Talk:Italian literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

The quality of this article is supurb, largely due to the fact that it was written a member of that amazing team of scholars which was responsible for the 1911 Britannica. However, this article would benefit from section breaks, as well as a bit of new scholarly research. Zantastik 05:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Found and marked some of them in the garble. Given the rather daunting size, I think the right WP treatment is to break up by era - medieval, Renaissance, 16th-18th, 19th, and 20th, with this article as a 2-screen summary to entice readers to dip into particular periods. Stan 06:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Italian literature" is written in Italian. Latin literature is written in Latin. Someone should shift the paragraphs about Latin Latin writers to Latin literature. Then this can concentrate on the rise of Italian vernacular literature, etc. --Wetman 11:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Sicilian School was decrepit? Actually, it is the first great Italian Literature, and it is far from being a copy of France's Troubadour Poetry, it is actually the opposite, inspiring as it does, Dolce Stilnovo (and Dante's poetry) and later, Petrarch's Platonism. When Manfredi, son of Frederick II died (1266), the Sicilian School moved to Tuscany, which assimilated much of the Sicilian dialect into what is now called Present Day Italian. The first Italian writing we know of dates to the early IX c A.D., (not the XIII c) and there is even indication that the first literary work may well pre-date the XIII century.

Reference

Antologia della poesia italiana, ed. C.Segre and C. Ossola. Torino, 1997

Giudice, A., Bruni, G., Problemi e scrittori della letteratura italiana. Torino, 1973

Bruni F., Testi e documenti. Torino, UTET, 1984

Bruni, F. L'Italiano nelle regioni. Torino, UTET, 1997

--Wikipedius 20:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article Culture of Italy has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 14:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Cleanup tag is still up because "the article (esp. sections 7-10) is still full of OCR errors and 1911 waffle!" See comments in article history. PhatJew 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, there are still plenty of OCR errors. Another issue might be that this article is really, really long. What should we do about that? RobbyPrather (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going through and fixing all errors (no matter how minor - including fixing all redirects and disambiguation). Once that's done I'll take off the cleanup tag and put on the "this article is too long" tag. :) – ugen64 03:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clean, no? However, most of the focus is on pre-modern era work; little regarding post-Risorgimento work. Some splittage reflecting this might suggest a path for further pruning. (Duh, this is noted below..) --Mashford 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I restructured the "spontaneous development of Italian literature" section to make the ToC more fit the outline of what the 1911 article was really saying. As it happens, the "spontaneous development" section is very poorly titled. If anyone can think of something better, go ahead. There's much more work to be done, though, and not just fixing OCR errors. Ultimately, I think the current section 5 ("spont. dev. ...") should have its own article, as should 1, 2, 3, and 4 ("Early Italian literature") 5.6, 6, and 7 ("Italian literature in the Renaissance") and 8, 9, 10, and 11 ("Italian literature after the Renaissance"). This way, the 110 KB monster we have now would be broken into 4 manageable of 30 or so KB. Any thoughts? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I finished cleaning up what I could of the OCR edits; I then added an update tag to alert people that the article ends around 1911 and seriously needs to be brought up to date into the late 20th-early 21st centuries. I agree that articles could be spun of this one. --FeanorStar7 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean up tag

This needs peer review, not clean up. Clean up is more basic than this article requires. I'm removing the tag, if there are no objections? Jdcooper 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. There are articles far worse off in the clean up file, which is currently straining. However, there is still work to be done here. Later. --Mashford 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bosone da Gubbio

...would be an interesting article. Could anybody help me? Shmuel haBalshan 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Died 1349. He interchanged sonnets with Immanuel the Roman after Dante's death. Wrote books called Bestiario moralizzato, Fortunatus siculus o sia l'Avventuroso Siciliano, and Avventuroso Ciciliano. Became a Senator in October 1337. That's about all I can find (in English). I don't really know if there's enough to write an article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit more, but thanks anyway. Shmuel haBalshan 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Todi.jpg

Image:Todi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Split

Italian poetry is almost a blank page. Can anything be moved from here to there? Pishogue 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely outdated

Since 1911, many things have happened, not only in Italian literature, but also in literary criticism. This article does not reflect those changes.

Also, what's the point of adding a line at the end about Italo Calvino, while the article clearly stops at D' Annunzio and turn-of-the-century Giordaano (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) ?

No 20th century?

I would hope that someone will add a section on the 20th century and the 21st century? There have been a lot of great writing since the 19th century. I disagree that political writing has fallen by the wayside. Publications in the past 10 years certainly show how writing and literature have a huge impact on the Italian political scene. --KeithatET (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted a stopgap. It's no more than a brief shopping list (and it needs checking) but we can't really leave a gaping hole like this. I hope someone more expert comes along and does a better job. --Folantin (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

we need a separate article titles "Italian Renaissance literature"

I don't think I know enough yet to be the one to create it, but I still think there is a need for it.

have a wonderful day!

--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

The section about Ugo Foscolo isn't encyclopedic at all. "Excessive" emphasis in "Le Ultime Lettere Di Jacopo Ortis"? That just isn't a serious way of talking about literature.--93.44.77.179 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Carlo Collodi and The Adventures of Pinocchio

Why aren't Carlo Collodi and The Adventures of Pinocchio mentioned in this article? 24.180.56.157 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sicilian School didn't use standard Italian

There a serious mistake in this page:
1) “In 1230, the Sicilian School is notable for being the first style in standard Italian.”
2) “The year 1230 marked the beginning of the Sicilian School and of a literature showing more uniform traits. Its importance lies more in the language (the creation of the first standard Italian)”.

It’s totally false! Standard Italian language comes from Tuscan, instead Sicilian School used Sicilian language! In this page there is a such of confusion between the geographic meaning of “Italian” and the cultural one.
1) “Italian” which means “common language used nowadays by contemporary people in contemporary culture, and also language of a few intellectuals before the creation of Italy (that is standardized Tuscan)”.
2) “Italian” which means “all what is in Italian peninsula (included Sicily and Sardinia)”.

The language of Sicilian School was “Italian” according the second meaning! It was a cultural language used also outside Sicily (in Italian peninsula), it influenced Tuscan but it wasn’t linguistically Italian! All the poems was translated in Tuscan, just after 16th century they discovered Sicilians wrote in Sicilian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.46.58.154 (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)