Talk:Dante Alighieri

DanteSources

I have added an external link about a new project developed by the Institute of Information Science and Technology (Italian public research institute, part of the National Research Council), and the University of Pisa. It is called DanteSources and is about the primary sources Dante cited in his works. Seems useful. Momoka~itwiki (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Content concerns

I read this article, and found it interesting, but there are so many instances or original research and Wikipedia:Fringe theories that I would get lost. The article is over 41,000 bytes and is severely under-referenced. I thought I would bring this up, instead of a tag plastering contest, giving someone the opportunity to review it and hopefully make corrections. I will likely be placing some ref tags though.

• Life: The third and forth paragraphs are not referenced. Dante reportedly fought at the Battle of Campaldino (inline link) but the section in that article is not referenced.

• Education and poetry: Does not have any references. Content like "Not much is known about Dante's education; he presumably studied at home or in a chapter school...". Who is being presumptuous?; The second paragraph delves into his love that strays from subject of the section title. "Dante said he first met Beatrice Portinari...", means it is directly from Dante; " Dante's experience of such love was typical, but his expression of it was unique.". The third paragraph proposes that he, as well as others (with inline links) became the leaders of the dolce stil novo. Surely there are some references.

• Florence and politics: The section does not have any references (nine inline links) containing things like: "Dante, like most Florentines of his day". In the second paragraph the entire story line of the Guelphs needs referencing as well as the rest of the paragraph. Interesting reading but...
• Exile and death: There is an amazing amount of content for 6 references. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th paragraphs are not referenced. Out of this large section only 2 paragraphs are referenced.
• Works: References do not start until the 5th paragraph. This is a lot of unsourced content for such a presumably high profile person.

This article shows to be a level 3 vital article so should be better referenced. Otr500 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

All true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't mention that the article has quite an extensive list of books at the end, from which the article has certainly been constructed by editors who had good knowledge of them. This is thus an instance of a major switch in Wikipedia from the {known books - booklist - write article} paradigm, to the {single fact - write sentence - cite ref - little blue number} paradigm. These two represent quite different world views, and the way Wikipedia developed certainly favoured the first one for some years (maybe till the debacle of 2007), while it certainly favours the second one now. Calling it OR doesn't really do it justice: it was definitely not invented. Verifiability is indeed driving us all towards little blue numbers and uniformity, but that doesn't make all earlier editors presumptuous fools. The lack of inline refs does present us with a challenge, but the material is not unsourced: we just don't know which of the correctly listed sources applies to which claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings: And what you say is true, as far as it goes. However, this article shows a first edit of 27/5/2013. "IF" that is true and we have editors that are going by some outdated form of citation policy, they need to read up on current policies and guidelines. If an editor doesn't like them then that person should bring it up at the relevant place. The whole purpose of the "little blue number paradigm" is so content can be checked. Policy does not mandate that I "assume" that all the information in this article (or any article) is sourced, as long as there is a list of books, but attribution is so that facts in question can be checked. I can not know that unless I were to read each and every book ("quite an extensive list of books at the end") in hopes to find the particular content in question.

Things like "Dante said" makes it a quote which is also covered. I would not call an editor a "presumptuous fool" but on the other hand I can not be considered such a presumptuous fool to "assume" that unsourced (as it is considered if I can't prove it) material is always actually supported, not synthesis, or plagiarism of published material, and that the general references are there to prove that. The only way I can do that is to check the facts. If this article needs to be rewritten to conform to policy and ensure Core content policies are followed, to include that a "reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything contested", then maybe it needs a tag for that. Otr500 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are such colleagues, and they still tend to edit like that. We agree (see above) that we are driven towards a uniform little blue number policy, and most of us use them for every addition. For backfilling, it is unfortunately another story: if we boldly removed every paragraph without a little blue job, the encyclopedia would be much the poorer. I've added many thousands of refs to existing articles, and have indeed also backfilled many articles which had lists of citations at the end. For an article like this, that would be a serious task, and you're very welcome to get stuck into it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. You are a right fine person. I do a lot of edits as well as reviews and reference checking along with other maintenance. I can NOT possibly edit every single article that is lacking, even highly ranked articles, when discovering needs. I do go over my contributions list from time to time and will revisit articles, as well as make contributions and create articles. I also don't like career tags that will never result in improvements so I make inquiries instead of just plastering tags. Tags are sometimes necessary to provide listing in the relevant maintenance category so others may one day help but I do not like vague or unexplained tags so I include discussions when needed. I seem to think this would be a respectful thing and hopefully I am not mistaken.

