Talk:Africa (Petrarch)

A few problems with the article

• The image of a book cover doesn't add value to the article, in my opinion. It's from a modern translation and doesn't tell us anything about Petrarch's poem. An image from an early printed edition would be a nice touch, if one can be located.
• The footnotes list page numbers, but don't tell us which author/work is being cited. This is a problem.
• The "itinerary" of the second Punic war is unnecessary. If a reader wants to know more about the history behind Petrarch's poem, s/he can read Second Punic War.

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)

• You asked for an image of the book cover = I gave it to you.
• The outline is taken directly from the book on page 19 which is basically an outline of the book itself.
• The page numbers are so noted as from the English translation.

--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)

Doug, I understand that Bergin and Wilson provide a chronology of the 2nd Punic War in their introduction. Obviously, that's not part of Petrarch's poem, but something included to help readers understand the poem. However, we're writing an encyclopedia article about the poem, so our aims are not the same as Bergin and Wilson's. And I don't see why we need to include the chronology, since we can simply direct readers to Second Punic War. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:35, 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)

P.S. I also did the improvements on the references for the Notes. Hope that is correct. --Doug ^talk 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have done some investigation and found that worldwide this "representation" of the English translation (even to color) is pretty much the way it is in all English speaking countries (as well as many others). In all Universities in the United States, Canada, and most of Europe (as well as South Africa) they show this "representation" I have supplied as their book (which is mostly available worldwide). Therefore I have re-entered this in only the Note section where it is referenced. I have even made it real small. If you object and really believe this is out of place and not correct, then just remove the image. I won't loose any sleep over it. Just wanted to let you know what I am doing. Hope this is alright with you. --Doug ^talk 15:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Corrected the Bibliography to make it clear that this is the English translation. Hope this is O.K. --Doug ^talk 19:54, 26 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)

"Main characters?"

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)

Doug asked me to comment. I think I agree with Wareh that, given we are listing the characters, to tabulate the page numbers on which they are mentioned -- in that particular translation -- is the least useful thing of all that we might choose to do. If the translation has an index (which I don't know) then it really wouldn't be useful at all, because anyone consulting the book can look at the index anyway.

The most useful thing we could do, given that we are listing the main characters, would be to give each of them a bullet point or brief paragraph and to say what significance in the story each one has. Andrew Dalby 15:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaced table with bullet points of the main subjects saying what significance in the story each one has, as suggested by Dalby. Reference pages where found in Bergin and Wilson book provided.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Doug. I've removed those who were only mentioned on a page or two of the English edition; please explain more fully here if you believe that any of these are in fact of major importance to the poem, but it seems evident that we can't be explaining passing allusions and incidents. I have one concern that still needs to be addressed: I get the impression that some figures are glossed with their significance in the poem or in other works of Petrarch, and this is appropriate, but others sounds as if they have been identified with their general significance in Roman history, which is redundant (a job done by a wikilink). Wareh (talk) 21:44, 9 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)

Doug, I feel you're overcomplicating the issue. Yes, it's the word "main" that bothers me. If someone edited the Iliad article to provide information about "major characters" that appear on only one page of the poem, the edits would rightly be reverted. I lack any feelings whatsoever about the significance of these figures to Petrarch's Africa; I do not "desire to emphasize" anyone. I relied entirely on your own information counting pages with mentions (and readily admit that this could be misleading: I invited you to explain if the page counts did not do justice to the figures' importance). Retitle the list, "Complete list of persons mentioned," and I'll butt out, and leave it to others to address whether we need such a list. (Now, if the list is not complete, you have some explaining to do: why emphasize one figure who gets a fleeting mention on a single page over another one? Then you would be susceptible to the argument you've tried against me, about using desires and feelings to mold the article's emphases.) Meanwhile, it would be nice if you could address my other point, which is that what we need on this page (an article on Africa, not on random facts about Roman history) is explanations of the roles these persons play in the poem. The focus should not be on general information about them, which is easily available by clicking on their wikilinks. Here I did not make any edits because it only seemed likely to me that in some cases these glosses were not focused on the poem, but I invite you or others to improve the list by shifting the focus in that direction. Wareh (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. What you call "additional information you added for the subjects you wished to keep" was in fact simply the provision of correct wikilinks where they were missing. (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.) Wareh (talk) 01:57, 13 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)

