "In fact, a difficulty in finding a home for links to this article is demonstrative of its lack of notability." Now that's a real gem. You keep removing a link to this article and come here to claim that the non-existence of links is proof of its lack of notability! That's ludicrous. —92.225.53.219 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly ludicrous. The two are linked; it is nn because it has few links, and it has few links because it is nn. If it was notable, then you would be able to provide viable links to it. Since the links you provide are merely trying to promote Carotta, they are nn. This should come as no surprise to you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's even worse. Now you're alleging that we're only trying to "promote" Carotta. No, we would actually only be trying to make the article conform to WP standars, which apparently includes getting rid of orphan states. You're putting the cart before the horse. Pathetic. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're an SPA. If you were trying to improve WP, you would be editing a variety of articles, not this single article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't know anything about my activities at WP. You only know about my current activities. But that's in no way sufficient to allege that I work here only for a single purpose. Sorry, but you're wrong. (And I've stated that before.) —85.179.131.221 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claims that I (and the rest of the established editors, who regard you as a SPA) am wrong are incredible. The only evidence of your WP activities are your contribs, which are demonstrative of a SPA. If you got an account and made edits outside this topic, you would be credible. The word of an IP editor who has the signs of being a SPA is incredible. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You're allowed to believe whatever you like. Do you know anything about dynamic IPs, VPN, open WiFi etc.? And has it maybe occured to you that I might not be using my account currently? And furthermore, just hypothetically: What's wrong with being an SPA? —85.179.131.221 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that you might very well have edited under various IPs. But that possibility, and you stating it is so, is not believable. All I (we) can know for certain, is the contribs of the IP at which you are currently. Getting an account would lend you credence. I fail to see why you don't wish to get one. And if you have an account but are not currently using it, I don't understand you at all. The impression you are giving is that you are either Carotta's bff, an adherent of his theories, or both. What's wrong with being an SPA? Being an SPA is not inherently wrong, but I've never seen a good one. A good SPA would add ridiculous amounts of well-sourced content to an article, with which pretty much no-one could take issue. A bad SPA, the only kind I've encountered, are trying to promote themselves/their pet or fringe theories/their companies, with disregard for our notability policies. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated before that I'm biased, that I believe that Carotta's research and conclusion is completely accurate. So naturally I will defend the theory and this article. That's only logical. But it doesn't mean that I can't be objective. However, considering WP's climate here, it would not be wise for me to use the real account. If I then made edits somewhere else, they would say: "Oh, it's that fringe nutcase Carotta believer… let's revert his edits." It has happened before, and I'm not willing to experience that frustration again. The cult. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit you may be objective, but it is certainly hard to tell. And I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I wouldn't do exactly what you suppose we would. If you were on your account, I'd look at your contribs saying, "Oh, it's that fringe nutcase Carotta believer...let's see if his other edits are good." Yes, I would be looking at your edits, but I'm not going to revert them bc I disagree with you on this. I would honestly judge each edit on its merits, not automatically revert them because of this. In fact, it would go a long way towards helping me believe that you're objective, if I could see for myself that you are not an SPA, and that you have good edits on other topics. You do realize, don't you, that you give the impression of some random IP who has no interest in WP except for publicizing your personal interest? If you look at my contribs, I admit I mostly edit Catholicism related articles, but I also have a healthy amount of random-ass stuff in there: Afghanistan, Spread, Manila galleon, Mango, Hovingham, Kirkbymoorside, and virtual assistant, just from the last 50. Seeing a contribs list such as this from you would demonstrate that you're not an un-invested anon who is trying to use WP. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please leave it. I'm one of the editors who from time to time look at the list of orphaned articles and work on them (I start from the oldest). Others do the same. It's accurate so there is no reason to remove it. dougweller (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. But how do you suggest we change the situation given the above-demonstrated animosity of some WP editors toward the topic? —92.225.53.219 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

van Hooff

So now you're using claims of "pseudoscience" by a high school teacher… even disregarding rebuttals. Are you that desperate? —92.225.56.52 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Profession

