Talk:Archpoet

Origin of the nickname

Can somebody explain where, if his existence is purely surmised from textual interconnexions, his nickname comes from? Srnec (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The present state of the article finally sheds so light concerning this question, but for the sake of completeness, I shall elaborate some more. The most coherent explanation among the few regarding the origins of the title is the one provided in the article: "Archipoeta" mimicks "Archicancellarius", whether it be out of genuine respect or in a ironical intention; what can't be fathomed is who came up with this idea and/or decided upon it: the Archancellor, the Archpoet, the Emperor, the others poets? That remains a complete mystery. My opinion, partly informed from reading Godman's account of the life of Rainald of Dussel in The Silent Masters, is that the Archpoet himself took up that title as a means to "glorify" his patron--again, it's impossible to determine exactly what he had in mind: I'd go for a mixture of honest admiration, subtle satire and well-nourished ego. I hope that clear things up a bit!
-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent (and continuing!) re-creation

I just wanted to say that I'm not done with the article yet: many corrections are still needed, and I haven't gone through all the sources I've found and the material I've gathered. Please don't start screwing around too much before I'm done with it. I promise to be quick (a couple of days at the most) and to write back here to discuss my actions and choices. I would have put up a banner template to alert the users, but I couldn't find the one I desperately need. Anyway, thanks a bunch for respecting my humble work in progress and restraining your editing urges.
-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No human editor besides you has touched this article in the past 6 months. So if your edits take shape with any discernible speed at all, I think there is practically no risk that others' "editing urges" will interfere. Wareh (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe! I agree with you on my over-doing it: I'm kind of a perfectionist and end up being slightly "anal" about getting the article to a certain stage where I can finally feel satisfied by my contribution. Also, it's just that whenever I touch an article, somehow other editors seem to pop up from nowhere, as if they had been waiting for a major update to take up interest again. Oh well. That's the way things are, and I wanted to make my intentions clear without upsetting anyone.
-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Note about the Archpoet

One of the main explanations as to why so little information has been gathered in English about the Archpoet is that many of the critical works on which modern scholarship is based have only been published in German, mostly in the first third of the 20th century, and therefore not readily accessible to the common English-speaking public as, say, the vernacular lyrics of the troubadours (which also started to flourish during the 12th century).

Regrettably, for example, there is no complete translation of the Carmina Burana in English (only a few partial, like: Thirty Poems from the Carmina Burana by P.G. Walsh in 1976, Selections from the Carmina Burana by David Parlett in 1986, The Love Songs of the "Carmina Burana" by E. D. Blodgett and Roy Arhtur Swanson in 1987, Love Lyrics from the Carmina Burana by P.G. Walsh in 1993), while there already are several in German (see this section of the German article), one in Italian (Carmina Burana by Piervittorio Rossi in 1989), one in French (Carmina Burana by Étienne Wolff in 1995), etc.

As for the works of the Archpoet, Fleur Adcock's 1994 Hugh Primas and the Archpoet is the only available modern book - unless proven otherwise - containing all ten poems with their English translation. Excerpts from the corpus have been translated from time to time, primarily for scholarly publications, the notable exception being the "Confession" which appears more often due, among other reasons, to its "popular" appeal and its presence in Orff's famous musical composition (thus published as a musical text).
-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Indications concerning the major reconstruction

While I'm still not done with the research and therefore with the writing of this article—in fact, there's still a lot to do!—, I thought that, since I haven't touched it in a while, it was time I wrote down some indications and explanations to help clarify some points and justify certain choices I've made.

Sources

Other than some books I own, my main source of information was the Internet. I searched thoroughly in order to find reliable information, mainly books extracts and scholarly articles, as can be seen from the extensive bibliography provided. I have not taken major liberties with the referenced source material, but sometimes references are missing for certain assertions taken from more unreliable sources like websites or other Wikipedia articles. If anybody can help finding references for these, it'd be great.