Doug, my issue is that you're still including Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, Sulla, and Pompey, even though (A) your own table suggests they are mentioned on only a page or two of the "epic" poem, and (B) you have provided no explanation of how they are of more importance than suggested by the frequency of their occurrence. (This "page or two" test is very crude: I'm trying to get you to answer the most obvious cases in which your selection criteria remain unexplained.) Since you don't aspire to a complete list, the question is why such apparently minor characters in the poem are being listed in any incomplete list, in preference to other, equally minor characters. The fact that you have now provided specific quotations documenting the rarely mentioned persons' presence in the poem makes this section worse, because now the amount of emphasis is completely inexplicable: why on earth should the encyclopedia article focus in on a passing reference to someone Petrarch mentions once? (A complete and wikilinked list of references would at least have a known criterion of selection.) I have asked for an explanation of their importance (not documentation of their infrequent existence) three times now, and I've also raised another point you've not answered. Maybe you just haven't understood what I've asked. I wish to assume good faith, but since you have made comments in this community indicating belief in a WP:OR "Petrarch Code," perhaps you can understand why I'd like some plausible explanation of a legitimate criterion of selection. In any case, I will not try to repair this article again; I express my doubts here so that more energetic editors will have my unanswered questions on record. Wareh (talk) 23:24, 14 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:

• how do you know for sure the "glosses" are not focused on the poem? Your wording of "it seemed likely to me" then is a pure guess, perhaps biased a little since you are saying you don't know.

Obviously all the subjects I submitted are related to the poem as I have come up with direct reference material for all of them straight from the poem itself.

• how do you know for sure how often a particular subject is mentioned?
• how do you know for sure the references are correct that I furnished?
• how do you know for sure the poetry I furnished is in Petrarch's Africa?
• how do you know for sure then if anything in the article is correct to the poem?

Let's say you do have a copy of Bergin and Wilson's book, then:

• why don't you contribute a dozen or so Roman leaders (that relate to the poem) that you feel would balance out the viewpoint from whatever slanting there may be.
• why don't you contribute references (that relate to the poem) accordingly that you feel would balance out the viewpoint, instead of "wikilinks for works of Roman literature."

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:

• a dozen or so Roman leaders (that relate to the poem) that you feel would balance out the viewpoint which apparently you feel is slanted somehow.
• references (that relate to the poem) accordingly that you feel would balance out the viewpoint, instead of "wikilinks for works of Roman literature."

-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)

Doug, I don't know "for sure" that your list is skewed. If you had provided clear explanation in the article of the selected figures' importance to the poem (not in history), I'd have taken your word for it. Instead, you quote passing references to some of them in the footnotes: if that's all there is, you're bolstering the impression that they are unimportant, which is why I'm still asking you to explain why you have singled out figures for this list, who according to your table are mentioned infrequently. I don't see how your inviting me to peruse the entire poem so that I can rewrite the section to a higher standard absolves you from a responsibility to give some answer here to that simple question. I have not made any edits to Wikipedia whose rationale I would not gladly explain on an article's talk page upon request.

Ultimately, we both need to see what the consensus of other editors is about the "Subjects" section: how does it need to grow, to shrink, or to do both, in order to be appropriate and relevant to the article?

