Africa (Petrarch) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm removing the image and the "itinerary"; hopefully someone can tell us what book the footnotes are citing, so we can format the citations properly. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Doug, I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but I notice that you've basically reverted my changes, without responding to what I wrote above. Frankly, I don't understand why the article needs a shot of the cover of a 20th century translation, especially when its graphic design is uninspiring. Nor do I understand why this article needs to give a chronology of the Second Punic War; one of the strengths of a Wiki is that it's easy to link to related pages, so we don't have to duplicate material that has its own article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Doug talk 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Doug, thanks for the response. When I wrote "early printed edition" above I meant early--like Renaissance-era. A picture like [1] is the kind of thing I'm thinking of; I have no idea how easily one could be found.
The footnotes need to be formatted according to WP:CITE; I'll try to fix this when I get a chance.
I don't think the chronology belongs in this article. A link to Second Punic War will suffice. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken out the book cover. If you find a "real early edition" version put it in. The outline is part of the Introduction and describes what the book is about. It is the last page before the Books so was definitely intended to be the outline of the book. Thanks for correcting the footnotes. -- Doug talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Took out the outline you are objecting to and put in wording directing readers to the article on the Second Punic War. Also replaced the book cover of the English translation you are objecting to with a picture of the main character. Hope these improvements meet your approval.-- Doug talk 12:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I changed the reference format a bit, and got rid of the picture of the book cover--I really don't think WP readers are all that interested in what a modern English translation of the Africa looks like. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Being mentioned on one page wouldn't seem to qualify, and an index nominum keyed to an English translation has no place in this article. What would be appropriate, would be to state that the poem's major characters include...and list them (the ones who truly are of principal importance), with wikilinks. Of course, even better would be, say, a sentence or two characterizing the role played by Cicero (and the other important figures) in the poem. As long as we're just counting page numbers, I'm afraid this could be part of one of Doug Coldwell's WP:OR number codes, which (as anyone who has followed the long arc of his edits knows) he believes reveal secrets concerning the New Testament, Medieval literature, and Renaissance literature. Wareh ( talk) 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, Wareh. Interesting which people you chose to remove and which you decided to keep on the list of subjects related to Petrarch's epic poem. By removing Pompey, Sulla, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, and Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (Scipio's brother), and keeping Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Gaius Laelius, Cicero, and Aemilius Paulus confirms for me certain things in my research. Since I have a copy of Petrarch's translation by Bergin and Wilson and now you have a copy you confirmed these references I had put in concerning all these subjects (the ones you removed and the ones you decided to keep). Apparently the issues are not if these references are correct or not, but that you feel the subjects you removed are insignificant compared to others in the story. A major portion of Petrarch's epic poem is the defeat of Hannibal by Cornelius Scipio, with these two subjects being the main characters. All the other subjects in Petrarch's epic poem are minor subjects, compared to Scipio and Hannibal. Your concern IF the subjects have to do with "Roman history" I can symphathize with, as ALL the subjects in Petrarch's poem have to do with ancient Roman history (including Scipio and Hannibal). That's the basic main theme of the poem (ancient Roman history surrounding the Punic Wars as the overall history of the poem timeline of about the 4th century B.C. to the 1st century). The main part of the epic poem is the defeat of Hannibal by Scipio and the Second Punic War.
In Book 1 (lines 150-157) it points out the three Punic Wars that it speaks of (p. 5 of Bergin and Wilson translation).
There thrice was battle joined in hatred fierce
and massive bloodshed. Truth to tell, the first
clash came about unplanned, the second nearly
ended the strife, the third with three encounters
brought with slight effort warfare to its end.
Of these vicissitudes our song shall sing
the greatest, the vast conflict's middle phase,
its glorious captains and its fearsom strife.
Since you obtained the Bergin and Wilson book and verified my references as being correct, the only issue then is your issue of the significance of the people you removed and the significance of the people you decided to keep on the list I provided. Since they are all insignificant people compared to Scipio and Hannibal, it isn't our determination to subtract someone off such a list of subjects of a poem based solely on feelings of significance and desire to emphasize certain other people. As a very well experienced editor you know that all viewpoints should be presented from a neutral point of view, not a lopsided viewpoint emphasizing certain people. I get the feeling that you desire to just emphasize certain people on such a list of ancient Roman leaders because you didn't discuss this removal of the particular generals and dictators you removed off the list BEFORE removing them from the list I provided. You just wanted to make sure that their names are not shown, even though the references provided are correct to the poem. Since you verified the correctness of the references, then I am adding back these subjects since they play a role in the basic overall plot theme of the poem (ancient Roman history). Since I assume (and I know what it means to "assume") that you will disagree with this, then I suggest we get a Third opinion to help resolve the issue. I'll leave the decision of this up to you, but this is what I recommend before you remove them again to emphasize certain subjects. IF after the "Third opinions" they agree that these people are insignificant pertaining to the basic overall plot theme of the poem (ancient Roman history), then I'll agree to remove them. However IF they feel they should be included with the subjects of Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Gaius Laelius, Cicero, and Aemilius Paulus in the remaining list you decided to keep and emphasize, then they will have to stay in the complete list I provided (as shown now). The issue here is not if the references are accurate or not, because you verified yourself that they were in fact accurate and correct by additional information you added for the subjects you wished to keep, but instead your feelings if these subjects you removed are significant in the basic overall plot theme of the poem (ancient Roman history). Keep in mind the wording I used to introduce the list of subjects was "Some of the main subjects and how they relate to the poem are." Notice I didn't say major significate subjects (which would be only Scipio and Hannibal). Perhaps the word "main" bothers you. I originally didn't think much of that point, but IF that would resolve the issue I have removed that word. However I get the feeling you desire to emphasize certain people. If not, then we can agree to keep the list the way I am presenting it now for an overall neutral point of view, with all viewpoints presented. You or anyone else are welcome to add subjects they feel appropriate to the list I started as long as it pertains to the poem and are referenced similar to what I have done. Yes, the subjects you removed from the list have been identified with their role in ancient Roman history; just like the subjects you desired to keep and amplify upon. Yes, the subjects you removed from the list were only mentioned on a page or two of the English edition, just like most of the subjects you desired to keep. Of course, Scipio and Hannibal (subjects of major significance in the poem) are mentioned on several pages of the Bergin and Wilson book. Also perhaps Andrew Dalby may want to give an opinion since he started the article and is a major contributor. In your response, please keep focused on the issue at hand.