Talk:Influence of Italian humanism on Chaucer

Referencing

There are many ways that the referencing can be improved here. First off, it's not necessary to give direct quotes in the references; people checking the article's references should have the relevant books to hand for the verification. I'll have a look at the rest in the morning (it's nearly bedtime). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this and you understand this, however there a few trollers that are following each move I make and often challenge my sources, so to stop this I just provide the associated source text. This then cuts down on most debates, however I still get enough complaints. I would prefer to give the text (to cut down on debates), if that is appropriate. I suspect this article to get a lot of controversy, so I am providing the source text ahead of time to keep the debates to a minimum.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I welcome any help you can give me on this. IF you see something obvious that can be improved, please jump in and do the edits. I would at least like to keep a good portion of the references and text (if you feel that would be appropiate). Otherwise I'll have to provide the text later to possible challenges. Most I found in Google Books. I'm sure you have better ideas on this, so please give me some suggestions.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If the text is available online, excellent - we can use either {{cite book}} or {{cite web}}, both of which permit a URL so that such online text may be linked. If not, can it somehow go into Wikisource? Their front page is here. In either case, it will remove the need for direct quotations to be given within each reference. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do believe the idea of {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} will work. I'll get to work to clean it up.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are using the same source for multiple different facts, say something from (book x page 23) and something entirely different from a different page but in the same book, you might consider shortened footnotes. Here, the inline references typically give last names of author(s), year and page, with the remainder of the details (title, publisher, URL, first name(s) of author(s), editors, ISBN etc.) in a separate section. the two can be made to link together. See Abingdon Road Halt railway station, Charwelton railway station and Hinksey Halt railway station for three short articles which use different (but related), methods to achieve the same result. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ideas.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you've finished this stage, here's what I'd do next. Let's consider the Brewer reference to begin with. In the text you have

<ref name="Brewer227"> {{cite book |title=Geoffrey Chaucer: The Critical Heritage: 1385-1837 |last=Brewer |first=Derek |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1995 |publisher=Routledge |location= |isbn=041513398X |page= |pages=227, 277 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XbWpgaxTXYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Brewer,+Derek,+Geoffrey+Chaucer:+The+Critical+Heritage:+1385-1837,+Routledge,+1995,+ISBN+041513398X&ei=yrCLS_irFZuoM-uGgf0M&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Petrarch%20%20Boccaccio%20&f=false |accessdate=March 1, 2010}}</ref>

and in the "Sources" section you have:

* Brewer, Derek, ''Geoffrey Chaucer: The Critical Heritage: 1385-1837'', Routledge, 1995, ISBN 041513398X

These show as:

Footnotes

1. ^ ^{a b c d e} Brewer, Derek (1995). Geoffrey Chaucer: The Critical Heritage: 1385-1837. Routledge. pp. 227, 277. ISBN 041513398X. Retrieved March 1, 2010. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Sources

• Brewer, Derek, Geoffrey Chaucer: The Critical Heritage: 1385-1837, Routledge, 1995, ISBN 041513398X

You don't need to cite every source twice, it's just clutter. What I intended to imply was that the second of these would be the one for {{cite book}}, with the first shortened down to a minimum. So, under "Sources" you would have:

*{{cite book |title=Geoffrey Chaucer: The Critical Heritage: 1385-1837 |last=Brewer |first=Derek |year=1995 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=041513398X |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XbWpgaxTXYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Brewer,+Derek,+Geoffrey+Chaucer:+The+Critical+Heritage:+1385-1837,+Routledge,+1995,+ISBN+041513398X&ei=yrCLS_irFZuoM-uGgf0M&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Petrarch%20%20Boccaccio%20&f=false |accessdate=March 1, 2010 |ref=harv }}

and the inline reference would therefore become:

<ref name="Brewer227">{{harvnb|Brewer|1995|pp=227, 277}}</ref>

Note that the {{cite book}} does not have the page information, but instead it has |ref=harv. This is necessary for the short note to link to the full citation. These show as:

Footnotes

1. ^ ^{a b c d e} Brewer 1995, pp. 227, 277

Sources

• Brewer, Derek (1995). Geoffrey Chaucer: The Critical Heritage: 1385-1837. Routledge. ISBN 041513398X. Retrieved March 1, 2010. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Try clicking on "Brewer 1995" above. If you use Firefox rather than IE, it shows better because Firefox will highlight the link target in blue, whilst IE won't.

Would you like me to do those conversions? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

YES! It looks like you have a better handle on this than I do, so please feel free to do these conversions and I will learn something. Thanks.....--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done the four in the lede. What do you think?