Congratulations on your DYK. - Thanks!(Doug)

Unfortunately, what you've said here about my very modest positive contribution to the article (in the form of wikilinks to Somnium Scipionis and De Agri Cultura) has revealed your erroneous understanding of Petrarch's references. Since I can't hope to persuade you myself with mere facts, I'll simply point out the following for other editors:

1. Doug is claiming that "Cicero's version of Scipio's dream" is not the same as Somnium Scipionis. He notes that he cannot find "it mentioned even once the wording Somnium Scipionis" in the English translation of the poem. Presumably if he "replac[es] [my] wording" he will not retain the correct wikilink. (I can't quite untangle Doug's thought: is he saying that "Cicero's vesion" is relevant to the poem while Somnium Scipionis is not, or is neither relevant? Cf. no. 2 below.)
2. Doug is claiming that Cato's De re rustica is not the same as De Agri Cultura, has removed the correct wikilink, and wishes to retain the reference to the obsolete title because "farming and agriculture...wasn't even close to anything the epic poem speaks of anywhere" (as if De re rustica could be on any other subject). Now, I have more than once asked Doug here (without receiving a reply) whether he is merely glossing names with fact blurbs about them that are irrelevant to the poem; if he had grappled with this issue, he might have seen my point, if in fact Cato's agricultural treatise (under whatever name) is irrelevant to Africa.

I do not intend to get Bergin and Wilson's translation out of the library, though I'm sure it's an important secondary source for improving this article. I am glad you have used book and line numbers in your most recent edits and comments, since this is the only standard and correct way to refer to passages of Petrarch's poem. It enables reference to the original Latin text, which is ultimately the subject of this article, not Bergin and Wilson's translation of Petrarch's Africa. I will dare another contribution to the article and link a freely available Latin edition in the external links. So, the full non-"weasal" answer is that I, and now everyone, have a Latin text of the poem and can check any book-and-line-number references in it.

I am not saying that you need to know Latin or be expert in Renaissance literature to improve this article, Doug, but I do know Latin, and it is not really pleasant of you to set yourself against edits based on real understanding of what "Cicero's version of Scipio's dream," "Cato's De re rustica," etc. actually refer to and that there are Wikipedia articles about them and to characterize those edits as "guesses" and to revert valid and correct wikilinks. Wareh (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

book cover representation

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

• how do you know for sure the "glosses" are not focused on the poem?
• how do you know for sure how often a particular subject is mentioned?
• how do you know for sure the references are correct that I furnished?
• how do you know for sure the poetry I furnished is in Petrarch's Africa?
• how do you know for sure then if anything in the article is correct to the poem?

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)

External links

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)

Wareh, don't get your blood pressure up - but I think I understand why Andrew Dalby put the link in of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It reads in part

“ 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... ”

As you know this is the work Petrarch was crownded poet laureate for in 1341. So, since it seems a key element in the overall picture of Petrarch's epic poem as a reference, I have put that link back. The other link of The Literary Encyclopedia that you removed I cann't say for sure had similar information as it is a subscription service and ony the first 150 words of the 2500 word article shows. You would have to contact Andrew Dalby on that, since perhaps he has access through a paid account. It seems likely and logical that the Encyclopedic information would say something similar on such an important fact. I left out that link however since most will not be able to access it. Of course I left in your Latin version of Africa for those that can read Latin along with the Latin Vicipaedia link. If you need further on these links, I recommend you contact User:Andrew Dalby.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My point in removing that link is that it only contains a single relevant sentence--the one you quote--which is moreover extremely general and easily incorporable into the article. Usually the threshold for being considered a useful external link is that it has much more than that to add. I hope the link will eventually be removed in favor of something more informative and supplementary of the article's content. Yes, my reason for removing the other link is that it is useless to non-subscribers. Wareh (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't comment here before. Those links I added long ago because I thought them useful at the time -- they may well not be useful now, since the article is so much fuller and has many other references. I am surprised myself that I added a link to a subscription site: I hardly ever do this! Possibly it was free in 2007? Anyway, I support its removal ... Andrew Dalby 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Languages

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)

Doug, the subject of this article (Africa) is a Latin text: when we can actually link to 100% of the substance of the article's subject, in its original historical form, there is no more appropriate WP:NONENGEL (this guideline says explicitly that a link "to the subject's text in its original language" is good)! All Wikipedia articles about Greek and Latin literature should ideally link to the original texts. The continued study of these texts in the original is at the basis of all of our knowledge of them, and no scholar presumes to advance or contribute to our fundamental understanding of them without studying them in the original. While 99.999% of the readers of Pokemon probably are indeed Latinless, the figure for readers of an article on an obscure work of Latin literature is bound to be lower. (You do yourself an injustice if you think that your fellow enthusiasts of Petrarch's Latin poetry consist of many people besides Latin-readers!)