-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wareh, I've given reference details on how each applies to the poem. Also provided page references of the Notes where Bergin and Wilson also commented on each of them. A "Complete list of persons mentioned" I believe would not be practical as there are hundreds of Roman leaders mentioned in Petrarch's lengthy epic poem. It would produce an article longer than Chaucer's special manuscript words, which I started recently. I've started this list of "Subjects" for Petrarch's poem with 17 Roman leaders. Now since you have a copy of Bergin and Wilson translation (verifying the references), perhaps you would like to contribute with a dozen or so subjects to make sure the viewpoint is balanced. You do have a copy of their book, right?-- Doug Coldwell talk 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wareh, so you liked my latest article on Chaucer's special manuscript words. I also thought that many of the words we find first introduced in his manuscripts are quite interesting - especially Valentine since today is Valentine's Day. Apparently you noticed that it came up first thing this morning as a DYK. Its already received a C-Class on WikiProject:Languages and is rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. I suspect this means nothing to you, however I think that is nice to see. Also certain scholars think he is the one that is the mythmaker of Valentine's Day as we understand it today for lovers. Check out the reference on this as scholar Jack B. Oruch.
Wareh, I was hoping that you might like to contribute by adding a dozen or so articles to the "Subjects" section. Apparently you think I might be molding the article for a particular slant. IF (notice big IF) you added a dozen or so articles yourself I'm sure then you could balance this out to a viewpoint you would feel is a neutral point of view in your opinion. Now since I started this with 17 Roman leaders, then perhaps you would like to add another 17 Roman leaders (associated to Petrarch's epic poem Africa). Even if you just added a dozen, I would be satisfied with that myself as your fulfilling your duty on this issue on how you feel the article might be slanted. Obviously I don't see any slant in the 17 Roman leaders I entered, however I could be biased. So, just to make sure there is no slant by these that I have entered I invite you to add a dozen or so Roman "captains" to the list to make sure it is a balanced viewpoint.
I noticed you avoided the question rather or not you have a copy of Petrarch's Africa translation by Bergin and Wilson. I'll try to answer that question for you, since you didn't volunteer that information yourself. It's an easy yes or no answer and it cann't be weasal words like "I relied entirely on your own information counting pages with mentions..." -OR- "...it seemed likely to me that in some cases these glosses were not focused on the poem." Let's say you do not have a copy of Bergin and Wilson book, then:
Let's say you do have a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book, then:
So far, all I have seen from your contributions on the article is a couple of recent edits; one on wikilinks to Roman literature, and the other on removing several of the subjects without discussing first. Now IF (big IF) you do have a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book, then you would have known that Somnium Scipionis is not actually mentioned in the poem itself. Scipio's dream is found in Book 1 starting in line 210 and going through line 689. Nowhere in those 479 lines is it mentioned even once the wording "Somnium Scipionis" where I also had to remove the wikilink of De Agri Cultura, which pertains to farming and agriculture, as that wasn't even close to anything the epic poem speaks of anywhere. For Cicero I'll have to put the wording back to that of "Scipio's dream" as that is what it alludes to (marked also there with the side Note "Scipio's dream") and there are two different versions: "Cicero's version of Scipio's dream" and Petrarch's version of Scipio's dream (which you left in). I believe I was correct with the wording of "Cicero's version of Scipio's dream" and will be replacing your wording of " Somnium Scipionis" unless you can explain to me where it is in Petrarch's epic poem and not just a Wikipedia fact about another of Cicero's works. So bottomline, since your removal of certain subjects have been reverted (which you agreed with), and your "wikilinks for works of Roman literature" is not productive, THEN I am asking that you contribute something (anything) actually productive to the article like:
-OR- stop critizing the work that others have made to an article UNLESS you can be very specific and perhaps show examples of what you mean in actual constructive improvements for the article. Examples might be what Andrew Dalby has done for the article or actual constructive suggestions for improvements for the article he has made. Other actual constructive improvements to the article, besides the Subjects I introduced, are the new Section Headers for the article I added (since there was none before). I think (however I could be biased) that other editors would agree that the article is much improved today, from the recent improvements I have made, from that of the previous last edit of 6 October 2009. I suggest you take a look at BOTH versions ( 6 Oct 2009 -vs- 13 Feb 2010) side by side to see the improvements I have made to the article lately. In your P.S. message your say "Cato's De agri cultura was called De re rustica in the age of the early printed editions, but this title is no longer commonly accepted." I believe you may have actually obtained this from a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book. On page 246 (which I previously gave you in the references) it reads for Notes on Book 2 line 187 M. Porcius Cato, the "censor" (234-149 B.C.), of plebeian birth, author of De re rustica, was celebrated for the austerity of his life. However De Agri Cultura is a book on farming and agriculture, which has nothing to do with the poem. The word "Agri" should have given you a clue to this. Can you show me any ACTUAL constructive improvements you have made to the article that pertains to the poem? All I see are criticisms and guesses as to what seems likely to you. We need references, not guesses, and in this case references that pertain to Petrarch's epic poem Africa. Please contribute in a constructive manner and keep focused on the issue at hand. Thanks.