I will kindly defer to your expertise (if we are nominating) and allow you the honors on this one. You would do such a fine job that you would present me with a barnstar for the suggestion. Otr500 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dante Alighieri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120114133714/http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/francesco-daccorso-tf/ to http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/francesco-daccorso-tf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dante Alighieri/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations plange 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dante Alighieri. 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/20151212042335/http://www.dantemass.org/html/guelphs-and-ghibellines.html to http://www.dantemass.org/html/guelphs-and-ghibellines.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus to move; closed per CLEAR consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Dante Alighieri → Dante – Dante Alighieri is better known as Dante, and when someone hears Dante, they think of him. So moving the page to Dante would be benefical. Thanks. P.S. Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni is more known as Michelangelo and the Wikipedia page does not include his surname, so if Michelangelo's page does not include his surname. Why does Dante's page include it even though he is better known without it? Also, Dante has more google results than Dante Alighieri. Thank you again. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 00:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose and speedy close - WP:NCP directs us to use first and last name, and to use redirects for well-known short names (WP:SINGLENAME). This article is perfectly in line with that. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose and speedy close - WP:NCP In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Opposeper Netoholic, and having the full name as the page title educates the readers that the writer had a last name. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the policies cited above, and by comparison to Ludwig van Beethoven. I see where you're coming from though; if Netoholic hadn't linked that policy page my first instinct would've been to support. NotTheInferno (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic. As with NotTheInferno, I understand the nom's point, but I don't see a compelling reason to go against the well-established conventions here. Lepricavark (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCP as described above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, with submitted example of Michelangelo, rather than Michelangelo Buonarroti. This nomination has some similarities with the concurrent RM regarding Judas Iscariot ‎→‎ Judas. Such mononyms mostly reference individuals from antiquity, medieval times and Renaissance, who died before 1600, such as Erasmus or Paracelsus. Galileo, who died in 1642, past that arbitrary cut-off, is certainly better known by his mononym, especially in the English-speaking world, rather than by his Wikipedia full name, Galileo Galilei. Since Dante is best known, also in the English-speaking world, by his mononym, which redirects to Dante Alighieri, it would seem to present an argument in favor of its use. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:MONONYM Pagliaccious (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dante's name

I updated the article to first reference 'Dante' rather than 'Durante', along with a source that discusses his name. I think that this article should begin with 'Dante', the name used by the poet himself, rather than 'Durante', which may have been his baptismal name but is not attested during his lifetime. Mazzer323 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Variety of illustrations

Would it be helpful to include illustrations by three different artists instead of three by the same artist, Gustave Doré, in the illustrations section to demonstrate Dante's breadth of influence/inspiration? OdoBem (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Florentine or Italian

What defines a culture is always contentious and not clear cut, but since Italy did not exist for 600 years after the birth of Dante, shouldn't it be more correct to define him as Florentine? On the other hand, he left Florence and lived most of his later life around northern Italy. Eccekevin (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nationality is not tied to the existence of a state

Hebrews were Hebrews even without Israel. Curds are Curds without a stare. Or isn't Beethoven German? 79.20.207.69 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Both: the modern Italian nation was created in the 19th century but Italy as a geographical area has been existing since the ancient Roman times. Claiming that Dante was not Italian would be like claiming that present day Italians, Norwegians, Germans, etc., are not European. Pier, 17 September 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.105.243.141 (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This issue has taken several forms. Compare Talk:Immanuel Kant, Archive 6, sections 18 and 62; there is now a consensus that Kant should be referred to as German, partly in recognition that a "German" culture and national consciousness preceded the creation of a state named "Germany" in the nineteenth century. MOS is vague - MOS:CONTEXTBIO. I'd say that for Dante we should go by the fact (as I think it is), however it has come about, that he is universally counted as Italian. A "Florentine" today (I think) is a person from the Italian city of Florence (Firenze), not necessarily thinking of the city's independent history. Errantios (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Antonia Alighieri

Dante Alighieri has a less known sister whise name was Antonia. During hist last period lived in Ravenna, she left Florence to near with Dante with his family. Susequently, she become a Roman Catholic nun under the monastic name of BEATRICE. We don't know exactly the type of link with the Beatrice named in the Divina commedia. Possibly, there exist the article w:it:Antonia Alighieri which still waits to be translated into English. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.69.163 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected your "noun" to "nun", amica/o—they are different nouns. Errantios (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Dante is his mononym

I recommend that the mage be edited to say that he's known by his mononym Dante. The article does not explicitly use the term "mononym". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.110.20 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, he is actually known as Dante Alighieri, leaving aside earlier variant spellings like "Dante Allighier" (Jacopo Alighieri),"L'autore di questa nobilissima opera fue Dante delli Allighieri di Firenze" (Ottimo), "Dante Alleghieri di Fiorenza" (Lancia), etc. --2003:C9:273A:7A00:B145:EF7A:A0DF:B076 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible fringe and OR information ​

Dante Alighieri was an Italian poet, note: "Though an Italian nation state had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian (italus) had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity".

• This information is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder((AD 23/24 – AD 79), Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [[1]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."

It is a primary source WP:PRIMARY, and secondary source in this sense does not exist. Given that the primary source only mentions: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" and the article contains information: "the Latin equivalent of the term Italian (italus) had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity", it is obviously a violation of the rules of wikipedia ie. WP:OR and WP:FRINGE since there is no secondary source that states this and also information from the article in this sense and with this fact, has not been published anywhere, that is, it does not exist anywhere. Based on the above reasons, I suggest that this information be removed from the article because it does not comply with the rules. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It's fine to quote primary sources, but obviously the second part is an editorial deduction. Let's cut it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap Thanks for the answer, can you please show me or quote me where Pliny the Elder says: "the Latin equivalent of the term Italian (italus) had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity"? and in which context it concerns Dante Alighieri? Mikola22 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I cut it already, but hey. The editorial deduction was possibly OR but nothing more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you maintaining that "Italian" is an invalid term when applied to someone living in Dante's times? Does this entry in Lewis & Short's dictionary, where the Pliny source you've referred to is only one of the many citations, convince you that "Italian" has been used since ancient times? Since the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls Dante an "Italian poet, prose writer, literary theorist, moral philosopher, and political thinker", I don't think our characterization is particularly "fringe" or debatable. Deor (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Deor My proposal is related to this situation ie information. You can open another topic so we can discuss it. Is this information fringe or OR? Mikola22 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)