There is a lot of confusion about this. Clearly he is not a linguist, this short bio [3] says " teacher of languages, translator and interpreter" and that is not linguistics. And his own website where it mentions his qualifications says Staatlich geprüfter Dolmetscher und Übersetzer Frankfurt a.M., Deutschland which makes him a State certified interpreter and translator. That seems perfectly clear and shows that Wyke didn't go further than a press release or book cover. He also has the equivalent of an English undergraduate degree in philosophy, which again clearly does not make him a philosopher by profession or anything else. So please don't describe him as a philosopher or linguist, he is neither. dougweller (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any press release by Carotta before Wyke's article/book that says that he is a "linguist and philosopher". It's not on his website, and it's not on the book covers either. There, in a quite humble way, it only says that he was a "student of philosophy in France and of linguistics in Germany". (They didn't even mention the degrees, which is standard practice by the way. Book authors should not mention any of their titles, at least not on the cover.) So Wyke must have come to the conclusion that he is a "linguist and philosopher" because of his writings. That would be the correct thing to do, because no academic degree, neither BA, Master, PhD, Doctor etc. makes you a philosopher. Your writings do. And Wyke obviously studied Carotta's writings, right? So that would mean that Carotta is in fact a "philosopher and linguist". Since Wyke is a "reliable source" it should be included in this article. If you allege that she is wrong, how then can she be right in her assessment of Carotta's theory? If you leave out "linguist and philosopher", you have to leave out her mention of Carotta's book. Well, it's quite clear that you're all not making any sense here. But that's the Wikipedia cult… no wonder. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But he didn't study linguistics, his web site had his academic qualifications. His degrees were on the site but it was apparently modified early this morning (26 March 2009 03:21:38). Could be a coincidence but it won't be the first time the subject of an article has changed their website in reaction to a Wikipedia article. We can certainly say that his site says "A teacher of languages, translator and interpreter he was an entrepreneur in the informatics and in the book publisher industry during the 80ies and 90ies." Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OF COURSE HE STUDIED LINGUISTICS!!! That's what he has always said! To become a translator and interpreter, you have to study linguistics. Concerning the degrees: They were not on his website at first years ago, then he added them to his vita, then he took them out, then he re-inserted them, now they are out again. Who cares? In any case: IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT RELIABLE SOURCE MARIA WYKE REGARDS CAROTTA AS A PHILOSOPHER AND LINGUIST. You should first challenge that, but you don't seem to pay any attention. Asking question here about the "confusion" concerning his titles, and when you get an answer, you don't care. Again: HE STUDIED LINGUISTICS. Ah, yes… the cult. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He studied to be an interpreter and translator. That is not the same thing as Linguistics. He has no academic qualifications in linguistics so far as I can discover, and he hasn't put any on his website. Yes, we say that someone who knows many languages is a 'linguist', but that is just a colloquial use of the word. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In Germany you study linguistics to be a translator, next to literature and languages plus training etc.. (Carotta later even studied classical philology, to be precise.) But that's more or less IRRELEVANT as I stated above. NOWHERE DOES CAROTTA SAY THAT HE IS A LINGUIST. MARIA WYKE SAYS SO. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that many linguists would treat Christos as a syncopated form of archiereus megistos without very strong evidence in the form of well-proven phonetic laws. Iblardi (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a very possible contraction, if you use standard rules… you know, like Lugdunum becoming Lyon or Caesaraugusta becoming Zaragoza. That's nothing new for linguists. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then what would be these standard rules? In syncope the position of the accent is all-important. In many languages, unstressed syllables tend to be weakened and disappear during the course of time, while stressed syllables are retained. Hence Lugdúnum/Lyón and Caesaraugústa/Zaragóza, which are regular forms, retaining the accent on the same vowel. However, it is unclear how Christos can possibly derive from archiéreus archiereús mégistos. Accentuation would naturally lead to -er- -eus and -meg- being retained rather than the i in megistos. Secondly, it would have to be explained why the result, Christós, is an oxytonon whereas its supposed source isn't (archiéreus archiereús mégistos). Carotta completely ignores these problems and instead chooses to pick random letters from both words in order to arrive at the desired result, Christos. [4] This is hardly a scientifically sound method. Iblardi (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should I answer that? Are you sure that the accents are archiéreus mégistos? Or don't you think the title should be accentuated archiereús mégistos, as it is written in Greek dictionaries? —85.179.131.221 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, factual error. I thought I remembered it correctly (as in hiereús, basileús) but was misled by the online