On modern languages: if your point is that many Wikipedia readers would love a link to an English translation, I agree strongly and regret that, because, as far as I can tell, the only translation ever made was Bergin & Wilson's copyrighted work, we cannot provide one. I understand your confusion that one of my links provides access to a French translation: the point is not the French translation, but that this is the fullest-featured online Latin edition. It happens to provide the option of a bilingual Latin-French view (remembering that Petrarch's Latin is late and literary, this may in fact be a help to some, but I wouldn't have linked a site featuring only a translation into a non-English language). In fact, I believe that the only appropriate link to an Italian translation would be if there is an early Italian translation that has been of historical importance for the poem's reception in Italy. But actually the issue doesn't arise with your link: what you haven't realized is that the book you link is a secondary source, and not, in fact, a translation of Petrarch. So I'm guessing and hoping that you will find my removal of it uncontroversial. Wareh (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Let me make a brief attempt to lower the level of confrontation with you, Doug. While I have clearly stated a disagreement with you here about the need for some explanation of the rationale and criteria for a partial list of figures mentioned in the poem, I removed your content only once, and after you re-added it I have limited myself to expressing my differences here for the benefit of any other editors who wish to become involved. Apart from that one removal (which was certainly a good-faith effort to improve), I believe that you yourself can now see--even if you did not always see it originally--that every other intervention I have made on the article page has been an improving addition of content. Please WP:AGF and don't criticize edits that follow the very letter of Wikipedia recommendations for contents (wikilinks, original-text external links), just because I am the one who made them. Wareh (talk) 16:16, 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)

Good article nominee in world history'?

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)

Thanks Akhilleus for catching that. I was confused where to place it as the poem is about ancient history (Second Punic War). I think I have it the way you suggested and assume that is correct, since I haven't worked on many Good Article nominations. The ones I have worked on has been about the American Civil War, which turned out to be in the History category. Thanks again for the help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Floating a hypothesis for the still-unexplained criteria and passion behind this list: support of WP:OR

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:

1. that it secretly gives information, not about Pope Cornelius, but about Scipio Africanus, the hero of Petrarch's Africa;
2. that the English translation can be esoterically "decoded" to reveal the hidden content

“ 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)

Wareh, so you like that I've upgraded this article from a stub to B-Class in the last couple of weeks. I see that you noticed I have nominated this for a Good Article, which I'm confident the reviewing editiors will review on its own merit. Remember to stay focused on the issue at hand, and that is to upgrade this article to a Good Article. I have always said that Scipio was given special treatment in the De viris illustribus. Even the stub has always said this. Apparently not only have you not read Petrarch's Africa in either English or Latin, but you are not following up on the references provided. Otherwise you would know that the references are correct. As you can see per the references that De Viris Illustribus was started by Petrarch in 1337 and Africa a year later in 1338. They just happen to have the same Roman subjects and Petrarch worked on both these extensive works at the same time from the research he did from Livy's history of Rome. It seems logical that Petrarch would make a list of "Illustrious Men" based on the Livy research he was doing for Africa. They just happen to be the same famous heros since they are based on Livy's From the Founding of the City. The list which I provided has many of the same subjects as De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) and can not be considered WP:OR as Petrarch started De Viris Illustribus a year before he started his Africa. They both just happen to use the same subjects. Facts are facts. I've expained this many times and provided detailed references to Petrarch's epic poem. There is nothing more I can do to show why Petrarch uses the same Subjects for his Africa and he did for his "Illustrious Men". He was working on both at the same time and his main source was Livy. I've given Wareh many opportunies to contribute to the article, however he chooses not to. I've give him many opportunities to add to the list his own version, however he chooses not to. Since Wareh has not read Africa nor followed up on the references I have provided, I don't understand then how he can say Something about this seems inappropriate to me... It's a biased opinion, not based on the article at hand nor the references for the article. The article will have to stand on its own merit. I'm going to continue upgrading the article, since I am confident it is the quality of a Good Article or better and unbiased editors will see this, based on the article alone.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug's post is non-responsive to Wareh's concerns, which I share. I don't think it's coincidence that Doug believes that Petrarch's work contains secret messages and that he's spent a great deal of effort into Petrarch articles; how can we not suspect that Doug is sneaking his odd theories into the articles themselves?