-- Doug Coldwell talk 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Wareh, here is what Bergin and Wilson's book looks like IF you ever decide to take it out of the library. I know you "do not intend to get Bergin and Wilson's translation out of the library", however that is what I had to do. Do you have any intention of reading even the Latin version? I realize you know Latin and Renaissance literature, however that is not the issue here. Please keep focused on the issue and not bolster on your qualifications. The issue is this article and improving it. The article was started by Andrew Dalby and he is a major contributor. I also contributed much to the article to improve it over the last couple of years. There are others also that have contributed to the article, however your only contribution has been a couple of External links and nothing to the body of the text nor to the list of Subjects. Don't get excited, but I have added another 16 characters to the Subjects list. I gave you a chance to add to the list to give your own list that might counter whatever "skew" you think there is. Now you will have to come up with 33 characters to put in your counter-skew, since apparently you think there is something special to these characters. I invite you to do this, but first you will have to read the poem. Now you know what the book looks like, so you can get the Bergin and Wilson's English translation or you can read the Latin version - but it is a requirement to do before you will be able to come up with any kind of a list of poem characters. I won't add any more to the list for a few months, to give you time to be able to read Petrarch's epic poem. Since you obviously have not read either version (English or Latin) then my questions are again
Obviously Andrew Dalby has read at least a portion of the epic poem because he was able to start the article and constructively add much to its content. I am only asking that you read as much so you can also constructively add to the article instead of bolstering about your qualifications.-- Doug Coldwell talk 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Wareh for making improvements to the External links section. It looks like it was Andrew Dalby that added the links of Petrarch on 7 January 2007. Yup, you are right, I can not read Latin. I agree, lets see how this develops out by others. It will be very interesting to see who edits the Subjects section and what they add or subtract. Keep in mind, the invitation is still open to you to add a dozen or so subjects to that section. It would be interesting to see who you select and to see how you reference them to the poem. I dare you.....-- Doug Coldwell talk 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | As a scholar, Petrarch possessed encyclopedic knowledge, and much of this he has set down in his Latin works, which constitute the larger part of his production in both prose and verse. They include the "Africa" in hexameters, dealing with the Second Punic war and especially with the adventures of Scipio Africanus, in pseudo-epic fashion and in a way which hardly elicits our admiration, although the author deemed it his greatest work... | ” |
Wareh, I'm not too sure how helpful the Latin links are for Petrarch's Africa. According to the List of extinct languages of Europe Latin is a dead language, which means the language has undergone language death, has no native speakers and no spoken descendant. Since this is the English Wikipedia, my guess is that not many people know Latin and would not be able to read the Latin links you provided. I going to guess a ball park figure of 0.001% of the people that use the English Wikipedia can read Latin - not very useful to that group of people. I'm not too sure how many people would be interested in a French version, since the poem story is about Italy. Therefore I have provided an Italian version, which I think would be of much more interest to everyone - Americans and Italians. I would say that a ball park figure is that about 10% of Italians can read English and use the English Wikipedia - a far cry from those that can read a dead language. IF (big IF) you have better figures on this, please let me know - however I believe the ratio will still be approximately the same, meaning about a million people can read English for every one that can read Latin (a dead language).-- Doug Coldwell talk 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it will be very interesting to see who might edit the article in the future or make comments to any of the sections. I would like to see this article improved to a Good Article status.-- Doug Coldwell talk 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a poem, not a historical event. It belongs in the language and literature nominees. If the main contributor to the article is confused regarding what the article is about, there's legitimate doubt about the quality of the article... --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Doug's latest edits to this article have emphasized, at the outset of his long list of ancient Romans mentioned in Africa, a connection to or overlap with Petrarch's De viris illustribus. Since Doug never explained the rationale according to which he made this list, I can't help wondering if it has something to do with his original and unsound theories about the earlier collection De viris illustribus by Jerome. We are talking about an editor who has written in his userspace some "Directions for decoding Jerome's De Viris Illustribus" according to "the Word Game." In "the Word Game" (which, bafflingly, seems to derive esoteric meanings from English translations rather than original texts), we apply such principles as: "With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions 'and' or 'but' then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite."
For example, Doug has published at Wikipedia his WP:OR theory concerning Chapter 66 of Jerome's De viris illustribus, which in fact concerns Pope Cornelius:
“ | Scipio Cornelius Africanus (235 BC - 183 BC), overseer of rule, to whom eight letters of foreign no longer exists (Carthage), produced a history record speech to groups, overseer of the Roman Republic at anguish, on the demon, mission, and session councils, and another on campaign and those who had risen to the faith, a third on the idleness of the council, and a fourth very prolix one to the same groups, containing the causes of the campaign belief and the love for it. He ruled the Italian army for two years (211 BC - 209 BC) over troops and operations. He received the crown of satisfaction for the formally selected one, and was succeeded by famous. | ” |
Something about this seems inappropriate to me, and I worry that the encyclopedia's content will be tainted if undue weight is given to the data on which Doug is building a theory that, even if it were not demonstrably crazy, would be WP:OR. Wareh ( talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I can respond to each of the concerns. Wareh's concerns: Can someone be more specific to what they are, pertaining to the article? If it has to do with the "famous heroes" related to the "Illustrious Men", Wareh has known about these "famous heroes" since 29 March 2007 since he improved the article with a better Category. On 20 March 2007 RandomCritic originally put in the De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) article the Category of ""Latin prose texts" which Wareh replaced with "Renaissance Latin literature." Other then that Wareh has had no objections to these heroes for these past 3 years as Talk:De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) shows. Now he is objecting to these "famous heroes" 3 years later. I have no preference to the "Subjects" and IF someone wants to change to "Famous Heroes" that would be find by me. The reference in the article under Subjects of Many of these can also be found in Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus ("Illustrious Men"), which was started about the same time (now # 37) calls them "famous heroes" - which sounds like a good description. The reference is by William T.H. Jackson (editor) and George Stade (editor in chief), Volume 2 (Petrarch to Renaissance short fiction), Charles Scibner's Sons, 1983, ISBN 0-684-165-94-5. The book I found in the reference section of my local library. I picked the word "Subjects" quite by chance.
