Talk:Geoffrey Chaucer: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Russell Potter
imported>Russell Potter
Line 17: Line 17:
I think it would be better to use a portrait of Chaucer from one of the manuscript sources, such [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chaucer_Hoccleve.gif this] or [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chaucer_ellesmere.jpg this]. [[User:David Stapleton|David Stapleton]] 22:13, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
I think it would be better to use a portrait of Chaucer from one of the manuscript sources, such [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chaucer_Hoccleve.gif this] or [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chaucer_ellesmere.jpg this]. [[User:David Stapleton|David Stapleton]] 22:13, 14 April 2007 (CDT)


::Hi David, and thanks for the comment.  Certainly, those two are more likely to be historically accurate images. Unfortunately, the Hoccleve portrait of Chaucer is from the  British Library's Harley 4866, , and the Ellesmere Chaucer ms. is in the Huntington Library in California.  Despite their age, any modern reproduction of these images is under the proprietary control of these two institutions; while wikimedia commons plays fast and loose with such things, I don't think CZ should -- at least not yet!  Whereas with the Speght, since it was published in the early 1600's in multiple copies, the proprietary source is far more difficult to establish, and I believe any low-res image such as this can rightly be regarded as public domain, unless it could be proved to come from someone's scan of a specific copy. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 22:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
::Hi David, and thanks for the comment.  Certainly, those two are more likely to be historically accurate images. Unfortunately, the Hoccleve portrait of Chaucer is from the  British Library's Harley 4866, and the Ellesmere Chaucer ms. is in the Huntington Library in California.  Despite their age, any modern reproduction of these images is under the proprietary control of these two institutions; while wikimedia commons plays fast and loose with such things, I don't think CZ should -- at least not yet!  Whereas with the Speght, since it was published in the early 1600's in multiple copies, the proprietary source is far more difficult to establish, and I believe any low-res image such as this can rightly be regarded as public domain, unless it could be proved to come from someone's scan of a specific copy. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 22:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 21:29, 14 April 2007


Article Checklist for "Geoffrey Chaucer"
Workgroup category or categories Literature Workgroup, History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Petréa Mitchell 21:15, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Update: Once more, I'm working over the WP's Chaucer entry here -- I've cleaned up most of the factual errors and misstatements, and am currently revising each section for flow, consistency, and relevance of information. I am leaving most of the red links, in cases where it seems to me the subjects are important enough that CZ will eventually have entries on them. Russell Potter

Image

I think it would be better to use a portrait of Chaucer from one of the manuscript sources, such this or this. David Stapleton 22:13, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi David, and thanks for the comment. Certainly, those two are more likely to be historically accurate images. Unfortunately, the Hoccleve portrait of Chaucer is from the British Library's Harley 4866, and the Ellesmere Chaucer ms. is in the Huntington Library in California. Despite their age, any modern reproduction of these images is under the proprietary control of these two institutions; while wikimedia commons plays fast and loose with such things, I don't think CZ should -- at least not yet! Whereas with the Speght, since it was published in the early 1600's in multiple copies, the proprietary source is far more difficult to establish, and I believe any low-res image such as this can rightly be regarded as public domain, unless it could be proved to come from someone's scan of a specific copy. Russell Potter 22:26, 14 April 2007 (CDT)