Those concerns aside, it's hard to see some of these edits as an improvement. Why is it necessary for this article to have a list of the poem's characters? And why are they called "subjects"? Are Publius Decius Mus and Lucius Papirius Cursor really of such importance in this poem that they need to be listed here? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

More references should be taken from Military History writers. The article has improved in certain ways but the references have to be more appropriate and have to come from known Military History writers. Nevertheless, it certainly needs a little more time. Nefirious (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand why there should be references to military historians. Petrarch's Africa, the subject of this article, is an epic poem. It is not a work of military history, any more than the Inferno or The Faerie Queene. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:21, 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)

Again, non-responsive. The main concern Wareh expressed regards your "word game", which you don't mention at all in your reply. Nor have you responded to my question why there should be a list of characters in the first place. I'll ask it again: why do you think there needs to be a list of characters in this article? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please give me a "difference" where Wareh expressed concerns of my "word game." I thought he was concerned of the "famous heroes", which he has known about for 3 years. The reason for the list is that it shows Petrarch's interest in these Famous Heroes as he has had these in his two most major works. They are very important Heroes to Petrarch.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know neither of you two wish this to become a Good Article, however the article will have to stand on its own merit. The unbiased reviewer will give pointers for improvements, I'm sure. It should be reviewed soon and I'll wait to see what the unbiased reviewer says.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the assumption of bad faith!

Doug, you have apparently not read this section of the talk page with much care. Look at the first post in this section again.

So the list of "subjects" is meant to show that these people were "very important" to Petrarch? It's not based on their importance to the poem, then; I guess that's why Syphax got left out. Never mind that he seems to play a major role in the Africa, if we can trust the plot summary.

Since the list of subjects seems to be a clumsy effort to assert that this poem covers some of the same topics as De Viris Illustribus, but does not seem to be based on whether the people named play an important role in the poem, I'm inclined to remove it. If it's necessary to say that the Africa covers some of the same topics as De Viris Illustribus, the article can just say that in plain language. If a list of the poem's main characters is felt to be needed, than make it a list of the poem's main characters. However, I strongly dislike character lists; if you look at Le Père Goriot, To Kill a Mockingbird, Candide, or The Illuminatus! Trilogy, each of which is a featured article, none contain a list of characters. This is, I think, because throwing lists into articles makes them less readable. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:47, 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)

I haven't read the Africa. Does that matter? This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I can offer suggestions for improving any article. I've offered some here, which you are not responding to, except by displaying personal animus. Since you don't seem to want to justify the presence of the list of "subjects", I'm going to remove it now.

And, once again, you don't seem to have read the first post in this very section of the talk page, where Wareh explains his concerns. Presumably you read it, because you wrote something just below it. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:18, 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)