Neither Wareh or Akhilleus are willing to furnish some "famous heroes" to the list nor any references. The only improvements to the article Wareh has contributed has been two external links of Latin versions of Africa. Akhilleus has made no contributions after 6 October 2009 since I have made major improvements to upgrade it to a B-Class in two Projects. Wareh says that he does not intend to get Bergin and Wilson's translation out of the library. Apparently he has not read the Latin version either. Apparently Akhilleus has not read Petrarch's Africa either (whichever language), unless he would like to correct me on this assumption. I could be mistaken. Yes or no??
In response to Nefirious: I will have to agree with Akhilleus that this is an epic poem and not an article directly about Military History, so there will not be references to Military History, but there will be literature references. There will be references to Petrarch's poem specifically, but not to Military History (i.e. techniques, gear, battle methods) in general as related to the poem even though a good portion is about the Second Punic War. -- Doug Coldwell talk 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So the question remains: Have you read Petrarch's Africa in any language? Easy yes or no that you should be able to answer plainly. The "famous heros" are referenced in the poem. Each has a detailed reference to the poem. IF you care to add whichever ones you feel are important, then I invite you to do so - with references to the poem of course. I'll let the unbiased reviewer give me pointers to the article as it is now for other improvements. I would not say your opinion is unbiased, nor that of Wareh. So you have no differences you can show me of Wareh's concerns? I believe the article, as it is now, is of Good Article quality and I'll wait for the unbiased reviewer to preview it.-- Doug Coldwell talk 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You didn't even ask for a Third opinion. You know that it is a Good Article nomination, so I suggest that we wait for the reviewer to review it as I believe the list is beneficial for it to become a Good Article - unless of course that is what you are afraid of. The review I believe will be soon, so surely you can wait for an unbiased opinion. I have replaced the list and my suggestion is to wait for the reviewer to look it over. Like I said above, I believe the article with the Subjects will enhance the quality for it to become a Good Article. Petrarch did research on these "famous heroes" and was working on both De Viris Illustribus ("Illustrious Men") and his Africa at the same time and they just happen to be of the same basic "famous heroes." The list of "famous heroes" has been at De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) for 3 years with no objections from anyone as Talk:De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) shows. I'm thinking that you are only objecting now since it is up for Good Article. IF no person objected to this list for over 3 years (with no harm to Wikipedia), then surely you can wait another 3 weeks (maybe sooner) when the article will be reviewed by an unbiased reviewer.-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Akhilleus, for studying the situation closely enough to demonstrate clearly that (A) Doug included e.g. a person alluded to in passing with a few words who has no explicable "significance" (quoting Dalby's advice) to the poem, (B) Doug omitted a character of actual considerable significance in several books of Africa. Doug has never responded to any of the requests asking for a defensible rationale for his list. He has also not responded to the now-clear truth, that he never had any interest in following Dalby's or others' recommendations (figures significant to the poem, with explanation of their significance in the poem)--if he understood the recommendations--and instead intentionally chose figures of little significance because of his own agenda to give near-supernatural significance to the work De viris illustribus. Wareh ( talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to add Syphax, but wanted to make sure I got all the references correct. I had an "edit conflict" with Akhilleus as he removed the list about 30 seconds before I could add Syphax. I'll be glad to add him and have all the references ready. Will somebody add back the list so I can continue adding characters to expand this list and expand it as is requested.-- Doug Coldwell talk 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason the list is getting removed is for undue emphasis. The WP:OR comes into it only as our best guess as to why the undue emphasis is being enforced on the article (see my most recent comment at Wikipedia:FTN#Doug_Coldwell.27s_Petrarch_Code). It's plain from the above that we're asking Doug for an explanation why much of the article should be given over to a strange selection of figures mentioned in the poem (strange because it is not a list of the most important ones, as originally labeled, and includes many ones utterly insignificant to the poem, as documented above). Doug has posted a lot of material here supporting his cited sources (which no one ever questioned!), but has still not addressed the main issue: Why does his list give undue emphasis to insignificant figures barely mentioned in the poem? Wareh ( talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
IF there is a problem with any of the references, I have to be notified which one so I have a chance to correct it or back it up with another reference. Otherwise this is just another excuse not to allow a list of characters that pertain to the poem. I am enhancing this article to Good Article status and need to know exactly what the problems are to the article - otherwise this are just general accusations. The article must stand on its own merit and should be reviewed accordingly.-- Doug Coldwell talk 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The article must stand on its own merit and should be reviewed accordingly as a Good Article.-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll just comment briefly -- heaven knows whether anyone will like what I say, but, after all, I seem to be used as a "reference" now and then above, and Doug has asked me to contribute. I started this article because I was interested in Latin epics: I don't think this is one of the best specimens of the genre -- nor does anyone else I know of except Petrarch himself -- but one could still write a good article about it. I don't, and never did, have a strong opinion on whether the article should have a list of main characters; if it does, they would be characters that Petrarch developed and used for an identifiable literary purpose in this poem, and the list would explain this in each case.
I think this is as yet some way from being a good article. Why?
