Talk:Archpoet

message: Can somebody explain where, if his existence is purely surmised from textual interconnexions, his nickname comes from? Srnec (talk) 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The present state of the article finally sheds so light concerning this question, but for the sake of completeness, I shall elaborate some more. The most coherent explanation among the few regarding the origins of the title is the one provided in the article: "Archipoeta" mimicks "Archicancellarius", whether it be out of genuine respect or in a ironical intention; what can't be fathomed is who came up with this idea and/or decided upon it: the Archancellor, the Archpoet, the Emperor, the others poets? That remains a complete mystery. My opinion, partly informed from reading Godman's account of the life of Rainald of Dussel in The Silent Masters, is that the Archpoet himself took up that title as a means to "glorify" his patron--again, it's impossible to determine exactly what he had in mind: I'd go for a mixture of honest admiration, subtle satire and well-nourished ego. I hope that clear things up a bit!-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the nickname 

message: I just wanted to say that I'm not done with the article yet: many corrections are still needed, and I haven't gone through all the sources I've found and the material I've gathered. Please don't start screwing around too much before I'm done with it. I promise to be quick (a couple of days at the most) and to write back here to discuss my actions and choices. I would have put up a banner template to alert the users, but I couldn't find the one I desperately need. Anyway, thanks a bunch for respecting my humble work in progress and restraining your editing urges.-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No human editor besides you has touched this article in the past 6 months.  So if your edits take shape with any discernible speed at all, I think there is practically no risk that others' "editing urges" will interfere.  Wareh (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe! I agree with you on my over-doing it: I'm kind of a perfectionist and end up being slightly "anal" about getting the article to a certain stage where I can finally feel satisfied by my contribution. Also, it's just that whenever I touch an article, somehow other editors seem to pop up from nowhere, as if they had been waiting for a major update to take up interest again. Oh well. That's the way things are, and I wanted to make my intentions clear without upsetting anyone.-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent (and continuing!) re-creation 

message: One of the main explanations as to why so little information has been gathered in English about the Archpoet is that many of the critical works on which modern scholarship is based have only been published in German, mostly in the first third of the 20th century, and therefore not readily accessible to the common English-speaking public as, say, the vernacular lyrics of the troubadours (which also started to flourish during the 12th century).
Regrettably, for example, there is no complete translation of the Carmina Burana in English (only a few partial, like: Thirty Poems from the Carmina Burana by P.G. Walsh in 1976, Selections from the Carmina Burana by David Parlett in 1986, The Love Songs of the "Carmina Burana" by E. D. Blodgett and Roy Arhtur Swanson in 1987, Love Lyrics from the Carmina Burana by P.G. Walsh in 1993), while there already are several in German (see this section of the German article), one in Italian (Carmina Burana by Piervittorio Rossi in 1989), one in French (Carmina Burana by Étienne Wolff in 1995), etc.
As for the works of the Archpoet, Fleur Adcock's 1994 Hugh Primas and the Archpoet is the only available modern book - unless proven otherwise - containing all ten poems with their English translation. Excerpts from the corpus have been translated from time to time, primarily for scholarly publications, the notable exception being the "Confession" which appears more often due, among other reasons, to its "popular" appeal and its presence in Orff's famous musical composition (thus published as a musical text).-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Note about the Archpoet 

message: While I'm still not done with the research and therefore with the writing of this article—in fact, there's still a lot to do!—, I thought that, since I haven't touched it in a while, it was time I wrote down some indications and explanations to help clarify some points and justify certain choices I've made.
=== Sources ===
Other than some books I own, my main source of information was the Internet. I searched thoroughly in order to find reliable information, mainly books extracts and scholarly articles, as can be seen from the extensive bibliography provided. I have not taken major liberties with the referenced source material, but sometimes references are missing for certain assertions taken from more unreliable sources like websites or other Wikipedia articles. If anybody can help finding references for these, it'd be great.
I insist that any serious claim be referenced: if you intend to contribute to the article, make sure your sources are solid. I find most articles pertaining to somewhat obscure subjects or persons to be plagued by unsourced material and seemingly-original research. Together, let's try to make this one stand out from the mediocre lot and cite your sources!
==== German article ====
I noted the German article seemed to contain much information from which the English article could probably benefit, so I used Google Translator, my bilingual German dictionary, and my very rudimentary knowledge of the language to get what I could from it. I've only taken the names of the manuscripts... and incorporated as seamlessly as possible small tidbits of content I haven't been able to reference from somewhere else, hence a number of unreferenced ("[citation needed]") claims in the article—in fact, I believe most of these claims come from the German article! I was lucky enough to find other references to back-up the manuscripts information for two of them, but one still misses such reference.
==== French source ====
I'm terribly sorry for having to use a French source to reference some claims. The book is a monolingual and literal French translation of the complete collection, including a long presentation and notes to the individual poems. Wolff, the translator, used German editions for his text and notes, so I'm guessing these editions would provide us the original claims.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indications concerning the major reconstruction 