"Plot summary"??? Are you referring to the article or to Bergin & Wilson's translation. I looked and could not find it as I have a copy of their English translation. I don't remember that as a Heading in the article either - and I have written most of the article. I did write about Syphax in Books 3, 4 and 5 summaries, however no actual Plot Summary. Please point out plot summary.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you haven't read Petrarch's epic poem Africa then how do you know ...this is not a list of the poem's important characters... as you say in your summary when you removed the Subjects. You didn't offer a new list or even add to the existing list. You have not provided references to show otherwise. Wareh has not read Petrarch's Africa either nor provided references to show otherwise. At the top of the section if you will notice I did ask the opinion of User:Andrew Dalby (historian and linguist) and he suggested The most useful thing we could do, given that we are listing the main characters, would be to give each of them a bullet point or brief paragraph and to say what significance in the story each one has. That is exactly what I did. As you can see I showed him what I did and he didn't have any objections (as a historian and linguist). Meanwhile I have upgraded the article, complete with the list of "Famous heroes", to a B-Class both in WikiProject Middle Ages and Military history WikiProject. Nobody had any objection there either. All the problems started with ya'alls when I submitted it for a Good Article nomination. I feel I have done all the correct steps and answered ya'alls questions several times in different ways. It has been brought up to Good Article quality (with the list of well referenced "Famous heroes") and my suggestion is to wait another 3 weeks (maybe sooner) for an unbiased review of the article. No harm has been done to Wikipedia in 3 years with this list of "Famous heroes" and there has not been even one objection to the list. Please be patient and a reviewer will give an opinion soon. The article will stand on its own merit and I have full confidence it will be rated as a Good Article.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you seem be unaware of the meaning of some basic English phrases. A "plot summary" is an account of the narrative of the work--which is what the "Books" section is. Judging from the summary of Books 3-6 Syphax plays an important role in this poem. If he's not included in the "Subjects" (now "Famous Heroes") list, obviously this is not a list of main characters at all. As you've made clear, you chose these people because they also appear in De Viris Illustribus--which you take as evidence that they were "very important" to Petratrch. Now, since this is not a list of the main characters of the poem, you cannot have been doing what Andrew Dalby suggested, because his suggested pertained to a listing of main characters. To go back to a question I asked earlier--"Are Publius Decius Mus and Lucius Papirius Cursor really of such importance in this poem that they need to be listed here?" I'll answer this myself, since you didn't. As far as I can tell, P. Decius Mus is mentioned once in the poem, in Book 3.753-63, in an account of the history of the Decii; he is not called by name, and takes no action in the poem. Not a main character. L. Papirius Cursor is mentioned at 3.530-31 in a list of famous Romans. He is not named, but alluded to by three Latin words, inclita cursu / nomina... (Bergin and Wilson translate "...the hero called by appellation that his winning race bestowed upon him..." according to a footnote--I suspect that this has been misquoted slightly, because there should be "an" before "appellation"). Again, not a main character.

I've removed the list again, because it's clear to me that this list has been crafted to over-document the topics that the Africa shares with the De Viris Illustribus. I'm not replacing it with another list, because, as I have already explained, I think that lists detract from articles. In other words, I think the article is better without the list. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think that would help to get the article to a Good Article status quicker, then I'll leave the list out. I didn't realize you were so passionate against lists. The article seems long enough without the list anyway. Apparently some like lists while others do not. An article I wrote up lately on Chaucer's special manuscript words most editors commented that they liked the list of some 2000 words. In fact, I cann't recall an editor that said they didn't. Soon after I put the article up it was immediately rated as C-Class on WikiProject Languages. The article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. It came out on Valentine's Day as a DYK and received 1,700 hits. Apparently Chaucer is considered by scholars as the mythmaker of the Valentine Day tradition as we know it today. Again, Akhilleus, I appreciate your help. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I don't really care if something is rated C-class, A-class, or GA, because I don't think Wikipedia's rating procedures do anything to guarantee quality. This article is B-class in military history despite the fact that it doesn't belong within the purview of the military history project. The article Chaucer's special manuscript words has a horrible title that does nothing to tell readers what's actually in the article. The actual subject seems to be "English words first attested in Chaucer", which I don't think even merits an article. So all you've done, Doug, is convince me that there are many editors on Wikipedia who don't have a good idea how to put together an encyclopedia covering the history of the English language or English literature. No surprise there, really. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus for your kind words (no pun intended) of the Chaucer word article I started. I'll have to consider a change of name.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Title changed as you suggested. Thanks again for your kind words on Chaucer's "words."--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:45, 24 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)