I'm sorry this is destructive criticism, but I don't myself have time to go back to Africa right now. And rew D alby 19:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. See the investigation subpage and WP:DCGAR for more information. 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. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Africa (Petrarch) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm removing the image and the "itinerary"; hopefully someone can tell us what book the footnotes are citing, so we can format the citations properly. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Doug, I have no interest in getting into an edit war, but I notice that you've basically reverted my changes, without responding to what I wrote above. Frankly, I don't understand why the article needs a shot of the cover of a 20th century translation, especially when its graphic design is uninspiring. Nor do I understand why this article needs to give a chronology of the Second Punic War; one of the strengths of a Wiki is that it's easy to link to related pages, so we don't have to duplicate material that has its own article. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Doug talk 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Doug, thanks for the response. When I wrote "early printed edition" above I meant early--like Renaissance-era. A picture like [1] is the kind of thing I'm thinking of; I have no idea how easily one could be found.
The footnotes need to be formatted according to WP:CITE; I'll try to fix this when I get a chance.
I don't think the chronology belongs in this article. A link to Second Punic War will suffice. --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken out the book cover. If you find a "real early edition" version put it in. The outline is part of the Introduction and describes what the book is about. It is the last page before the Books so was definitely intended to be the outline of the book. Thanks for correcting the footnotes. -- Doug talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Took out the outline you are objecting to and put in wording directing readers to the article on the Second Punic War. Also replaced the book cover of the English translation you are objecting to with a picture of the main character. Hope these improvements meet your approval.-- Doug talk 12:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug. I changed the reference format a bit, and got rid of the picture of the book cover--I really don't think WP readers are all that interested in what a modern English translation of the Africa looks like. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Being mentioned on one page wouldn't seem to qualify, and an index nominum keyed to an English translation has no place in this article. What would be appropriate, would be to state that the poem's major characters include...and list them (the ones who truly are of principal importance), with wikilinks. Of course, even better would be, say, a sentence or two characterizing the role played by Cicero (and the other important figures) in the poem. As long as we're just counting page numbers, I'm afraid this could be part of one of Doug Coldwell's WP:OR number codes, which (as anyone who has followed the long arc of his edits knows) he believes reveal secrets concerning the New Testament, Medieval literature, and Renaissance literature. Wareh ( talk) 02:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, Wareh. Interesting which people you chose to remove and which you decided to keep on the list of subjects related to Petrarch's epic poem. By removing Pompey, Sulla, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, and Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (Scipio's brother), and keeping Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Gaius Laelius, Cicero, and Aemilius Paulus confirms for me certain things in my research. Since I have a copy of Petrarch's translation by Bergin and Wilson and now you have a copy you confirmed these references I had put in concerning all these subjects (the ones you removed and the ones you decided to keep). Apparently the issues are not if these references are correct or not, but that you feel the subjects you removed are insignificant compared to others in the story. A major portion of Petrarch's epic poem is the defeat of Hannibal by Cornelius Scipio, with these two subjects being the main characters. All the other subjects in Petrarch's epic poem are minor subjects, compared to Scipio and Hannibal. Your concern IF the subjects have to do with "Roman history" I can symphathize with, as ALL the subjects in Petrarch's poem have to do with ancient Roman history (including Scipio and Hannibal). That's the basic main theme of the poem (ancient Roman history surrounding the Punic Wars as the overall history of the poem timeline of about the 4th century B.C. to the 1st century). The main part of the epic poem is the defeat of Hannibal by Scipio and the Second Punic War.
In Book 1 (lines 150-157) it points out the three Punic Wars that it speaks of (p. 5 of Bergin and Wilson translation).
There thrice was battle joined in hatred fierce
and massive bloodshed. Truth to tell, the first
clash came about unplanned, the second nearly
ended the strife, the third with three encounters
brought with slight effort warfare to its end.
Of these vicissitudes our song shall sing
the greatest, the vast conflict's middle phase,
its glorious captains and its fearsom strife.
Since you obtained the Bergin and Wilson book and verified my references as being correct, the only issue then is your issue of the significance of the people you removed and the significance of the people you decided to keep on the list I provided. Since they are all insignificant people compared to Scipio and Hannibal, it isn't our determination to subtract someone off such a list of subjects of a poem based solely on feelings of significance and desire to emphasize certain other people. As a very well experienced editor you know that all viewpoints should be presented from a neutral point of view, not a lopsided viewpoint emphasizing certain people. I get the feeling that you desire to just emphasize certain people on such a list of ancient Roman leaders because you didn't discuss this removal of the particular generals and dictators you removed off the list BEFORE removing them from the list I provided. You just wanted to make sure that their names are not shown, even though the references provided are correct to the poem. Since you verified the correctness of the references, then I am adding back these subjects since they play a role in the basic overall plot theme of the poem (ancient Roman history). Since I assume (and I know what it means to "assume") that you will disagree with this, then I suggest we get a Third opinion to help resolve the issue. I'll leave the decision of this up to you, but this is what I recommend before you remove them again to emphasize certain subjects. IF after the "Third opinions" they agree that these people are insignificant pertaining to the basic overall plot theme of the poem (ancient Roman history), then I'll agree to remove them. However IF they feel they should be included with the subjects of Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Gaius Laelius, Cicero, and Aemilius Paulus in the remaining list you decided to keep and emphasize, then they will have to stay in the complete list I provided (as shown now). The issue here is not if the references are accurate or not, because you verified yourself that they were in fact accurate and correct by additional information you added for the subjects you wished to keep, but instead your feelings if these subjects you removed are significant in the basic overall plot theme of the poem (ancient Roman history). Keep in mind the wording I used to introduce the list of subjects was "Some of the main subjects and how they relate to the poem are." Notice I didn't say major significate subjects (which would be only Scipio and Hannibal). Perhaps the word "main" bothers you. I originally didn't think much of that point, but IF that would resolve the issue I have removed that word. However I get the feeling you desire to emphasize certain people. If not, then we can agree to keep the list the way I am presenting it now for an overall neutral point of view, with all viewpoints presented. You or anyone else are welcome to add subjects they feel appropriate to the list I started as long as it pertains to the poem and are referenced similar to what I have done. Yes, the subjects you removed from the list have been identified with their role in ancient Roman history; just like the subjects you desired to keep and amplify upon. Yes, the subjects you removed from the list were only mentioned on a page or two of the English edition, just like most of the subjects you desired to keep. Of course, Scipio and Hannibal (subjects of major significance in the poem) are mentioned on several pages of the Bergin and Wilson book. Also perhaps Andrew Dalby may want to give an opinion since he started the article and is a major contributor. In your response, please keep focused on the issue at hand.