Liddell & Scott entry, whose lemma in Roman script "archi^er-eus " had me think that the compound had its accent shifted further forward. (The fact that a Ionic form archiéreos does exist is no excuse in this case.) I stand corrected, and embarrassingly so. Yet I don't think it significantly changes the substance of my argument. Iblardi (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it doesn't change anything? You write: "in syncope the position of the accent is all-important", and then—having placed the accent on the false position—you state that this "doesn't significantly change the substance of your argument"? Either-or, dear sir! The Wikipedia is of course not the place to discuss such specialized points, but considering that you had started from a false premise, you should pour a little bit of water into your wine. ;) —85.179.130.22 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said it was embarrassing. ;) But in fact it doesn't really influence the argument whether you place the accent in archiereus on the paenultimate or on the ultimate, as the vowels in the first word are ignored in Carotta's word-building process anyway. Iblardi (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Valid only if the metathesis of the liquidae and such a contraction in general were not possible. In fact you have partially given the answer yourself. I quote: "unstressed syllables tend to be weakened and disappear during the course of time". The "ar-" is already a weak syllable, without initial consonant, so it can disappear. The remaining "chiereús" being accentuated on the "eú" will lose the in-accentuated part and contract in "chrís", per metathesis of the liquida and/or iotacism. The following word—having a weaker accent in conjunction with the first word—, loses enclitically "megi", and you have "chrístos", which—attracted by the preexistent "chrêstós" (pronounced "christós")—leads to homophony. Note that this shift of the accent is not given in Latin, where "chrístus" is accentuated on the "i". But this is only a possibility—which is what Carotta writes by the way—, because what really happened depends on different factors. —85.179.130.22 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, no, that is not how iotacism works. It is not something which you can randomnly apply; it has affected lots of vowels, but precisely not the ancient diphthong eu. In modern Greek this has been regularly changed to either ev (between vowels and before voiced consonants) or ef (before unvoiced consonants). It is also unexplained why precisely this form should have been affected by such heavy syncope at such an early date (Greek may still have had a musical accent - in that case, the whole argument of syncope is invalid), ánd in such a short time, when there are no comparable cases of the same date; the place names cited took centuries to develop. Iblardi (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, a iotacism cannot affect the ancient diphthong eu—directly. But indirectly? With eu being pronounced "ef" before s, "efs" resolves by assimilation into "es", and this by iotacism into "is". —85.179.137.247 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't happen like that either. Iotacism doesn't affect eu because it does not affect short e. The second e in archiereus is short. It would be different if hiereus were written with an èta instead of an epsilon, but it isn't. Iblardi (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I know that is not a èta. Again: Directly it's not possible, but we have two "i" in the compound, in chie- and in -gi-, which will play a role in the contraction, affecting the epsilon: iotacism not itacism. —85.179.137.247 (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Itacism is simply pronouncing the èta as e in English "to be", i.e. as the sound it became in living Greek as a result of iotacism; referring to itacism doesn't explain anything. It would help to know exactly what the language is in which the supposed transformation from archiereus megistos to christos took place: Greek, Latin, Aramaic? Each will have their own phonetic laws, which will enable us to determine if such a transformation has any plausibility in the language concerned. We should not be too vague about these things. Iblardi (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done some reading here. There appear to be more problems. For instance, it is said that "Iunius can be rendered in Greek as Iunas, just as the Latin Lucius became the Greek Lukas". Therefore, it is claimed that "Iunius" (after another change) became "Judas". Yet the Online Etymologic Dictionary says that the name Luke derives from "L. Lucas (Gk. Loukas), contraction of Lucanus lit. "of Lucania," district in Lower Italy, home of the Lucani, a branch of the Sabelline race." No connection with "Lucius" is mentioned. Iblardi (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There are different theories, and not only on this point, but e.g. also concerning the etymology of Maria: not everyone regards it as the femininum of Marius. And you can say that Gallia is not identical with Galilaea, nor Corfinium with Cafarnaum etc.. Strictly linguistically they cannot be confused. But the rules of a diegetic transposition are different. —85.179.137.247 (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On the linguist issue in general brought forth by Dogweller: The classical philologian Fotis Kavoukopoulos, who received his doctorate in linguistics at the Sorbonne and taught linguistics at the universities of Crete and Thessaly and who presently works at the Pedagogical Institute of Athens (Ministry of Education) — see here: http://www.carotta.de/esub/preface.html — writes this in his foreword — http://www.carotta.de/esub/preface.html#foreword