Thanks Wareh for your kind words also. Ya'alls liked the Chaucer "words" I see.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wareh - don't have a heart attack, but I have included a list of 8 Romans that I believe enhances the article that relate to the poem. I'm hoping to get this to a Good Article status and as ya'alls know it is up for nomination. They all have detailed references how they relate to Petrarch's epic poem Africa. If you feel these put a slanted viewpoint, then my suggestion is that you include additional Romans to make it a neutral point of view. IF you think this is WP:OR then I recomment you take it to the Original Research Noticeboard before removing it. IF you think this is some sort of "fringe theory" then I recommend you take it to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard before removing it. Another suggestion is to get a Third opinion before removing the list. IF you remove the list first without doing as I am recommending, then I will have to take these steps. Its a short list and has nothing to do with Petrarch"s De Viris Illustribus that ya'alls seem to be afraid of. Its just a list of Romans in the poem, not "main characters" and not even "Famous heroes" nor "Subjects" (that ya'alls don't like the wording of for what-ever-reason). I believe this fits the bill of the special parameters ya'alls have set for me for listing any Romans of the poem. Hoping this is satisfactory with ya'alls.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I'm taking this list out for the same reasons as before--first, this list of eight Romans is not a list of the eight most important characters in the poem; how could Cicero and Caesar have major roles in a poem about the Second Punic War? Second, lists are generally not helpful in articles about literary works, especially not when those lists distort the importance of information in the poem. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention Wareh and Akhilleus: Others from Fringe Theories Noticeboard (see Doug Coldwell's Petrarch Code) have added back the list of 8 Romans. I have no objection to "characters" as the heading title and as a matter of fact like that since now I can add subjects of Greek and African as I plan on expanding the list. Initially have added back Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, Hannibal of Carthage, Scipio Aemilianus Africanus. Cornelius Scipio Africanus is the main character of Petrarch's epic poem, Hannibal (an African) is Scipio's arch enemy and the second most important character in the poem. Scipio Aemilianus Africanus is the grandson of Cornelius Scipio Africanus and razed Carthage off the map.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've taken it out again. What justification can there be for including a list of characters that contains Cicero and Caesar but doesn't contain Syphax? Does Scipio Aemilianus play an important role in this poem, seeing as he lived several generations after the Second Punic War? (Hint: no, the poem only alludes to Scipio Aemilianus in a brief passage in Book 8.) We could ask the same kinds of questions about Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and L. Mummius Achaicus, who appear in the list in this version of the article.

Never mind that Doug has not bothered to address my other point--even if someone were to properly compile a list of main characters of the poem, what good would that be to the article? (Of course, none of the lists so far have been a list of main characters anyway...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:10, 26 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)

A list that includes Caesar, Pompey, Lepidus, and Mummius is not a list of main characters in this poem.

And why exactly do we want a list of main characters anyway? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My question would be: Why are you so adamant to not allow a list of characters in the poem, since you are not even contributing to the expansion of the article for improvement? Add or subtract characters as you see fit, otherwise I call this censorship.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE issue, not WP:RS

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)

Yes, definitely censorship! This new "theory" is now the fourth in a series to stop me from listing characters in the poem: 1 was not a neutral point of view, 2 was Original Research, 3 was the list was a "fringe theory", and now 4 which is Undue weight. What will be the 5th excuse? If Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is the 5th excuse, then you will have to be specific and point out which reference you are questioning. Also then it is not a "fringe theory" you are talking about NOR excuses #1 - 4. I certainly could either back up whichever reference you doubt with another reference OR give you another reference in its place. Which one? I'm giving anyone the opportunity to add or subtract for the list of characters. I would be glad to add Syphax to the list and am ready with all the references related to the poem anyone would need.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, Doug, but that's simply false. My very first comment 19 days ago expressed my doubt about whether the list covered "the ones who truly are of principal importance" and envisioned a better form (still not even approached with baby steps) in which discussion in the article would be based on the "role...played...in the poem" by the various figures. That complaint was WP:UNDUE then, and it is WP:UNDUE now. Purposeful undue emphasis, as it now appears to be by your stubborn defense of it, does suggest that you may be protecting and supporting your WP:OR fringe theory, but there would be no need for such speculation if the WP:UNDUE issue I brought up 19 days ago had ever been properly addressed, in actions or in words, by you. Instead you have ignored it and changed the subject any number of times (the quality of your sources, whether the often-insignificant references can be documented correctly in footnotes, etc.). Wareh (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that, once you are caught including irrelevant figures and omitting essential figures, you are willing to subtract and add them, does nothing to repair a list whose whole rationale has been called into question and not credibly defended. The dishonesty of the list has already been demonstrated here: we do not need to keep documenting its myriad additional dishonesties in order to know the article is better off without the whole unsound addition. Find a single knowledgeable editor willing to support in detail individual choices of inclusion, and then we'll have a basis for conversation, at least. Wareh (talk) 17:00, 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)