-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wareh, I've given reference details on how each applies to the poem. Also provided page references of the Notes where Bergin and Wilson also commented on each of them. A "Complete list of persons mentioned" I believe would not be practical as there are hundreds of Roman leaders mentioned in Petrarch's lengthy epic poem. It would produce an article longer than Chaucer's special manuscript words, which I started recently. I've started this list of "Subjects" for Petrarch's poem with 17 Roman leaders. Now since you have a copy of Bergin and Wilson translation (verifying the references), perhaps you would like to contribute with a dozen or so subjects to make sure the viewpoint is balanced. You do have a copy of their book, right?-- Doug Coldwell talk 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wareh, so you liked my latest article on Chaucer's special manuscript words. I also thought that many of the words we find first introduced in his manuscripts are quite interesting - especially Valentine since today is Valentine's Day. Apparently you noticed that it came up first thing this morning as a DYK. Its already received a C-Class on WikiProject:Languages and is rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. I suspect this means nothing to you, however I think that is nice to see. Also certain scholars think he is the one that is the mythmaker of Valentine's Day as we understand it today for lovers. Check out the reference on this as scholar Jack B. Oruch.
Wareh, I was hoping that you might like to contribute by adding a dozen or so articles to the "Subjects" section. Apparently you think I might be molding the article for a particular slant. IF (notice big IF) you added a dozen or so articles yourself I'm sure then you could balance this out to a viewpoint you would feel is a neutral point of view in your opinion. Now since I started this with 17 Roman leaders, then perhaps you would like to add another 17 Roman leaders (associated to Petrarch's epic poem Africa). Even if you just added a dozen, I would be satisfied with that myself as your fulfilling your duty on this issue on how you feel the article might be slanted. Obviously I don't see any slant in the 17 Roman leaders I entered, however I could be biased. So, just to make sure there is no slant by these that I have entered I invite you to add a dozen or so Roman "captains" to the list to make sure it is a balanced viewpoint.
I noticed you avoided the question rather or not you have a copy of Petrarch's Africa translation by Bergin and Wilson. I'll try to answer that question for you, since you didn't volunteer that information yourself. It's an easy yes or no answer and it cann't be weasal words like "I relied entirely on your own information counting pages with mentions..." -OR- "...it seemed likely to me that in some cases these glosses were not focused on the poem." Let's say you do not have a copy of Bergin and Wilson book, then:
Let's say you do have a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book, then:
So far, all I have seen from your contributions on the article is a couple of recent edits; one on wikilinks to Roman literature, and the other on removing several of the subjects without discussing first. Now IF (big IF) you do have a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book, then you would have known that Somnium Scipionis is not actually mentioned in the poem itself. Scipio's dream is found in Book 1 starting in line 210 and going through line 689. Nowhere in those 479 lines is it mentioned even once the wording "Somnium Scipionis" where I also had to remove the wikilink of De Agri Cultura, which pertains to farming and agriculture, as that wasn't even close to anything the epic poem speaks of anywhere. For Cicero I'll have to put the wording back to that of "Scipio's dream" as that is what it alludes to (marked also there with the side Note "Scipio's dream") and there are two different versions: "Cicero's version of Scipio's dream" and Petrarch's version of Scipio's dream (which you left in). I believe I was correct with the wording of "Cicero's version of Scipio's dream" and will be replacing your wording of " Somnium Scipionis" unless you can explain to me where it is in Petrarch's epic poem and not just a Wikipedia fact about another of Cicero's works. So bottomline, since your removal of certain subjects have been reverted (which you agreed with), and your "wikilinks for works of Roman literature" is not productive, THEN I am asking that you contribute something (anything) actually productive to the article like:
-OR- stop critizing the work that others have made to an article UNLESS you can be very specific and perhaps show examples of what you mean in actual constructive improvements for the article. Examples might be what Andrew Dalby has done for the article or actual constructive suggestions for improvements for the article he has made. Other actual constructive improvements to the article, besides the Subjects I introduced, are the new Section Headers for the article I added (since there was none before). I think (however I could be biased) that other editors would agree that the article is much improved today, from the recent improvements I have made, from that of the previous last edit of 6 October 2009. I suggest you take a look at BOTH versions ( 6 Oct 2009 -vs- 13 Feb 2010) side by side to see the improvements I have made to the article lately. In your P.S. message your say "Cato's De agri cultura was called De re rustica in the age of the early printed editions, but this title is no longer commonly accepted." I believe you may have actually obtained this from a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book. On page 246 (which I previously gave you in the references) it reads for Notes on Book 2 line 187 M. Porcius Cato, the "censor" (234-149 B.C.), of plebeian birth, author of De re rustica, was celebrated for the austerity of his life. However De Agri Cultura is a book on farming and agriculture, which has nothing to do with the poem. The word "Agri" should have given you a clue to this. Can you show me any ACTUAL constructive improvements you have made to the article that pertains to the poem? All I see are criticisms and guesses as to what seems likely to you. We need references, not guesses, and in this case references that pertain to Petrarch's epic poem Africa. Please contribute in a constructive manner and keep focused on the issue at hand. Thanks.