QUOTE: "even beyond the author’s contribution to any number of methodological presuppositions concerning philology, social psychology, ethnology and the connection of political history with theology"

He also places Carotta's work in the filiation of that of Saussure, one of the greatest linguists we had:

QUOTE: "This is not to say that Saussure had not prepared me, in theory, for this shock. The linguist who had worked extensively on anagrams and who had warned well about what can happen to a tradition in the course of its transmission, writes in one of his notes: ‘Imagining that a legend commences with a meaning, has still the same meaning since its first inception, or even to imagine that it cannot have had any meaning at all, is an operation beyond my comprehension.’

The presentation of Mr. Carotta has the advantage of recognizing the major importance of dislocations and slips from one form to another and from one meaning to another in the transmission of an ancient oral or written text.

In any case, Carotta’s book, while it presents itself as a research into the ‘true’ Gospels, produces before our eyes a series of puns and misunderstandings, the genitors of another text, a text far away from its origin (as seen by the output).

Now Mr. Carotta demonstrates that this process can only take place upon a background of puns, lapses and misapprehensions mixed together. It is the same process that creates the argots of particular social groups but also our own idiolects and which, more widely, makes the languages evolve over the course of time."

So I ask this: Is Dr. Kavoukopoulos not speaking of Carotta as of a linguist? Do you really think he could achieve this innovative linguistic task without studying linguistics? In any case, you are the first person who contests the expertise of Carotta in linguistics. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What is Cliteur really arguing?

Argument's are responses to questions. Right now, this article makes it unclear as to what question Cliteur as trying to answer: (1) what are the real events upon which the Gospels are based or (2) why did Christianity spread so fast in the Roman Empire? It matters. If he is asking (2), he could be arguing that Gentiles liked the Gospels because the story reminded them in a host of ways of Julius Caeser. Well, one can argue that without claiming that Jesus literally was Julius. Right now from the way this article is written, I cannot tell if Cliteur is arguing the former or the latter. What a mess. Besides, it is still not at all clear to me why Cliteur matters. I mean, is he an expert in 1st century Roman history? In Biblical history? Can he read Aramaic? Classical Latin? Based on his CV I'd say the answer is "no." What next, Ronald Dworkin as an expert on ancient history? Oprah Winfrey? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: You say "based on his CV I'd say the answer is no". Look again. What does it say there? Right, he's a philosopher. And what must philosophers learn? Right, Latin and Greek. So basing anything to the contrary on the CV is a classic non-argument. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Van Hooff doesn't know any Aramaic either and has proven to know only little Greek and Latin, with lots of fundamental errors. He was quite a laughing stock in that first debate. So if you question Cliteur, why don't you question Van Hooff? You're not making any sense. The cult. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way: Why would Aramaic play any prominent role in New Testament Studies, except for the so-called "Judeo-Christians" or Christianophile Jews in their quest to reinterpret scripture once again? The NT was written in Greek, with only few aramaisms, a lot less than the latinisms in the text, especially in Mark. —85.179.131.221 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you don't know the answer to my question. Maybe someone else does. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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[5]. 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 [6], 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 [7]. 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 [8] 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 [9]
(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 [10] 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)