I still fail to see the problem with including a list of characters, their relation to the plot, and the specific descriptions used. If overly-minor characters are included, trim them out. If major characters are excluded, put them in. Include a brief summary of their link to the plot. This is hardly rocket science, and does not require the wholesale removal of an entire section. Based on the text included and sources used, I see no reason to drop good faith. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said several times, the article doesn't need a list of characters to begin with. A reasonable plot summary will mention every major character. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 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)

You know, repeating yourself is not an effective argument; it's a bit more like childish hand-waving. If you want to say why you think the article is better with a list of characters, please do so. If you want to say why you think Sulla, Julius Caesar, Lepidus, and Mummius belong on a list of the poem's characters, please do so. But crying "censorship!" and "the article must stand on its own merit!" is not part of a serious discussion.

And really, if you want an evaluation of the article's merit, please re-read my contributions to this talk page. I've been talking about the merit of the article all along. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Briefly

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?

1. The order makes little sense: why is there a section "Background and composition" and another "Composition"? The text, in places, reads like a series of unconnected sentences; there is far too much irrelevance or apparent irrelevance, and the section headings have not much clear relation to the text placed under each
2. There is no synopsis (not even in the section "Synopsis"). For comparison, the very brief synopsis that I wrote in the Latin Vicipaedia article lists several main elements of the poem that don't seem to be mentioned at all here: e.g. Hannibal's flight; the surrender of Carthage; the long speech by Ennius, followed by Scipio's triumph (these two items make up most of book 9)
3. There seems to be nothing on sources and influences except Livy and Vergil. Bergin and Wilson's introduction mentions several mythological sources, for example
4. Information on "reception" is very patchy. The Latin Vicipaedia article, though brief, mentions several later medieval authors who drew directly or indirectly on Petrarch's Africa. There are none here
5. The English isn't good. Some sentences are meaningless. I can understand nothing in "Petrarch's historical integrity as a whole and reference to Livy place much value in the Africa's groundwork as true past events".

I'm sorry this is destructive criticism, but I don't myself have time to go back to Africa right now. Andrew Dalby 19:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Andrew Dalby for your input. Below is a reply to each of your points.

1. The article has a "Background" section with several subsections and a seperate "Composition" section with subsections.
2. The "Synopsis" section has the main concepts of the poem and the main themes (i.e. rebirth of the glory days of ancient Rome, Christian values).
3. There is a complete "Influences" section with subsections. Studied the Bergin and Wilson's introduction thoroughly and there are no mythological sources. Page numbers please in Bergin and Wilson's introduction for the mythological sources! There is a complete large section for Primary sources and Secondary sources plus inline references for nearly every sentence in the article.
4. Information on "reception" is thoroughly explained in "Critical reception and impact" with a subsection of "Publication history." The only medieval author that was influenced by Petrarch's Africa and De viris illustribus that I know of was Geoffrey Chaucer, which I wrote a large article on called Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio. If any others, show references please!
5. The article has been much improved and extensively expanded throughout.

Generally speaking Petrarch's Africa was not that well received in the medieval ages. The first text was made public by Pier Paolo Vergerio in 1396-1397, over twenty years after Petrarch's death. No other medieval authors were influenced by Africa other than Chaucer that I know of. The first serious scholarly edition was not done for some 500 years after Petrarch's death.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:28, 2 April 2010 (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 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)

See also WP:DCGAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)