-- Doug Coldwell talk 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Wareh, here is what Bergin and Wilson's book looks like IF you ever decide to take it out of the library. I know you "do not intend to get Bergin and Wilson's translation out of the library", however that is what I had to do. Do you have any intention of reading even the Latin version? I realize you know Latin and Renaissance literature, however that is not the issue here. Please keep focused on the issue and not bolster on your qualifications. The issue is this article and improving it. The article was started by Andrew Dalby and he is a major contributor. I also contributed much to the article to improve it over the last couple of years. There are others also that have contributed to the article, however your only contribution has been a couple of External links and nothing to the body of the text nor to the list of Subjects. Don't get excited, but I have added another 16 characters to the Subjects list. I gave you a chance to add to the list to give your own list that might counter whatever "skew" you think there is. Now you will have to come up with 33 characters to put in your counter-skew, since apparently you think there is something special to these characters. I invite you to do this, but first you will have to read the poem. Now you know what the book looks like, so you can get the Bergin and Wilson's English translation or you can read the Latin version - but it is a requirement to do before you will be able to come up with any kind of a list of poem characters. I won't add any more to the list for a few months, to give you time to be able to read Petrarch's epic poem. Since you obviously have not read either version (English or Latin) then my questions are again
Obviously Andrew Dalby has read at least a portion of the epic poem because he was able to start the article and constructively add much to its content. I am only asking that you read as much so you can also constructively add to the article instead of bolstering about your qualifications.-- Doug Coldwell talk 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Wareh for making improvements to the External links section. It looks like it was Andrew Dalby that added the links of Petrarch on 7 January 2007. Yup, you are right, I can not read Latin. I agree, lets see how this develops out by others. It will be very interesting to see who edits the Subjects section and what they add or subtract. Keep in mind, the invitation is still open to you to add a dozen or so subjects to that section. It would be interesting to see who you select and to see how you reference them to the poem. I dare you.....-- Doug Coldwell talk 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | As a scholar, Petrarch possessed encyclopedic knowledge, and much of this he has set down in his Latin works, which constitute the larger part of his production in both prose and verse. They include the "Africa" in hexameters, dealing with the Second Punic war and especially with the adventures of Scipio Africanus, in pseudo-epic fashion and in a way which hardly elicits our admiration, although the author deemed it his greatest work... | ” |
Wareh, I'm not too sure how helpful the Latin links are for Petrarch's Africa. According to the List of extinct languages of Europe Latin is a dead language, which means the language has undergone language death, has no native speakers and no spoken descendant. Since this is the English Wikipedia, my guess is that not many people know Latin and would not be able to read the Latin links you provided. I going to guess a ball park figure of 0.001% of the people that use the English Wikipedia can read Latin - not very useful to that group of people. I'm not too sure how many people would be interested in a French version, since the poem story is about Italy. Therefore I have provided an Italian version, which I think would be of much more interest to everyone - Americans and Italians. I would say that a ball park figure is that about 10% of Italians can read English and use the English Wikipedia - a far cry from those that can read a dead language. IF (big IF) you have better figures on this, please let me know - however I believe the ratio will still be approximately the same, meaning about a million people can read English for every one that can read Latin (a dead language).-- Doug Coldwell talk 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it will be very interesting to see who might edit the article in the future or make comments to any of the sections. I would like to see this article improved to a Good Article status.-- Doug Coldwell talk 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a poem, not a historical event. It belongs in the language and literature nominees. If the main contributor to the article is confused regarding what the article is about, there's legitimate doubt about the quality of the article... --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Doug's latest edits to this article have emphasized, at the outset of his long list of ancient Romans mentioned in Africa, a connection to or overlap with Petrarch's De viris illustribus. Since Doug never explained the rationale according to which he made this list, I can't help wondering if it has something to do with his original and unsound theories about the earlier collection De viris illustribus by Jerome. We are talking about an editor who has written in his userspace some "Directions for decoding Jerome's De Viris Illustribus" according to "the Word Game." In "the Word Game" (which, bafflingly, seems to derive esoteric meanings from English translations rather than original texts), we apply such principles as: "With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions 'and' or 'but' then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite."
For example, Doug has published at Wikipedia his WP:OR theory concerning Chapter 66 of Jerome's De viris illustribus, which in fact concerns Pope Cornelius:
“ | Scipio Cornelius Africanus (235 BC - 183 BC), overseer of rule, to whom eight letters of foreign no longer exists (Carthage), produced a history record speech to groups, overseer of the Roman Republic at anguish, on the demon, mission, and session councils, and another on campaign and those who had risen to the faith, a third on the idleness of the council, and a fourth very prolix one to the same groups, containing the causes of the campaign belief and the love for it. He ruled the Italian army for two years (211 BC - 209 BC) over troops and operations. He received the crown of satisfaction for the formally selected one, and was succeeded by famous. | ” |
Something about this seems inappropriate to me, and I worry that the encyclopedia's content will be tainted if undue weight is given to the data on which Doug is building a theory that, even if it were not demonstrably crazy, would be WP:OR. Wareh ( talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I can respond to each of the concerns. Wareh's concerns: Can someone be more specific to what they are, pertaining to the article? If it has to do with the "famous heroes" related to the "Illustrious Men", Wareh has known about these "famous heroes" since 29 March 2007 since he improved the article with a better Category. On 20 March 2007 RandomCritic originally put in the De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) article the Category of ""Latin prose texts" which Wareh replaced with "Renaissance Latin literature." Other then that Wareh has had no objections to these heroes for these past 3 years as Talk:De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) shows. Now he is objecting to these "famous heroes" 3 years later. I have no preference to the "Subjects" and IF someone wants to change to "Famous Heroes" that would be find by me. The reference in the article under Subjects of Many of these can also be found in Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus ("Illustrious Men"), which was started about the same time (now # 37) calls them "famous heroes" - which sounds like a good description. The reference is by William T.H. Jackson (editor) and George Stade (editor in chief), Volume 2 (Petrarch to Renaissance short fiction), Charles Scibner's Sons, 1983, ISBN 0-684-165-94-5. The book I found in the reference section of my local library. I picked the word "Subjects" quite by chance.
