Talk:Occitan literature/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arabic influence

Isn't there an influence of Arabic love poetry from Al-Andalus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.3.170 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

Contemporary Provençal literature

Serge Bec, as of 2000, was still publishing poetry in Provençal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.89.45 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 February 2005 (UTC)

Dumas or Daudet?

"One of his chief titles to fame is that, together with Alphonse Dumas, he drew the attention of Lamartine to Mistral's Mireio." That's present wiki.state of knowledge. But are you sure? An Alphonse Dumas is difficult to find, but Alphonse Daudet did much for the renown of neo-provencalian literature. --wunny 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Late reaction to your remark. You are probably right. I will edit the page in that sense. However, there is an ADOLPHE Dumas (occitan poet) mentioned in the following link (whatever this site is) http://www.notreprovence.fr/ecrivain_garcin-eugene.php, where a certain Alphonse Dumas is also mentioned (by mistake ?). This is the only source I found of this presumable mistake (which is to be verified, though). Best.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The class business

The paragraphs on social class are (of course) redolent of the Encycl. Brit. I have done a bit of rewriting. This included removing/altering

from what class of society the troubadours came

because the implication is that they left their original class to become troubadours, which would have to be demonstrated.

nobles (usually poor knights whose incomes were insufficient to support their rank) who became troubadours, or even, by an inferior descent, jongleurs

because the implication is that it was a bit of a descent for a noble to become a troubadour (tell that to William of Poitiers, Raimbaut d'Aurenga or Maria of Ventadorn)

such important persons as William of Poitiers ... who made poetry for their own amusement, but contributed not a little, by thus becoming troubadours, to raise the profession

because it's unhistorical, implying that we know something about troubadours before William of Poitiers, which we don't.

Perhaps others have comments on this aspect? Andrew Dalby 11:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

This article reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia topic. Very few references, blatant POV statements, etc. Needs a major reworking, in my opinion. CalebNoble 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt exactly the same... so I erased a part which seemed really unencyclopedic in my opinion. I hope I did not cause any transgression or trouble but the writer seemed to ignore later works such as Godolin, the Renaissença and so on. I left a previous part untouched though I think it might need some rewriting. Capsot 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is abominable not only in tone, but because it is full of factual errors. Main issues as I see them:

1 - it confuses Occitan literature tout court with Old Occitan Literature, which is the only reason why anybody would get this in the Wikipedia Middle Ages project 2 - it assumes Occitan literature simply died around 1300, to resurrect suddenly with Mistral. This just isn't true. 3 - it takes the Vidas seriously 4 - it reads not only POVvish, but snarkily so, in a manner reminding of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Well, a little less talk and a lot more action: I'll clean it up. complainer (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not only not unencyclopedic, some of it was actually lifted from an encyclopedia: https://books.google.com/books?id=WLOxy4FJUDMC&pg=PA874&lpg=PA874&dq=%22We+cannot+here+do+more+than+enumerate+the+leading+troubadours%22&source=bl&ots=SP-jgLa1dE&sig=Op_ypSKNkivv5LBusZKQZZUm_EM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2qKXWiJbNAhUKbT4KHV4PCYgQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=%22We%20cannot%20here%20do%20more%20than%20enumerate%20the%20leading%20troubadours%22&f=false

I think it needs a rewrite. Carlo (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes most of it "was actually lifted from an encyclopedia" see earwig However that means it is encyclopaedic (as it is copied from a dated encyclopaedia—EB1911). Copying text from a public domain source is quite acceptable see the subsection in WP:FREECOPYING in the WP:Plagiarism guideline. That the text needs to be updated is not open to dispute but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is silly. Leave the facts in the article—unless there are new ones to replace the old ones— and update the style and the point of view expressed. -- PBS (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Vagueness

Coyes (1711-17~7) comedy, the Franc pare, is bright and still popular ...

What is "1711-17~7"? Do we really know the year ended in 7 but not know the decade? This is assuming that's what this non-standard use of tilde means - if so, it ought to be "?" instead. Thanks to a red link and complete lack of anything elsewhere on Wikipedia about "Franc pare" or "Coyes", I can't clarify this. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an OCR error that should read: (1711–1777) -- PBS (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)