This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics 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.
nothing to do with the Accademia dell Crusca.
The major part of this article has absolutely nothing to do with the Accademia dell Crusca. It's merely the history of Napoleon's occupation of Tuscany.--dunnhaupt 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I have added another four sentences (and 110 years) to the history section. Plus a catch-penny sub-head of which I am inordinately proud— and to whose loss I am already resigned. But we do need to expand what I have done, fill in the earlier and later history, and trim the Napoleonic stuff. Though the polito-historical context of the re-constitution of the Accademia is no doubt important. Talking of which, the demise of the fifth edition seems to have coincided with the coming to power of Mussolini. —Ian Spackman 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry folks, the better part of this article was lifted word-for-word from "Renaissance and reform: the Italian contribution" By Frances Amelia Yates, 1983, and is under the copyright of Taylor and Francis Group. There is some attribution, BUT - you are supposed to quote, not just lift word-for-word. It appears as though the material was put in by an editor who only appears on Wikipedia long enough to put this material in, has no user page and does not contribute again. I don't believe that. He had skill enough to put it in. This is someone who has covered his tracks because he knows this sort of contribution is not allowed. I don't know what you are going to do, but this can't stand. I suggest a complete rewrite with paraphrases of Yates and the same or more attributions to her. I was going to refer to this article from elsewhere but I think I will refer to Yates instead in case you decide to delete it. You editors who reorganized it, nice work, but you should have checked the Internet and you should have flagged the article. Any article that features language too fine for most high-schoolers, language that shows thought and ornament, is immediately suspect. Wikipedia has 3.5 mil articles now and I dare say the better part were copied word-for-word or near it from books and articles on the Internet. They were done so by people at the level of starting an editor war over whether two and two make four. We need to check, check and check. What are walls for? To fill with graffiti, right?Dave (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)