Neither Wareh or Akhilleus are willing to furnish some "famous heroes" to the list nor any references. The only improvements to the article Wareh has contributed has been two external links of Latin versions of Africa. Akhilleus has made no contributions after 6 October 2009 since I have made major improvements to upgrade it to a B-Class in two Projects. Wareh says that he does not intend to get Bergin and Wilson's translation out of the library. Apparently he has not read the Latin version either. Apparently Akhilleus has not read Petrarch's Africa either (whichever language), unless he would like to correct me on this assumption. I could be mistaken. Yes or no??
In response to Nefirious: I will have to agree with Akhilleus that this is an epic poem and not an article directly about Military History, so there will not be references to Military History, but there will be literature references. There will be references to Petrarch's poem specifically, but not to Military History (i.e. techniques, gear, battle methods) in general as related to the poem even though a good portion is about the Second Punic War. -- Doug Coldwell talk 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So the question remains: Have you read Petrarch's Africa in any language? Easy yes or no that you should be able to answer plainly. The "famous heros" are referenced in the poem. Each has a detailed reference to the poem. IF you care to add whichever ones you feel are important, then I invite you to do so - with references to the poem of course. I'll let the unbiased reviewer give me pointers to the article as it is now for other improvements. I would not say your opinion is unbiased, nor that of Wareh. So you have no differences you can show me of Wareh's concerns? I believe the article, as it is now, is of Good Article quality and I'll wait for the unbiased reviewer to preview it.-- Doug Coldwell talk 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You didn't even ask for a Third opinion. You know that it is a Good Article nomination, so I suggest that we wait for the reviewer to review it as I believe the list is beneficial for it to become a Good Article - unless of course that is what you are afraid of. The review I believe will be soon, so surely you can wait for an unbiased opinion. I have replaced the list and my suggestion is to wait for the reviewer to look it over. Like I said above, I believe the article with the Subjects will enhance the quality for it to become a Good Article. Petrarch did research on these "famous heroes" and was working on both De Viris Illustribus ("Illustrious Men") and his Africa at the same time and they just happen to be of the same basic "famous heroes." The list of "famous heroes" has been at De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) for 3 years with no objections from anyone as Talk:De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) shows. I'm thinking that you are only objecting now since it is up for Good Article. IF no person objected to this list for over 3 years (with no harm to Wikipedia), then surely you can wait another 3 weeks (maybe sooner) when the article will be reviewed by an unbiased reviewer.-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Akhilleus, for studying the situation closely enough to demonstrate clearly that (A) Doug included e.g. a person alluded to in passing with a few words who has no explicable "significance" (quoting Dalby's advice) to the poem, (B) Doug omitted a character of actual considerable significance in several books of Africa. Doug has never responded to any of the requests asking for a defensible rationale for his list. He has also not responded to the now-clear truth, that he never had any interest in following Dalby's or others' recommendations (figures significant to the poem, with explanation of their significance in the poem)--if he understood the recommendations--and instead intentionally chose figures of little significance because of his own agenda to give near-supernatural significance to the work De viris illustribus. Wareh ( talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to add Syphax, but wanted to make sure I got all the references correct. I had an "edit conflict" with Akhilleus as he removed the list about 30 seconds before I could add Syphax. I'll be glad to add him and have all the references ready. Will somebody add back the list so I can continue adding characters to expand this list and expand it as is requested.-- Doug Coldwell talk 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason the list is getting removed is for undue emphasis. The WP:OR comes into it only as our best guess as to why the undue emphasis is being enforced on the article (see my most recent comment at Wikipedia:FTN#Doug_Coldwell.27s_Petrarch_Code). It's plain from the above that we're asking Doug for an explanation why much of the article should be given over to a strange selection of figures mentioned in the poem (strange because it is not a list of the most important ones, as originally labeled, and includes many ones utterly insignificant to the poem, as documented above). Doug has posted a lot of material here supporting his cited sources (which no one ever questioned!), but has still not addressed the main issue: Why does his list give undue emphasis to insignificant figures barely mentioned in the poem? Wareh ( talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
IF there is a problem with any of the references, I have to be notified which one so I have a chance to correct it or back it up with another reference. Otherwise this is just another excuse not to allow a list of characters that pertain to the poem. I am enhancing this article to Good Article status and need to know exactly what the problems are to the article - otherwise this are just general accusations. The article must stand on its own merit and should be reviewed accordingly.-- Doug Coldwell talk 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The article must stand on its own merit and should be reviewed accordingly as a Good Article.-- Doug Coldwell talk 22:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll just comment briefly -- heaven knows whether anyone will like what I say, but, after all, I seem to be used as a "reference" now and then above, and Doug has asked me to contribute. I started this article because I was interested in Latin epics: I don't think this is one of the best specimens of the genre -- nor does anyone else I know of except Petrarch himself -- but one could still write a good article about it. I don't, and never did, have a strong opinion on whether the article should have a list of main characters; if it does, they would be characters that Petrarch developed and used for an identifiable literary purpose in this poem, and the list would explain this in each case.
I think this is as yet some way from being a good article. Why?
I'm sorry this is destructive criticism, but I don't myself have time to go back to Africa right now. And rew D alby 19:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. See the investigation subpage and WP:DCGAR for more information. 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. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)