Talk:Petrarch's and Shakespeare's sonnets

Fair use rationale for Image:Petrarch and laura.jpg
Image:Petrarch and laura.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakespearean Sonnet incorrect
The Shakespearean sonnet on your website is incorrectly copied. Shakespearean sonnets are written in iambic pentameter, but you will find that line 11 and line 13 contain one too many stressed syllables. Perhaps, in line 11, "never" is supposed to be n'er or something to that effect. There may exist a similar wording in line 13 that has altered the meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amh009 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Shakespeare doesn't rigidly follow his own sonnet form, but we describe his poems as iambic because they are iambic the vast majority of the time. Wrad (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
Is there good reason to have this article seperate from "Sonnets"? 92.24.99.130 (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Laura as imaginary or real
The article presents the idea that Laura was imaginary as uncontroversial, but reading the article on Petrarch, it seems like there is substantial evidence that there was a real woman Petrarch had in mind, possibly even Laura de Noves. -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not particularly versed in Petrarch, but as best I can tell the primary scholarly controversy regarding Laura is in regards the de Sade family's identification of her as, specifically, Laura de Noves. The gist seems to be that the de Sade family had a possible interest in falsifying such a claim, and the de Sade family archives—that might have settled the matter—went missing during the French revolution. Consequent to this uncertain identification, some scholars leave the question open and some (few, I think) land on Laura being wholly imaginary. But overall, my impression is that in Petrarch studies Laura is generally accepted to be a real person, and that absent specific cause, there's no great reason to question the identification with Laura de Noves.I just (quickly) checked the Cambridge Companion to Petrarch and couldn't find that they address this directly, but they write as if Laura is implicitly assumed to be a real person (i.e. as if the question is long settled). It would be good to also check the other major modern works on Petrarch for their take, but barring that, this article could profitably simply mirror the Petrarch article. --Xover (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)