I insist that any serious claim be referenced: if you intend to contribute to the article, make sure your sources are solid. I find most articles pertaining to somewhat obscure subjects or persons to be plagued by unsourced material and seemingly-original research. Together, let's try to make this one stand out from the mediocre lot and cite your sources!

German article

I noted the German article seemed to contain much information from which the English article could probably benefit, so I used Google Translator, my bilingual German dictionary, and my very rudimentary knowledge of the language to get what I could from it. I've only taken the names of the manuscripts... and incorporated as seamlessly as possible small tidbits of content I haven't been able to reference from somewhere else, hence a number of unreferenced ("[citation needed]") claims in the article—in fact, I believe most of these claims come from the German article! I was lucky enough to find other references to back-up the manuscripts information for two of them, but one still misses such reference.

French source

I'm terribly sorry for having to use a French source to reference some claims. The book is a monolingual and literal French translation of the complete collection, including a long presentation and notes to the individual poems. Wolff, the translator, used German editions for his text and notes, so I'm guessing these editions would provide us the original claims.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Yes, it is quite extensive. Rather than simply putting the sources used for references, I decided to cram all relevant and reliable sources I could find on the subject so that anyone interested in pursuing further personal or scholarly research knows what's out there. The main criterion for establishing the difference between primary and secondary sources is simple enough: primary sources are the ones proposing critical and original research about the Archpoet, and secondary sources consist of rehashing (critical or not) of this original research. I'm leaving the door open for a future reevaluation.

Also, seeing as how voluminous it as gotten, I might consider breaking it in two sections, "Bibliography" (for material cited in the article) and "Further reading" (for the rest), like numerous long articles do. Whether you agree or disagree, let's discuss this before changing the present formula.

German sources

In the FYI note I previously wrote on the Archpoet, I explained that the main research, compilation and edition of the Archpoet has been and is still being conducted in German. Up until now, I've refrained from including these most important and critical German sources (such as the primary editions of his works) in the bibliography. Does anyone approve or disapprove of their addition? In the mean time, I'll try to read some Wikipedia guidelines regarding that precise matter.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

I thought—but mostly felt—the article looked in little dull, lacked colors, so I went out and gathered some images indirectly relating to the subject matter. If you're opposed to having one or both images on the article, once again, let's discuss!

There is another awesome image I'm really keen on incorporating to the article, but I'll have to check out WikiCommons regulations to see if it's possible.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuff deliberately left out

1. The unofficial "titles" of some poems, such as the Jonah Confession (II) and the Hymn to the Emperor (IX, if I remember correctly). Some scholars repudiate them, and most are cautious in their usage, so I felt putting these titles in the article would only encourage the perpetuation of unnecessary, unfounded information.

2. Technical remarks concerning metrical characteristics (Leonine hexameters, the Vagantenstrophe, rhymes, etc.). This kind of information, I feel, does not belong in an encyclopedia since it's way too technical (and thus superfluous) for the average reader.

3. Summary and analysis of each individual poem. There are two reasons for that. Primo, I must confess to not having read the poems themselves: what could I write on Latin poems I can't fully understand? Secundo, a neat summary and short analysis is provided on that article from BookRags.com! Rather than writing something new, I can just direct readers to this page.

I hope my comments have been enlightening.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions from peerreviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]

 Not done I'll most certainly check it out when I have some more time. • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done After going through the various resources and pages about the lead section, I tried to come up with a second paragraph that summed up the main aspects of the article. It's far from perfect, but it'll hopefully serve as a good start. • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 01:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

 Done • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly

 Done • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

 Doing... I've started making some edits and will continue in the future until all the weasel words are ousted from the article or properly linked to citations.

• The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

 Done You (Tom B) already took care of it. Thank you • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

 Not done I'll most certainly check it out when I have some more time. • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tom B (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you • H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archpoet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710235049/http://fetusveneris.com/?p=20 to http://fetusveneris.com/?p=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)