message: Other than some books I own, my main source of information was the Internet. I searched thoroughly in order to find reliable information, mainly books extracts and scholarly articles, as can be seen from the extensive bibliography provided. I have not taken major liberties with the referenced source material, but sometimes references are missing for certain assertions taken from more unreliable sources like websites or other Wikipedia articles. If anybody can help finding references for these, it'd be great.
I insist that any serious claim be referenced: if you intend to contribute to the article, make sure your sources are solid. I find most articles pertaining to somewhat obscure subjects or persons to be plagued by unsourced material and seemingly-original research. Together, let's try to make this one stand out from the mediocre lot and cite your sources!
==== German article ====
I noted the German article seemed to contain much information from which the English article could probably benefit, so I used Google Translator, my bilingual German dictionary, and my very rudimentary knowledge of the language to get what I could from it. I've only taken the names of the manuscripts... and incorporated as seamlessly as possible small tidbits of content I haven't been able to reference from somewhere else, hence a number of unreferenced ("[citation needed]") claims in the article—in fact, I believe most of these claims come from the German article! I was lucky enough to find other references to back-up the manuscripts information for two of them, but one still misses such reference.
==== French source ====
I'm terribly sorry for having to use a French source to reference some claims. The book is a monolingual and literal French translation of the complete collection, including a long presentation and notes to the individual poems. Wolff, the translator, used German editions for his text and notes, so I'm guessing these editions would provide us the original claims.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

message: Yes, it is quite extensive. Rather than simply putting the sources used for references, I decided to cram all relevant and reliable sources I could find on the subject so that anyone interested in pursuing further personal or scholarly research knows what's out there. The main criterion for establishing the difference between primary and secondary sources is simple enough: primary sources are the ones proposing critical and original research about the Archpoet, and secondary sources consist of rehashing (critical or not) of this original research. I'm leaving the door open for a future reevaluation.
Also, seeing as how voluminous it as gotten, I might consider breaking it in two sections, "Bibliography" (for material cited in the article) and "Further reading" (for the rest), like numerous long articles do. Whether you agree or disagree, let's discuss this before changing the present formula.
==== German sources ====
In the FYI note I previously wrote on the Archpoet, I explained that the main research, compilation and edition of the Archpoet has been and is still being conducted in German. Up until now, I've refrained from including these most important and critical German sources (such as the primary editions of his works) in the bibliography. Does anyone approve or disapprove of their addition? In the mean time, I'll try to read some Wikipedia guidelines regarding that precise matter.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

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

message: I thought—but mostly felt—the article looked in little dull, lacked colors, so I went out and gathered some images indirectly relating to the subject matter. If you're opposed to having one or both images on the article, once again, let's discuss!
There is another awesome image I'm really keen on incorporating to the article, but I'll have to check out WikiCommons regulations to see if it's possible.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 1. The unofficial "titles" of some poems, such as the Jonah Confession (II) and the Hymn to the Emperor (IX, if I remember correctly). Some scholars repudiate them, and most are cautious in their usage, so I felt putting these titles in the article would only encourage the perpetuation of unnecessary, unfounded information.
2. Technical remarks concerning metrical characteristics (Leonine hexameters, the Vagantenstrophe, rhymes, etc.). This kind of information, I feel, does not belong in an encyclopedia since it's way too technical (and thus superfluous) for the average reader.
3. Summary and analysis of each individual poem. There are two reasons for that. Primo, I must confess to not having read the poems themselves: what could I write on Latin poems I can't fully understand? Secundo, a neat summary and short analysis is provided on that article from BookRags.com! Rather than writing something new, I can just direct readers to this page.
I hope my comments have been enlightening.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff deliberately left out 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Archpoet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710235049/http://fetusveneris.com/?p=20 to http://fetusveneris.com/?p=20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified