This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
"However, the identification of Jacopo in the latter source was made by a hand later than the copyist's".
What exactly is the meaning of this sentence? Antoniouwik (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what part of this sentence is supposed to be unclear. Perhaps breaking it up into a series of shorter statements would help. (1) A music manuscript was copied by a scribe. (2) One piece in this manuscript is attributed to Jacopo. (3) The attribution was added to the manuscript long after it had originally been copied. (4) The evidence for this includes (but is not necessarily limited to) an analysis of the handwriting, which shows the attribution to have been written by a different person than the original copyist. Does this help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It was the word "identification" that made it difficult TO ME (probably not to others). Very kind to explain it step by step. Antoniouwik (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Now that you point it out, I see exactly what you mean. It can and shall be improved.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not in a musical manuscript, but it's a musical decoration at the bottom of a page showing three musicians playing. The musicians are labeled by name, and one of them is identified as Jacopo. However, Fischer is not sure that the hand that added the name is the same as the person who copied the miniature, so we cannot be sure that the image is an accurate depiction of Jacopo da Bologna. (That much is in the article. I can't remember whether he discusses the question of whether we should believe that the Squarcialupi portrait is a more accurate image of Jacopo, having been made about 40-50 years after his death). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. -- of the two citation needed's -- I'd remove the first statement: it's not really true; the second is all throughout the literature [whether actually true or not, who knows, but it's everywhere] I can't think of a citation for off the top of my head other than my diss, p. 192, but that should be enough. I know that it's in Nadas's diss also) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference, which I have now added. I have also removed the contrary-to-fact claim. You really are permitted to edit the article yourself, you know, even if you are adding a reference to a source you wrote yourself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know. It's just that there are so many self-promoters and POV pushers on WP (a greater % by the day, it seems) that I feel like I'm contributing to it even if I've published in reliable sources (and there's some debate about whether disses count, though I'm pretty sure that there are enough citations of mine by now to back it up as an RS). Plus I have enough stuff published by now that I know people would find controversial (this one though is so uncontroversial that I didn't provide a cite of it in my diss, which is why I don't have a better paper trail for it) that I don't believe for a moment that my work represents the state of thinking in the field. Thanks for making the changes though! Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the shrinking-violet stuff already! If your diss were from the Metropolitan Online Junior College of Hairdressing, you might have some cause to be self-deprecating, but your granting institution is, I think, still regarded as credible (if only just barely). You are if anything in danger of being a POV puller!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