One other thing though. The documentation for {{cite book}} says

url: URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. ... If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced.

which as I understand it means something that displays the actual text, and not a library book search. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The four on the lede are great. Now I get the idea. IF you wish to do more, I'll wait a couple of days before I tackle it. Then after a couple of days and I see you are NOT active on this, THEN I will continue. I see what you mean on "....URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. ... If applicable, should point to the specific page(s) referenced." I researched this text and references and am familiar with this, soooooo can take over on that if you happen to leave it. Whatever else you wish to do, I appreciate. I appreciate you showing me all these things and can probably pick up on your examples. I'll wait a couple of days to make sure you are inactive, THEN we won't have edit conflicts. Thanks again. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've also converted a couple of the {{cite web}} into {{cite journal}} because it was clear to me that an academic journal was being referenced. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding. You are my friend for life. Thanks bunches.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

The main issue with this article is that it depends mainly on scholarship that is over a hundred years old. The idea that Boccaccio met Chaucer is completely discounted, and the idea that he met Petrarch is almost as unlikely. I'm not ever sure how to go about changing this article because its premise is faulty. An article on influences would actually be more useful for people, since not everyone realizes the extent of Chaucer's dependence on Boccaccio. I'm new to contributing to wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to go about this. Monica italiana (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise good points. I don't know the scholarship on this point, but I'm wondering whether Influence of Petrarch and Boccaccio on Chaucer would be a better title, because it's a better topic. (I haven't checked whether there's currently a section on that in the Chaucer article.) That way, the more useful, verifiable, and productive topic of influence could be covered, and the more contentious issue of actual contact relegated to a section within the article. I hope Chaucerians weigh in on this. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the following section of comments indicates that this might be an uphill battle. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m also highly sceptical, and stopped meddling with this article when I realized that I couldn’t work out what I both could and ought to turn it into. But that said, this long essay (only 95 years old!) by Albert Stanburrough Cook is well done and does have a lot of interesting things in it. At the very least, Wikipedia deserves a politico-gastronomic article on the wedding feast for the Duke of Clarence and Violante Visconti. (The fact that Chaucer might plausibly have been present, and that (if so) it is not impossible that the GOM of Italian letters might have been prepared to talk to this unknown young Englishman might be worth a footnote.) Ian Spackman (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the warm welcome! I was probably overly dismissive. A note on the wedding feast as a possible meeting grounds would be appropriate, but an article around the subject somewhat misses the point. I might start a new article on Boccaccio's influences on Chaucer that links back to this one. It seems like this one was once named "influences" but was changed to argue this point about them meeting. I actually have a ton of available current research because I'm writing my dissertation on these two, although there are almost too many sources here already so I don't want to get bogged down in them and it might be easier to start relatively fresh.Monica italiana (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Organization

I think this article could benefit a lot from some changes in organization. According to the title, it's about Petrarch and Boccaccio's influences on Chaucer, but it seems that the article serves primarily to argue that Chaucer personally met at least one of the two. Here are my suggestions:

• Putting more central emphasis on the Italians' literary influences on Chaucer, while discussing a possible meeting in a specific section of the article. I would place this section after the bulk of the article, so that the possibility of a meeting arises naturally from the literary influences and Chaucer's trips to Italy offer some confirmation of the meeting.
• Keeping each section more confined to its topic.
• Providing at least a paragraph or two of information supporting the "alternate viewpoint"--I'm assuming such information can be found if some historians hold that opinion. It's fine to provide some counterargument and/or to assert that "most historians believe" the meeting(s) occurred, assuming that such a consensus exists, as long as the alternate viewpoint is at least represented.

Maybe someone who has more time/motivation than I do could make some changes? Ravi12346 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed title back to original title of "Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio" since it reflects more what the overall article is about.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Move

I renamed and moved the article from its prior title to this one, which I feel more aptly describes the topic. I understand it has a bit of a fault in that it doesn't explicitly identify the two authors; however, I think it's preferable to the old one per my move rationale. dci | TALK 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change to "Italian humanism," but I wonder whether it makes sense to say that Chaucer had "contact" with an abstraction. Is the topic you're envisioning perhaps "Influence of Italian humanism on Chaucer"? "Influence" wouldn't need the qualifier "possible," IMHO, since authors often don't explicitly state "I was influenced by such-and-such," and scholars infer from the evidence. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound better, and the title could be shortened. I'll move it to Influence of Italian humanism on Chaucer, as you suggested. dci | TALK 06:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And in regard to the discussion above, I don't think it's really a problem that the content of the article may be narrower than that at present. That narrower scope seemed (whether it was or not) more like a student paper, whereas as to me this topic seems like a sounder way to structure an encyclopedia article. The main Chaucer article doesn't look at influences much at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding style

I noticed that the essay-tag was removed; that doesn't bother me at all, but I do have a bit of a concern with content style. I'm not sure I am going to have much time coming up to work on this article, but would just like to lay out my concerns here for the time being. The premise of the article is that basically that Chaucer was influenced by both Petrarch and Boccaccio, and that he may have encountered them at some point, though that isn't certain. I feel that a different structure would best get this point across to the reader, perhaps one split into four main sections: "Influences of Petrarch", "Influences of Boccaccio", "Possible contact between Chaucer and the Italian humanists," and "Alternate viewpoints" (which currently exists). dci | TALK 12:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I should've left a note. I agree that the article is written rather like a student essay (but not a personal essay), and your proposed structure would be a major improvement. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DCGAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)